Word of Warning RE: the Microsoft Network

Goodbye Again Friends,

Something is fishy in Denmark.

I can but can not access the internet. My machine has been experiencing some very odd behavior that I feel anyone using a PC should be made aware of. Obviously right now I am online, as I have posted this, but to do so I am forced to reset my security settings so low that any of those invasive malware programs that do not exist in MSN's browser software et al have free access to whatever servers they do not connect to from my system. This is unacceptable. And I'm more than a bit miffed at the situation, which I shall outline in more detail below.

Long story short Microsoft (as I previously mentioned they are my Internet provider) somehow got through my firewall and installed something on my system that I never gave permission for them to do. Considering I do not use their MSN Browser, instead preferring the simplicity of logging in via IE or Firefox, my initial discovery of an inability to log in had me calling tech support. Despite assurances that all I needed was the newest version of the MSN Browser and everything would be fine once I downloaded it- which is a load of BS but then that's the problem with outsourcing to foreign countries, these people don't speak English as a first language and thus are incapable of comprehending simple facts spoken to them in simple terms like: I'VE TRIED TO UPDATE AND AM UNABLE BECAUSE I GET MESSAGES SAYING MY OS IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED. They keep insisting. So all you can do is let them feed you their line of BS and hope.

But that's not what really annoyed me. What annoyed me is discovering, after a bit of kludging around, that Microsoft managed to hack past my firewall and install something on my computer. Let me repeat that. . . My service provider, the people who take my money every month, appear to have hacked into my system to force an "update" on my machine that effectively CRIPPLES my ability to access the service they are taking my money for.

I could be paranoid but the facts seem to support the theory that a forced "update" was executed on my machine to disable it. My first clue, as I may have mentioned in my earlier post, was noticing something trying to load on my system. It was attempting to force, I thought, a shockwave update. Now I've never figured out how to block these. These updates circumvent my firewall, actually they don't even register they just seem to start and my only clue is everything suddenly slowing down to a crawl. I've observed this many times, usually only during those few times I am forced to lower my security settings. Thus my only, and best, defense against them has been to surf the net with my security settings set to high. Alas when you log in to check e-mail and such you have NO CHOICE but to compromise your system and lower your security settings. My best guess is Microsoft used one of these times to hack into my system.

Now "hack" may seem like a harsh word to use. But read on.

Long story short a program downloaded onto my system in the Shockwave directory a few weeks ago. I discovered it was there because it was loading during boot-up and instantly attempting to access the internet. The only reason I was aware of this is because I have dial-up and have my system set up to manually dial in, thus the dialogue box for dialing out kept popping up for no reason. Took me a while to figure out what the problem was. What I had to do was manually find and delete this mystery file, including it's registry key. I forget exactly what it was called but I think it was something like POSTUPDATE.EXE. Shortly thereafter my problems began. Obviously I did not find and remove this invasive program in time.

Currently there is a way for me to access the Internet, but it's round about. Considering this is a paid for service which is suddenly being denied with absolutely NO forewarning AND my IP installed something on my system without my consent I find this disturbing. I am NOT a happy customer.

For those thinking this is a overreaction consider this: There is a program that now wants to run on my system: LOADQM.EXE. This is an important fact because I stopped using MSN Browser because it had too many programs wanting open ports through my software firewall. (And I don't use IM.) Now the most invasive of these programs, one which I PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM IT'S DIRECTORY AND PLACED IN A ZIP ARCHIVE was, you guessed it, LOADQM.EXE.

So since I removed this program it shouldn't be running on my system. So how did it get back ON my system? Remember my OS is no longer supported. That means no updates. If I can't update then how did this program get back on my system? I do not know.

Nor do I know what the purpose of this program is. I do know it kept crashing my system and giving me blue screens as it was constantly trying to worm it's way through my firewall, despite me denying it access, which was why I removed it. Yet now it's back on my system. It is, I think disabled again. And, surprise surprise, that seems to be what was slowing everything down. Was it because it was forcing ports open through my firewall and doing. . . Something?

Again I do not know. According to Google this is a program associated with IM. But that' a load of BS. IM is non-functional on my machine. I do not use IM. But even if I did IM appears to currently be disabled. Besides the information I can find claims it's some sort of auto-updater, again BS as my OS is no longer supported. A fact Microsoft seemed intent on driving home to me by crippling my system. Which makes me wonder what other invasive programs they might have placed on my machine, all while CONTINUING TO TAKE MY MONEY for a service they seem to not want to provide to those of us using older OS platforms.

What's up with that? I paid good money for this computer and the software that came with it, brand new I might add. The OS has never really worked. Has Microsoft ever apologized for releasing barely functional OSes that crash over 50% of the time? Issued a single rebate? Used any of the information that we are forced to provide them to contact us, the people they ghettoize as "end users" to help us in any way? No.

They take our money then, when you try to set up YOUR OWN PROPERTY to be as secure as possible they hack into it to install a backdoor to CRIPPLE it because they decided that it's time for you to upgrade to the newest flavor of barely functional OS? Am I the only one that has a problem with these heavy handed tactics?

Honestly if not for the fact I kind of sort of need my e-mail addy I'd have canceled this service in a heartbeat. Probably will. In the meantime look to your own systems. Be sure that your service providers haven't installed something nefarious on your machine.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Forced Hiatus Looming

Greetings Loyal Readers,

Everything seemed to be working, if not perfectly fine, at least passably so earlier today. Then, wham, nothing wanted to work. Long story short after placing a call to tech support it appears that the Microsoft Network (my service provider) in their finite wisdom have decreed that all those whose computers aren't up to their specs and using the most up-to-date version of their malwa- koff- sorry, their web surfing software shall NOT be allowed to connect to the web. At least until they upgrade. Funny. They take my money for the service yet don't bother to give a guy a heads up, send me upgrade discs, or anything. I mean is it too much to ask for a heads up that your service provider is about to cut their entire network off from those using older versions of their software? What's up with that? Is it because I'm using older software and thus I don't matter to them?

Oh, sure, according to the tech support guy I apparently was informed, via e-mail. You know some of us don't check e-mail every day. And when we do it's usually so full of spam that gets past the filter we spend most of our time trying to weed through the chaff. But, hey, according to the tech support person, who sounded like he was from India or Pakistan (or wherever Miscrosoft outs ources to) I WAS informed. So far be it from me to dispute such lofty facts. Not that I tried. Before I could the tech guy informed me I probably deleted the e-mail by accident. Yeah, okay, whatever.

Long story short Internet Explorer (the browser I was using to log in with as I despise the invasiveness of the MSN browser) no longer logs me in. I'd been noticing something trying to eat up my bandwidth for the past couple of days. I thought it was Shockwave trying to force an update but, apparently, it was MSN updating something to force me to go out and buy a new PC. Bass turds!

