More photos and highlights after the jump!
See full post
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Extreme Makeover Home Edition Celebrates 9th Season Premiere
Sunday night at a cathedral in downtown Los Angeles, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition celebrated the beginning of its ninth season with a party-meets-expo showcasing upwards of 60 brands, endless samples, food trucks, a dance floor, live music, a screening of the premiere episode, a raffle and more. Although a swag bag to hold all of the swag would have been nice, and I felt like I learned more about these brands than I did about the show, it was still a great evening. Any event that ends with me holding a giant bag of free coffee beans is an event that wins. Selection of photos below and even more can be found here.
More photos and highlights after the jump!
See full post
More photos and highlights after the jump!
See full post
Monday, September 26, 2011
Pipeline's Maritime Merriment
Over the weekend, Pipeline Theatre Company premiered their new play Felix & the Diligence . It's an absurdly silly and fun show written by Colby Day and directed by Daniel Johnsen. Set on the Atlantic Ocean, against the backdrop of World War II, the play features a slew of ridiculous and comical characters thrown together under the guise of "high stakes cod fishing."
More about this seafaring show, after the jump!
See full post
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Taylor Lautner: Yay or Nay
Crossposted on and commissioned by Film.com
With Abduction coming out today, Taylor Lautner's first starring vehicle, we thought we should take this opportunity to evaluate the young actor's chances of making the jump from supporting cast member to leading man. Does he have what it takes or should he just stick to the sidelines? It's investigation time - Pros and Cons style.
Lack of Acting Talent
The overarching problem with Lautner is the fact that he can't act. He tries to act. And occasionally is okay. But mostly, he is untrained, and not in that raw, interesting kind of way, but in the "doesn't know what he is doing at all even remotely" kind of way. The biggest offense and proof that he has no idea what is going on is that he is, and excuse the actorly term, CONSTANTLY off voice. The easiest way to spot a wannabe actor is when you notice what I call "gravely voice". It means the so called performer doesn't know how to warm up or use his voice, so he defaults to a gravely tone that is a combination of nerves and an attempt at naturalism. Taylor Lautner is so guilty of this, he was giving ME a sore throat during Abduction. Other "gravely voices" can be found hanging out on the CW. Lautner rarely feels honest, and always feels angsty-squinty. His default facial expression is smolder. And he has no idea how to listen, take his time with a moment, or allow something to truly happen on the inside, informing the choices he makes. He does what the script says and not very believably. Granted, the supposed acting lessons he took between Twilight films did make somewhat of a difference, but certainly not enough.
More after the jump
See full post
With Abduction coming out today, Taylor Lautner's first starring vehicle, we thought we should take this opportunity to evaluate the young actor's chances of making the jump from supporting cast member to leading man. Does he have what it takes or should he just stick to the sidelines? It's investigation time - Pros and Cons style.
The Cons
Lack of Acting Talent
The overarching problem with Lautner is the fact that he can't act. He tries to act. And occasionally is okay. But mostly, he is untrained, and not in that raw, interesting kind of way, but in the "doesn't know what he is doing at all even remotely" kind of way. The biggest offense and proof that he has no idea what is going on is that he is, and excuse the actorly term, CONSTANTLY off voice. The easiest way to spot a wannabe actor is when you notice what I call "gravely voice". It means the so called performer doesn't know how to warm up or use his voice, so he defaults to a gravely tone that is a combination of nerves and an attempt at naturalism. Taylor Lautner is so guilty of this, he was giving ME a sore throat during Abduction. Other "gravely voices" can be found hanging out on the CW. Lautner rarely feels honest, and always feels angsty-squinty. His default facial expression is smolder. And he has no idea how to listen, take his time with a moment, or allow something to truly happen on the inside, informing the choices he makes. He does what the script says and not very believably. Granted, the supposed acting lessons he took between Twilight films did make somewhat of a difference, but certainly not enough.
More after the jump
See full post
Abduction. Where to Even Begin.
If you know me, which some of you do, you know it is extremely rare that I dislike a movie. I can recognize its flaws and still enjoy it, still defend it, as I have done with many films and will continue to do, I'm sure, for a long time to come. But this week I saw a movie that is simply so incompetent, amateurish, laughable and a slew of other disparaging words, that nothing can redeem it. That film is called Abduction.
I originally sought out seeing this film to write something on Taylor Lautner's rise as an action star and whether or not he succeeded in his first big outing. I was never planning on seeing the film otherwise, based on the trailer it seemed to me like a potentially awesome film that would be ruined by Lautner's lack of an acting ability. But what I ended up seeing was so beyond atrocious, I couldn't just sit idly by and ignore it.
Where do I even begin. From the opening line of "Yeah baby" to my pages and pages of notes reading phrases like "How would he know that?" and "That makes no sense." and "Why would you do that??!!?!", this film is, frankly, a colossal failure. Five minutes into it, you know you're in for 106 minutes of lame dialogue and underdeveloped characters. 10 minutes into the film and Lautner has already spent a good amount of time with his shirt off. 15 minutes into the film, the best scene has already happened in which Jason Isaacs' Kevin trains Lautner's Nathan by essentially beating the crap out of him. It was a glimmer of hope that was quickly dashed away.
It's difficult to get into just how awful this movie is without revealing some key plot points, but trust me when I say that logic did not play a role in the script, filmmaking, or acting. There is no connective tissue between anything that happens. It feels like it was written by a thirteen year old who LOVES action movies but has no clue how to write one. So he tries and shows it to his mom and his mom says "Aw, this is great honey!" and so that thirteen year old calls Taylor Lautner's dad (Dan Lautner, a producer on Abduction) and is like "my mom said this script is great so you should make it." and so he did. No, this isn't the story of how the film got made, but it might as well be.
First, the plot. The story here, sure, makes enough sense as like, a log line. As one sentence. A sentence I can't say because it's all spoilers. But when it got fleshed out, everything went wrong. None of the reveals pack a punch or make much sense, and the biggest reveal of all is completely underwhelming and makes you feel like you've been along for this "ride" if one could even call it that, for no actual reason. It feels unresolved, emotionless and so absurd, I have to wonder if it was intentional as a secret way to undermine the action film as an institution and subvert Lautner's potential as an action star, because I see no other explanation for how something so comically illogical got greenlit.
The dialogue and exchanges between characters are even worse. So often it seemed like a character was saying something completely unprompted by what the other character just said to him. Like everyone was in his or her own movie making up their own "action movie" lines.
One of my favorite moments was when some very "important" exposition is thrown Nathan's way. And the next scene is Nathan explaining EXACTLY what we just heard, almost verbatim, to Lily Collins' Karen. Why. Why would you do that. Why would you have two scenes with the exact same exposition one right after the other. THIS IS CALLED POOR SCREENWRITING. There is also a moment where we see Nathan and Karen run into the woods. Then follows what we will call Scene W. After Scene W, a bunch of characters are talking about how Nathan and Karen are in the woods. So please tell me why Scene W is necessary. Scene W features Nathan and Karen in the woods. Karen says "hang on I have to catch my breath." So they stop running for about thirty seconds. She does not catch her breath. And then they keep running. That was a scene. A whole scene. It was foreshadowing nothing, it was following up on nothing, it was just pointless. And I laughed out loud.
Moments like these happen pretty consistently for the entirety of the film. It was a never-ending barrage of things that didn't make sense, whether small and subtly incompetent or glaringly over the top examples of idiocy, it was incessant.
And poor Lily Collins. She was just so damn boring. She and Lautner had no chemistry (although their wannabe porn stars make out scene tries *really* hard to make you think they do) and nothing about her jumped out at me at all. I know people like her, so I have to assume it's the movie's fault, not her own. I don't believe Tarsem Singh would cast his Snow White with an actress who was this bland.
So what does work? Jason Isaacs is the best part of the movie. Easily. Unfortunately, the potential with his character is wasted. When the film ended, my movie going buddy and I discussed what changes could have made the film actually work, and we both thought it would involve Isaacs in a larger role. I kinda wish they made the movie we discussed instead of the one they did. It might have actually been interesting or had some modicum of dynamic.
Also, and how is this for bizarre. I saw this movie intending for Lautner to be the worst part of an otherwise awesome action movie. But no. The movie around him was terrible, and although he was pretty terrible for the most part as well, I gotta say that when he is fighting, I dig it. The kid has some serious martial arts skills and the only times I enjoyed myself watching this film were during his all too few (Seriously) action scenes. I would have been thrilled to see a third less nonsense attempting to be a movie and a third more pure action, stretching his boundaries as a fighter and pushing him more in that direction. Lautner is not a leading man. But he is a damn good martial artist.
It physically hurts me to talk about this movie so I'm going to stop now. If you want to, you know, drink and go see a stupid movie and yell at the screen everytime something doesn't make sense, this may be your preferred weekend viewing. If you like things that are good and value your time, STAY AWAY. Looking forward to chatting personally with any of you that have seen this movie so we can go over every single moment that laughed in the face of logic and then kicked logic in the balls. See full post
I originally sought out seeing this film to write something on Taylor Lautner's rise as an action star and whether or not he succeeded in his first big outing. I was never planning on seeing the film otherwise, based on the trailer it seemed to me like a potentially awesome film that would be ruined by Lautner's lack of an acting ability. But what I ended up seeing was so beyond atrocious, I couldn't just sit idly by and ignore it.
Where do I even begin. From the opening line of "Yeah baby" to my pages and pages of notes reading phrases like "How would he know that?" and "That makes no sense." and "Why would you do that??!!?!", this film is, frankly, a colossal failure. Five minutes into it, you know you're in for 106 minutes of lame dialogue and underdeveloped characters. 10 minutes into the film and Lautner has already spent a good amount of time with his shirt off. 15 minutes into the film, the best scene has already happened in which Jason Isaacs' Kevin trains Lautner's Nathan by essentially beating the crap out of him. It was a glimmer of hope that was quickly dashed away.
It's difficult to get into just how awful this movie is without revealing some key plot points, but trust me when I say that logic did not play a role in the script, filmmaking, or acting. There is no connective tissue between anything that happens. It feels like it was written by a thirteen year old who LOVES action movies but has no clue how to write one. So he tries and shows it to his mom and his mom says "Aw, this is great honey!" and so that thirteen year old calls Taylor Lautner's dad (Dan Lautner, a producer on Abduction) and is like "my mom said this script is great so you should make it." and so he did. No, this isn't the story of how the film got made, but it might as well be.
First, the plot. The story here, sure, makes enough sense as like, a log line. As one sentence. A sentence I can't say because it's all spoilers. But when it got fleshed out, everything went wrong. None of the reveals pack a punch or make much sense, and the biggest reveal of all is completely underwhelming and makes you feel like you've been along for this "ride" if one could even call it that, for no actual reason. It feels unresolved, emotionless and so absurd, I have to wonder if it was intentional as a secret way to undermine the action film as an institution and subvert Lautner's potential as an action star, because I see no other explanation for how something so comically illogical got greenlit.
The dialogue and exchanges between characters are even worse. So often it seemed like a character was saying something completely unprompted by what the other character just said to him. Like everyone was in his or her own movie making up their own "action movie" lines.
One of my favorite moments was when some very "important" exposition is thrown Nathan's way. And the next scene is Nathan explaining EXACTLY what we just heard, almost verbatim, to Lily Collins' Karen. Why. Why would you do that. Why would you have two scenes with the exact same exposition one right after the other. THIS IS CALLED POOR SCREENWRITING. There is also a moment where we see Nathan and Karen run into the woods. Then follows what we will call Scene W. After Scene W, a bunch of characters are talking about how Nathan and Karen are in the woods. So please tell me why Scene W is necessary. Scene W features Nathan and Karen in the woods. Karen says "hang on I have to catch my breath." So they stop running for about thirty seconds. She does not catch her breath. And then they keep running. That was a scene. A whole scene. It was foreshadowing nothing, it was following up on nothing, it was just pointless. And I laughed out loud.
Moments like these happen pretty consistently for the entirety of the film. It was a never-ending barrage of things that didn't make sense, whether small and subtly incompetent or glaringly over the top examples of idiocy, it was incessant.
And poor Lily Collins. She was just so damn boring. She and Lautner had no chemistry (although their wannabe porn stars make out scene tries *really* hard to make you think they do) and nothing about her jumped out at me at all. I know people like her, so I have to assume it's the movie's fault, not her own. I don't believe Tarsem Singh would cast his Snow White with an actress who was this bland.
So what does work? Jason Isaacs is the best part of the movie. Easily. Unfortunately, the potential with his character is wasted. When the film ended, my movie going buddy and I discussed what changes could have made the film actually work, and we both thought it would involve Isaacs in a larger role. I kinda wish they made the movie we discussed instead of the one they did. It might have actually been interesting or had some modicum of dynamic.
Also, and how is this for bizarre. I saw this movie intending for Lautner to be the worst part of an otherwise awesome action movie. But no. The movie around him was terrible, and although he was pretty terrible for the most part as well, I gotta say that when he is fighting, I dig it. The kid has some serious martial arts skills and the only times I enjoyed myself watching this film were during his all too few (Seriously) action scenes. I would have been thrilled to see a third less nonsense attempting to be a movie and a third more pure action, stretching his boundaries as a fighter and pushing him more in that direction. Lautner is not a leading man. But he is a damn good martial artist.
It physically hurts me to talk about this movie so I'm going to stop now. If you want to, you know, drink and go see a stupid movie and yell at the screen everytime something doesn't make sense, this may be your preferred weekend viewing. If you like things that are good and value your time, STAY AWAY. Looking forward to chatting personally with any of you that have seen this movie so we can go over every single moment that laughed in the face of logic and then kicked logic in the balls. See full post
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Gunstringer: Proving Kinect May Not Be Useless After All
Crossposted and commissioned by Gaming Blend
Earlier this week marked the release of The Gunstringer, the first Kinect title from studio Twisted Pixel. The Austin-based company was looking to create a game that went past the casual nature of most Kinect titles and appeal more to the core players. As someone who has generally been unimpressed with how games have been using this motion technology, I was curious to see if one could actually break out of the box and hold my interest longer than five minutes. So did it? Let's break it down.
