Post-Ocar Night Ruminations

I fucking hate award shows. There is a definite self indulgent quality to an industry honoring itself in a lavish production broadcast around the world and the bullshit that is used to draw out what should be a simple process over several hours just makes events like the Oscars unwatchable to me. It also does not help that the selection of films tends to be biased towards films released late in the year and the choices of both nominees and winners often mystify me. So yeah , I don't care much for the Oscars and never watch it. I watched a movie on DVD and then caught some syndicated Seinfeld reruns.

So the Hurtlocker beat Avatar eh? I have not seen the Hurtlocker so I can't judge whether it is really a good movie or not, but it strike me as a better choice for best picture than Avatar which I have also not seen. Wait a minute? You didn't see Avatar? Don't you like scifi films? You are a space cadet are you not? Well yes, I am but there is something about Avatar that really turns me off. Besides the ridiculous hype and popularity it just strikes me as dumb movie that overly relies on new technology. If Avatar was not being hyped up as the Jazz Singer of 3D, would it be anywhere near as popular as it is? If it was not in 3D would people be leaving this film depressed that it is over? I somehow doubt it.

3D is of course a gimmick(and not a new one) to get people into the theaters in an era where theatrical films face greater competition from home entertainment. There is nothing new in this. When tv first started catching on they started making movies in wider aspect ratios (try watching Ben Hur letter boxed on an old 4:3 tv) and you had experiments with larger screen formats like Cinerama. This brings to mind another sci fi film, 2001 A Space Odyssey. Like Avatar (I suppose) 2001 is a film that really is made for a theater and I imagine watching it in Cinerama would be a real treat. Watching it on an old square tv hooked up to a VCR would simply not do because 2001 truly is visual and aural storytelling. There really is not much in the way of characterization and dialogue ( though there a few memorable lines uttered by a certain famous computer). That does not mean that the film lacks a story though. It is in fact one of the best science fiction stories ever filmed. It is a very unusual story that spans millions of years and in the end leaves quite a lot open to interpretation by the audience, but it is also an original story that had not been seen a million times at the time of its making and I have a hard time thinking of any films since that have really tried to do what 2001 did.

So what is Avatar's story about? Well I haven't seen it, but going from the trailer it does not strike me as a movie with much going on that isn't seen in the trailer. It is obviously a rip off of Dances with Wolves with weird looking blue aliens in place of Indians. It is obvious that the cigar chomping marine general piloting the mech is the bad guy. It is clear that there is going to be a battle between the blue people and the marines. It seems probable that since this film is appealing to commercial sentiment,that the blue people will win despite being primitives armed with spears going up against U.S. Marines armed with machine guns, mechs, and helicopter gun ships. I also imagine the that the film depicts the blue aliens as stereotypical noble savages who live in perfect harmony with nature. I don't hate Dances with Wolves, but I don't need to a see a cgi version of it with a weaker story and acting glossed up with 3D and with a bunch of gaia crap thrown in that makes me want to eat an Orca to compensate.

Obligatory Star Trek Post

Obviously going by my first post and some of the listed links I am a Star Trek fan. So what did I think of the new movie? Basically, I liked it. One plus of this film is that it is obviously the biggest budget Trek film since probably the first one, but what really makes the movie work is the casting and the focus on the characters of Kirk and Spock. This film really does a pretty good job of exploring the dynamic between these two iconic characters, while also being an exciting action flick.

Things I'm less pleased with are the plot and the villains. Nero was pretty lacking as a villain. He lacked the kind of villainous presence that Kahn exuded in Star Trek II and frankly I think even some pretty weak villains from past films like Krugg from Star Trek III were better than Nero. His motivation also seemed kind of weak. So he is mad at Spock for trying to save Romulus from destruction and failing? So if Spock did jack shit would Nero be cool with him even though his planet was space dust?

Also the science of the whole scenario made no sense. I'm not in any remote sense a scientist, and even I know that a star going nova would not threaten an entire galaxy. Also when you get down to it, the plot is full of Star Trek movie cliches (time travel, villain seeking to destroy the earth, the Enterprise being more or less invincible while the rest of Star Fleet gets taken down by Nero in two minutes or something, etc). There are also some minor things like the engine room design and the product placement for Nokia and Budweiser, but I can't say these things really affect the overall quality of the film.

How does this movie stack up in the gran scheme of Trek? Well, I still like Wrath of Kahn, The Undiscovered Country, and First Contact more than this movie. Therefore I would rank this movie #4 out of 11 Trek films. Overall, I think Star Trek is lucky that it got this reboot because while it is flawed, things could have been far worse. I just hope that next time Abrams and Orci come up with a more original and interesting plot.

Enough with the Fucking Reboots Already!!!

Dab Nabit! First I hear there making a third version of Battlestar Galactica and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie that will have nothing to do with the show or Josh Whedon, but now Sony is releasing a fourth Spider-man movie that will have nothing to do with the previous three movies. It will be a complete remake with Peter Parker back in High School. Fuck! If things go as planed it will be released in 2012. That is only ten years after the first Sam Raimi movie. In contrast Batman Begins came out 16 years after the first Burton Batman movie and 7 years after Batman & Robin. Also Batman Begins was made because Batman & Robin is considered one of the worst movies ever made and while it made a profit it was not a huge hit. Spider-man 3's reviews were not great, but it made a shit load of money for Sony. In fact it was the highest grossing film of the series. Next to The Dark Knight, it is the highest grossing superhero movie ever.

So why the fuck is Sony making a completely new version of Spider-man when people are still willing to pay lots of money for the old one? I understand that there was eventually going to be a Spidey film without Raimi or Tobey McGuire, but why can't they just do a continuation of the current series with a different director and cast? There are plenty of movie series that have had changes in director without completely sacrificing continuity. And again, it will only be ten fucking years since the first movie. What are they going to do? Retell his origin? Have him fight the green goblin again? I'm not saying a good director couldn't do a better film than the old one or at least approach the character in a different way that is just as satisfying, but they should at least let more time pass before doing so.