Dealing with MSN as an ISP and their Tech Support

And 10 Things I've Learned after 2+ Weeks of Updates gone Wrong and a day Wasted Waiting on hold between being shunted from one Call Center to the next.

Or

Lamentations of a Man who Thought the Problem had been Fixed.

1. Tech support is a misnomer. Tech savvy they're not (9 times out of 10).

2. You can never get a straight answer but will learn to either endure their "agents" (when did "operators" go out of style?) trouble shooting "checklist" or defenestrate your phone.

3. MSN as an ISP when it comes to "update" time means one hour/day you can connect, the next you can't; just as one hour/day when you call tech support you're assured your OS is supported but the next day/hour you're told it isn't and you should upgrade to VISTA/ XP/ whatevah. (see #2)

4. It takes 1-5 minutes to actually get passed the stupid automated call center, whether you try to annunciate clearly or not doesn't matter. You can recite poetry, play heavy metal, put the phone down and watch paint dry, you just have to endure those 1-5 minutes until the automated call center forwards you to the live call center.

5. While waiting to be forwarded to the next live "agent" you'll be inundated with canned info blurbs (spoken by a woman that sounds suspiciously like Demi Moore) informing you that all your problems can be fixed online. 'Did you know. .' the voice will begin, and repeat over and over and over as MSN rapes your ear hole with nonsense you couldn't care less about.

6. It takes a minimum of 1-5 minutes to give the people in the live call center your information before they'll actually TALK to you about why you're calling.

7. It will take 5-10 minutes of explaining your problem to the "tech support" people before they forward you to a "specialist", who you'll have to explain everything to all over again.

8. If you call "after hours" (meaning anytime after 12 noon EST) your call has a 50/50 chance of going to a call center where everyone has Indian or Pakistani accents. (The chance goes up to 100% after 5-7 o'clock EST.)

9. People with strange accents that may or may not be in a call center in India or Pakistan do not comprehend "M-E" as a operating system, but if you tell them "millennium" (and give them a minute or three to put you on hold while they consult their call center manual) may recognize it as a OS that Miscosoft has tossed into the dung heap, along with anyone still unfortunate enough to have a machine running it. (Don't laugh. It was okay as an crappy iMachine for internet usage, until a couple weeks ago.)

9. When dealing with call center people with the hard to place accents no matter how many times you explain simple concepts, like explaining what your OS is or your current browser version, they'll stick to their "check list" and never quite grasp that "I'm on DIAL-UP" means you can't A) connect while you are talking to them, B) are calling them because you can't connect thus you can't DOWNLOAD updates, and; C) if you're lucky their trouble shooting "fixes" don't do anything to make your problem worse. If you're lucky.

10. When the tech support guy with the funny foreign accent says all you need is to upgrade to the most current version of the proprietary browser software and everything will be fixed; it'll only make the problem worse. (As in NOTHING WORKS after.)

11. Finally- yes, like Spinal Tap, I can't count too well- it took one heck of a talk, explaining re-explaining, questioning with confused frustration, for someone to finally hem and haw around the truth, which I suspected all along (despite being told otherwise in what amounts to bold faced lies): My OS is NOT supported. Microsoft has apparently (I'm guessing; see #2 above) instituted a new 'framework' update designed to cut off all OSes older than XP and Vista. Why I couldn't have been told this 2+ weeks ago is beyond me. My best guess is MSN wanted to get one more month of FEES out of me. I am not amused. I am not a happy camper. I will NOT be continuing with MSN. Where I'll end up, with whom, or if I'll be back any time soon only the Fates can augur.

# end

P.S. I knew I shouldn't have posted that message about eugenics and the apocalypse. ;-)

Expect me when you see me my friends!

L8r!

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

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

LAND OF THE LOST: A CONTINUATION

The more comments I read online about Will Ferrel's LAND OF THE LOST movie the more I wonder what is really behind Hollywood's continuing master plan of buying established "properties" and turning them into dumbed-down formulaic drivel. Do they honestly believe the average Joe and Jane Doe are morons? Or is there perhaps something far more sinister going on here?

Put your tinfoil hats on boys and girls because a rant be a-coming! Got those tinfoil hats on? Excellent! As I was saying. .