The basic concept of The Gunstringer is that we are participating in a puppet show starring the titular marionette with no name. The game opens following a woman into Austin's Paramount Theater as she takes her seat in a packed audience. The camera takes us back stage, where we see the actual, wooden puppet and follow it and its puppeteer through the hustle and bustle of opening night, and up on to the stage for the start of the game. From then on, there are occasional cuts to reaction shots of the audience to remind us where we are and provide a bit of comedy. Some have complained that this reminder completely takes them out of the game, but it didn't bother me in the slightest.
This charming concept lends itself extremely well to the Kinect because of how it figures in to gameplay. You use your left hand as if you were holding a marionette, lifting it to make the Gunstringer jump and moving it from side to side to make the Gunstringer, well, move from side to side. You use your right hand to engage in combat, whether it be with a gun, sword, flame thrower or fist. Knowing that you are "controlling a puppet" makes the idea of holding your hands out for 4 hours much more tolerable. The mere fact that logic is backing up the gameplay goes a loooong way.
Full review after the jump
See full post
Earlier this week marked the release of The Gunstringer, the first Kinect title from studio Twisted Pixel. The Austin-based company was looking to create a game that went past the casual nature of most Kinect titles and appeal more to the core players. As someone who has generally been unimpressed with how games have been using this motion technology, I was curious to see if one could actually break out of the box and hold my interest longer than five minutes. So did it? Let's break it down.
The basic concept of The Gunstringer is that we are participating in a puppet show starring the titular marionette with no name. The game opens following a woman into Austin's Paramount Theater as she takes her seat in a packed audience. The camera takes us back stage, where we see the actual, wooden puppet and follow it and its puppeteer through the hustle and bustle of opening night, and up on to the stage for the start of the game. From then on, there are occasional cuts to reaction shots of the audience to remind us where we are and provide a bit of comedy. Some have complained that this reminder completely takes them out of the game, but it didn't bother me in the slightest.
This charming concept lends itself extremely well to the Kinect because of how it figures in to gameplay. You use your left hand as if you were holding a marionette, lifting it to make the Gunstringer jump and moving it from side to side to make the Gunstringer, well, move from side to side. You use your right hand to engage in combat, whether it be with a gun, sword, flame thrower or fist. Knowing that you are "controlling a puppet" makes the idea of holding your hands out for 4 hours much more tolerable. The mere fact that logic is backing up the gameplay goes a loooong way.
Full review after the jump
See full post
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Highs and Lows of The 2011 Emmys
Another Emmys telecast has come and gone, once again filled with awkward presenters, repeat awards, an okay opening musical number, some emotional acceptance speeches and an inexplicable amount of promotion for Two and a Half Men.
Wait. One of those things is not like other.
Anyway.
Here are the highs and lows.
Aside from one bit that went completely over my head (see below. way below.), host Jane Lynch nailed every single joke during the Emmys telecast. Favorites in particular included her "gay agenda," exchange with the Mad Men group during the opening, and intro to the men of Entourage. Her musical number wasn't aces, but that wasn't her fault. Never offensive (which I don't actually mind, but still it was nice to not have that Awards-show-cringey-feeling for once) always hilarious, she was a fantastic pick.
Meanwhile, a very different Glee actress didn't nail any joke, not the ones written for her, not her improvised one, nothing. To make things even more awkward, co-presenter Ian Somerhalder seemed pissed to be paired with her and when the teleprompted joke about actresses being divas came up, I know I was not the only one half expecting the camera to zoom in on Lea Michele herself. It certainly would have the saved the bit to have a moment of self effacing truth. What, being honest about yourself is good enough for Paula Abdul and Charlie Sheen, but not Lea Michele?
It was utterly absurd and nothing about it was not fun. Plus, they freaked Bill Macy. Bill Macy! Love it.
I feel AWFUL saying this because individually, all six of these actors (Zachary Levi, Cobie Smulders, Taraji P Hensen, Kate Flanney, Wilder Valmerema nd Joel McHale) are wonderful (Okay not Wilder Valderama so much), but together, they created a bit of a train wreck. Not because anyone did a bad job per se, but rather because the bit was completely unnecessary. It added nothing except for a few chuckles thanks to Cobie Smulder's facial expressions after LL Cool J popped in to rap. Jeff Winger would so not approve.
The Jimmys wrastling, Sofia Vergara having fun with her accent, Melissa McCarthy & Amy Poehler bringing it as usual, and Hugh Laurie making dry material work prove that when you want people to bring the funny, you should ask the funny people. (Yes, Hugh Laurie is on House now, but you guys, Blackadder.)
Or at least you know, if they don't know how to be funny, don't force them to try, okay? There is nothing worse than seeing someone crashing and burning on live television. Okay, there are lots of things worse than that, but still. There was way too much awkwardness on stage tonight. Poor Anna Torv not knowing how to react to David Boreanez going off script, Kerry Washington looking like she was about to die if someone didn't give her a sandwich....I know you'll get this presenter thing right one day, Emmys. One day.
More after the jump!
See full post
Wait. One of those things is not like other.
Anyway.
Here are the highs and lows.
High
Jane LynchAside from one bit that went completely over my head (see below. way below.), host Jane Lynch nailed every single joke during the Emmys telecast. Favorites in particular included her "gay agenda," exchange with the Mad Men group during the opening, and intro to the men of Entourage. Her musical number wasn't aces, but that wasn't her fault. Never offensive (which I don't actually mind, but still it was nice to not have that Awards-show-cringey-feeling for once) always hilarious, she was a fantastic pick.
Low
Lea MicheleMeanwhile, a very different Glee actress didn't nail any joke, not the ones written for her, not her improvised one, nothing. To make things even more awkward, co-presenter Ian Somerhalder seemed pissed to be paired with her and when the teleprompted joke about actresses being divas came up, I know I was not the only one half expecting the camera to zoom in on Lea Michele herself. It certainly would have the saved the bit to have a moment of self effacing truth. What, being honest about yourself is good enough for Paula Abdul and Charlie Sheen, but not Lea Michele?
High
Lonely IslandIt was utterly absurd and nothing about it was not fun. Plus, they freaked Bill Macy. Bill Macy! Love it.
Low
The Emmytones
High
Comedians PresentingThe Jimmys wrastling, Sofia Vergara having fun with her accent, Melissa McCarthy & Amy Poehler bringing it as usual, and Hugh Laurie making dry material work prove that when you want people to bring the funny, you should ask the funny people. (Yes, Hugh Laurie is on House now, but you guys, Blackadder.)
Low
Anyone Else PresentingOr at least you know, if they don't know how to be funny, don't force them to try, okay? There is nothing worse than seeing someone crashing and burning on live television. Okay, there are lots of things worse than that, but still. There was way too much awkwardness on stage tonight. Poor Anna Torv not knowing how to react to David Boreanez going off script, Kerry Washington looking like she was about to die if someone didn't give her a sandwich....I know you'll get this presenter thing right one day, Emmys. One day.
More after the jump!
See full post
Leave Christina Hendrick's Breasts Alone: A Rant
Just happened to catch part of the local news just now doing a "wrap-up" on Emmy's fashion. I say wrap-up with quotes because no one appearing on the local news knows shit about shit, I've decided, based on this segment at least.
The woman who will henceforth known as Skinny Bitch Guest Correspondent had the audacity to place Christina Hendricks in the Worst Dressed category, not because the dress was ugly, not because the dress didn't fit her, not because she looked bad, but because she had too much cleavage. Seem like a reasonable criticism? Well, clearly you don't have large breasts or understand the mechanics of large breasts.
I get the criticism that some dresses may be in poor taste like the one Gwenyth Paltrow wore that one time. I don't need to tell you which dress I'm referring to, because we all remember it. It was a little trashy and had a lot of nip. I also get criticisms about, you know, a dress looking like a plastic cup with a bunch of holes in it like Juliana Margulies' was tonight, sure, yes, when your job is to critique fashion, I get shit like that.
But Christina Hendricks looked stunning. Yes, she had a lot of cleavage. But NEWSFLASH, SKINNY BITCH GUEST CORRESPONDENT, CHRISTINA HENDRICKS HAS CLEAVAGE BECAUSE CHRISTINA HENDRICKS HAS BOOBS. BREASTS. SHE HAS THEM. SHE HAS ACTUAL BREASTS OF AN ACTUAL LARGE SIZE. SHE POSSESSES LARGE BREASTS. DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN? HER BREASTS ARE HUGE.
For those of you still asking "But why does she need to have cleavage?", allow me to explain a little something to you. When you are born with large breasts, like I was, like Christina Hendricks was, like countless women are, the only way to NOT have cleavage is to cover them up completely. Is to wear a boatneck or turtleneck. Are you trying to say that because I am a D cup, I am forbidden from wearing a dress or shirt with a v neck?
A couple years ago, I got some shit from a male employer for "showing too much cleavage" at work. Was I wearing low cut tops? No. Sure, some were lower cut than others I wore, I guess, I own a lot of shirts. But I wasn't trying to be provocative. I wasn't trying to look sexy. I was wearing clothes. Clothes just like anyone else in the office. But because my breasts happened to be large, it was "distracting" and from then on, I had to make a point of trying to own more uncomfortably high necked shirts. Needless to say, he wasn't my boss for long.
But even if I understand having to dress extra conservatively for the workplace, this isn't going to the office. This is going to the Emmys. This is dressing to the nines to celebrate your hard work and the hard work of everyone else in your field. When you work in television, this is your party of the year, your time to go all out and look amazing. And you, Skinny Bitch Guest Correspondent, is saying that Christina Hendricks should have thought about how distracting her NATURALLY LARGE BREASTS BECAUSE SHE HAS NATURALLY LARGE BREASTS CAN I BE ANY CLEARER ABOUT THAT are and dressed more conservatively? Really? Julie Bowen and Heather Morris waere practically not wearing a front to their dresses, but oh, they're really skinny, so it's okay.
It's hard enough for me to find dresses that work with D breasts, let alone whatever Hendricks is sporting. Add to that her gorgeous slightly fuller figure than most Hollywood designers are regrettably not used to designing for, and you get someone who probably has a hard time finding the perfect thing to wear for these kinds of events. The size 0/A cup women she is surrounded by can more or less get away with wearing any sort of design they want. Hendricks has a harder time mostly because she needs major support for her chest. Her options are limited.
When you look at Hendricks' dress, it is in fact gorgeous and incredibly tasteful. As far as necklines go at this sort of thing, the dress isn't even *that* low cut. The only way for Hendricks to not have cleavage is to dress as she does on the show, and on her special night out, I think she should have the freedom to, you know, not dress like she is a secretary in a repressed 1962 environment. If *any* other woman had worn that dress, there would be no complaints.
It really bothers me that if Hendricks looks up anything relating to "fashion police" she will see one article after another (E! and AOL are guilty as well. EW thankfully understands what women are) saying she "needs to try a new look instead of this same old silhouette." or "it was just too much." To me, it sounds like a bunch of women intimidated by the confidence of a truly feminine woman, unafraid of her body, even if it doesn't fit the stupid mold the media wants it to fit and they want to make Christina feel bad about it and stop showing off her god-given assets, which she happens to pull off by doing nothing but wearing a pretty dress. Fuck em, Christina. Your breasts are beautiful, your body is beautiful, and you should wear whatever makes you comfortable and happy.
Oh, and be sure to head here for @eruditechick's thoughts on the matter, as well as some awesome photographic evidence See full post
Thursday, September 15, 2011
cARTel's Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY
Fearful of clowns? Or just plain annoyed by them? Me too. But I think it's time we stopped being so prejudice against such a misunderstood group (because they're not all John Wayne Gacy, Jr.). That's why this Friday night I'm seeing Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY, a show about a group of clowns trying to make it big in New York City.
cARTel, a LA based theatre company, is premiering their clown troupe in New York this Friday and Saturday. The show is an extension of the troupe's clown workshop, where actors create and develop their own miming clown persona. Set against the backdrop of a Broadway audition, this weekend's show will feature some brand new New York clowns. So come join me as we work together to get over our unnecessary fear and annoyance, by seeing cARTel's Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY.
Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY
September 16th & 17th, 9 PM
Yoga Agora
33-02 Broadway
2nd Floor
Queens, NY 11106
$7 presale, $10 at the door
(very limited seating, buy your tickets in advance) See full post
cARTel, a LA based theatre company, is premiering their clown troupe in New York this Friday and Saturday. The show is an extension of the troupe's clown workshop, where actors create and develop their own miming clown persona. Set against the backdrop of a Broadway audition, this weekend's show will feature some brand new New York clowns. So come join me as we work together to get over our unnecessary fear and annoyance, by seeing cARTel's Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY.
Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY
September 16th & 17th, 9 PM
Yoga Agora
33-02 Broadway
2nd Floor
Queens, NY 11106
$7 presale, $10 at the door
(very limited seating, buy your tickets in advance) See full post
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
On The Scene: Raiders of the Lost Ark 30th Anniversary
Cross-posted on Film.com
One of my all time favorite movies and probably one of yours too, Raiders of the Lost Ark, screened in downtown Los Angeles last night to celebrate its 30th anniversary. I have an interesting past with Indiana Jones - in elementary school I watched Temple of Doom constantly, without even realizing, despite having seen them as a child, that there were other films in the series (blame TBS or its early 90s equivalent). Then shortly after graduating college, I finally experienced Raiders for the first time for real, on a big screen, at a theater my friend managed, where roughly ten of us watched, drank and yelled things at the screen like "Life magazine is for Nazis."
But last night was my first experience watching any Indiana Jones film with a packed crowd. It was my first experience with an audience laughing when I laughed, gasping when I gasped, and hiding their eyes in anticipation of what is to come right along with me. Watching the stunning print (being prepped for Blu-Ray release - more on that below) with an audience filled with fans, including those of the famous variety like Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright, Damon Lindelof, and minor characters from both Glee and Cougar Town (no, really), felt like a gift in many ways. And if the screening alone wasn't enough, on hand to discuss the film in a post-screening Q&A were Steven Spielberg and surprise guest Harrison Ford. Never before had the two talked about Raiders together in front of an audience, and we could tell it was as special for them to be doing this as it was for us to be witnessing it.
