Done, done, and done. I don’t know why I’m writing about Campbell now, particularly, except that his name, or the filthy story-telling laws that have become his legacy, have cropped up in a few different locations over the last few weeks, and I think it’s about time that “The Heroes Journey” becomes the quaint, antiquated notion of a plot engine that it was always destined to be.
Archive for February, 2010
I think John Krasinski would be a pretty good Captain America.
That is all.
Which…Avatar doesn’t get better, the more you think about it. I’ll warn you right now about that.
Rather than bother with a straight-up review of Avatar – spoiler alert, I thought the visuals were really nice, the CGI characters were so smooth I honestly forgot I wasn’t looking at real actors, the script didn’t have two braincells to rub together, and Sam Worthington can’t fucking act, as it turns out – I figure I’d just address certain issues I ran into with the movie.
Why is 3D making a comeback? Well, the obvious answer – because Avatar is a runaway success – but why was Avatar itself in 3D? I’m a little lost on that point. Was there a clamoring for it? I don’t believe so. The people I talk to are pretty split on the issue – some like it, some don’t. I don’t. At all. I always THINK I will, but every time, my eyes strain, the glasses are an uncomfortable fit (at least for Avatar ; during Coraline I felt like I was Roy Orbison – which is to say I felt awesome), every time I tilt my head the screen goes blurry, and – most problematically – I find I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be focusing on.
And that’s…kinda crucial for a movie. Particularly a movie that is full of things that aren’t really there. The 3D instead gives everything a bit of a free-floating nature (and not just the stupid damn fireflies in the foreground that audiences are supposed to swat at), so the brain has to do extra work interpreting the weight, placement and grounding of each object before it can get anything else done.
My point here: if you want me to get into the story, I have to accept the world presented to me as real. Which brings me to point two. Read more »
I was at the comics store in King of Prussia, looking at comic books while I waited for Verizon to fix my superphone. While I was there, I overheard a conversation between the clerk and, I presume, another customer, about why they were less than enthusiastic about the idea of gay marriage.
This was a revelation for me, I suppose because I tend to assume that people who like the things I like are basically the same as I am. This was false, and I found myself compelled to get involved.
Dear Television Gods:
I would like to respectfully submit my request for the Best Thing On Television Ever. You could make it my combo Birthday/Christmas gift, maybe? That means you’ve got plenty of time to make this happen, and it’s my understanding that if I believe in you (and also perform some heinous arcane acts*), you guys can do it!
What I want is this: a TV’s Smartest Man in the Room Competition. It would feature the (often self-proclaimed) most-genius-ever headliners of currently-airing primetime dramas, in a room with each other, trying to show how much smarter they are than their competitors. A non-reality reality contest show, if you will.
I do not know how they would prove this, but I’ve got some ideas. But first, the competitors:
It would star Dr. Gregory House (from House), Dr. Calvin Lightman (from Lie to Me), Patrick Jane (from The Mentalist), Nathan Ford (from Leverage), Ben Linus (from Lost) and Michael Weston (from Burn Notice).
There would also be two wildcards:
Which will apparently air in 3D with Alice in Wonderland.
Thank you, BBC1, for sparing me 3D, which, after my Avatar experience (more on that this week), I have had quite enough of, thank you very much.
What do you think? And if we could somehow avoid the “He’s too YOUNG to be the Doctor!”, that’d be great.
In the interests of Network synergy, ABC and CBS are combining their two most popular shows into one, EVEN MORE POPULAR SHOW. Survivor: Lost.
There will be some key differences between this show and a regular episode of Lost.
One of the most interesting things about “Lost” as a narrative is its ever-broadening scope. And of course, that’s one of the most frustrating things for a viewer who likes to theorize about what’s Actually Going On Here.
I really pity the people who were dead-sure that everyone was dead and in purgatory in season one. Not because they were dead-wrong, and sometimes bullheadedly sticking to a theory that was constantly and explicitly dismissed by the actual storyline (no, you tell ME why there’d be polar bears in Purgatory!).
It’s because they were trying to describe an elephant in the dark, so to speak – trying to explain the larger “Lost” story when they were just feeling smaller parts of the whole, and even then they hadn’t gotten a good enough look at what they were basing their descriptions on.
(God bless whoever first put forth that Elephant-in-the-Dark proverb, it’s just so handy.)
From OTHER friend of Threat Quality, Adam Landon:
Live in New York? Ever been to the KGB bar’s Fantastic Fiction reading?
You are missing out.
I will be there tonight, so will Peter Straub. I am not promising that I will try and headbutt his glasses off, but I’m not promising that I WON’T, either.