It seems that with every remake and/or "re-envisioning" I read about the quality and content of the movies gets progressively worse. I use the word "progressive" advisedly as someone commented that this movie was progressive. Really? Now I'm no expert on politics (discussions of "the left" and "the right" and their purported differences and agendas confound me) but there was a progressive movement that took root around the early part of the 20^th century that; not unlike the National Socialist party (Nationalsozialismus) which came to power in Germany circa the late 1920s; had a master plan to foment economic, political, social, and moral change. In short this is social engineering. To grossly oversimplify the goal of a social engineer is to manipulate the masses to affect societal and/or geo-political change. How does one begin? Simple, by chipping away at the foundation of the established order.

Over time these cracks will weaken the foundation and the social engineer, who is following a master plan for slowly and deliberately changing the established order, will insert slivers into those cracks to widen them. This is plainly what's been going, not just here in the United States, but on a global scale for the past few decades. And, based on the comments I've been reading, Will Ferrell's movie may be the latest sliver intentionally inserted into those cracks.

Most of the commentary I've read seems to be saying that Hollywood has taken what was a naïve Saturday morning kids series with cheezy and dated VFX and turned it into a repository for juvenile bathroom humor, sexual innuendo, and brazenly targeted (inapporpriately) a movie that's totally lacking moral substance at a impressionable youth audience. The original series wasn't exactly Aesop's fables but it did end on a moralistic note most of the time. Apparently the Hollywood re-envisioning takes a great big dinosaur piss on morality and laughs about it while doing so. I'd say it's a shameful disgrace but Hollywood has no sense of shame. But it is yet another lost opportunity to create something worthwhile.

Thus, since Hollywood seems to not want to put forth the effort to make entertaining movies as they are apparently caught up in the cogs of some social engineer's master plan for destroying the established order of our society I've taken it upon myself to present a germ of what might have been. .

(Psst. You can take those tinfoil hats off now.)

* * *

Opening Scene: Xenoarchaeologist Stewart (male) & Cryptozoologist Temperence (female) visit the ranch of an elderly Marshall to interview him about an incident that happened in the Grand Canyon. They're interested in folklore about Egyptian tombs but discover something far more bizarre.

After much cajoling (and talking with Marshall's current wife) Marshall agrees to talk. .

Stewart: What do you remember?

Marshal: Not much. Will, Holly, and I were rafting. It was a beautiful day, Holly was using the new compassing I gave her. .

Temperence: Compass?

Marshall (laughing): Yes. I know it sounds silly, since we knew where we were, but it was a different time. I wanted Holly to know how to take care of herself and so I was teaching her all that I could, including how to use a compass.

Stewart: So there was nothing unusual then?

Marshall: I didn't say that.

Temperence and Stewart exchange glances.

Marshall: I remember Holly saying something about the compass not working right anymore then. . Then the entire canyon all around us began to shake. It was like being caught in the greatest earthquake ever known.

Temperence: Only there's no record of such a quake.

Marshall (face a mask of grief): Don't I know it.

Marshall's wife: That's enough. It's time for you two to. .

Marshall (holding up had): No, it's alright, I'll be alright. .

Stewart: Maybe we should come back some other. .

Marshall (face suddenly stern): I'm old. Not much time left, best I get this story out while I still can, while there's someone willing to listen. Look, I know there's not record of any quake, if you've done your research like you say you have you know I was found feverish and delirious several weeks and several hundred miles away from where our raftng journey began.

Fade to a montage scene recapping the series as a voice over begins leading into the familiar, yet different, LOTL theme song.

* * *

What Hollywood, in it's heinous desire to urinate on all that was good in the original series, failed to realize is they had a great opportunity here to create a continuation series of movies. The principle actors are, I believe, all still alive. The perfect setup would have been to pick-up the story these many years later. Their is a lot of interest in U.F.O. related folklore and enigmas, like cryptozoology, so all you'd really need is to find a hook. From what I've read they sort of use this as a hook, but in a back-handed manner. But I digress. .

The best hook is in the series itself. The family was rafting in a canyon. What canyon? Well let's call it the grand canyon. Anyone that's read a book like FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY or a magazine like ANCIENT AMERICAN knows there's plenty of "mysteries" out there for a script writer to exploit. The first hit in Google for the search parameters; "grand canyon" AND Egypt; was this: Grand Canyon - Egypt Connection. Another hit was this article: Ancient Egyptian Treasures In The Grand Canyon? And there's also this: An Archeological Whodunnit! - Egyptian Artifacts in the Grand Canyon.