Geoff Boucher of the LA Times, the man responsible for the event, introduced Spielberg by going through a long list of his best films (sadly omitted? Two of my modern favorites, Catch Me If You Can and Minority Report), reminding us, as if re-watching Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't already, what a genius the man is that we were about to hear speak. What followed was a wonderful 45 minutes, filled with honestly, surprises, old stories, new stories and insightful thoughts on film and its industry. To find out how the infamous swordsman scene came to be, what the friendship between Spielberg and George Lucas is like, how Spielberg feels about Lucas changing Star Wars for Blu-Ray, Spielberg's favorite Indy films, details on the blu-rays for both Indy and ET, and a whole lot more, read on. Full transcript below.
On the beautiful print we had just watched,
Steven Spielberg: This is the best it's ever looked because in preparation for the eventual release on Blu-Ray (applause), we had to go and correct the print again and get the original negative out of the salt mines (laughter) and then we had to do the separations and basically, the files which were just amazing with all the technology today, without changing any of the movie materially, like we haven't removed anything (applause) we haven't added CGI...This is the movie that some of you may remember from 1981, looking at the age of the audience, most of you don't remember it from 1981 (laughter). But it is THE movie, it just looks so much better.
On the difference between Steven Spielberg before Raiders compared to after,
SS: Well before Raiders I needed a job because I just made 1941 and no one would hire me (laughter). Except George Lucas, my friend. So yeah, I needed the eggs, you know? And this was sort of right up my alley because I had been a tremendous fan of the B Movie Republic serials and certainly so was George Lucas, so when, you know, it's an old story, but maybe bears repeating, that I was in Hawaii with George cause he was terrified of the opening of Star Wars so he called me and said, do you want to go to Hawaii with me and we'll sit there and just build a lucky sand castle cause you know, Star Wars was about to open, this was May of 1977. It opened and it was a huge success. In those days you knew it was going to be a success when all the 10am shows were sold out and they were, across the entire nation, and George came back, more relieved than I had ever seen him and started planning his next opus and he brought me this concept he had to me called Raiders of the Lost Ark about this intrepid sort of gravedigger archeologist going after somewhat paranormal antiquities from all over the world and he did not have the story...but he had the genre, he had had the idea and the homage it would be to the B Republic material. Right away I was intrigued and we made this deal...to make this movie.
On his friendship (described as "best friends") with George Lucas,
SS: George doesn't do text or email ever, I've never received a text or email from George and he's never received one from me. He's a phoner you know, it's all over the telephone or it's in person. So it's either eyes on or it's a telephone call, but it's never texting...You know, you get a phone call and it's like here, (Spielberg slips into George Lucas impression) "Hey Steve. (laughter) What are you doing?" "Oh I'm just sort of sitting around working George, making ten pictures a year as a producer, what are you doing?" "Oh. I don't know." (laughter)...The thing with George, when George and I get on the telephone, I have to clear my morning or my afternoon because we talk for a long long time. The only person I've ever talked to at the length I talk to George, believe it or not, was Stanley Kubrick, back when we were friends in the 80s, but George, you know, we talk about everything, we talk about movies, his projects, my projects, we talk about our families and our friendship and it's an enduring friendship. I met George when he premiered THX at the Royce Hall UCLA/USC Film Festival in 1967 I think it was, so we've known each other for a long time.
Geoff Boucher: Do you ever talk about another Indiana Jones movie? (one audience member says WOO!)
SS: One person! One person wants to see another Indiana Jones movie. (laughter) The ONLY person in the audience
GB: It was Shia! (laughter)
SS: No, I think that was the only bridge we didn't burn because of Indy 4. We talk about it, yes. And we're hoping, we're hopeful. (lots of applause this time!)
More, including Harrison Ford making a surprise appearance, after the jump
See full post
One of my all time favorite movies and probably one of yours too, Raiders of the Lost Ark, screened in downtown Los Angeles last night to celebrate its 30th anniversary. I have an interesting past with Indiana Jones - in elementary school I watched Temple of Doom constantly, without even realizing, despite having seen them as a child, that there were other films in the series (blame TBS or its early 90s equivalent). Then shortly after graduating college, I finally experienced Raiders for the first time for real, on a big screen, at a theater my friend managed, where roughly ten of us watched, drank and yelled things at the screen like "Life magazine is for Nazis."
But last night was my first experience watching any Indiana Jones film with a packed crowd. It was my first experience with an audience laughing when I laughed, gasping when I gasped, and hiding their eyes in anticipation of what is to come right along with me. Watching the stunning print (being prepped for Blu-Ray release - more on that below) with an audience filled with fans, including those of the famous variety like Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright, Damon Lindelof, and minor characters from both Glee and Cougar Town (no, really), felt like a gift in many ways. And if the screening alone wasn't enough, on hand to discuss the film in a post-screening Q&A were Steven Spielberg and surprise guest Harrison Ford. Never before had the two talked about Raiders together in front of an audience, and we could tell it was as special for them to be doing this as it was for us to be witnessing it.
Geoff Boucher of the LA Times, the man responsible for the event, introduced Spielberg by going through a long list of his best films (sadly omitted? Two of my modern favorites, Catch Me If You Can and Minority Report), reminding us, as if re-watching Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't already, what a genius the man is that we were about to hear speak. What followed was a wonderful 45 minutes, filled with honestly, surprises, old stories, new stories and insightful thoughts on film and its industry. To find out how the infamous swordsman scene came to be, what the friendship between Spielberg and George Lucas is like, how Spielberg feels about Lucas changing Star Wars for Blu-Ray, Spielberg's favorite Indy films, details on the blu-rays for both Indy and ET, and a whole lot more, read on. Full transcript below.On the beautiful print we had just watched,
Steven Spielberg: This is the best it's ever looked because in preparation for the eventual release on Blu-Ray (applause), we had to go and correct the print again and get the original negative out of the salt mines (laughter) and then we had to do the separations and basically, the files which were just amazing with all the technology today, without changing any of the movie materially, like we haven't removed anything (applause) we haven't added CGI...This is the movie that some of you may remember from 1981, looking at the age of the audience, most of you don't remember it from 1981 (laughter). But it is THE movie, it just looks so much better.
On the difference between Steven Spielberg before Raiders compared to after,
SS: Well before Raiders I needed a job because I just made 1941 and no one would hire me (laughter). Except George Lucas, my friend. So yeah, I needed the eggs, you know? And this was sort of right up my alley because I had been a tremendous fan of the B Movie Republic serials and certainly so was George Lucas, so when, you know, it's an old story, but maybe bears repeating, that I was in Hawaii with George cause he was terrified of the opening of Star Wars so he called me and said, do you want to go to Hawaii with me and we'll sit there and just build a lucky sand castle cause you know, Star Wars was about to open, this was May of 1977. It opened and it was a huge success. In those days you knew it was going to be a success when all the 10am shows were sold out and they were, across the entire nation, and George came back, more relieved than I had ever seen him and started planning his next opus and he brought me this concept he had to me called Raiders of the Lost Ark about this intrepid sort of gravedigger archeologist going after somewhat paranormal antiquities from all over the world and he did not have the story...but he had the genre, he had had the idea and the homage it would be to the B Republic material. Right away I was intrigued and we made this deal...to make this movie.
On his friendship (described as "best friends") with George Lucas,
SS: George doesn't do text or email ever, I've never received a text or email from George and he's never received one from me. He's a phoner you know, it's all over the telephone or it's in person. So it's either eyes on or it's a telephone call, but it's never texting...You know, you get a phone call and it's like here, (Spielberg slips into George Lucas impression) "Hey Steve. (laughter) What are you doing?" "Oh I'm just sort of sitting around working George, making ten pictures a year as a producer, what are you doing?" "Oh. I don't know." (laughter)...The thing with George, when George and I get on the telephone, I have to clear my morning or my afternoon because we talk for a long long time. The only person I've ever talked to at the length I talk to George, believe it or not, was Stanley Kubrick, back when we were friends in the 80s, but George, you know, we talk about everything, we talk about movies, his projects, my projects, we talk about our families and our friendship and it's an enduring friendship. I met George when he premiered THX at the Royce Hall UCLA/USC Film Festival in 1967 I think it was, so we've known each other for a long time.
Geoff Boucher: Do you ever talk about another Indiana Jones movie? (one audience member says WOO!)
SS: One person! One person wants to see another Indiana Jones movie. (laughter) The ONLY person in the audience
GB: It was Shia! (laughter)
SS: No, I think that was the only bridge we didn't burn because of Indy 4. We talk about it, yes. And we're hoping, we're hopeful. (lots of applause this time!)
More, including Harrison Ford making a surprise appearance, after the jump
See full post
Friday, September 9, 2011
Fringe Encore!
The New York City Fringe Festival's Encore Series starts today and runs through the 26th. During this time, you can catch a selection of some of the best shows from the Festival, including the winner of the FringeNYC Overall Excellence Award The More Loving One.
The More Loving One was one of the five ATFG recommended shows and we're thrilled that this amazing production received the Festival's top honor this year! A fantastically written and acted show, The More Loving One is a dark comedy about two relationships that are thrown off kilter after a scandalous sex trail. An honest, intimate, and moving portrayal of the difficulties of love and committed relationships, the play explores how just one argument can bring a slew of hidden thoughts and feelings to the surface.
Buy your tickets to this excellent show here.
What:
The More Loving One
When:
Sunday, September 11th @ 7:30pm
Wednesday, September 14th @ 9:00pm
Tuesday, September 20th @ 8:00pm
Thursday, September 22nd @ 9:30pm
Monday, September 26th @ 8:00pm
Where:
The SoHo Playhouse
15 Vandam Street
New York, NY 10013 See full post
The More Loving One was one of the five ATFG recommended shows and we're thrilled that this amazing production received the Festival's top honor this year! A fantastically written and acted show, The More Loving One is a dark comedy about two relationships that are thrown off kilter after a scandalous sex trail. An honest, intimate, and moving portrayal of the difficulties of love and committed relationships, the play explores how just one argument can bring a slew of hidden thoughts and feelings to the surface.
Buy your tickets to this excellent show here.
What:
The More Loving One
When:
Sunday, September 11th @ 7:30pm
Wednesday, September 14th @ 9:00pm
Tuesday, September 20th @ 8:00pm
Thursday, September 22nd @ 9:30pm
Monday, September 26th @ 8:00pm
Where:
The SoHo Playhouse
15 Vandam Street
New York, NY 10013 See full post
Friday, September 2, 2011
September at the Movies
Cross-posted on and commissioned by Film.com
Yikes, August. YIKES. Surprising me at every turn (except Conan and 30 Minutes or Less. Sort of predicted those), August has turned into quite the bizarre month. With everything from genre films to comedies to 3D experiments bombing left and right, August is seeming like the worst time to release a movie about anything other then, what, evolution? One following the evolution of apes, the other of civil rights? Does it come down to "great reviews or bust?" And will September fare any better, as the shift away from Genre film and towards Drama begins? Let's take a look.
Looking for thrills, chills or loud noises?
Shark Night 3D (Sept 2)
The inevitably silly horror movie (not a bad thing) that tried winning over fans with a mechanical shark at July's Comic-Con, boasts a who's who of "Oh, that guy/girl! She/he was on that CW show!" in its cast, but unfortunately also comes with a PG-13 rating. How inappropriate can it really get without a hard R?
Am I Seeing It? I'd like to, but I wanted to see Pirahna 3D too and that sure as hell never happened. So. Probably not.
Contagion (Sept 9)
The latest from Steven Soderbergh, the trailers for which I have been avoiding like the plague (pun not intended, I swear), that stars just about everyone ever. Don't believe me? Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburne, Jennifer Ehle, John Hawkes, Sanaa Lathan, Elliot Gould and Demetri Martin. It's like New Years Eve, but about the end of the world [Insert joke about Lea Michele starring in a movie being just as apocolyptic]! Or about something else, I don't know, like I said, I'm avoiding the trailers and synopses. In any event, I suspect it shall be awesome.
Am I Seeing It? Yes. Opening weekend if possible.
Straw Dogs (Sept 16)
A remake of the beloved 1971 thriller directed by Sam Peckinpah, with James Marsden in the Dustin Hoffman role, that also stars Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard and Walton Goggins. Okay, I'm sure Goggins has a small role, but I love him, so yeah, he gets fourth billing, damnit. No one thinks this remake was necessary, but there's always at least a small chance that it's good, right? So far the reviews I've heard range from "terrible" to "well-acted and intense", so who knows. The only thing I can guarantee is that Skarsgard makes everything better.
Am I seeing it? Let's be real. No.
Abduction (Sept 23)
Taylor Lautner isn't who he thinks he is, so busts some shit up and other crap. I honestly could not care less.
Am I seeing it? What do you think?
Killer Elite (Sept 23)
Jason Statham versus Clive Owen, who is holding Robert De Niro captive. Assassins! Guns! And for you Chuck fans out there, Yvonne Strahovski as a bonus!
Am I seeing it? Considering I haven't yet seen a single Jason Statham movie, I think not. Gotta keep this trend going, it's too bizarre a bragging point. (I've seen Snatch, but that's not a Jason Statham "joint", you know?)
Dream House (Sept 30)
Yes, it's the movie where Daniel Craig and Rachel Weitz met & fell in love, but no, it's not a romance. Craig and Weitz play a couple who move into a new home, only to discover something terrible happened to the previous residents. I won't say anymore than that, and unless you want to be spoiled, you won't look for more details. You ESPECIALLY will not watch the stupid spoilery trailer.
Am I seeing it? I was going to until the whole movie got spoiled for me in the trailer. So. No.
Looking for something a bit more on the dramatic side?
The Debt (Sept 2)
A nazi espionage thriller that takes place in the 60s and 90s, starring Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkenson, and Ciaran Hinds, as well as Jessica Chastain, Martin Csokas and Sam Worthington as their younger selves. I've heard rather good things, and I always likes me some spies and intrigue and Helen Mirren.
Am I seeing it? Yes, though not right away
Moneyball (Sept 23)
Brad Pitt. Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and most importantly - Baseball! Its September release worries me as it definitely has certain implications when you start talking Oscar (i.e. the film may not quite good enough), but I'm still looking forward to it.
Am I seeing it? Yessss!