*waves impotent fist at nobody in particular*

Not really sure what sort of PC to get. Don't really want to buy a new one but it'd probably be cheaper than updating the OS on this machine. I'm not saying that if I saw Bill Gates on fire in the middle of the street that I wouldn't urinate on him, but this entire concept of corporations not just foisting new software onto you whether you like it or not but forcing you to upgrade ad nauseum ad infinitum is exhausting.

But I suppose those poor execs at MSN need more money to feed their pet bald eagles, or whatever. So I guess you can expect to see new reviews when you see them. Sorry about that. Ain't much a guy can do when their service provider cold cocks them. Everything is slow as molasses, but I'm not going to tell you the odd manner in which I managed to connect lest someone at MSN be reading this and close that hole up too. But, suffice it so say, it makes surfing the web even slower than usual.

Sigh. Well it's be grand fun. Hope to have (and be able to post) new reviews for you soon.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

Of Hercules, Giant Robots, and Reviews

Having recently purchased the double feature of Hercules/Adventure of Hercules for the princely sum of $3 at a Big Lots I was working on a review of both movies. But, try as I might, the second movie is a brain freeze. I find myself pausing the movie, noting the time on the counter, then ejecting the disc. Why? Because it's offal! That's not a typo, it's really awful beyond words. I've not been able to bring myself to watch it all the way through. Alas haste makes waste and the early bird gets the worm, or in the case writes the review.

A wise [expletive deleted] once said that "great minds think alike" and a recent discovery of a review at Black Gate for Lou Ferrigno's Hercules (posted yesterday no less) would seem to prove that axiom. I was working on a review to post here but after reading Mr. Ryan's review mine now seems superfluous. He not only quotes from the same Starlog article- possibly found online at the same site I found it?- but makes a lot of the same or similar points I was/might have so I'm tabling my review.

That said I'd like to now direct you to the fine article Hercules vs. the Giant Robots

Kudos to the reviewer. Very well written sir.

# End of Line

Have you heard the HK & Cult Film News?

Today Cosmic Cinema is continuing to look around the net and report on interesting review sites. Last week we showcased Weirded Beardo Reviews, or some such [wink], today it's HK & Cult Film News. If you're thinking that's a rather odd niche for a reviewer to choose and that such a site must be deathly dull boring to anyone not interested in Hong Kong movies you'd be. . . WRONG!

This site has actually reviewed quite a range of genre flicks. Apparently "cult" is broadly defined here. Which is good news for heroic fantasy fans as the DVD release of a relatively recent Sci-Fi channel original movie was recently reviewed. It was even praised as an "modest but well-crafted" movie that "manages to rise a bit above the mediocrity of the usual Sci-Fi Channel fare."

Which movie gets such praise? Why it's none other than MERLIN AND THE BOOK OF BEASTS. A movie that, sadly, I missed entirely. Wish I could say the same for KNIGHTS OF BLOODSTEEL, a similarly themed heroic fantasy syfylys flick which was so bad I actually steered clear of syfylys channel original movies for a while. The review is not exactly glowing but it's earnest and honest in it's critique.

Viz. "Production values remain modest but decent enough otherwise, although the most the filmmakers manage in the way of interiors are a few rooms in the Arkadian's palace and some tunnels. A small courtyard set with a couple dozen extras is all we see of Camelot's inhabitants. Overall, the production design and cinematography are good and the film, while sparsely populated, has an attractive look."

Sadly this title is currently on sale at Amazon dot com for about 18 bucks, marked down from 20, and I have to say that there isn't a syfylys movie made that's worth that kind of scratch. There's just so many ways to spend 20 bucks. Alas using it to buy a syfylys movie is a waste. I'd sooner take a 20, pour lighter fluid on it, and burn it. Maybe if syfylys weren't so greedy and priced these DVDs modestly, say around 15 dollars to begin with then moving them to the 5 dollar bargain bin, so unless it comes up in the syfylys schedule again I'm going to pass. But read the review and decide for yourself. Sounds like this one might not have been all that bad.

# End of Line

Have you seen the Bearded Weirdo?

His reviews are actually pretty informative, for all that they give the entirety of the plot of most movies he's reviewing away. But then there's two kind of reviewers, those reviewing for people who have yet to see a movie (I count myself amongst this type) and those writing for people who've already seen the movie or who don't give a fig about spoilers. If this is you then you're going to love Bearded Weirdo Reviews. Just be advised this site is slightly NSFW. So if that discourages you from checking this site out read no further, because I'm about to talk about some grand fun reviews he's posted recently.

Still reading? Alrighty then get ready for the awesome!

In a recent review for The Warrior & The Sorceress the Bearded Weirdo had the following nuggets of wisdom to say about the sword-and-sorcery genre:

"Often, I find, uneducated video renters the world over use the terms 'sword-and-sorcery' and "fantasy" interchangeably. This is a tragic fallacy that must, must, must be corrected."

Mr. Weirdo goes on to explain, at length, the differences between high fantasy and heroic fantasy (the subset of fantasy to which sword-and-sorcery belongs). It's very interesting, even if the commentary gets a bit blue at times. My favorite nugget O'wisdom, at least what I can quote here, is the following:

"LORD OF THE RINGS is "high fantasy," not "sword-and-sorcery." Period. If a sword-and-sorcery hero ran into Frodo Baggins on some winding forest path in some faraway land of myth and mysticism... he'd beat the ever-loving sh!t out of that wimpy li'l hobbit bastard and steal his most cherished belongings. Then our unnamed savage ravager might go on an arson spree throughout all of The Shire, raping any hobbit ladyfolk he encountered along the way."

That does paint a picture. And what does that have to do with the movie mentioned above? Well you'll just have to read the review (The Warrior & The Sorceress) to find out! But the aforementioned review is a dull whitewashed piece of flotsam in comparison to the review for Demonwarp. You know you're in for something special when a reviewer's opening paragraph is:

"Why the f#@k would you ever go hiking in a place called Demonwood Forest? Seriously. What good could come of that? How could anything else but violent death await you? Have you people not seen any g-dd@mn horror movie, like, ever?"

Lots of expletives in this particular review. But if you can stick with it it's a real experience. Sort of like getting hit in the head with a volley ball at the beach. You're just sitting there minding your business then, out of nowhere, WHAM!

Alas Bearded Weirdo has not reviewed a lot of sci-fi features. This saddens me. Then again the few he has reviewed are full of his high octane critical wit. Behold what the Weirdo had to say about Barb Wire:

"BARB WIRE is the kind of movie that doesn't have a lot of fans who are willing to mention it without using that magic phrase "guilty pleasure" in the same breath. Like I said, I don't get the whole "guilty pleasure" thing, and I don't like it. To me, it's just a cop-out, and it smacks of "denying Jesus three times."