Therefore our premise is a simple one: researchers researching the Grand Canyon mysteries go to meet with Marshall, as outlined above, and this sets them on a expedition whose journey leads them into the LAND OF THE LOST. Wherein they meet not a series of unfunny site gags but a perilous Lost World of strange fauna and unusual flora. A Lost World wherein we might encounter Will and/or Holly who perhaps rescue our would be xenon-archaeological explorers. Thus a grand adventure unfolds on screen drawing on themes from UFOlogy, myth, and folklore that's merely the first chapter of a new film franchise.

Alas this doesn't seem to be the route Hollywood chose. Based on the scathing critical reviews I've read (and the scenes they bombarded the public with on cable/TV as part of the ad campaign) they wanted fart jokes, sexual innuendo, gay site gags, and to depict the primitive Neanderthal-like Chaka as a pervert unable to control himself. Yeah, that's a nice one folks, they're basically saying primitives and primitive cultures are incapable of self-control. This is the same sort of crude "humor" the Nazi eugenicists used to vilify Jews. Is this really what Hollywood thinks is funny? Recycling the "humor" of racist hatred?

Yet, having not seen the movie, I have to step back, take a deep breath, and ask myself if it's really as bad as some have made the movie sound. I hope not. I really hope not.

# End of Line

Why no Carmilla movies from Hollywood?

Hollywood. Motion picture remake capital of the world. Yet, with an endless supply of movies and scripts to reuse, their choices of late have been questionable at best. The blogosphere has been abuzz with critics and reviewers castigating the most recent theatrical debacle, Will Farrell's ill received LAND OF THE LOST. Alas Hollywood is a leviathan. Like Godzilla it is fierce and unstoppable with goals mere humans fail to comprehend. Surely the executive who greenlit LAND OF THE LOST probably assumed it would be a cakewalk to take some 70s era Saturday morning TV show (whose movie rights they probably picked up for a song and a dance) and hire some hack script writer to "re-envision" it by updating it to modern times and adapting it for that all-important 'tween demographic! C'mon a PG-13 low brow comedy starring Will Ferrel, how could you lose, right?

I'm sure that executive probably wished he'd greenlit some Alf, Saved By the Bell, The Facts of Life, Eight is Enough, Happy Days, Benson, or F Troop: The Movie instead. But she (or he) didn't so I'm going to dust off an old post and share an grand idea with Hollywood that's got EASY MONEY written all over it.

Since vampire themed movies and series seem to be "in" right now how about revisiting a Hammer Studios classic: The Karnstein Trilogy. You know, that series of movies about Sheriden Le Fanu's Carmilla? It's a literary classic. EASY MONEY!

More precisely what we are going to produce is a new three movie arc similar to the one put out by Hammer Studios. Remember vampires are "in" they're "hip" and "cool" and both adults and 'tweens love 'em! Better yet you can have your cake and eat it too. Film all the nudity and gore you want, edit it for theatrical release in both PG-13 and R versions. Milk that audience. Or, heck, just release it to theaters PG-13 then release the UNCENSORED super duper DIRECTOR'S CUT to a special edition DVD. EASY MONEY!

Thus, for your consideration, I present my take on re-Inventing the Hammer Karnstein Trilogy. Are you listening Hollywood?

First: Return to the source.

Second: Nix the pseudo-Satanic Devil worshipping mumbo-jumbo and replace it with psuedo-Occult mumbo-jumbo suited to the time period.

Third: Re-write the scripts as part of a larger interlinked story arc.

Fourth: Alter the line-up so "Twins of Evil" becomes the lead-in "prequel" movie of the trilogy. This will require a bit of rewriting as it needs to set the stage for "Vampire Lovers" and should provide some background for Carmilla, thus making her entry in "Vampire Lovers" part of her flight from the Witch/Vampire Hunters of Twins of Evil leaving Lust to become more of a suspense thriller ghost story.

Fifth: Any of the following actors who are still alive and willing to appear in a movie should be worked into these remakes via cameos, bit parts, &tc: Udo Kier, Dame Edna, Helen Mirren, Tom Baker, Paul Naschy, Sandahl Bergman, Max von Sydow, and any other genre regular I might have forgotten who'd be willing to appear.