Machine Gun Preacher (Sept 23)
Not, I repeat NOT anything close to a Grindhouse film, despite what the title may lead you to believe. It's in fact the true story of a former drug dealer who found religion and fought to save Sudanese children from their unfortunate fate, starring Gerard Butler and directed by Marc Forster.
Am I seeing it? If I need to? For awards purposes? But it looks pretty not at all up my alley and kind of terrible. Gerard Butler being dramatic weirds me out.
50/50 (Sept 30)
Movies about someone who is dying are really hot and cold for me, as so often they seem to simply be a cheap plot device (I'm looking at you, Love and Other Drugs), but this one has Joseph Gordon Levitt in it, is much more of a dramedy than drama, and some people whose opinions generally line up with mine are loving it.
Am I seeing it? Yes. In theaters, even if not opening weekend.
Take Shelter (Sept 30)
A must see if you're trying to see all 87 of Jessica Chastain's 2011 releases. Here, she plays wife to the brilliant Michael Shannon, who is having apocalyptic visions of an incoming storm and starts secretly building a shelter to protect them, before realizing that it may be him, not the storm, that warrants his family's concern. Won the International Critics Prize at Cannes
Will I be seeing it? Based on what I'm hearing about Michael Shannon's performance alone, yes
Looking to (maybe) laugh?
Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star (Sept 9)
Two porn stars make an ugly son and the ugly son becomes a porn star. AUUGHH THIS SOUNDS LIKE A NIGHTMARE
Am I seeing it? Absolutely not
I Don't Know How She Does It (Sept 16)
Sarah Jessica Parker and Olivia Munn! What a duo! But Busy Philips is in there too and I love her. Anyway. There is a plot. Sort of. SJP plays a financial executive who also has a family and omg, I don't know how she does it! Get it? Does that count as a plot? But the screenplay is by Aline Brosh McKenna, who also brought us The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses and Morning Glory, so as pointless as the film sounds, I'll probably like it anyway. And Christina Hendricks being in it doesn't hurt. But you can always get your Hendricks fix from Drive..... :)
Am I seeing it? In theaters? I mean, I did see Something Borrowed and 27 Dresses and Leap Year and Valentine's Day in theaters....but probably not. DVD/TBS however? Heeeeeellls yes.
What's Your Number (Sept 30)
A cute concept and a great cast with a script written by sitcom vets leads me to believe this Anna Faris comedy about a girl looking back on the last twenty men she's had relationships with, could actually be pretty great. And is it totally shallow to think Chris Evans looks exceptionally wonderful in the trailer?
Am I seeing it? Does "opening weekend" expose my love for romantic comedies too readily?
Looking to bring the kids?
Lion King 3D (Sept 16)
It's LION KING!!! RE-RELEASED!!! Who cares how you feel about 3D, it's effing Lion King! I watched the first four minutes in 3D at D23 and cried. Cried. Four minutes. I can't wait.
Am I seeing it? At the El Capitan and everything.
Dolphin Tale (Sept 23)
I don't even know what this is and you're making me look it up. Why? Why are you doing this? It's not even animated! It stars Harry Connick Jr as a doctor named Clay and a dolphin as a dolphin. Stop it.
Am I seeing it? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no
Looking to discover something?
Apollo 18 (Sept 2)
Found footage in SPACE!! The reason why we never went back to the Moon, ooooh. I thought I was hearing great stuff for some reason, but it turns out it is supposedly awful. Yikes.
Am I seeing it? Not after hearing the universally horrible reviews
Warrior (Sept 9)
Movies.com favorite David Ehrlich described this film to me as "OH MY GOD TOM HARDY'S MUSCLES ARE EATING HIS BODY AND THREATENING TO BECOME A GLOBAL CONTAGION" and frankly, that's all I need to know. I'm sold.
Am I seeing it? Yup! Although perhaps not in theaters. There's only so many hours in the day.
Restless (Sept 16)
This new film from Gus Van Sant was poorly received at Cannes, but the premise is interesting enough. Mia Wasikowska plays a terminally ill girl who falls for a boy who likes going to funerals and is friends with the ghost of a Japanese kamikaze pilot.
Am I seeing it? Maybe. The bad reviews disappoint me, but the trailer still gets me. Seems like my kind of joint.
Tucker and Dale vs Evil (Sept 30)
The small horror comedy that made a splash at Comic-Con during the At the Drive In Panel, it stars Alan Tudyk and Tyler Rabine as two hilbillies who get attacked by a band of preppy school kids while on vacation at their mountain cabin. The film is supposed to be bananas amazing and I can't wait. It's actually on VOD right now, but I say wait it out and give it some much deserved love in theaters if you can.
Am I seeing it? Absolutely. Opening weekend.
Looking for something unlike anything else?
Drive (Sept 16)
Just go see it. Don't ask questions. Don't look anything up. It stars Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan and is unlike anything you've seen before. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, but I loved it and did I mention Albert Brooks plays the heavy and Ron Pearlman steals every scene he's in? Dooooo itttt.
Am I seeing it? Already did. Add it to your list immediately. See full post
Yikes, August. YIKES. Surprising me at every turn (except Conan and 30 Minutes or Less. Sort of predicted those), August has turned into quite the bizarre month. With everything from genre films to comedies to 3D experiments bombing left and right, August is seeming like the worst time to release a movie about anything other then, what, evolution? One following the evolution of apes, the other of civil rights? Does it come down to "great reviews or bust?" And will September fare any better, as the shift away from Genre film and towards Drama begins? Let's take a look.
Looking for thrills, chills or loud noises?
Shark Night 3D (Sept 2)
The inevitably silly horror movie (not a bad thing) that tried winning over fans with a mechanical shark at July's Comic-Con, boasts a who's who of "Oh, that guy/girl! She/he was on that CW show!" in its cast, but unfortunately also comes with a PG-13 rating. How inappropriate can it really get without a hard R?
Am I Seeing It? I'd like to, but I wanted to see Pirahna 3D too and that sure as hell never happened. So. Probably not.
Contagion (Sept 9)
The latest from Steven Soderbergh, the trailers for which I have been avoiding like the plague (pun not intended, I swear), that stars just about everyone ever. Don't believe me? Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburne, Jennifer Ehle, John Hawkes, Sanaa Lathan, Elliot Gould and Demetri Martin. It's like New Years Eve, but about the end of the world [Insert joke about Lea Michele starring in a movie being just as apocolyptic]! Or about something else, I don't know, like I said, I'm avoiding the trailers and synopses. In any event, I suspect it shall be awesome.
Am I Seeing It? Yes. Opening weekend if possible.
Straw Dogs (Sept 16)
A remake of the beloved 1971 thriller directed by Sam Peckinpah, with James Marsden in the Dustin Hoffman role, that also stars Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard and Walton Goggins. Okay, I'm sure Goggins has a small role, but I love him, so yeah, he gets fourth billing, damnit. No one thinks this remake was necessary, but there's always at least a small chance that it's good, right? So far the reviews I've heard range from "terrible" to "well-acted and intense", so who knows. The only thing I can guarantee is that Skarsgard makes everything better.
Am I seeing it? Let's be real. No.
Abduction (Sept 23)
Taylor Lautner isn't who he thinks he is, so busts some shit up and other crap. I honestly could not care less.
Am I seeing it? What do you think?
Killer Elite (Sept 23)
Jason Statham versus Clive Owen, who is holding Robert De Niro captive. Assassins! Guns! And for you Chuck fans out there, Yvonne Strahovski as a bonus!
Am I seeing it? Considering I haven't yet seen a single Jason Statham movie, I think not. Gotta keep this trend going, it's too bizarre a bragging point. (I've seen Snatch, but that's not a Jason Statham "joint", you know?)
Dream House (Sept 30)
Yes, it's the movie where Daniel Craig and Rachel Weitz met & fell in love, but no, it's not a romance. Craig and Weitz play a couple who move into a new home, only to discover something terrible happened to the previous residents. I won't say anymore than that, and unless you want to be spoiled, you won't look for more details. You ESPECIALLY will not watch the stupid spoilery trailer.
Am I seeing it? I was going to until the whole movie got spoiled for me in the trailer. So. No.
Looking for something a bit more on the dramatic side?
The Debt (Sept 2)
A nazi espionage thriller that takes place in the 60s and 90s, starring Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkenson, and Ciaran Hinds, as well as Jessica Chastain, Martin Csokas and Sam Worthington as their younger selves. I've heard rather good things, and I always likes me some spies and intrigue and Helen Mirren.
Am I seeing it? Yes, though not right away
Moneyball (Sept 23)
Brad Pitt. Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and most importantly - Baseball! Its September release worries me as it definitely has certain implications when you start talking Oscar (i.e. the film may not quite good enough), but I'm still looking forward to it.
Am I seeing it? Yessss!
Machine Gun Preacher (Sept 23)
Not, I repeat NOT anything close to a Grindhouse film, despite what the title may lead you to believe. It's in fact the true story of a former drug dealer who found religion and fought to save Sudanese children from their unfortunate fate, starring Gerard Butler and directed by Marc Forster.
Am I seeing it? If I need to? For awards purposes? But it looks pretty not at all up my alley and kind of terrible. Gerard Butler being dramatic weirds me out.
50/50 (Sept 30)
Movies about someone who is dying are really hot and cold for me, as so often they seem to simply be a cheap plot device (I'm looking at you, Love and Other Drugs), but this one has Joseph Gordon Levitt in it, is much more of a dramedy than drama, and some people whose opinions generally line up with mine are loving it.
Am I seeing it? Yes. In theaters, even if not opening weekend.
Take Shelter (Sept 30)
A must see if you're trying to see all 87 of Jessica Chastain's 2011 releases. Here, she plays wife to the brilliant Michael Shannon, who is having apocalyptic visions of an incoming storm and starts secretly building a shelter to protect them, before realizing that it may be him, not the storm, that warrants his family's concern. Won the International Critics Prize at Cannes
Will I be seeing it? Based on what I'm hearing about Michael Shannon's performance alone, yes
Looking to (maybe) laugh?
Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star (Sept 9)
Two porn stars make an ugly son and the ugly son becomes a porn star. AUUGHH THIS SOUNDS LIKE A NIGHTMARE
Am I seeing it? Absolutely not
I Don't Know How She Does It (Sept 16)
Sarah Jessica Parker and Olivia Munn! What a duo! But Busy Philips is in there too and I love her. Anyway. There is a plot. Sort of. SJP plays a financial executive who also has a family and omg, I don't know how she does it! Get it? Does that count as a plot? But the screenplay is by Aline Brosh McKenna, who also brought us The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses and Morning Glory, so as pointless as the film sounds, I'll probably like it anyway. And Christina Hendricks being in it doesn't hurt. But you can always get your Hendricks fix from Drive..... :)
Am I seeing it? In theaters? I mean, I did see Something Borrowed and 27 Dresses and Leap Year and Valentine's Day in theaters....but probably not. DVD/TBS however? Heeeeeellls yes.
What's Your Number (Sept 30)
A cute concept and a great cast with a script written by sitcom vets leads me to believe this Anna Faris comedy about a girl looking back on the last twenty men she's had relationships with, could actually be pretty great. And is it totally shallow to think Chris Evans looks exceptionally wonderful in the trailer?
Am I seeing it? Does "opening weekend" expose my love for romantic comedies too readily?
Looking to bring the kids?
Lion King 3D (Sept 16)
It's LION KING!!! RE-RELEASED!!! Who cares how you feel about 3D, it's effing Lion King! I watched the first four minutes in 3D at D23 and cried. Cried. Four minutes. I can't wait.
Am I seeing it? At the El Capitan and everything.
Dolphin Tale (Sept 23)
I don't even know what this is and you're making me look it up. Why? Why are you doing this? It's not even animated! It stars Harry Connick Jr as a doctor named Clay and a dolphin as a dolphin. Stop it.
Am I seeing it? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no
Looking to discover something?
Apollo 18 (Sept 2)
Found footage in SPACE!! The reason why we never went back to the Moon, ooooh. I thought I was hearing great stuff for some reason, but it turns out it is supposedly awful. Yikes.
Am I seeing it? Not after hearing the universally horrible reviews
Warrior (Sept 9)
Movies.com favorite David Ehrlich described this film to me as "OH MY GOD TOM HARDY'S MUSCLES ARE EATING HIS BODY AND THREATENING TO BECOME A GLOBAL CONTAGION" and frankly, that's all I need to know. I'm sold.
Am I seeing it? Yup! Although perhaps not in theaters. There's only so many hours in the day.
Restless (Sept 16)
This new film from Gus Van Sant was poorly received at Cannes, but the premise is interesting enough. Mia Wasikowska plays a terminally ill girl who falls for a boy who likes going to funerals and is friends with the ghost of a Japanese kamikaze pilot.
Am I seeing it? Maybe. The bad reviews disappoint me, but the trailer still gets me. Seems like my kind of joint.
Tucker and Dale vs Evil (Sept 30)
The small horror comedy that made a splash at Comic-Con during the At the Drive In Panel, it stars Alan Tudyk and Tyler Rabine as two hilbillies who get attacked by a band of preppy school kids while on vacation at their mountain cabin. The film is supposed to be bananas amazing and I can't wait. It's actually on VOD right now, but I say wait it out and give it some much deserved love in theaters if you can.
Am I seeing it? Absolutely. Opening weekend.
Looking for something unlike anything else?
Drive (Sept 16)
Just go see it. Don't ask questions. Don't look anything up. It stars Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan and is unlike anything you've seen before. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, but I loved it and did I mention Albert Brooks plays the heavy and Ron Pearlman steals every scene he's in? Dooooo itttt.
Am I seeing it? Already did. Add it to your list immediately. See full post
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sleep No More, Video Games, and the Potential of Interactive Storytelling.
This will not be a review of Sleep No More, although it will be discussed. I'll warn you of spoilers.
On Thursday the 12th of August, I attended a performance of Sleep No More. Billed as 'indoor promenade performance', it entails being immersed in the world of the McKitterick Hotel (an impressively redecorated warehouse or three on west 27th, across the street from the back entrance of Scores) and treated to an adaptation, of a kind, of Shakespeare's famous play that shows us the nature of evil, Macbeth. It was astounding.