Well, Peter may have denied Jesus three times, but you won't soon catch me denying Pam Anderson even once. Not with this kind o' brilliant badness on her resume'."

I've read reviews that compare Barb Wire and Pamela Anderson to a lot of things but I don't think I've ever seen, heard, or imagined either would ever be compared to the life and times of Jesus. To be perfectly honest Barb Wire is a movie I've been meaning to write a review for, one day. I say "one day" because I've never really known where to start with it. Which is funny considering Mr. Weirdo got his review going with a lengthy rant about the absurdity of "guilty pleasures" which led to the following insightful overview of the movie:

"Inspired by the comic book of the same title, the film is a post-apocalyptic whirligig of bullets, bleached blond hair extensions, and black leather. It opens, like many a Bad-with-a-capital-B futuristic action flick, with a lengthy pre-credits scroll of white text in front of a harsh-looking "scorched earth" landscape that explains that the year is 2017 and America is involved in a second Civil War. Every city in the nation has fallen under an iron-fisted super-authoritarian government rule. Every city, that is, except for Wire's hometown of Steel Harbor <...>"

Nice synopsis. I particularly love the careful and well thought placement of an illustrative pic right next to this paragraph. (You'll just have to take my word for it if clicking the above link to visit a NSFW sight frightens you.) I should point out that Bearded Weirdo Reviews doesn't have a lot of movies currently under review. But the select few movies that have been reviewed are thoroughly critiqued. A very unusual and interesting review site. You should check it out soon.

# End of Line

Reflections on Barsoom, Part 3

3. The Naked Truth of Mars

If the past is prologue Disney, currently helming the John Carter of Mars project, is not likely to rush to take up the baton of aboriginal rights. This studio ran like a scared cat to the editing room to alter a brief segment from Fantasia that featured cartoon Centaurettes. The fact faux nudity and/or characterizations of fantasy creatures in a cartoon bothered anyone would be funny, if it weren't so ridiculous. But, to be fair, that anyone felt a cartoon required editing for content is a sign of shifting attitudes. What once didn't raise an eyebrow several decades ago becomes scandalous, or politically incorrect, today and so too might attitudes that obtain today seem archaic or puritanical decades from now.

How non-Aboriginal cultures treat depictions of aboriginal cultures often reveal far more about the non-Aboriginal culture than the true state of the aborigines themselves. One need look no further than documentaries aired on channels like PBS, Discovery, History, The Learning Channel, et al to see how such programs come saddled with warnings about "indigenous nudity" and, more often than not, blurring and digital fogging. Yet the MPAA rubberstamps movies depicting amoral violence in which it's okay (by their standards) to display eviscerated human bodies and internal organs yet, unbelievably, insanely, a woman's bared breast or buttocks must be blotted out as verboten to see. What this says about our culture, and it's self-anointed blowhard watchdogs, is too disturbing to contemplate here.

Nudity, in and of itself, is neither salacious nor provocative. Nor is it pornographic or erotic. It merely is. One does not become any less human, or worthy of dignity, because one has disrobed or lacks apparel. If this were the case no one would ever take off their clothes to bathe. We are born naked, not wearing burkas. Strip us of our trappings of culture and civilization and we become little more than naked apes, do we not?

Such reflections are at the core of the Barsoom novel series. For while nude John Carter is never truly naked, for he retains his wit. Edgar Rice Burroughs novels remind us it is intellect, not clothing, or trappings of civilization, that separate mankind from primates. Yet another reason for the lack of clothing on Barsoom, besides lack of resources for extensive textile manufacture, may be environmental. Extremes of heat and humidity may make it impractical for a primitive culture- or a culture with limited agricultural resources teetering on the brink of collapse, as is the case on Barsoom- to have more than rudimentary and crude textiles. Yet this does not preclude the use of skins or furs. Such certainly seems to be the case on Barsoom, or so we can extrapolate based on the following passage from Warlord of Mars:

The moment we entered the city Talu threw off his outer garments of fur, as did we, and I saw that his apparel differed but little from that of the red races of Barsoom. Except for his leathern harness, covered thick with jewels and metal, he was naked, nor could one have comfortably worn apparel in that warm and humid atmosphere.

Remember the examples of Frazetta's artwork? They're relatively timid and decorous in comparison to the reality of Barsoom as writ. And this is what Disney is planning to adapt into a movie? It doesn't make sense. Already the speculation is circulating with articles like `John Carter of Mars': Will It Dethrone `Twilight' As The Best Romance Flick? Viz:

"While “Twilight” fends off “True Blood” for supremacy over the vampire romance market, the Stephenie Meyer-penned series might have an unlikely lovelorn competitor to contend with — the newly announced “John Carter of Mars” starring Taylor Kitsch could well be Hollywood’s next romantic hit."

As are concerns such as: Disney to Fast Track John Carter of Mars Film:

John Carter is about as Disneyfiable as Tarzan is: In other words, not very. Worse, John Carter was a filthy Confederate reb. That's part and parcel of the character, and while Carter never really shows any racist tendencies in the novel (he does, after all, get along exceedingly well with both the green and red men of Mars), it's an integral part of his character, part of what makes him unique. Disney would whitewash that. And it's hard to believe Pixar would do justice to the visceral bloodshed, violence and carnage of Burroughs' classic martian pulp novels.

The worry is Disney will treat this like the typical Hollywood "property" and hire a hack to make-up their own story, slap the Barsoom name on it, and thus exploit Edgar Rice Burroughs novels to make a quick buck. The marketing possibilities if Disney turns this into a costume epic ala Pirates of the Caribbean, as the director already has indicated is the plan, are extensive. The money Disney could potentially rake in on product tie-ins with clothing lines, T-shirts targeted at 'tweens, fast food chains, action figures and their accessories, Halloween costumes, and plush toys shamelessly targeted at children will likely be phenomenal.

Alas, with the director announcing, before shooting so much as a single frame of film, this will be rated PG-13, and a PG-13 'tween flick at that, John Carter of Mars isn't likely to qualify as a faithful representation of Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom. It may be a pallid Goldkey version but not likely the Barsoom of A Princess of Mars. This may have critics crying foul and asking if Disney hasn't purchased their MPAA rating and that's why the project, which has languished in limbo for decades, is suddenly getting "fast tracked". There's lots of money at stake, yet so too is the literary vision of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

If Disney follows the usual pattern licensed products will be pushed into retail stores all across the country as part of the marketing blitz leading up to the release of the feature film. If we're lucky this may include new deluxe editions of the novels. And, this being Disney, there may even be a John Carter of Mars ride at Disneyland. That could be fun. But Barsoom isn't a carnival funhouse, it's not a joyride, nor should it be portrayed as such.