That said you need name talent. But not just any name talent. We need someone in this that will pique an audiences curiosity, get them interested in the movie based just on the strenght of name recognition. That said here's one possible casting route. .

Of course it may be a bit tricky getting these gals to want to appear in such a movie franchise. You don't want to break the bank on actors salaries so, if they can't be convinced, you'll need a back-up plan. Which, EASY MONEY, should probably begin with a open casting call. Preferably looking for actual twins. You'll probably save money this way. I know, crazy idea, but it just might work!

Calm down. You can still hire models, if you must, but, EASY MONEY, you know how the game is played these days. Product placement is everything. Why not, say, get Hugh Hefner to PAY YOU to give his playmates a cameo. Talk about product placement! Wink, wink nudge, nudge.

All kidding aside, Hollywood, you really can do this thing. Yes you can. So let's get serious and begin with. .

Twins of Evil

Bring this closer in line with the facts established in the written story (which will really be what Vampire Lovers is about) as much as possible for a prequel. I've got a solid cast outlined that's sure to be a box office hit, might need to alter the story a little, but don't lose any of the salaciousness. Here we are introduced to Carmilla and at least two attendants, as there was a woman in the coach and a coach driver who must escape with her. Thus this can serve as the reason for her flight in the second movie.

Here's a sample cast, just to give you a general idea of what could be. Not saying there aren't better choices out there but, at present, these actors would probably be fairly decent choices. Besides I know you're probably jonesin' for a name recognition fix.

Gustav Weil. . . .Sean Bean
Dietrich. . . .Ben Kingsley
Maria Gellhorn. . . .Mary-Kate Olsen
Frieda Gellhorn. . . . Ashley Olsen
Ingrid Hoffer. . . .Claudia Black
Countess Mircalla. . . .Milla Jovovich
Count Karnstein. . . .Gil Bellows

The Vampire Lovers

Definitely keep the innocent Sapphic subtext but tighten the story up a bit here or there. Mainly by showing how alone Laura is so that the audience sympathizes with and better understands why she so readily welcomes Mircalla. It's that innocent hunger for friendship resulting from isolation and loneliness, in addition to Laura's naïveté, which Mircalla preys upon. That was something the original movie glossed over. Also the movie needs an new ending suitable as a set up for the final movie in the trilogy arc. Not too many changes otherwise, aside from fresh costuming and sets, of course.

General von Spielsdorf. . . .Pete Postlethwaite
Baron Joachim von Hartog. . . .Steve Railsback
Laura. . . .Alyson Hannigan
Mircalla Karnstein. . . .Milla Jovovich
Emma Morton. . . .Kirsten Dunst
The Governess. . . .Jennifer Aniston

Lust for a Vampire

A few changes. As in the original a young woman attends a boarding school however she is not Carmilla raised from the dead by blood ritual. Rather she is merely a possible Karnstein descendant (Clarmila) who becomes possessed by the spirit of Carmilla. Similarly Giles, rather than being some satanic acolyte, now merely becomes an older man desperate to hold onto life who, through a series of events, learns of the true nature of the spirit possessing Clarmila and seeks to help the spirit take over her body en total so that he might become immortal. Too, more time should be spent developing the school setting, specifically the teachers, their classes, and student interactions. Thus this version is played more as a suspense thriller perhaps in the Suspira vein with lots of misdirection as to what's really going on. Viz. Clarmila may not be Carmilla but what if her classmates believe her to be her reincarnation at the beginning only to find out, after accepting she's not, that Carmilla's spirit is possessing her! And what of the mysterious Mircalla, the student no one seems to know?

Mircalla Karnstein. . . .Milla Jovovich
Clarmila. . . .Laura Prepon
Giles Barton. . . .David McCallum
Miss Simpson. . . .Helen Mirren (principal)
Janet Playfair. . . .Summer Glau (dance teacher)
Margaret Daunse. . . .Lake Bell (music teacher)

Not sure about the rest of the cast for this one. Obviously it would need a lot of "schoolgirls" and a few background characters. Did I mention the need to cast a LOT of NUBILE "schoolgirls"? C'mon all those 'tween gals? In a lesbian vampire movie? With the political climate the way it is this could be promoted as a gay anthem movie. Play your cards right and straight guys will flock to see this along with the entire gay and lesbian community. EASY MONEY!