Though it is not a word that can be found anywhere on the website (sleepnomorenyc.com), Sleep No More is a highly interactive experience- though one might suppose that physical interaction is a part of any immersive experience. Still, this is important to note for the upcoming discussion: The specific difference between immersive and interactive when one or the other is the goal of an experience. In the McKitterick Hotel, almost every door, drawer and closet is unlocked. You can read anything, pick up anyway, dig through people's luggage and letters. The entire environment is touchable, if not tractable- even the performers. Though it is against the rules of the game to touch the performers, the performers may very well decide to touch you. You may be pushed gently aside, or taken by the hand and led, or- as I experienced- have a madwoman cup your face and lament at the cruelty in your eyes. The world you enter is filled with eerily familiar but ultimately alien landscapes and enough details to drown in. You can watch or play, observe or participate, that much is (largely) your choice.
The performance is interactive, but it is not changeable. Those choices I just mentioned do not effect the characters' overall arcs, their intentions or their stories. Scenes play in a loop throughout the roughly three hour performance. Short of doing something dangerously disruptive, the audience cannot effect the outcome of the story.
The goal of Sleep No More is an immersive theatrical experience. It is not a game. It sets no goals or objectives for the audience, other than to experience. It's brilliant and freeing.
And potentially frustrating, if you're of a gamer's mindset. Over at Wired, you can read an article by @jasonschreier about his experience of the theatrical piece, which he describes in the headline as "Like a game, but more confusing." Schreier primarily decries the fact that it is impossible for an audience member to see the entire show, and that this fact makes most of what one experiences difficult to decipher or put into context: The experience is difficult to understand.
He argues that video game experiences are more rewarding because you achieve things. The game tells you so. I think this is an ineffective comparison, but the opening of an interesting discussion.
You can, in fact, prepare for the sort-of-plot of Sleep No More by brushing up on your Shakespeare, but the story is present in an abstract, exploratory way. The scenes, when you do find them, are not exactly straightforward. Think lyrical and interpretive dance. The story, as such, is not the most important part of the show. More important is the audience's story: What they see and experience and what it does to them. Now, if what they see and experience frustrates and bores them, more the pity, but I have to say, I'd imagine it would take a respectable amount of willful disinterest to walk away from Sleep No More wholly unmoved.
The end result(s) of both Sleep No More and any video game are predetermined. Nothing you do as an audience member or player can actually change what happens outside of a couple permutations. Schreier is absolutely correct in that video games make you feel as though your choices have weight- and they do, but a very limited amount. I will defend the unique special snowflake status of my Commander Shepard TO THE DEATH but ultimately, I am not the only FemShep Paragon with Renegade Tendencies when Faced with Ultimatums who is Bedding Garrus Vakarian aka Dinosaur Batman: The Hero Omega Deserves. No, I am but one of many; because though the Mass Effect series provides the player with thousands of choices to make over the course of the franchise, they are still choices you are being offered and have to choose from. You can't just make up your own. The ending to any work of art or entertainment created by someone other than the participant/user has a finite amount of leeway. Sleep No More is a single event comprised of smaller, looping events. It's meant to be an immersive experience that theater-goers can explore to whatever depth they choose. It is, in fact, quite possible to see all the primary, story-centric scenes of Shakespeare's Macbeth in one evening at Sleep No More. It's not really necessary, though, nor would it be easy.
Sleep No More is not a game, it is not a puzzle. It's more like a haunting. It's like watching spectres enact their wicked follies again and again, helpless to stop themselves or break free. Sometimes the ghosts reach out for you, and you can rifle through the relics and detritus they've left behind, but the story cannot be changed.
Now let's pull a bit of a conversational one eighty. The Minnesota Fringe Festival is a breeding ground for fun, funny, original and rather ingenious theatrical experiences. One participating company, Walking Shadow, has mounted two interactive theatrical puzzle experiences. The first was entitled 1926 Pleasant, and ran in 2006. You can read a detailed account of the play/game here: it is, in fact, a walkthru, something all gamers are familiar with. Both a theatrical experience and actual game the audience had to play in order to advance the story, 1926 Pleasant (and their latest puzzle production, Saboteur, reviewed here) seems to accomplish what Schreier says Sleep No More failed to do, but the intent behind the two pieces are completely and utterly different, and so the comparison becomes useless.
Now, if the two pieces could be combined, you would have something that appeals to theater goers and gamers alike. Let's take a look at a video game property like Bioshock and think of how these two formats of theatrical experience could be applied to making Bioshock a live action interactive event. Why? Because I am goddamn obsessed with this whole freaking idea, that's why. If you're still reading this, I don't even know what to tell you. You're as sick a puppy as I am.
As a self contained environment, it could be constructed the same way as the fictional McKitterick Hotel: Six stories of immersive environments fashioned after Bioshock's more iconic levels, like Neptune's Bounty, Arcadia, Fort Frolic, the Farmer's Market, Hephaestus and Olympus Heights.
Rapture is largely comprised of sweeping atriums and surprisingly open spaces for being an underwater city. However, as Sleep No More demonstrates nicely, constructing outdoor spaces indoors is entirely achievable on multiple floors. Also the ballroom on the lowest level sports two stories of balcony seats and vaulted ceilings. It is a huge room that could easily be transformed into any number of centerpieces from the game.
Of course site-specific theater is just that. One could find a space more uniquely suited to Rapture's grand halls, but the space Punchdrunk created in the form of the McKitterick Hotel is smartly and very successfully constructed. With relatively few changes, Sleep No More as it stands could be turned into the site of a Rapture live action interactive gaming experience.
The next question, of course, is who would go? Who would shell out, say, $100 to be let loose in that kind of environment for three hours, not knowing before hand how it would go? You'll have adventurous types, you'll have gamers, you'll have theater goers, but the added responsibility that's placed on the audience member when they're expected to participate and actively move the game forwards as opposed to merely observing events as they unfold could potentially scare away much needed ticket sales, and come to that- how many tickets a round would have to be sold to make the endeavor even remotely feasible? Those are the questions I don't want to think about because the other stuff is more fun, but it does make me think that the ideal place to try out an experience like this would be San Diego Comic-Con.
Your audience isn't just built in, it's swarming the grounds around where your theatrical gaming experience is held. San Diego boasts a throng of beautiful hotels, plenty of which are historic, as well as some industrial and warehouse sites that could be appropriated and converted. Passes could be given away at panels as well as purchased ahead of time to guarantee your spot. It would be, for the logistics of running such an experience, the perfect litmus test. Branching out to other audiences, of course, would be a different ballgame, but if this sort of thing was going to be made a reality, I think SDCC is a prime opportunity to give it a test run. Not to mention, I'm sure it would be the talk of the con.
Bioshock, Dead Space, Walking Dead, Arkham Asylum, even Game of Thrones- all are properties that could utilize the concepts of mystery, clue finding, puzzle solving and even, eventually, combat to engage an audience and motivate a player, as well as blend seamless with theatrical style presentations and fully fleshed out but self contained environments. We're certainly seeing plenty of transmedia projects happening, and various properties bleeding into other mediums, so who knows- maybe this kind of thing isn't that far off. I hope it's not, because the only thing I want to do more badly than go back to Sleep No More is return to Rapture. See full post
Though it is not a word that can be found anywhere on the website (sleepnomorenyc.com), Sleep No More is a highly interactive experience- though one might suppose that physical interaction is a part of any immersive experience. Still, this is important to note for the upcoming discussion: The specific difference between immersive and interactive when one or the other is the goal of an experience. In the McKitterick Hotel, almost every door, drawer and closet is unlocked. You can read anything, pick up anyway, dig through people's luggage and letters. The entire environment is touchable, if not tractable- even the performers. Though it is against the rules of the game to touch the performers, the performers may very well decide to touch you. You may be pushed gently aside, or taken by the hand and led, or- as I experienced- have a madwoman cup your face and lament at the cruelty in your eyes. The world you enter is filled with eerily familiar but ultimately alien landscapes and enough details to drown in. You can watch or play, observe or participate, that much is (largely) your choice.
The performance is interactive, but it is not changeable. Those choices I just mentioned do not effect the characters' overall arcs, their intentions or their stories. Scenes play in a loop throughout the roughly three hour performance. Short of doing something dangerously disruptive, the audience cannot effect the outcome of the story.
The goal of Sleep No More is an immersive theatrical experience. It is not a game. It sets no goals or objectives for the audience, other than to experience. It's brilliant and freeing.
And potentially frustrating, if you're of a gamer's mindset. Over at Wired, you can read an article by @jasonschreier about his experience of the theatrical piece, which he describes in the headline as "Like a game, but more confusing." Schreier primarily decries the fact that it is impossible for an audience member to see the entire show, and that this fact makes most of what one experiences difficult to decipher or put into context: The experience is difficult to understand.
He argues that video game experiences are more rewarding because you achieve things. The game tells you so. I think this is an ineffective comparison, but the opening of an interesting discussion.
Compare Sleep No More to an open-world game like Fallout: New Vegas. While Sleep No More drops you into the middle of a performance and expects you to figure out what’s happening, New Vegas sets up the story first, then lets you loose. More importantly, New Vegas makes you feel like the things you do matter. Whether you’re shooting down raiders or discovering a pile of bones in a child’s crib, you’re always an active participant, integral to the story. Not just an observer.This argument is flawed in a few ways:
You can, in fact, prepare for the sort-of-plot of Sleep No More by brushing up on your Shakespeare, but the story is present in an abstract, exploratory way. The scenes, when you do find them, are not exactly straightforward. Think lyrical and interpretive dance. The story, as such, is not the most important part of the show. More important is the audience's story: What they see and experience and what it does to them. Now, if what they see and experience frustrates and bores them, more the pity, but I have to say, I'd imagine it would take a respectable amount of willful disinterest to walk away from Sleep No More wholly unmoved.
The end result(s) of both Sleep No More and any video game are predetermined. Nothing you do as an audience member or player can actually change what happens outside of a couple permutations. Schreier is absolutely correct in that video games make you feel as though your choices have weight- and they do, but a very limited amount. I will defend the unique special snowflake status of my Commander Shepard TO THE DEATH but ultimately, I am not the only FemShep Paragon with Renegade Tendencies when Faced with Ultimatums who is Bedding Garrus Vakarian aka Dinosaur Batman: The Hero Omega Deserves. No, I am but one of many; because though the Mass Effect series provides the player with thousands of choices to make over the course of the franchise, they are still choices you are being offered and have to choose from. You can't just make up your own. The ending to any work of art or entertainment created by someone other than the participant/user has a finite amount of leeway. Sleep No More is a single event comprised of smaller, looping events. It's meant to be an immersive experience that theater-goers can explore to whatever depth they choose. It is, in fact, quite possible to see all the primary, story-centric scenes of Shakespeare's Macbeth in one evening at Sleep No More. It's not really necessary, though, nor would it be easy.
Sleep No More is not a game, it is not a puzzle. It's more like a haunting. It's like watching spectres enact their wicked follies again and again, helpless to stop themselves or break free. Sometimes the ghosts reach out for you, and you can rifle through the relics and detritus they've left behind, but the story cannot be changed.
Now let's pull a bit of a conversational one eighty. The Minnesota Fringe Festival is a breeding ground for fun, funny, original and rather ingenious theatrical experiences. One participating company, Walking Shadow, has mounted two interactive theatrical puzzle experiences. The first was entitled 1926 Pleasant, and ran in 2006. You can read a detailed account of the play/game here: it is, in fact, a walkthru, something all gamers are familiar with. Both a theatrical experience and actual game the audience had to play in order to advance the story, 1926 Pleasant (and their latest puzzle production, Saboteur, reviewed here) seems to accomplish what Schreier says Sleep No More failed to do, but the intent behind the two pieces are completely and utterly different, and so the comparison becomes useless.
Now, if the two pieces could be combined, you would have something that appeals to theater goers and gamers alike. Let's take a look at a video game property like Bioshock and think of how these two formats of theatrical experience could be applied to making Bioshock a live action interactive event. Why? Because I am goddamn obsessed with this whole freaking idea, that's why. If you're still reading this, I don't even know what to tell you. You're as sick a puppy as I am.
As a self contained environment, it could be constructed the same way as the fictional McKitterick Hotel: Six stories of immersive environments fashioned after Bioshock's more iconic levels, like Neptune's Bounty, Arcadia, Fort Frolic, the Farmer's Market, Hephaestus and Olympus Heights.
Of course site-specific theater is just that. One could find a space more uniquely suited to Rapture's grand halls, but the space Punchdrunk created in the form of the McKitterick Hotel is smartly and very successfully constructed. With relatively few changes, Sleep No More as it stands could be turned into the site of a Rapture live action interactive gaming experience.
The next question, of course, is who would go? Who would shell out, say, $100 to be let loose in that kind of environment for three hours, not knowing before hand how it would go? You'll have adventurous types, you'll have gamers, you'll have theater goers, but the added responsibility that's placed on the audience member when they're expected to participate and actively move the game forwards as opposed to merely observing events as they unfold could potentially scare away much needed ticket sales, and come to that- how many tickets a round would have to be sold to make the endeavor even remotely feasible? Those are the questions I don't want to think about because the other stuff is more fun, but it does make me think that the ideal place to try out an experience like this would be San Diego Comic-Con.
Your audience isn't just built in, it's swarming the grounds around where your theatrical gaming experience is held. San Diego boasts a throng of beautiful hotels, plenty of which are historic, as well as some industrial and warehouse sites that could be appropriated and converted. Passes could be given away at panels as well as purchased ahead of time to guarantee your spot. It would be, for the logistics of running such an experience, the perfect litmus test. Branching out to other audiences, of course, would be a different ballgame, but if this sort of thing was going to be made a reality, I think SDCC is a prime opportunity to give it a test run. Not to mention, I'm sure it would be the talk of the con.