Studios buy the rights to something and (too often) just ignore the source material and make up an entirely different story, slap on the title of the "property" and wait for the suckers to buy tickets. It's repulsive. But it's business as usual in Hollywood. Yet, if you were to pull this kind of shell game in the food industry by advertising, say, salmon on your menu but serving catfish instead you'd be put out of business and probably fined, if not thrown into jail. Is it that Hollywood doesn't care? They say they respect authors' and their work, yet the movies they produce say otherwise. It's mind-boggling.

So what if Disney isn't likely to have the moral courage to present a candid and true representation of the aboriginals of Barsoom. They're a corporation, not cultural anthropologists. Should we hate them for wanting to make money? It's not like Disney is in the business of shaking kids down for their lunch money. At least there is going to be some version of Barsoom on the big screen, that's a good thing, right?

For those interested in the real Barsoom the full text of the novel "A Princess of Mars" can be downloaded from these sites: Project Gutenberg, Books Should be Free, and can be read online here: http://www.hoboes.com/FireBlade/Texts/Princess/. Those looking for more information on Barsoom or the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs should visit the following sites: Barsoom, Barsoomia, Official Edgar Rice Burroughs Tribute and Weekly Webzine Site, or The Robert E. Howard United Press Association. There's also some old concept art for Set Sketches for John Carter of Mars (1970's version), More John Carter, More JCOM, here's a page of Rare Unreleased John Carter of Mars Illustrations and, of course, there's always the artwork of Julie Bell and Boris Vellejo:

# End of Line

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

Reflections on Barsoom, Part 2

2. The Artistic Vision of Mars

Art reflects not only the mores and attitudes of the culture in which it is produced but reflects the sensibilities of the times in which it was created. While most readers familiar with the Barsoom novels may envision Edgar Rice Burroughs' hero, John Carter, and his adventures on Mars as portrayed in the artwork of Frank Frazetta:

That work represents but one artistic vision of Barsoom. Yet a quick Google for "Princess of Mars" turns up an ad containing this iconic model kit representation of Dejah Thoris:

Look for fan art online and this is an example of what you'll find:

Obviously that's inspired by master illustrator Frank Frazetta's work. Thus this artistic vision of Barsoom has obtained as the popular one. Granted times, and cultural mores, change. A Princess of Mars was first published circa 1912 as a multi-part serial in All-Story magazine. And it was portrayed quite differently way back when:

Yet it is Frazetta's work which is remembered for it more faithfully captures Barsoom as written in the novels. Yet even Frazetta's art was somewhat inhibited. For comparison here's an example of fan art for the character Dejah Thoris:

Actually, as you may have noticed, this particular character is far more prominent in the artwork than is the titular hero. Dejah Thoris has become an iconic figure, so no pressure on the director or actors, yet if fans don't get something like. .

Or perhaps. .

Or maybe even something like. .

The 'fan boys' will probably really get nasty, though not without just cause. Disney is synonymous will family friendly entertainment. That begs the question: What are they doing buying the rights to a pulp adventure series in which the characters seem to be either naked or half naked most of the time? Viz.

I looked first at my lifeless clay there upon the floor of the cave and then down at myself in utter bewilderment; for there I lay clothed, and yet here I stood but naked as at the minute of my birth.

Naked and unarmed as I was, I had no desire to face the unseen thing which menaced me.

With the exception of their ornaments all were naked.

She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure.

There are two ways to interpret this. The characters are either totally nude or they aren't. Naked can imply defenseless, unprotected, exposed, or without covering (as of hair or fur). The word's meaning depends on context. In the above the context is clear, it's used in reference to a character without apparel or clothing. Yet, as typical of many primitive cultures with limited textile resources, they are not entirely lacking ornamental adornments; thus in the context of their culture they are neither naked nor nude. It is only through the prism of our own culture that they appear so.

So why did the author portray the aboriginal inhabitants of Mars this way at all? Surely he must have been aware of this fact?

Indeed he was!

The characters are 'nude' in the novels not for salacious effect but because nudity was, once upon a time, viewed as being metaphoric for a return to an Eden-like state of primal grace. Yet the author also knew that their was a fine line between the "noble naked savage" and the merely "naked savage" and thus it is left to the reader to make their own mind up about the nature of the natives of Mars. Alas, in our contemporary society of the relative present, expressions of sexuality have fallen victim to politically correct fascism. In the lemming rush to judgment nudity has become viewed by purveyors of dogmatic Political Correctness as salacious and impure. This poses a dilemma since the main alien antagonists, a race of being called Tharks, and indeed most of the inhabitants of Barsoom, don't really wear clothes. Then again neither does every culture on our own planet. Witness the following images of Xingu natives of the Amazon river basin in Brazil:

Despite elements of modern influence in their dress their traditional ceremonial garb remains rather minimal, aside from body paint/tatoo art and beads. .

But are they nude or merely naked? Perhaps they are neither. There has always existed a double standard where depictions of aboriginal cultures in their so-called "native state" exist. Edgar Rice Burroughs pulled no punches with his writing about the aborigines of Barsoom, which is perhaps why his novels are so well received. They possess a reality as gritty and candid as any National Geographic article about native cultures. Alas few Hollywood studious have the moral, or intestinal, fortitude to stand up and treat aboriginals and their culture, even fictionalized representations, with the respect they deserve.

But what does this mean for the John Carter of Mars movie adaptation?

# to be concluded in Part 3

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

Reflections on Barsoom, Part 1

"This piece is something of a follow-up to last weeks John Carter of Mars is GO! examining certain concerns about the announced movie adaptation. It really began as a reply to a comment and just sort of ballooned into an full on article. While a bit long and dry in places I hope it isn't a entirely dull read. - KP

1. The Harsh Reality of Mars

If memory serves there's been talk of adapting Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels for the big screen for quite some time, the first almost-was production being an animated feature circa the 1930s then the almost-was Ray Harryhausen version discussed circa the 1980s. Paramount also had the rights circa 2000, but nothing much came of their attempt either. There may have been other aborted projects but these seem to be the best known almost-got-made attempts. So what's the hold up? What's the difficulty?

Perhaps the biggest obstacle are the novels themselves. These are old school pulp science fiction written not just in a time before political correctness but in a era when ideas about utopianism, naturism, socialism, eugenics (betterment of the species through selective breeding and/or genetic enhancement), and progressivism were being explored. Too, herein are aliens that are truly alien- not merely humans dressed up in bad costumes with prosthetic foreheads- and unabashed sexism. Or rather what the post-PC world would view as sexism. The hero, John Carter, is the epitome of what contemporary post-modern feminists would derogatorily refer to as an testosterone fueled chauvinistic male.

Why are these problems? Aside from the potentially awkward "politically incorrect" aspects there has been a shift in our social mores and attitudes. John Carter comes from an era when men were expected to be men, meaning self-reliant individuals who think for themselves and bow to no one. That's quite a departure from the prevailing mentality in our contemporary genuflecting victim culture. Too, the Tharks pose unique challenges all their own as they look like this:

Easy to do in animation or a CGI environment but difficult to do in a live-action movie. And that's just one of many strange looking creatures inhabiting Barsoom. Which explains why Pixar is involved.