Or you can grow a set and shoot political correctness in it's rabid head and just hire every Playboy and/or Penthouse playmate you can find and tell the MPAA to f--- off so they'll REFUSE the movie certification. I doubt 'tweens have changed all that much from my youth. Well, okay, they may be a bit more jaded about sexuality given what they have access to via the Internet but that's all the more reason NOT to pull the punches and make a dumbed down sanitized PG-13 piece of drivel. Besides nothing draws a crowd like people telling them they are NOT allowed to see something. Quote the MPAA's outrage in your ad copy. EASY MONEY!

# End of Line

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

Is Will Ferrell the cinematic Anti-Christ?

Or is LAND OF THE LOST just a really, really, really bad movie? The Washington Post seems to be leaning toward that opinion. Behold the first paragraph of their review of LAND OF THE LOST:

Soiler alert: Toward the end of the comedy remake of Sid and Marty Krofft's '70s lunchbox leftover, "Land of the Lost," Will Ferrell is eaten by a T. rex and then excreted out the creature's back end. Fans know to interpret this as a personal artistic statement from the actor. It's a metaphor for most of his movies now, and what happens to audiences who go in hoping for another "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy" and come out smelling of "Step Brothers" and "Semi-Pro."

Let me preface my remarks by saying, of all SNL alum, Mr. Ferrell is one of the more annoying character performers I've ever witnessed. Yet he does a very good George Bush impression. That said I neither like nor dislike the man, per se, so much as wish some of his unfunny characters would fade away. Alas he seems like a stain on a old carpet. No matter what you do you can't get rid of it.

Here's another typical opening statement about LOTL from a review posted at Detroit Free Press:

Stupid on an epic scale or epic on a stupid one, "Land of the Lost" is as close as Will Ferrell comes these days to a kid-friendly movie.

And an article at Newsweek (blog) asks the question: Is "Land of the Lost" Ferrell's Worst-Reviewed Movie Ever? And contains the following intriguing comment:

The critics have been brutal -- anytime a movie is dismissed as "an ersatz pot of dinosaur piss," you might wanna consider other ways to drop $12.

It gets better, or worse, depending on your point of view. Witness the following from the Huffington Post article Flee from Land of the Lost:

See it and you lose your time, the money you spent on a ticket and, perhaps, the ability to walk upright without dragging your knuckles on the ground.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter.

With this film, Will Ferrell officially signals the end of his 15 minutes. Indeed, if it weren't for Matt Lauer, there'd be nary a laugh at all in this excruciatingly lazy and unnecessary film. I repeat: The biggest laughs belong to Matt Lauer.

That's pretty harsh. Then again, much as I hate to admit this, I was excited about the movie right up until it was announced Mr. Ferrell would be the lead. I honestly don't dislike the man -witness the fact I never griped about him getting the part here- but his characters are absurd one-dimensional plays off a singular theme; namely the cliché of the "stupidly annoying moronic twit" with a inflated ego. You can only subject an audience to this sort of low-brow character so much before they get tired of it and turn on you, which may be what's happening here. Witness the appearance of such articles as The end of the Will Ferrell years? which is a response to the article Is America over Will Ferrell? and you get the general idea. As one of the article writer's put it:

Frankly, I can only handle him [Will Ferrell] in small doses. He seems like a likeable enough guy, and as much as I want to enjoy him in roles, I rarely — if ever — have liked him in leading roles. To be completely fair, though, I haven't really been moved to see many of his leading role films. I tried to sit through 'Anchorman', but aside from the back alley 'anchorman fights', couldn't do it.

Amen! Seriously you know it's bad when a remake that is a total departure from the source material generates headlines that aren't griping about the change in story line or characters but complaints about the lead actor and all his works. That's not fame it's infamy. And it's a shame to see because I used to watch LAND OF THE LOST as a kid. The fact LOTL is already being written off by some as just another lame piece of crap in the filmography of an overindulged comedian-turned-actor (witness the headline Call Ferrell's latest 'Wasteland of the Lost') rather than being judged on it's own merits, or lack thereof, is sad.

So, no, Will Ferrell isn't the cinematic Anti-Christ. He just seems that way to some when taken in large doses. I think there's a lesson to be learned in all this. Too bad Hollywood isn't listening.