Bioshock, Dead Space, Walking Dead, Arkham Asylum, even Game of Thrones- all are properties that could utilize the concepts of mystery, clue finding, puzzle solving and even, eventually, combat to engage an audience and motivate a player, as well as blend seamless with theatrical style presentations and fully fleshed out but self contained environments. We're certainly seeing plenty of transmedia projects happening, and various properties bleeding into other mediums, so who knows- maybe this kind of thing isn't that far off. I hope it's not, because the only thing I want to do more badly than go back to Sleep No More is return to Rapture. See full post
May 21st - Judgement Day: An Original Play Premiering this September
Recently, I was able to score an interview with the young, but already well-experienced local playwright and director, Josh Young. His play May 21st - Judgement Day opens for a three-show run September 1st at the Kraine Theater in the East Village. As Young describes, the play is story of a girl named Valentine who lives in an underground bunker. Valentine has been trapped in the bunker for 13 years by the sexual abusive James, who keeps her hidden there under the pretense that the world ended on May 21st, 2011 and that he's protecting her from the Holy War raging above on Earth. But Valentine is not completely alone. She has created two conflicting, spiritual personalities that may either keep her trapped in desolation or guide her in breaking free of her solitude and imprisonment.
Read more about Josh Young and his post-apocalyptic, psychological thriller, after the jump!
See full post
Read more about Josh Young and his post-apocalyptic, psychological thriller, after the jump!
See full post
The Highs and Lows of D23
As you may have been able to tell by my incessant tweets and articles, this weekend marked my first D23 and boy was it an experience. What began innocently enough with a drum playing Mickey and a look at the new attractions being developed all over the world, ended with a panel that upset me to my very core, and of course, a nice batch of food poisoning from the Convention food. What happened in between had some good, some bad, and a lot of Deadpools wearing Mickey ears.
My favorite panels of the Convention were the sit down with Michael Giacchino and the look at the Character Design of Monster's University. What these had in common were a focus on the art, as opposed to a focus on the money behind the art. Taking Disney almost completely out of the equation allowed for enlightening discussions, genuine quotables, and the ability to actually learn something. Even though in both cases, a good majority of the audience left when the Q&A began (unfathomable to me), the people who stuck around got to see some lovely interaction, like a woman asking Giacchino about a specific refrain from the opening of Star Trek, Giacchino revealing the scores that touched him most (Lawrence of Arabia, Planet of the Apes, The Accidental Tourist, Star Wars), and a fun moment when the director of Prep and Landing, posing as an audience member, asked Giacchino when we was going to compose a musical to go after getting his EGOT. For details on the Monsters University panel and Q&A head here. I've heard similar things about the Art of Brave and Imagineers panels - when the event at hand is focusing on the art and interaction with fans, and not the theatrics and Disney Dog & Pony show, it's actually a wonderful way to spend an hour.
Every panel in the arena was a regular potpourri of Disney propaganda, dripping with desperation and so enthusiastically egotistical that by Sunday's Marvel panel, I just about couldn't take it anymore. Instead of Q&As and genuine fan discourse, every person on stage read from teleprompters and left a cold, dead feeling in the room. I couldn't help but be bothered by this seeming need to control the show on Disney's part. Nothing real was permitted to happen and there was no room for surprises. With every single little thing written and planned out beforehand, the energy in the room was bizarrely minimal. I myself only felt compelled to clap a couple of times during the Studios panel, which showed off upwards of 10 new films over two and a half hours. Instead of being comfortable with us seeing what they had to offer and making up our own minds, we were constantly bombarded with the notion that "Disney rules!" as if them saying it enough times would make it true. And while certain films did stand out like Wreck It Ralph or The Muppets (which showed off stellar footage and a delightful live bit between Jason Segel, Kermit and Miss Piggy), they only could have benefit from a less controlled forum. Can you imagine Kermit and Miss Piggy answering fan questions, the way Pee-Wee did at this year's Comic-Con? How brilliant would that have been? In perhaps the strangest move of all, at the end of the Studios panel, the entire cast of The Avengers was brought out and except for Robert Downey Jr, no one said anything. This may have been acceptable as a surprise button at the end of last year's Marvel panel at Comic-Con, when nothing had been shot or read and they were simply announcing the official cast, but over a year later, with two weeks left of shooting, to bring the cast down just to stand there? It shows a complete lack of understanding where this film is concerned, where the fans are concerned and where marketing is concerned. No substance. All talk. Unacceptable.
On a similar note, everyone from Pixar seemed genuinely enthusiastic about their involvement. I believed that they were happy and love their jobs and every one of them was an inspiration. I got to know the faces and names of the creators (Right: Monster's University Dan Scanlan was kind of hot in college, no?....) and hear them talk about their profession that brings them so much joy on a daily basis. In all the mess that I find Disney to be, Pixar continues to stand out, with higher standards and a positive attitude that stems from something true.
For some inexplicable reason, neither ABC nor Marvel had a booth on the floor. There were no ABC or Marvel exclusives, no comics or DVDs. Why? Why when you own these two companies, both of whom could provide products I would actually buy, why would they not have booths at your convention?! Not to mention the horror show that was Marvel's panel and the fact that there was exactly ONE panel for ABC. If there is any hope of my considering going next year, both Marvel and ABC have to have more of a presence. And not a Disnified presence, simply Marvel and ABC, doing their things.
HIGHDealer's Room Cosplay
One of my favorite aspects of D23 was the cosplay. I'm so used to people dressed up at anything Disney related being staff members, that every time I saw a prince or princess, I just assumed they were working. More than once I made the mistake of asking where something was only to be met with "Oh, I don't work here." I had no idea this many people were eager to dress up as Disney characters! And hilariously enough, the only non Disney character I saw the whole time was Deadpool. TONS of Deadpools. Many of them wearing Mickey ears. Why Deadpool?! Perhaps the least family friendly Marvel character of the bunch?! Whatever the reasoning, it was awesome.
What an odd Dealer's Room this was. It seemed much more like a trade show, with an area dedicated to showing off the new Parks & Resorts plans, a whole stretch that featured only liscensed Disney products, most of which weren't for sale, and then the back part of the room, filled with Disney collectibles, that were for sale, but why on Earth would I ever buy any? It was fun enough to look around, as there were no crowds and barely any lines anywhere (except to get into the Disney Store booth, of course), but it was just kind of boring. I don't have kids to play in the kids area, I have no interest in owning parts from old Disneyland rides, I'm not about to buy any clothing with Disney designs on them and why tempt me by showing off your Muppets makeup line, if it's not available to buy, huh?
One thing I did appreciate on the floor was the Volunteering booth, where throughout the weekend attendees could write notes to soldiers, make relief kits, plant seeds and more. In exchange, they got a sticker and a bag, but more importantly, got to do something good.
LOW"Health" Booth
As someone who actually has an understanding of health and nutrition, I was a bit more than mildly offended by the booth focusing on how to have good health. Anyone who still propagandizes that milk plays any role in a healthy lifestyle needs to do a little bit more research and I was really bothered by the Disney branding that went with it. "Walking at Disneyland burns x amount of calories!" "Disney toothbrushes are really popular!"
Call it bribery or call it good old fashioned friendliness, cupcakes were given away on multiple occasions, first by John Lasster in the Arena, celebrating Pixar's 25th anniversary and again on the show floor at the booth dedicated to children's birthday parties. While the Lasseter cupcakes were AMAZING, the floor cupcakes were still good and they definitely made me forget about any of the Convention negatives for a good ten minutes every time.
Tasted awful, was way too expensive, and made me sick. I've never encountered convention food THIS terrible before. Id you ever find yourself at this convention center, do yourself a favor and eat at the Hilton food court instead, where you can find Baja Fresh and freshly made Sandwiches.
With no crowds and very few panels, there was plenty of free time at this Convention to wander around, get free cupcakes, not buy anything, and if you were a member of the press, sit in the media room and write up the panels you just saw.
My GOD, was I bored at night. I shouldn't have been bored, Louis CK, I know. I could have been watching TV or reading or using my imagination, but I was at a CON! A Convention! These are normally spent going out and drinking with friends or going to screenings or SOMETHING. Instead, I could have been found drinking in the lobby while reading or drinking in the hot tub starring at hot German men. Not that these are horrible ways to spend your evening, but seriously, some evening events wouldn't kill them.
For all of the control surrounding the panel content itself, myself and many others, were baffled by the lack of organization when it came to other areas, especially getting into panels. There have been many reports of attendees organizing lines themselves, without the help of any staff members, lines that in some cases were dissasembled when staff members got involved. The instructions for press remained unclear throughout the entire process, as they were told to wait in line, then not to wait in line, then to wait until everyone who was in line got in (despite having already left the line to wait in another line) to come up right before the panel for press seating, to do so only to discover there is no press seating, and so on. There was so little consistency, that a lot of the time, people didn't know when to wait in line, where or for how long, and would end up dedicating hours of their day to get into a panel that was so far from full, they could have just walked in five minutes before and not had a problem. To add to this frustration, there was only one - ONE - door we were allowed to enter the convention center from. Which meant if I had to go to the Arena or had a meeting at the Xbox booth, I still had to go all the way to the far side to enter.
So that about does it for me. I could include the LOW of I woke up Saturday morning with 15 bites on the small of my back, but since that concerns the Anaheim Hilton, not D23 itself, I can't exactly fault Disney, but it does mean I may be trying out the Marriott next time if I ever come back. All in all, a strange experience that has done a good job of putting me off Disney for the time being. If you're wondering about going yourself, all I can say is, if you loves you some Disney, sure. If you aren't obsessed with Disney? So not worth it. See full post
HIGH
Panels On Art & ArtistsMy favorite panels of the Convention were the sit down with Michael Giacchino and the look at the Character Design of Monster's University. What these had in common were a focus on the art, as opposed to a focus on the money behind the art. Taking Disney almost completely out of the equation allowed for enlightening discussions, genuine quotables, and the ability to actually learn something. Even though in both cases, a good majority of the audience left when the Q&A began (unfathomable to me), the people who stuck around got to see some lovely interaction, like a woman asking Giacchino about a specific refrain from the opening of Star Trek, Giacchino revealing the scores that touched him most (Lawrence of Arabia, Planet of the Apes, The Accidental Tourist, Star Wars), and a fun moment when the director of Prep and Landing, posing as an audience member, asked Giacchino when we was going to compose a musical to go after getting his EGOT. For details on the Monsters University panel and Q&A head here. I've heard similar things about the Art of Brave and Imagineers panels - when the event at hand is focusing on the art and interaction with fans, and not the theatrics and Disney Dog & Pony show, it's actually a wonderful way to spend an hour.
LOW
Arena PanelsEvery panel in the arena was a regular potpourri of Disney propaganda, dripping with desperation and so enthusiastically egotistical that by Sunday's Marvel panel, I just about couldn't take it anymore. Instead of Q&As and genuine fan discourse, every person on stage read from teleprompters and left a cold, dead feeling in the room. I couldn't help but be bothered by this seeming need to control the show on Disney's part. Nothing real was permitted to happen and there was no room for surprises. With every single little thing written and planned out beforehand, the energy in the room was bizarrely minimal. I myself only felt compelled to clap a couple of times during the Studios panel, which showed off upwards of 10 new films over two and a half hours. Instead of being comfortable with us seeing what they had to offer and making up our own minds, we were constantly bombarded with the notion that "Disney rules!" as if them saying it enough times would make it true. And while certain films did stand out like Wreck It Ralph or The Muppets (which showed off stellar footage and a delightful live bit between Jason Segel, Kermit and Miss Piggy), they only could have benefit from a less controlled forum. Can you imagine Kermit and Miss Piggy answering fan questions, the way Pee-Wee did at this year's Comic-Con? How brilliant would that have been? In perhaps the strangest move of all, at the end of the Studios panel, the entire cast of The Avengers was brought out and except for Robert Downey Jr, no one said anything. This may have been acceptable as a surprise button at the end of last year's Marvel panel at Comic-Con, when nothing had been shot or read and they were simply announcing the official cast, but over a year later, with two weeks left of shooting, to bring the cast down just to stand there? It shows a complete lack of understanding where this film is concerned, where the fans are concerned and where marketing is concerned. No substance. All talk. Unacceptable.
HIGH
Pixar's PresenceOn a similar note, everyone from Pixar seemed genuinely enthusiastic about their involvement. I believed that they were happy and love their jobs and every one of them was an inspiration. I got to know the faces and names of the creators (Right: Monster's University Dan Scanlan was kind of hot in college, no?....) and hear them talk about their profession that brings them so much joy on a daily basis. In all the mess that I find Disney to be, Pixar continues to stand out, with higher standards and a positive attitude that stems from something true.
LOW
Marvel & ABC's PresenceFor some inexplicable reason, neither ABC nor Marvel had a booth on the floor. There were no ABC or Marvel exclusives, no comics or DVDs. Why? Why when you own these two companies, both of whom could provide products I would actually buy, why would they not have booths at your convention?! Not to mention the horror show that was Marvel's panel and the fact that there was exactly ONE panel for ABC. If there is any hope of my considering going next year, both Marvel and ABC have to have more of a presence. And not a Disnified presence, simply Marvel and ABC, doing their things.
HIGHOne of my favorite aspects of D23 was the cosplay. I'm so used to people dressed up at anything Disney related being staff members, that every time I saw a prince or princess, I just assumed they were working. More than once I made the mistake of asking where something was only to be met with "Oh, I don't work here." I had no idea this many people were eager to dress up as Disney characters! And hilariously enough, the only non Disney character I saw the whole time was Deadpool. TONS of Deadpools. Many of them wearing Mickey ears. Why Deadpool?! Perhaps the least family friendly Marvel character of the bunch?! Whatever the reasoning, it was awesome.
LOW
Dealer's Room BoothsWhat an odd Dealer's Room this was. It seemed much more like a trade show, with an area dedicated to showing off the new Parks & Resorts plans, a whole stretch that featured only liscensed Disney products, most of which weren't for sale, and then the back part of the room, filled with Disney collectibles, that were for sale, but why on Earth would I ever buy any? It was fun enough to look around, as there were no crowds and barely any lines anywhere (except to get into the Disney Store booth, of course), but it was just kind of boring. I don't have kids to play in the kids area, I have no interest in owning parts from old Disneyland rides, I'm not about to buy any clothing with Disney designs on them and why tempt me by showing off your Muppets makeup line, if it's not available to buy, huh?
HIGH
VoluntEAR BoothOne thing I did appreciate on the floor was the Volunteering booth, where throughout the weekend attendees could write notes to soldiers, make relief kits, plant seeds and more. In exchange, they got a sticker and a bag, but more importantly, got to do something good.