Burroughs' Martians also seem to be an idealized eugenic society presaging the current trends in "green" eco-progressivism demanding the exertion of control over not merely the environment, per se, but how humanity lives (and dies) within it. Witness the following passage from A Princess of Mars:

I do not mean that the adult Martians are unnecessarily or intentionally cruel to the young, but theirs is a hard and pitiless struggle for existence upon a dying planet, the natural resources of which have dwindled to a point where the support of each additional life means an added tax upon the community into which it is thrown.

By careful selection they rear only the hardiest specimens of each species, and with almost supernatural foresight they regulate the birth rate to merely offset the loss by death.

Each adult Martian female brings forth about thirteen eggs each year, and those which meet the size, weight, and specific gravity tests are hidden in the recesses of some subterranean vault where the temperature is too low for incubation. Every year these eggs are carefully examined by a council of twenty chieftains, and all but about one hundred of the most perfect are destroyed out of each yearly supply. At the end of five years about five hundred almost perfect eggs have been chosen from the thousands brought forth. These are then placed in the almost air-tight incubators to be hatched by the sun's rays after a period of another five years. The hatching which we had witnessed today was a fairly representative event of its kind, all but about one per cent of the eggs hatching in two days. If the remaining eggs ever hatched we knew nothing of the fate of the little Martians. They were not wanted, as their offspring might inherit and transmit the tendency to prolonged incubation, and thus upset the system which has maintained for ages and which permits the adult Martians to figure the proper time for return to the incubators, almost to an hour.

The incubators are built in remote fastnesses, where there is little or no likelihood of their being discovered by other tribes. The result of such a catastrophe would mean no children in the community for another five years. I was later to witness the results of the discovery of an alien incubator.

While the term eugenics has become disused or carefully tiptoed around this is only because when taken to it's extreme it can become a dogmatic doctrine of racial purity. Such a doctrine was espoused by Nazi eugenicists, but then any science taken to extremes can become sinister. It is important to remember that Mr. Burroughs was not alone in writing about such thematic issues in his novels and that they were written long before the Nazi's came to power in Germany. Nor does the fact John Carter was a officer of the Confederacy bear any greater implications beyond the facts as laid out in the opening chapter of A Princess of Mars; namely that our would be hero finds himself destitute and adrift:

At the close of the Civil War I found myself possessed of several hundred thousand dollars (Confederate) and a captain's commission in the cavalry arm of an army which no longer existed; the servant of a state which had vanished with the hopes of the South. Masterless, penniless, and with my only means of livelihood, fighting, gone, I determined to work my way to the southwest and attempt to retrieve my fallen fortunes in a search for gold.

John Carter, formerly Captain of the Army of Virginia, was thus a man who found himself handed the shit end of fortune's stick yet managed to turn it around to his advantage. These facts form the thread from which the world of Barsoom was woven. Pull one out, white wash the facts, or substitute other threads and it is no longer Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom.

The current Barsoom project, tentatively titled John Carter of Mars, was first announced sometime circa 2006 or 2007, after Disney acquired the rights from Paramount, and, needless to say, this has had numerous actors and directors attached to it over the years. But, if the news from last week is any indication, it seems Disney/Pixar has finally decided to green light the project. More than that it appears this is planned to be a trilogy. But will it be Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom that makes it to the big screen?

One can only hope this adaptation wont be turned into some ludicrous, nonsensical, piece of garbage aimed at ADD riddled 'tweens and thus avoid the fate that befell the Land of the Lost movie. Alas this is Disney and Hollywood, where the odds that any adaptation will be faithful to the source material are slim to none. That may be a cynical view but then Hollywood is a cynical town. Then again considering this is also a Pixar movie that means there should be some potentially awesome CGI, I say potentially because Pixar does animated movies well but it remains to be seen how well they will be able to integrate their work into a live-action feature. Hopefully they'll do the VFX very well.

Despite this silver lining the fact remains it's a Disney production. One can't help but despair that what will be produced is a dumbed down, white washed, politically correct version of Barsoom. How much of the Barsoom found in Mr. Burroughs' novels will actually make it onto the screen? Sadly given the current trend to pander to the 'tween demographic with tweaked-out adventures one can only hope the worst that will be done is John Carter of Mars will be turned into a action adventure comedy with a romance subplot.

# to be continued in Part 2

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

John Carter of Mars is GO!

But will you want to watch it?

This news item has been percolating for some time. But as there have been announcements before that came to nothing I decided to take a wait-and-see approach. Seems, this time, the news may be more than mere pipedream rumor. Long story short the long awaited John Carter of Mars movie is finally a go. The bad news: It's going to be a Disney production. According to Screen Crave: "The director is leaning towards an older target audience, and expects the movie to be rated PG-13."

In other words it's going to be another dumbed down piece of 'tween targeted drivel. But then we already knew Hollywood was probably going to rape this "property", so don't expect a faithful adaptation; the novels are too politically incorrect for that. But maybe the director, Andrew Stanton (Wall-E, Nemo), is intelligent enough to realize such target audience pandering didn't work for Land of the Lost and come to his senses. Wouldn't you much rather hear a director talk about how faithful an adaptation he's going to make? The man's not even started shooting and he's already more worried about target demographics than shooting a faithful adaptation of the novels. Such is the way of Hollyweird; business first filmmaking last.

As for the cast so far it includes Taylor Kitsch (as John Carter), Lynn Collins (as Dejah Thoris) and, according to Screen Rant, Thomas Haden Church in an as yet to be identified role. The movie is slated to begin production either sometime in 2010 or this November, depending on which article you want to believe.

For more info see the articles at Screen Rant, Hollywood Reporter, MTV Movies Blog, Reel Talk, Screen Crave, KSL, and Slash Films.

# End of Line

Gemma Arterton "Clash of the Titans" update

Seems there's some minor buzz about pictures from the set of Clash of the Titans being posted to actress Gemma Arterton's website. Not much of real substance in the online articles so I'll just briefly recap what's known so far. The current U.S. release date for Clash of the Titans is listed as March 26, 2010. It's a remake/re-envisioning of the 1981 movie. Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk, Transporter 2) is the working director. Cast includes Sam Worthington as Persues, Liam Neeson as Zeus, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, and a whole lot of other people you've probably never heard of filling in various other roles. And what's Gemma Arterton's role?

This from actress Gemma Arterton's official website: "I'm playing a demi-goddess named Io. It's going to be a huge ensemble piece with loads of characters. The original was one of my favourites when I was a kid. The script is quite different from the previous film, though." (Read full comments here.)