# End of Line

Is Print Media Out of Touch?

One of the many blog sites I have book marked is The Groovy Age of Horror. There's always something interesting to see or read there. Granted I don't visit the site every day, or even every week, but I've had the link book marked since the site was known as The Groovy Age of Dracula. This fact is important because there's a interesting post there this week about the relevancy of online sites.

From the post Not Sure Why comes the following quote attributed to editors from Avon books:

"In my opinion, the online world still doesn’t have much impact on sales as, anecdotally, I’ve seen books get horrible online reviews but have done well.."

I've been pondering this and, frankly, find myself wondering if this statement was made out of sheer ignorance or merely was the opinion of an white-haired techophobe. Obviously it was not because I went to the original article and therein found the following: "we often see people on our message boards," thus one has to assume the editors are aware of the import and impact of an online presence. Yet how can they dismiss online reviews?

I am a writer, obviously, and you are a reader, obviously, thus we, you and I, are perhaps the best judges of whether that remark has any validity. But it's not a simple answer. You can't point to a single site and count page hits and say, yeah, okay, I see it. The Internet is a living organism. It's constantly growing and shedding dead cells. Sites come and go. Reviews get posted, discussed, and forgotten about. If there's any trend that impacts book sales it's the fact people aren't reading as much as they used to. I know I am not.

Books aren't for casual readers and casual readers don't waste their time on just any old book. We do NOT blind buy. Well, okay, we do sometimes. But from ONLINE VENDORS. I have news for the editors of Avon the only truly BLIND buys of books ever made are from ONLINE VENDORS. You can always flip through a bargain book in a store but, online, all you have to go by is word of mouth, posted reviews, and/or online buzz. And that's found only AFTER researching the book and author via GOOGLE or some other search engine.

I look for reviews. That's right I don't just write reviews I read them too. Obviously these reviews impacted someone's sales as I have decide NOT to purchase books because of online reviews or comments made in forums probably more times than I have decided to go ahead and order them.

So is it that Avon books aren't selling and the editors want to dismiss the internet and internet sites as having no relevance so they can ignore bad reviews?

Fine. Go ahead. But, in my opinion, you'd have to be an Grade A idiot to do so.

Once upon a time I used to be a member of Waldenbooks Otherworlds Club. But nothing of the sort exists anymore. (I have a "reward" card for a major book store and they do NOT offer such an newsletter nor do their e-mails contain reviews, it's all crass ads.) Sadly Waldenbooks has gone the way of the dodo. And their Otherworlds club died long ago and the newsletter, which had reviews and previews, with it.

Now, if I want to know about a book, I'll go to Amazon and read the reviews THEN go straight to Google and type in the book title and author name to see what the online buzz is. That includes forums. I don't limit myself to sites I have book marked or review sites. I don't think I am the only one. But the Avon editors make the big bucks. If they say the internet is irrelevant who am I, a mere pixel in cyberspace, to dispute their lofty editorial pronouncements.

All I've ever done in the literary world is get a few things published, including book reviews, but those were published online and, according to the esteemed Avon editors don't count. Nevermind I got a free sub to the print mag whose online presence(s) those reviews appeared in. They weren't relevant. Nor, apparently, was any of what most people reading this blog right this second have had published online; according to the editors for Avon.

How does that make you feel?

Knowing that the editors for a major publication don't view you with contempt, they just don't consider you at all, makes me kind of sad. Makes me wonder what the point of all these words I just typed are. Did they move you? Do you care?

Makes you wonder.

#end of line

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

Depressed by remakes?

If you're getting tired of remakes you're not alone. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of games and novels out there that have never been adapted into any sort of TV series, movie, comic book, or what ever. For that matter there's also hundreds of comic books that have not been adapted into movies or TV series either. Yet Hollywood continues regurgitating the same tired old crap.

Why?

Is it really cheaper to produce remakes than, say, come up with something fresh and new? The money men in the monkey suits may assume they'll make more money on an "established property" but they do this by exploiting the young and impressionable. And that's not just wrong it's evil. Doesn't matter who you are you're going to get older. The older you get, one assumes, the more information you will collect in your brain. This means that there will come a point where you will be just as jaded about movies as most critics. It's not that we dislike Hollywood, or even the movies, per se, it’s the lack of originality. These movies, or rather the clichéd cookie cutter plots, are stale.