LOWAs someone who actually has an understanding of health and nutrition, I was a bit more than mildly offended by the booth focusing on how to have good health. Anyone who still propagandizes that milk plays any role in a healthy lifestyle needs to do a little bit more research and I was really bothered by the Disney branding that went with it. "Walking at Disneyland burns x amount of calories!" "Disney toothbrushes are really popular!"
HIGH
Free Cupcakes!Call it bribery or call it good old fashioned friendliness, cupcakes were given away on multiple occasions, first by John Lasster in the Arena, celebrating Pixar's 25th anniversary and again on the show floor at the booth dedicated to children's birthday parties. While the Lasseter cupcakes were AMAZING, the floor cupcakes were still good and they definitely made me forget about any of the Convention negatives for a good ten minutes every time.
LOW
Convention FoodTasted awful, was way too expensive, and made me sick. I've never encountered convention food THIS terrible before. Id you ever find yourself at this convention center, do yourself a favor and eat at the Hilton food court instead, where you can find Baja Fresh and freshly made Sandwiches.
HIGH
Plenty Of Free TimeWith no crowds and very few panels, there was plenty of free time at this Convention to wander around, get free cupcakes, not buy anything, and if you were a member of the press, sit in the media room and write up the panels you just saw.
LOW
Plenty Of Free TimeMy GOD, was I bored at night. I shouldn't have been bored, Louis CK, I know. I could have been watching TV or reading or using my imagination, but I was at a CON! A Convention! These are normally spent going out and drinking with friends or going to screenings or SOMETHING. Instead, I could have been found drinking in the lobby while reading or drinking in the hot tub starring at hot German men. Not that these are horrible ways to spend your evening, but seriously, some evening events wouldn't kill them.
LOW
OrganizationFor all of the control surrounding the panel content itself, myself and many others, were baffled by the lack of organization when it came to other areas, especially getting into panels. There have been many reports of attendees organizing lines themselves, without the help of any staff members, lines that in some cases were dissasembled when staff members got involved. The instructions for press remained unclear throughout the entire process, as they were told to wait in line, then not to wait in line, then to wait until everyone who was in line got in (despite having already left the line to wait in another line) to come up right before the panel for press seating, to do so only to discover there is no press seating, and so on. There was so little consistency, that a lot of the time, people didn't know when to wait in line, where or for how long, and would end up dedicating hours of their day to get into a panel that was so far from full, they could have just walked in five minutes before and not had a problem. To add to this frustration, there was only one - ONE - door we were allowed to enter the convention center from. Which meant if I had to go to the Arena or had a meeting at the Xbox booth, I still had to go all the way to the far side to enter.
So that about does it for me. I could include the LOW of I woke up Saturday morning with 15 bites on the small of my back, but since that concerns the Anaheim Hilton, not D23 itself, I can't exactly fault Disney, but it does mean I may be trying out the Marriott next time if I ever come back. All in all, a strange experience that has done a good job of putting me off Disney for the time being. If you're wondering about going yourself, all I can say is, if you loves you some Disney, sure. If you aren't obsessed with Disney? So not worth it. See full post
D23 - Disneyland Kinect Adventures Slightly Improves, But Is It Enough?
After being extremely disappointed in Kinect Disneyland Adventures at E3 in Jue, I decided to give it a go here at D23, with a couple more months of work under its belt, to see if anything had been improved upon. There were absolutely new features, game mechanics and levels, but is anything actually better? What I learned and my impressions below.
Facts
-Over 35 characters to meet and greet, each with his own personality, culled from chats with actual Imagineers
-Original voice actors recorded voices for every character
-If you don't wish to follow through the physical motions for character interaction, you can also use voice command
-The game is open world, the first of its kind for Kinect, so they had to design a whole new navigation system - pointing. Point in a direction and your character will walk there.
-The crowd magically parts as you walk through them
-Can take photos with characters (note: as your avatar, not as you) and upload them to the internet
-Have a few objects at your disposal, including the camera, growler, and wand
-With the wand, you can animate up to 300 objects and receive treasure after casting each spell
-Collect enough treasure and you can spend it in shops for souvenirs and costumes
-With the wand, you can also discover magical objects, which the game keeps track of, achievement style
-Right now there are six attractions: Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Pirates of the Caribbean, Thunder Mountain, Jungle Cruise and Matterhorn
-There will be up to 20 attractions, potentially with more as DLC, but that's not in the works right now
-Every ride is based on a story, so the game developers discussed the back story to each attraction with the imagineers, and came up with the levels for each attraction based on the story
-Chapters within each attraction
-Rather than just "ride a ride", each chapter interacts with a different aspect of the attractions' environment, based on the original story behind the attraction.
-Attraction gaming interactions include pose matching, sword fighting, throwing things, flying, skiing, and more
-There will be many cinematics helping to tell the story as well
-Each attraction has a character guide (Jungle Cruise has the skipper and gorillas, Matterhorn has Goofy, Peter Pan has Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, etc)
-Players can jump in or out of the game at any time to maximize social appeal
-Avatars are children, since the idea of the game is to "bring our your inner child"
-Some avatar customizing options
-They created their own avatars rather than use the Xbox ones, because the art of the Xbox avatars is too different from the art of the Disney world that was created
-The park is almost an exact recreation, down to the secret places where Walt's initials are hiding to the golden spike in the castle marking the center of the park.
Impressions
Just like at E3, my favorite aspect of this game remains the world's accuracy. I've always had a thing for recognizing landmarks in my games, usually ones taking place in LA or New York, though rarely is something *exactly* the same, square foot for pixelated square foot. My favorite part of this demo was simply running through the lands, seeing how long the lines were and pushing through the crowds. As a result, I quite enjoyed the introduction of the wand mechanic, as it means further interaction with the world around you as the player. Cast a spell on whatever, and hey, if something happens, you get coins and achievements and a modicum of satisfaction. Yay!
Also just like at E3, I'm still vastly underwhelmed when it comes to the gameplay within each attraction. I tried out the sword fighting chapter, one of the levels in the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction, which had just been created right before D23. The game seemed completely unresponsive to anything I was doing. Granted, it's new and I kept drifting out of the playing space in order to avoid whacking the Microsoft spokeswoman in the face, but it was entirely too much work for very little gratification.
An aspect I I enjoyed a lot more this time around than at E3, was the character interactions. We got to see our avatar say hello to three different characters, Mickey, Peter Pan, and the Queen of Hearts. Each had a specific reaction to everything we did, whether it be a hug, high five, or asking to dance. While Mikey was clearly friendly, Peter was friendly, but didn't like getting *too* close, and the Queen of Hearts was regal and demanded our relationship stay so. If only our "photos" with these characters could somehow combine a Kinect photo of us in that moment, with the character on the screen, I'd think the photo aspect was a good add, but a photo of an avatar with a character on Facebook seems rather pointless.
I'm still not sure in what Universe someone would actually own this game, but if a friend had it, I wouldn't object to throwing it on just to explore the park, cast spells, and buy crap, but I'm far from sold on the gameplay and even the theory behind the gameplay. A part of me would kind of rather just get a first person view of the game with the impetus to interact on that level. Like, lean correctly on the Matterhorn and the faster you go, or cast spells on the Jungle Cruise as it goes along to see things come to life - or turn the Cruise itself into a throwing game for points. But taking away the ride aspect completely away is kind of a turn off. It'll take a lot more convincing before I'll think otherwise. See full post
Facts
-Over 35 characters to meet and greet, each with his own personality, culled from chats with actual Imagineers
-Original voice actors recorded voices for every character
-If you don't wish to follow through the physical motions for character interaction, you can also use voice command
-The game is open world, the first of its kind for Kinect, so they had to design a whole new navigation system - pointing. Point in a direction and your character will walk there.
-The crowd magically parts as you walk through them
-Can take photos with characters (note: as your avatar, not as you) and upload them to the internet
-Have a few objects at your disposal, including the camera, growler, and wand
-With the wand, you can animate up to 300 objects and receive treasure after casting each spell
-Collect enough treasure and you can spend it in shops for souvenirs and costumes
-With the wand, you can also discover magical objects, which the game keeps track of, achievement style
-Right now there are six attractions: Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Pirates of the Caribbean, Thunder Mountain, Jungle Cruise and Matterhorn
-There will be up to 20 attractions, potentially with more as DLC, but that's not in the works right now
-Every ride is based on a story, so the game developers discussed the back story to each attraction with the imagineers, and came up with the levels for each attraction based on the story
-Chapters within each attraction
-Rather than just "ride a ride", each chapter interacts with a different aspect of the attractions' environment, based on the original story behind the attraction.
-Attraction gaming interactions include pose matching, sword fighting, throwing things, flying, skiing, and more
-There will be many cinematics helping to tell the story as well
-Each attraction has a character guide (Jungle Cruise has the skipper and gorillas, Matterhorn has Goofy, Peter Pan has Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, etc)
-Players can jump in or out of the game at any time to maximize social appeal
-Avatars are children, since the idea of the game is to "bring our your inner child"
-Some avatar customizing options
-They created their own avatars rather than use the Xbox ones, because the art of the Xbox avatars is too different from the art of the Disney world that was created
-The park is almost an exact recreation, down to the secret places where Walt's initials are hiding to the golden spike in the castle marking the center of the park.
Impressions
Just like at E3, my favorite aspect of this game remains the world's accuracy. I've always had a thing for recognizing landmarks in my games, usually ones taking place in LA or New York, though rarely is something *exactly* the same, square foot for pixelated square foot. My favorite part of this demo was simply running through the lands, seeing how long the lines were and pushing through the crowds. As a result, I quite enjoyed the introduction of the wand mechanic, as it means further interaction with the world around you as the player. Cast a spell on whatever, and hey, if something happens, you get coins and achievements and a modicum of satisfaction. Yay!
Also just like at E3, I'm still vastly underwhelmed when it comes to the gameplay within each attraction. I tried out the sword fighting chapter, one of the levels in the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction, which had just been created right before D23. The game seemed completely unresponsive to anything I was doing. Granted, it's new and I kept drifting out of the playing space in order to avoid whacking the Microsoft spokeswoman in the face, but it was entirely too much work for very little gratification.
An aspect I I enjoyed a lot more this time around than at E3, was the character interactions. We got to see our avatar say hello to three different characters, Mickey, Peter Pan, and the Queen of Hearts. Each had a specific reaction to everything we did, whether it be a hug, high five, or asking to dance. While Mikey was clearly friendly, Peter was friendly, but didn't like getting *too* close, and the Queen of Hearts was regal and demanded our relationship stay so. If only our "photos" with these characters could somehow combine a Kinect photo of us in that moment, with the character on the screen, I'd think the photo aspect was a good add, but a photo of an avatar with a character on Facebook seems rather pointless.
I'm still not sure in what Universe someone would actually own this game, but if a friend had it, I wouldn't object to throwing it on just to explore the park, cast spells, and buy crap, but I'm far from sold on the gameplay and even the theory behind the gameplay. A part of me would kind of rather just get a first person view of the game with the impetus to interact on that level. Like, lean correctly on the Matterhorn and the faster you go, or cast spells on the Jungle Cruise as it goes along to see things come to life - or turn the Cruise itself into a throwing game for points. But taking away the ride aspect completely away is kind of a turn off. It'll take a lot more convincing before I'll think otherwise. See full post
Sunday, August 21, 2011
D23 - Disney Chomps Off Marvel's Balls And Marvel Likes It
Today at D23, in a Herculean display of awfulness, Disney forced Joe Quesada to explain to a half full audience what Marvel was and what it has in common with Disney. He explained to us how in lieu of talking about actual Marvel properties or making any sort of announcement, Disney specifically requested that he give the audience a history lesson. So, the one Arena panel I thought *wouldn't* be one big Disney dick sucking session turned out to be just that, yet again. Even down to the Mickey Mouse shirt and professment of love for old school Disney from Quesada himself. To his credit, he put together a great lesson and really did his best to seem like he was enjoying getting raped through the ear, but I skipped out on free Breakfast to spend an hour learning what I already knew, on this occasion infused with Disney Ego, so I was not a happy camper.
Thankfully, the Q&A portion of a normal Cup O'Joe was retained, though this also demonstrated that they *could* have done a Q&A during the Walt Disney Studios panel and simply did not. But the Q&A, bizarrely consisting of way too many Boom Studios questions from Disney fans (how many times can the man say Marvel isn't working with Boom?!), still didn't feel like the right experience, as most of the questions Joe could not answer. On top of that, the session was extremely short and when a fan asked if they could show the Avengers footage from the day before and Joe said yes, he was quickly shut down, much to the disappointment of the actual Marvel fans who stayed in the room after the massive exodus took place at the beginning of the Q&A.
While it was interesting enough to learn about Marvel's history straight from Queseda himself, it was inherently so skewed towards convincing the audience how well Marvel meshed with Disney, that I felt like I was somehow being lied to or deceived. Something felt very wrong about being hit over the head with what Marvel and Disney had in common (If you're wondering - "Storytelling, Community, Accessibility, Appeals to all ages"), when one of these companies I love so much and the other, I have such a massive like/hate relationship with. A relationship that wasn't helped by ANYTHING at D23, I'll tell you that much.
And you know what I kept thinking of during this Disney & Marvel making a baby love-fest? Jack Kirby. The family and estate of whom Disney fucked out of their rights earlier this summer. Work for hire blah blah blah 1909 bullshit laws, I don't give a shit, someone should have had some compassion, and that someone is never Disney. Awfully devilish in the courtroom for all their hemming and hawwing about being about love and family, aren't they? Yeah, your family values really show when you screw Jack Kirby's family out of anything that should rightfully belong to them. I won't argue about the invalidity of an archane act, developed before artists even understood the meaning of what not owning the rights to your own work meant, but I will say that I was not the only one with Kirby on the mind. A giant section of fans screamed wildly when his name was announced as one of the first to create for Marvel.
Ultimately, the panel was an utter disappointment for Marvel fans with no news, no information, no sneak peaks, no special guests, no title specifics, no giveaways, nothing. And while the majority of the people in attendance had never been to a Cup O' Joe panel (Quesada had audience members raise their hands), the room was still only half full to start. So okay, several hundred Disney fans learned about the history of Marvel today. Great. Doesn't change the fact that any Marvel fan who bought a ticket and came to Anaheim for this convention would have been sorely disappointed by the entire experience and certainly doesn't change the fact that Disney fans are in no way the right target audience for Marvel. You know who is? Other genre fans. Like the ones who don't necessarily read Marvel yet, but go to Comic-Con to find out if they should.