Some pics of the actress as Io from her site:

There's also scans of a UK Empire magazine article about the movie to be found in the site's Clash of the Titans galleries. If you're looking for some real information about the movie I'd recommend the article Sam Worthington Talks Clash of the Titans, Avatar posted at Screen Rant in which the actor is quoted as saying: "We’ve done two weeks…We took on the Medusa. We’ve took on the witches. Next week we’ve got to take on the Scorpius and then we go and f*cking kill the Kraken." Classy. There's also a interesting article up at ScreenCrave, Two Join Clash of the Titans Remake, that's a bit dated but has some interesting snippets of character information.

# End of Line

New Director tapped for Conan feature film!

According to reports online here, here, and here Director Marcus Nispel, in what Variety calls a move "ending a nine-year development ordeal to reinvent the Robert E. Howard-created barbarian," will now helm the Conan the Barbarian (or whatever they plan to call it) movie project for Nu Image/Millennium/Lionsgate.

Who is Marcus Nispel?

Wired dot com calls him an "master of gory reboots". Reboots? Ah, yes, he's the one responsible for the remakes of Friday the 13th and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Haven't seen either movie. Heard one sucked harder than the black hole at galactic center while the other was dull, dreary, and totally unnecessary. Forget which was which. Of course you have to take such comments with a grain of salt these days as remakes almost never compare well to the original movies, even when they're fairly decent flicks in their own right.

Variety reports the remake is set to start filming sometime later this year in Bulgaria and South Africa "with a script by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer, whose credits include 'Sahara' and 'Cowboys and Aliens'." Cowboys and Aliens? Never heard of it. And what sort of a vision of Conan can we expect this director to bring?

Again, per Variety, "Nispel said he will blend his childhood imaginings of the character with the influence of the famous Conan illustrations by Frank Frazetta, and the influence of such viscerally violent period films as Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto'."

Say what? Apocalypto? That plodding, asinine, dull, intense, blood spattered, nudity filled, crazed smack upside the head of a neo-historical epic? This is what the director is citing as an influence? Well, as far as directors go, Mel Gibson is not that bad I suppose. At least Nispel isn't enamored of the works of Uwe Boll. And, like the guy at the MTV blog commented. .

"Say what you will about Mel Gibson and his headline-worthy antics, but “Apocalypto” really could be a perfect model for “Conan.” Bizarre make-up effects, brutal warfare and exotic locales? Sounds like the ideal road map for an epic “Conan” movie to us."

Could be good. Could be bad. Just so long as it finally gets made!

For more on this developing story I direct you to the fine articles at Cinematical, Chud, Geeks of Doom, and of course Variety.

# End of Line

Mise-en-scene Crypt now has a blogger presence!

For those who don't know Mise-en-scene Crypt was my original cinema themed blog. It covered a wider range of movie genres that Cosmic Cinema, mostly b-movies and exploitation, alas it was hosted on Yahoo 360. An abandoned platform. Long story short I've set up several back-ups yet have not been satisfied with how any of them handle. So, today, having finally backed up my Yahoo 360 blog to Yahoo's new "universal profile" and being totally disgusted with the result I've made the move to blogger.

It's a simple URL: http://cryptspace.blogspot.com/

It took Yahoo 2+ years to get around to providing a means to download a back-up of the blog, the less said about that mess the better, but I've managed to get the first Mise-en-scene Crypt post, slightly modified, up and posted.

Look for more posts soon.

Robert Rodriguez to direct Vaporware: The Movie

It suddenly occurred to me as I was reading through movie news articles online that director Robert Rodriguez has been announced as attached to more movies in the past couple years than a dog has fleas. Most of which have yet to materialize. Here's a short list of movie projects mentioned in recent articles: Red Sonja, Barbarella, Woman in Chains!, Jetsons, Conan, Madman, Sin City 2, Machete and, oh, no, wait this just in; Robert Rodriguez's "Barbarella" Adaptation Officially Dead!

Why? Because "he failed to get appropriate funding for the project". Or, as some online critics put it, he talked the talk but couldn't walk the walk. I think the news was broken on the MTV Movies Blog as the above article seems to be quoting a MTV interview, which points out this film project "had been in development for years" and that (after offering a reasonable sounding excuse) "Rodriguez reluctantly said no and moved on to other projects".

Yes that's projects, plural. Of course some online critics indicate it's likely only a matter of time before he finds a reasonable sounding excuse for why he's not filming all those other movies either. Honestly some of these articles are getting ranty. Now as readers of my blog know I enjoy a good rant every now and again but, jeepers, some of the "articles" are just plain nasty.

Then again when you see a headline like: Robert Rodriguez to Relaunch Predator Franchise

It's hard not to react with: Say what? And launch into a rant. .

Let me get this straight this article says the man found the time to write a script for Fox called Predators (a sequel to Predator) yet hasn't produced anything tangible beyond poster mock ups for Red Sonja? That article casually mentions that Machete- which featured as one of the faux movie trailers in Grindhouse- will begin filming in June of this year. Which sounds great but, wait, wasn't Red Sonja announced first? Then again, according to another article from Bloody Disgusting: "Alex Litvak is currently penning the new draft of Predators that's to be produced by Robert Rodriguez's Troublemaker Studios". So Mr. Rodriguez is merely the writer/producer on this project?

Maybe I just read the initial articles wrong but they sure made it sound like Mr. Rodriguez had announced he was directing all these projects. I am so confused. Maybe another article can clear matters up. And, wouldn't you know, here's another great headline for you: Sin City 2 Moving Forward.

That article reports: "Rodriguez [stated] that he had a few other commitments he had to complete before moving on to Sin City 2, but he is beginning talks with his creative team and could begin filming as early as next year."

He's not begun filming, much less wrapped, on ANY of the aforementioned projects (so far as I know) yet he's in talks to begin yet another film project? The man's a friggin' cinematic Hercules! How he is going to magically pull these movies out of his sphincter I don't know but I look forward to seeing them, er, the movies I mean.

Moving along. .

Predators is stated as having "a release date of July 9, 2010" so that's sounds like it's a solid commitment. But then so, supposedly, was the Barbarella project. I seem to recall Ms McGowan, the lovely red headed actress tapped to play the titular role, at one point was quoted as saying the sets had even been built. Yet, based on the articles above, it sounds like the current reports quoting Mr. Rodriguez are stating there was only some artist sketches and that the project never got out of the talky pre-production stage.

My brain hurts.

To summarize: Coming to a theatre near you maybe-perhaps-one day soon will be Robert Rodriguez's Vaporware: The Movie; probably-maybe-perhaps starring Rose McGowan.

A whole lot of nothing. That's the basic substance of the articles I've been reading. And that annoys me. So, in closing, I'd like to appeal to Mr. Rodriguez to PLEASE release a press statement about what you're really up to. These Internet rumours are giving me a migraine.

Thank you. Have a lovely day.

#end of line

The Clash of the Titans has begun!