Not saying Hollywood ruins all it touches. Rather it seems, to me, that Hollywood has become a prisoner of it's own formulaic standard operating procedures. Producers and directors are forced to work with established properties and not given any sort of creative outlet for their own ideas. Thus, forced to work within a system that doesn't just frown on originality it despises it as being unprofitable, directors are forced to hijack the projects they are given as their sole creative outlet. Which just makes matters worse.

A glance at recent TV retreads shows how bad this disease has become. The Sci-Fi Channel produced a TV series, Flash Gordon, that might as well have been titled Total Garbage. It was universally reviled and quickly cancelled. However one of it's more successful series, Battlestar Galactica, was the suits using a established property's name to sell a series that had nothing to do with the original. Yet it eventually cultivated it’s own audience through sheer persistence. It also helped that nothing was on at the time and that Sci-Fi moved it around the dial to different time slots on different days so they could manipulate their Nielson ratings. Some might further argue the success of this series is only because of Sci-Fi channel shills tirelessly promoting BSG, but they also promoted the holy heck out of Flash Gordon. Which only proves that, no matter how you dress up crap, it's still crap. Obviously there was something about the BSG series that appealed to it's audience otherwise it would have gone the way of the atrocious Flash Gordon abortion.

Too bad Hollywood is stuck in this rut of regurgitating "properties" they already own the rights to. This is an incestuous relationship that is doomed to failure. Eventually the bubble will burst, just as it did with the real estate market, though it may be slower going as there's always new and impressionable youth for Hollywood to take advantage of. And that's just sad. Then again life is change. And that seems to be what keeps Hollywood content, conning people out of the change in their pocket. Shame. There's so much else out there that could be adapted for the big (and small) screen besides the same tired old garbage.

For instance I'd really like to see the following adapted to the big screen. .

Video Games
Dungeon Keeper
Waxwork
Leisure Suit Larry (Dir. John Waters)
Leather Goddess of Phobos (Dir. John Waters)
Gauntlet
Corridor 7
Blake Stone
Wolfenstein
Prince of Persia
Magic Carpet
Elite
Trade Wars (old BBS space trading game)
Syndicate Wars
Bard's Tale
Faery Tale
Might & Magic
Phantasie
Mines of Titan
&tc

Novels
The Dragonriders of PERN series* (Anne McCaffrey)
The Doona series (Anne McCaffrey)
Dinosaur Planet (Anne McCaffrey)
Catteni series (Anne McCaffrey)
Acorna (Anne McCaffrey)
The Honor Harrington series* (David Weber)
The Armageddon Inheritance series (David Weber)
The John Grimes/Rim World series (A. Bertram Chandler)
The Xanth series (Piers Anthony)
The Lord of the Isles series (David Drake)
The Belgariad/Mallorean series (David Eddings)
The Foreigner series (C. J. Cherryh)
Cyteen (C. J. Cherryh)
Golden Queen series (Dave Wolverton)
&tc

Comic Books/Graphic Novels
Marada, The She Wolf
Iron Jaw
Dr. Atomic
Ironwood
Sapphire
Mighty Samson
Groo
Wulf, The Barbarian
Sisterhood of Steel
Aztec Ace
Deathhawk
Planet of Vampires
Alien Encounters
XXXenophile
Stafire
Star Reach
Mystery in Space
Atari Force
Kamandi, The Last Boy on Earth
Axa
Conqueror of the Barren Earth
Xenozoic Tales/Cadillacs & Dinosaurs
Cobalt 60
&tc

(*) There's been lots of talk and rumours but nothing so far AFAIK.

Are Bloggers Cultists?

If you're a fan of the horror genre and have a horror themed blog some people apparently seem to think so. Seems odd to me. But what do I know. Anyway this all started with me reading some blogs and tumbling to a discussion going on about horror bloggers apparently spawned by comments about Paul Naschy movies between the hosts of Groovy Age of Horror and the And Now the Screaming Starts blogs. If you don't know who Paul Naschy is I suggest you pop over to The Mark of Naschy for a crash course. The spark for this discourse is summed up in the post: How do fans experience the stuff they love?