But enough of my bitching. If you'd like to know what information was relayed at the panel, I've provided my live account after the jump, beginning with the history lesson, skipping past all the "Disney and Marvel were made for each other "expository bullshit. Maybe you will find some value in it and my missing free Breakfast won't entirely be in vain.
Thankfully, the Q&A portion of a normal Cup O'Joe was retained, though this also demonstrated that they *could* have done a Q&A during the Walt Disney Studios panel and simply did not. But the Q&A, bizarrely consisting of way too many Boom Studios questions from Disney fans (how many times can the man say Marvel isn't working with Boom?!), still didn't feel like the right experience, as most of the questions Joe could not answer. On top of that, the session was extremely short and when a fan asked if they could show the Avengers footage from the day before and Joe said yes, he was quickly shut down, much to the disappointment of the actual Marvel fans who stayed in the room after the massive exodus took place at the beginning of the Q&A.
While it was interesting enough to learn about Marvel's history straight from Queseda himself, it was inherently so skewed towards convincing the audience how well Marvel meshed with Disney, that I felt like I was somehow being lied to or deceived. Something felt very wrong about being hit over the head with what Marvel and Disney had in common (If you're wondering - "Storytelling, Community, Accessibility, Appeals to all ages"), when one of these companies I love so much and the other, I have such a massive like/hate relationship with. A relationship that wasn't helped by ANYTHING at D23, I'll tell you that much.
And you know what I kept thinking of during this Disney & Marvel making a baby love-fest? Jack Kirby. The family and estate of whom Disney fucked out of their rights earlier this summer. Work for hire blah blah blah 1909 bullshit laws, I don't give a shit, someone should have had some compassion, and that someone is never Disney. Awfully devilish in the courtroom for all their hemming and hawwing about being about love and family, aren't they? Yeah, your family values really show when you screw Jack Kirby's family out of anything that should rightfully belong to them. I won't argue about the invalidity of an archane act, developed before artists even understood the meaning of what not owning the rights to your own work meant, but I will say that I was not the only one with Kirby on the mind. A giant section of fans screamed wildly when his name was announced as one of the first to create for Marvel.
Ultimately, the panel was an utter disappointment for Marvel fans with no news, no information, no sneak peaks, no special guests, no title specifics, no giveaways, nothing. And while the majority of the people in attendance had never been to a Cup O' Joe panel (Quesada had audience members raise their hands), the room was still only half full to start. So okay, several hundred Disney fans learned about the history of Marvel today. Great. Doesn't change the fact that any Marvel fan who bought a ticket and came to Anaheim for this convention would have been sorely disappointed by the entire experience and certainly doesn't change the fact that Disney fans are in no way the right target audience for Marvel. You know who is? Other genre fans. Like the ones who don't necessarily read Marvel yet, but go to Comic-Con to find out if they should.
But enough of my bitching. If you'd like to know what information was relayed at the panel, I've provided my live account after the jump, beginning with the history lesson, skipping past all the "Disney and Marvel were made for each other "expository bullshit. Maybe you will find some value in it and my missing free Breakfast won't entirely be in vain.
*****
See full post
Saturday, August 20, 2011
D23 - In Depth Look At The Character Design Of Pixar's Monster's University
Monster's University Production Designer Ricky Nierva and Director Dan Scanlan were on hand at D23 today to provide attendees with an in depth look at the character design of young Mike and Sully in the new Pixar movie set for release in 2013. Below is a live account of what took place.
*****
"Story is King" slide appears on screen
They remind themselves of this often at Pixar.
Can't do character design without story, until they know who characters are and what their stories are.
"Design from the Inside-Out"
Nierva's mantra.
When you design a character, you want to know who are they inside first - best friends, favorite food, hobbies, etc.
Nierva tells a story about how at CalArts, when he brought in a picture he drew of an elephant, the teacher said, now draw me Jim the Elephant or Sally the Elephant. It's not enough to just draw an elephant when telling a story. Can't be generic.
More after the jump
See full post
*****
"Story is King" slide appears on screen
They remind themselves of this often at Pixar.
Can't do character design without story, until they know who characters are and what their stories are.
"Design from the Inside-Out"
Nierva's mantra.
When you design a character, you want to know who are they inside first - best friends, favorite food, hobbies, etc.
An original sketch of Mike and Sully by Monster's Inc director, Pete Docter
Nierva tells a story about how at CalArts, when he brought in a picture he drew of an elephant, the teacher said, now draw me Jim the Elephant or Sally the Elephant. It's not enough to just draw an elephant when telling a story. Can't be generic.
More after the jump
See full post
D23 - A Look at Walt Disney Studios' Upcoming Animation Slate
Saturday marked the massive Walt Disney Studios panel, which brought lots of footage. In fact, pretty much only footage, along with a couple of announcements and staged bits. Some Q&A would have been nice, but apparently, Disney can't handle wild cards like "people" so there was very little room for spontaneity. Still, we saw some interesting stuff, so to jump start our Saturday coverage, here are my impressions of what Walt Disney Studios Animation had to offer.
PLANES
First up was Planes, a film that takes place in (or as the teaser points out, "above") the Cars Universe. The director's father was an aviator, which sits nicely with the Pixar folk as they loves them some authenticity. The main character is Dusty, voiced by Jon Crier, who appeared on stage to talk about what an honor it had been to work with Pixar on this project - "Every so often I get an email that says I have a Planes session and I'm like ::cue guttural sounds of joy::". John Lasseter, present to run the whole Animation portion of the show, gave some insight into the work of a voice over actor on a Pixar film. He explained that the lead actor would typically come in for 10 sessions over the course of two years, and it's not uncommon for the character to design to change with every session, as it is molded and transformed by the actor's performance. The teaser clip was cute enough and I can say without hesitation that this *will* be a movie I go in theaters, unlike Cars 2, because flying through the air in 3D makes me a happy.
More after the jump!
See full post
Friday, August 19, 2011
D23 Live Blog: Walt Disney Parks & Resorts
Coming to you straight from day one of D23, where I will be reporting from all weekend long, is the first recap of many large events taking place this year - the look at what's new with Disney Parks and Resorts. My favorite part of Disney, aside from the animated films, are the parks, so I've been looking forward to this one. My live-blog, with updates on the Fantasyland Expansion in Florida, the new Hawaiian spa & resort, the Shanghai park, and the massive California Adventure add-ons await below!
*****
The parks & resorts panel starts a half hour late. I'm a half hour late. This works out well for me.
I immediately notice that instead of having someone signing for the deaf, there is a screen with written text that shows up as its said. I don't know how I feel about this, as I know many interpreters who make a living precisely with jobs like this. Hrm.
The panel begins with a video, followed by the D23 band with Mickey on drums. Tom Staggs, chairmain of parks & resorts, comes on stage to chat with Mickey about Dancing with the Stars or some such nonsense. They mention the new Disney resorts in Hawaii and Shanghai, before hokey jazz finally plays Mickey off and Staggs gets on with the show.
Staggs - "We are in the middle of our largest expansion for Disney Parks & Resorts"
Staggs talks about launching the Disney Dream (Cruise Ship) and the Shanghai Disney groundbreaking as great moments this past year. Specifically notes enjoying spending time with the "cast members" aka people who work at Disney resorts. What runs next is a video of Staggs moonlighting as one of these cast members, sketch style, singing in a Barbershop Quartet, giving out balloons, piloting the Jungle Cruise (to rousing applause - people love the Jungle Cruise) and more. Okay. Sure. Why not.
I notice that people sitting in front of me are some of these Disney "cast members" Staggs is talking about. I hope they didn't have to pay for tickets to be here.
Staggs brings up the largest expansion in the history of the Magic Kingdom, the Fantasyland expansion, opening in Fall of 2012. He brings the Chief Creative Executive for Walt Disney Imagineering, Bruce Vaughn, on stage.
More after the jump
See full post
*****
The parks & resorts panel starts a half hour late. I'm a half hour late. This works out well for me.
I immediately notice that instead of having someone signing for the deaf, there is a screen with written text that shows up as its said. I don't know how I feel about this, as I know many interpreters who make a living precisely with jobs like this. Hrm.
The panel begins with a video, followed by the D23 band with Mickey on drums. Tom Staggs, chairmain of parks & resorts, comes on stage to chat with Mickey about Dancing with the Stars or some such nonsense. They mention the new Disney resorts in Hawaii and Shanghai, before hokey jazz finally plays Mickey off and Staggs gets on with the show.
Staggs - "We are in the middle of our largest expansion for Disney Parks & Resorts"
Staggs talks about launching the Disney Dream (Cruise Ship) and the Shanghai Disney groundbreaking as great moments this past year. Specifically notes enjoying spending time with the "cast members" aka people who work at Disney resorts. What runs next is a video of Staggs moonlighting as one of these cast members, sketch style, singing in a Barbershop Quartet, giving out balloons, piloting the Jungle Cruise (to rousing applause - people love the Jungle Cruise) and more. Okay. Sure. Why not.
I notice that people sitting in front of me are some of these Disney "cast members" Staggs is talking about. I hope they didn't have to pay for tickets to be here.
Staggs brings up the largest expansion in the history of the Magic Kingdom, the Fantasyland expansion, opening in Fall of 2012. He brings the Chief Creative Executive for Walt Disney Imagineering, Bruce Vaughn, on stage.
More after the jump
See full post
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Fabulous Adventures of Alan Swift!
Dear LA Fangirls (and boys): New York is not the only place to see good theater at recession prices! The hilariously imaginative folks at cARTel currently have a new production up, at the Hayworth Theatre, entitled The Fabulous Adventures of Alan Swift (...Or Journey to the Center of Queer). The play travels through time, space, and queerness...and that should be more than enough of a description to sell you on it! The show only has one weekend left so go buy your tickets here now for just $10 (or $15 at the door). And make sure you get to the theater early to enjoy the pre-show reception that includes a visual art gallery and live music.
The Fabulous Adventures of Alan Swift (...Or Journey to the Center of Queer)
Who:
A cARTel: Collaborative Arts LA production (in collaboration with Bob Baker Marionette Theater)
Written by: Matt Chester
Directed by: Jack Nicolaus
Assistant Directed by: Miles Marsico
Featuring: Daniel Halden, Justin Baker, Katie Smith, Nichole Elise, Phil Daddario, J. Steadman, BJ Allman, Perry Young, Laryn Stout, Laura Cheek, Christan Copeland
Where:
Hayworth Theatre
Corner of Wilshire and Carondolet
When:
Friday, 8/19
Saturday, 8/20
Sunday, 8/21
all shows start @ 8pm (with a reception at 7:15pm)
See full post
The Fabulous Adventures of Alan Swift (...Or Journey to the Center of Queer)
Who:
A cARTel: Collaborative Arts LA production (in collaboration with Bob Baker Marionette Theater)
Written by: Matt Chester
Directed by: Jack Nicolaus
Assistant Directed by: Miles Marsico
Featuring: Daniel Halden, Justin Baker, Katie Smith, Nichole Elise, Phil Daddario, J. Steadman, BJ Allman, Perry Young, Laryn Stout, Laura Cheek, Christan Copeland
Where:
Hayworth Theatre
Corner of Wilshire and Carondolet
When:
Friday, 8/19
Saturday, 8/20
Sunday, 8/21
all shows start @ 8pm (with a reception at 7:15pm)
See full post
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Bon Iver Rocks Prospect Park
Those of us fortunate enough to see Bon Iver in concert, at Prospect Park Bandshell, understand that we experienced pure musical magic. The concert was a part of the Celebrate Brooklyn! series and it was my first official show there (because watching Andrew Bird for one song, from outside the gates, hardly seems to count). And it was my favorite show I've experienced since I moved to New York a year ago.
Both Bon Iver albums are subtly beautiful. You listen and gladly invite the glorious melancholy to creep into your skin. The albums are subtly epic--audio masterpieces that don't require loudly ampliefied instruments or insanely catchy beats to make you feel the grandeur. Their concert at Prospect Park, however, really felt epic in a more traditional or obvious sense. I was surprised to feel so physically energized by the sound. Without even realizing it till the end, I found myself on my feet the whole show. I was ecstaticly bouncing around and clapping when they played "Calgary" and "Flume" back-to-back. And I was immesurably happy when they did two encores that included "Skinny Love", "Wolves", and a cover of Bjork's "Who Is It" (from her album Medulla).
Bon Iver is even more magical live. You really hear the entire band and all the instrumental contributions because you get to see and feel their energy in person. Justin Vernon's voice is that uniquely, painfully wonderful. And Vernon was the sweetest, humblest lead singer, constantly thanking the audience for coming out to Bon Iver's biggest headlining show. But it's really us, the audience, that have to thank him, the rest of the band, and the New York weather Gods for giving us such an unforgettable Summer evening. It truly was one of my favorite concert experiences.
See full post
Both Bon Iver albums are subtly beautiful. You listen and gladly invite the glorious melancholy to creep into your skin. The albums are subtly epic--audio masterpieces that don't require loudly ampliefied instruments or insanely catchy beats to make you feel the grandeur. Their concert at Prospect Park, however, really felt epic in a more traditional or obvious sense. I was surprised to feel so physically energized by the sound. Without even realizing it till the end, I found myself on my feet the whole show. I was ecstaticly bouncing around and clapping when they played "Calgary" and "Flume" back-to-back. And I was immesurably happy when they did two encores that included "Skinny Love", "Wolves", and a cover of Bjork's "Who Is It" (from her album Medulla).
Bon Iver is even more magical live. You really hear the entire band and all the instrumental contributions because you get to see and feel their energy in person. Justin Vernon's voice is that uniquely, painfully wonderful. And Vernon was the sweetest, humblest lead singer, constantly thanking the audience for coming out to Bon Iver's biggest headlining show. But it's really us, the audience, that have to thank him, the rest of the band, and the New York weather Gods for giving us such an unforgettable Summer evening. It truly was one of my favorite concert experiences.
See full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