Or has it?

The good news is there's reports circulating that Warner Bros begins production on Clash of the Titans and "will begin filming in studios outside London and will later shoot in various locations in Wales and in the Spanish Canary Islands, predominantly on Tenerife, off the coast of Africa. Further aerial work is set to take place in the diverse locales of Ethiopia and Iceland". The bad news (from here) is: "the movie is currently in pre-production and is slated for an Australian release on April 1, 2010."

So the new Clash of the Titans hasn't quite begun filming, as of mid April 2009, yet, if the report quoted above is to be believed, it's going to be released on April 1^st (Fool's Day?) of 2010. Fish and chips anyone?

Perhaps the best write-up using such threadbare information is the article Filming begins on Clash of the Titans. My favorite part is: "The project is described as the ultimate struggle for power, which pits men against kings and kings against gods." Alas in yet another of the great Internet contradictions the article wraps with the following statement: "Clash of the Titans has begun filming in studios outside London and will later shoot in Wales and Tenerife."

Well which is it? Is the film "currently in pre-production" about to "begin filming" or actually in production, as the above article claims?

According to IGN dot com (which seems to be the source for many of these articles) : Titans Start Clashing as "Principal photography began today (April 27) on Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures' epic action adventure Clash of the Titans".

Yet in The Australian article Classic role for rapidly rising Sam it states: "This week the National Institute of Dramatic Art graduate (Sam Worthington) began filming his third blockbuster in quick succession, Clash of the Titans. In the past 18 months he has taken leading roles in James Cameron's ambitious 3-D sci-fi film Avatar, which is due for release at Christmas, and opposite Christian Bale in the June 4 action release Terminator Salvation. <...> The Somersault star will take it down a peg in Clash of the Titans, a remake of the 1981 film <...> due for release in April next year."

There you go. Apparently it's true. Assuming the movie keeps to this announced schedule that means Clash is going to be shot, go through post, and released to theaters in barely a year's time, at least in Australia. Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Maybe it wont be all that bad? Maybe it wont be a CGI crap fest that goes straight to SyFy? Maybe.

Sigh.

#end of line

Sale on at Amazon

Film Fans take note there's currently a big Amazon Sci-Fi Sale on DVDs.

Also Ye Cosmic Cinema Amazon Shop has been updated with more titles and new categories.

Mise-en-scene Crypt rises from the grave!

Greetings Film Fans,

After what seems like forever Yahoo 360 has FINALLY accepted, saved, and posted a prepared HTML for Mise-en-scene Crypt. So for you exploitation film lovers that means there's fially a fresh review up. It's short, to the point, and full of screen caps from Black Candles.

Enjoy!

P.S. Or, should the page not load, go the new Mise-en-scene Crypt (pain in the arse that it is) and view the same review here.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[TGIF] Spotlight On: Reviews

Every reviewer has their own approach. Some like to break a movie down, scene by scene, while others offer bare bones op-ed pieces that barely tell you anything and then there's the reviews that read more like ad copy. As those who've read the reviews here at Cosmic Cinema and at Mise-en-scene Crypt know my style is to try to present facts and a overview of the movie without giving too much away, when possible. But have you ever wondered what a reviewer looks for in a review?

To answer that question, and find out if the reviewers read reviews that reflect their own reviewing style, I'd like to start with a recent review I read A Spaghetti-Flavored Road Warrior —- “2019 : After The Fall Of New York” (word of warning that review may contain spoilers) from the Trash Film Guru blog. Here's a movie I've been intending to review but, for whatever reason, never got around to it. Sure I've started a review a few times but I've always felt my review style couldn't do this sort of movie justice. I mean where to begin? Well, if you're the Trash Film Guru you start with a simple question:

"Anybody else besides me miss the days when any reasonably successful — and reasonably cheap — movie genre birthed scores of Italian knock-offs? Yes, whether it was westerns, crime flicks, zombie movies, or Hitckcockian-style thrillers, there was always an Italian who figured he could do it quicker, cheaper, and—most importantly—bloodier."

As a matter of fact, yes, yes I do miss the era of quickie knock-offs. And not just those produced by Italians! Roger Corman was the king of knock-offs. When Hollywood released ALIEN Mr. Corman gave us GALAXY OF TERROR. When CONAN hit the big screen Mr. Corman gave us DEATHSTALKER. Of course the Italians were also quick to cash in on the sword-and-sorcery craze with movies like CONQUEST

The following line from Trash Film Guru's above review applies to most films produced during this golden age of knock-offs: "The special effects for this film are so mind-numbingly stupid they’ve got to be seen to be believed."

Amen brother!

However one thing missing from that review are screen caps. If you're like me screen caps make good reviews better and bad reviews tolerable. And you know what blog I book marked because the reviewer makes ample use of screen caps, Movies About Girls (formerly Boobs!). Just check out any of the following recent reviews to see why (warning may be NSFW): Cheerleaders Wild Weekend, Evil Toons, and Cougar Club. The reviews are informative, let you know availability of the movies, and, for those not on dial-up, there's even some trailers. There's even a nice tang of acerbic wit. For instance take this from the opening paragraph of the Cougar Club review:

"First off, I should point out the obvious: if you use the word "cougar" when describing older women who prefer the company of younger men, then please, stop reading. Just get the f#ck out of here. This "cougar" business is so obnoxious that it can really only appeal to college-age power-pukers, so how this film managed to get produced - and with an actual budget, and with actual actors - is seriously beyond me."

It gets worse, dear friends, much worse. I caught this movie on satellite. And, while I can't repeat the summary given for the movie here (lots of naughty curse words that we don't want the kiddies to read) I do mostly agree with it. This is an obnoxiously lame movie that could have been so much better, alas it never quite delivers in the titillation department and, well, read the review.

Of course there's far more than just blogs out there. One of the sites in the links sidebar is Tars Tarkas. A nice site with reviews of the interesting, not so interesting, and totally unexpected. Reviews of things like Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. You'll just have to click the link on that one. Articles like this will make you wish for a direct downlink into your brain. However when I want to look for informative reviews I have two sites book marked Bad Movies dot org and Eccentric Cinema. Also worth a look, though the host seems to be on a short hiatus, is Million Monkey Theatre.

I've way more links in my bookmarks than that but, well, it's Friday and I figure that if you're still reading you must really be bored. So, to close this out, here's a few more sites that should be interesting (and probably NSFW) that should help you pass the time: Nunsploitation and Encyclopedia of WIP Films. Both sites offer reviews and (some) screen caps.

Enjoy the sites and try to stay out of trouble over the weekend film fans!

#end of line

Clash of the Titans remake finally getting made?

Looks like there's finally some progress happening with the Clash of the Titans remake that was announced back in 2006. The big news is Liam Neeson has been tapped for the part of Zeus. However what's disconcerting is, according to the articles (written April of this year), "Shooting will begin on the film later this month in Britain and will see Neeson team up with Ralph Fiennes for the first time since 1993 Oscar winner Schindler's list."