I'm posting this not so much because the argument is interesting (though it is interesting reading) but because it is, in my opinion, precipitated by the misuse of an single word. That word being: cultist.

Behold the offending line: "I propose that horror bloggers aren't so much experts as they are cultists."

That sentence sounds rather offensive when you take it out of context and just put it up on screen by itself, doesn't it? Why not call them hobbyists or enthusiasts?

A cult, loosely defined, is a specific form and/or system of religious worship as expressed through ceremonies and rites. While it is true cults may venerate certain objects these are almost always items viewed as phylacteries. Now it could be argued that cultists, being members of a cult, having a shared cultus of devotional symbols and ideologies appears similar to the sort of veneration fandom in general imbues the object(s) of their admiration with. But this hardly qualifies as religious devotion. And, most certainly, as a host of a genre themed blog myself- albeit dedicated to science fiction not horror, per se- I would scarcely say this makes me a sci-fi cultist.

Simply put there is no sci-fi cult. No corpus of sci-fi scripture. No sci-if philosophy upon which to meditate. There are, however, movies and novels and comics and other genre related entertainment media that we can discuss, analyze, and critically review.

Keyword: entertainment.

To further compound the confusion- as I'm sure you're probably scratching your heads wondering why I'm posting about this- take this bit of commentary: "Cultists, on the other hand, are best distinguished not only by their deep knowledge, but by an idiosyncratic set of critical standards." (Emphasis mine.)

Really? Would you apply this to the members of Heaven's Gate? The followers of Jim Jones? Scientology? I mention the latter for a reason. There is great debate over whether it is a cult or not. You see Scientologist's don't like that word applied to them. Nor do most religious groups. And with good reason. The word "cult" carries connotations that are primarily derogatory. Granted there exists in the vernacular of cinema the term Cult Film but, like space opera, it was most likely not originally implied as a term of endearment.

That may seem like splitting hairs or nitpicking but there's rhyme to my reason, as shall soon be shown in good season, for, you see dear friends, there is more to come ahead, not easily does this blend, for here's the next quote to be read:

"In trying to explain Naschy's appeal, Curt described a sort of genre fandom "double vision." Nobody is blind to the cheesy make-up, occasionally awkward acting, or often heavy-handed "stylishness" of these films. But, for the fans, you see through - not past - these things to the mental world they suggest. In the works of Naschy, it's a darkly seductive alternative universe driven by the erotic and forbidden impulses we confine and suppress in the real world.

I suspect my love of lucha works on almost the exact same principle, only the end result is different. I don't really buy the whole "dark and forbidden thing." When I look around me, I see a world that happily caters to our basest whims. Short of homicide on demand, is there anything we can't pull up on the Internet?"

And I'd like to stop the argument train right there. Here's what the OP fails to understand, these movies have appeal because they are from a era where there was no Interenet. Too many people today are jaded. There's more pornographic imagery available at your fingertips today than ever there was a mere decade ago. There's certain words it's just not safe to type into a Google image search, even with safe search turned on!

But, and here's the news flash, some of us don't care. No, honestly, some of us really don't care about the Internet porn. Some of us, I know this will shock and amaze, perhaps even astound, but some of us actually prefer these old movies because they are from a time before the Internet made us all jaded at the sight of filth. In fact these movies come from a time when we knew filth when we saw it and it was good! Of course these movies aren't filth, never were intended to be, though they sure did keep your eyes glued to the screen hoping you'd see something. You weren't sure what, exactly, but then again even a glimpse of bare ankle or side boobage was really something way back when.

I know every old person says the same thing to the younger generation, that things were better in their day. But seldom has that been truer than today. I'm sorry but when we live in a world where "2 girls 1 cup" has been discussed on TV- not to mention at least half the people reading this sadly know what I am talking about- then check me out of this crazy reality and give me a Paul Naschy movie to watch. Preferably one I haven't seen yet, like Inquisition or a properly framed unexpurgated release of Count Dracula's Great Love.

Just don't call me a cultist because I happen to like watching genre movies. I think that was a poor choice of words. If that makes me a Grammar Nazi, then click your heels and wish for home because I'm not going to apologize. Words have meaning. If you must call me something and can't pronounce my handle refer to me as a fan, a hobbyist, or how about that guy with the fun blog about science fiction movies and stuff?

Have a great day my fellow 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