Fiennes will apparently be playing the part of Hades. Other actors announced include Mads Mikkelsen (as Draco), Gemma Arterton (as the demi-goddess Io), Alexa Devalos (as Andromeda), and Sam Worthington (as Perseus). In other words it's taken close to three bloody years just to get out of the announced idea slash pre-production stage and into the maybe-possibly-perhaps ready to start shooting stage. This article mentioned that Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk) will direct.

But has it actually gotten to the production stage? This project has been bandied about for quite a few years with many different names attached to it.

One article casually mentions the film is "due out next year", which if true doesn't bode well for the film's quality in my opinion. It is now April. For this movie to get filmed, go through post production, and hit theatres sometime next year would mean this would have to literally be one of those hackneyed rush jobs where principle photography is done in a few weeks (or less) and post-production takes months. If this is the case my vote is just save critics poison pens the ink and trash the project before it further devolves into a straight to SyFy monstrosity.

Too, I am forced to ask, why Neeson as Zeus? I'm not saying Neeson can't play the role. But it seems like the only reason he got cast was name recognition. Has anyone involved with this lame duck production bothered to LOOK at the CENTURIES worth of artifacts in museums? Does Neesom remotely resemble any statue or, say, any idealized painting of Zeus?

Granted you put the right fake beard on Mr. Neeson and he'll look fine, but then you could probably say that of anyone. I suppose that "name power" trumps casting to type. Unless you're talking about statuary from the archaic period, in which case I think there were a few representations of Zues sans beard from that era. Yet Liam, in his prime, was more of an Apollonian youth. As a veteran actor Mr. Neeson, in my opinion, has the gravitas to portray Hades. Similarly Fiennes seems better suited to filling the sandals of Hephaestus. But what do I know. All I was ever able to come up with as a fantasy cast for my version of Clash of the Titans was a flawed, if entertaining, group of character actors. .

Yes, I know, there's no Centauress in Clash. But, c'mon, it's Jolene Blalock! Topless! Now THAT would be worth the price of admission.

#end of line

Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire

After sitting through the 1 hour premiere that aired earlier this evening I wasn't going to admit ever knowing this existed, much less watching it. It's that lame. But what's infuriating is it shouldn't be. This has potential to be a BLACK ADDER quality dark comedy or a tits out in-your-face adult spoof. Alas it's one dull Jr. High School cliché after another. Even the basic plot is standard Fantasy 101. You have the wouldbe hero fighing the evil power, ala Robin Hood, that's also the prophesied "Golden Boy" (or whatever) and his band of merry men plus one woman. Krod is sort of Roar meets South Park in a Mirror, Mirror D&D setting.

However in reading comments over at the IMDB forum one stuck out: "The girl was pretty sexy, but that's about it."

Amen, brother!

The "hot chick" is pretty much the only reason to tune in, even if she is called Aneka (played by relative newcomer India de Beaufort) in blatant satire/nod to the Anakin character from the prequel Star Wars trilogy. Alas, this being the post politically correct era, and a non-premium commercial cable television station, her main attributes are never really on display to distract us from the tedium and the less than salubrious semi-puns.

So what reeled me in to watch the pilot initially? The fact the promos made it look like a medieval comedy with touches of sword-and-sorcery, that and recognizing a few comedy faces from BBC America promos from a few years back. For instance the villain, Chancellor Dongalor (Matt Lucas), is a British star known for doing a comedy show called Little Britain. His evil minion sidekick Barnabus (Alex MacQueen), while not immediately known to me, appears to be another star of British comedy series. Then there is Zezelryck- the "token black" sorcerer whose character is also an bumbling "comedy side kick"- played by Kevin Hart; an American comedian whose talents seem wasted here.

Considering how much comedic talent I've identified so far the level of un-funny on display is bewildering. Worse, the actor playing Krod (the dork hero of the piece) is Sean Maguire, the English actor who played Leonidas in the OFT maligned spoof of 300, MEET THE SPARTANS. So far I've somehow managed to not see that movie but I've heard a lot about how bad it's supposed to be. And, yes, all the "jokes" in Krod are as elementary and transparent as the title suggests.

Is it utterly lame? Well there weren't any real laughs for the first half hour. For a comedy show that was pretty astonishing. Then again the one or two laughs I experienced were, for the most part, not with the show but at it. I really hope this gets better. The promo for next week's episode show's John Rhys-Davies, so I may tune in, but if Dork, sorry, Krod doesn't give us something remarkable and entertaining next week's episode will likely be my last. So unless someone gets their kit off or does something truly amazing I wont be wasting a DVDR or review space on it.

So, I guess, take this more as a warning than a review. Even though this could have potential it's off to a pretty bad start and Comedy Central will have a uphill battle to make this work. And considering the decline in quality of the Adult Swim programming on Cartoon Network and the general trend for mediocre elementary school humor on what few non "reality" series remain I just don't know that this show is going anywhere worth following on a weekly basis. Considering I'd recommend the Deathstalker and Ator movies, which aren't exactly Shakespeare, that makes Krod pretty bad. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

#end of line

Will Blake's 7 ever get rebooted?

It's been nearly a year since I posted a snippet about an announced Blake's 7 remake/ redo/ reboot series. What's happened in that time? Apparently not much. Curious I did a bit of Googling and turned up a fascinating article The many proposed returns of Blake's 7 at Den of Geek. What I did not know when I posted that original snippet, but the aforementioned article has made clear, is efforts to bring Blake's 7 back to the small and/or big screen have a history seemingly more convoluted than the myriad attempts to get a Battlestar Galactica continuation made.

The article summarized how it was circa April 2008 that Sky (a UK broadcast station I believe) announced they'd green lit two scripts "for a potential event series" and recounts how a number of production companies were established as early as 2003. Viz: "[the production companies] first took form in July 2003 when they announced that they had acquired the rights to the series from a producer [who] had bought the rights from the estate of Terry Nation back in April 2000 with the intention of filming a TV movie set some 20 years after the original series."

And that "they announced that they were planning a TV miniseries <...> the series would be entitled Blake's 7: A Rebellion Reborn, it <...> would be set 25 years on from the events of the last episode <...> the series would appear by the Spring of 2005. However, in December 2003" it all fell apart.

If you're interested in Blake's 7 that article is a must read. It's really the only bit of news I've seen about the announced Blake's 7 remake/redo/whatever since last year. And while it's really just pointing out nothing official has been said and is asking what's going on it provides a fair amount of background information about the series. Kudos to the author.

For the really curious there's apparently an official site for the reboot/remake effort. While the site doesn't appear to have been updated in awhile it's chock full of info. Check it out here: http://www.blakes7.com/

#end of line