901

(57 replies, posted in Episodes)

The intended order for my hypothetical kids remains:

Star Wars
Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
Get Out of My House

EDIT: Actually, for all my protestations I probably will have to show the PT to them so they aren't left out of the inevitable conversations with their peers. I don't want to be the Milennial equivalent of the parent who names their kid "Moonbeam" and doesn't have a TV. I'll just have to have the prequels talk like the sex and drugs talk. You're gonna hear about it and you'll eventually probably do it no matter what I say, so you might as well know the facts so you can approach it responsibly.

902

(30 replies, posted in Episodes)

Eddie wrote:

The Hall of the Mountain King sequence was NOT shot in tilt shift.

I'll have to listen to it again but I'm pretty sure we did say as much. I recall making the point that some things closer to the camera -- characters' heads, etc. -- pass through the defocused area but remain focused, which would not be possible with in-camera tilt shift. It's clearly emulating tilt-shift photography, but we did note it was a post effect. The reasons behind it we did not know, though.

903

(32 replies, posted in Episodes)

Snail wrote:

About the Shaving Cream Can:
I Got the Jurassic Park Blu-rays for Christmas and on the new documentary (part 4, I think) Spielberg talks how his original plan for the sequel was people going after the shaving cream can and that's why he had the shots of the can falling down the cliff. That changed when Crichton's Lost World went a completely different direction.

Also, the plot of the new video game is about Dodgson sending out a team to retrieve the can.

I got an AT&T signal here on vacation and was going to say how I did a tour of Kauai yesterday that included a few locations from JP, but oh. OHH.

I cast Giant Middle Finger at everyone who mocked me for thinking the shots of the shaving cream can were significant and I have a +4 to I Fucking Told You So.

/Best Xmas Ever

904

(10 replies, posted in Creations)

The talent level in our community is starting to give me a complex.

905

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

He's a witch!  yikes

906

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

OMG JIMMY IS SO SCOTTISH

907

(14 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

teenage girl inside me.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l256/gswyers/chris_hansen.jpg

908

(5 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:

Eat Shit and Die Hard

If this were the actual title I'd be in line tonight.

909

(13 replies, posted in Off Topic)

You know how when you're driving to and from work on a regular commute, you'll get there and not remember any of the trip, because your brain didn't bother to form any memories since nothing of significance happened? You know you made the drive, because here you are at the end of it, but damned if you can recall a single detail.

Yeah, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA is like that for me. I know that I've seen it, I'm pretty sure I've seen it twice, but damned if I can remember a single thing about it.

910

(50 replies, posted in Episodes)

Okay, everyone brace yourselves: George made the right call here. I don't know if there are AT-ATs either in the new ride, I haven't gone on it yet, but the point of the thing is to ride through the exciting bits of Star Wars, canonical timeline be damned. You may recall that the original ride was a trip to Endor, where you became caught in a rebel battle against a completed Death Star destroyed by a trench run and photon torpedoes in the exhaust port. I don't think I need to explain to anyone here what's wrong with that, but I never gave a damn while I was on the ride. I also never took the Back to the Future ride ( sad  ) as official canon, either.

So while I appreciate that the Imagineers were thinking about the broader context, what matters is a badass ride. It's that Lucas took the same cavalier attitude to the movies themselves that created problems.

911

(4 replies, posted in Off Topic)

"Video games are for fags." -Roger Ebert

I haven't played it and probably won't, because I don't have time to get immersed and enjoy an MMO and also, you know, Star Wars and I aren't on speaking terms right now.

I will note, however, my buddy Gordy Haab -- who was one of the composers on RVD2 -- composed a big chunk of the music for the game. So, yay for him!

912

(39 replies, posted in Episodes)

That is hilarious. They should all be like that from now on.

913

(24 replies, posted in Episodes)

Oh my god, I haven't been to TimeCube in years and it managed to get crazier.

914

(4 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Wow, that's a meme that Teague posted a while back and I assumed he'd originated. Although this version clarifies the joke a little better than the one he posted.

915

(15 replies, posted in Off Topic)

[I wrote this up for my movie review blog post to go up this weekend, but I see no reason not to post it here early. And by the way, good work, Seth Brower.]

Early on in the film, in which the Muppets have all long since gone their separate ways but need to get the gang back together for One More Show, there’s a scene where Kermit (and his new friends Jason Segel, Amy Adams, and Segel’s Marty Stu muppet stand-in Walter) finds Fozzie (his voice somewhat off due to Frank Oz’s declining to participate in the film) singing with a knock-off Muppet cover band (the “Moopets”) in Reno. As he comes offstage, they greet him with forced, grimacey smiles and say (paraphrased) “Hey, your show was… it was great. Really good to see you.” They don’t mean the first part. But they mean the second with all their hearts.

The scene perfectly encapsulates my feelings about the film, as well as the film itself. The gang isn’t back together — some of them are the original members but several signifiant ones are impersonators (although, to be fair, much more credible ones than the Moopets); the original members, I care deeply about, and it hurts a little to see them veer so close to self-parody just to get another shot at entertaining an audience. The film is far too self-aware for my taste. It tries to be an 80s movie, complete with evil corporate villain whom they have to defeat by Putting On a Show, but it’s constantly nudge-winking the audience going “Hey, remember these movies? They were silly, right? We’re too cool for this room, you and me, but let’s play along, let them have their fun.” (Said corporate villain, for example, says “maniacal laugh” instead of laughing maniacally where a movie villain would do so.) For a film that thematically tries to make a point of rejecting cynicism, it’s a really jarring tonal choice.

I’m not against self-aware humor — CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS, which I adore, is wall-to-wall with it — but it felt wrong here. I think it could have worked as parody if it were a parody of Muppet movies with parody Muppets. But it’s actually meant to be the Muppets as the Muppets, and they don’t always feel like they’re in on the joke.

It feels weird to be giving this film what amounts to a negative review when critics have praised it almost unanimously — lo, I am become Armond White, destroyer of flawless tomatometers. This is, to be sure, a far less demeaning film than MUPPETS FROM SPACE appeared to be (I could not even bring myself to see that one). This is a film that sprang, very clearly, from a place of deep love and affection, not one of simply monetizing a piece of intellectual property. Jason Segel loves the Muppets, he adores the Muppets, and I don’t begrudge him spending his get-things-made Hollywood capital to bring them back and share them with the world. But it feels like so much fan fiction, a fan film in which he’s inserted himself into Muppet canon and talked the Muppets into appearing as themselves (and Disney into bankrolling it).

And again, I don’t begrudge him. It’s inspiring, in a way, to see him live what I have no doubt was exactly the childhood dream he wrote as Walter’s, inspiring to see a film that feels like Segel reaching out to me and saying “You and I, we get this. These guys are awesome. Isn’t this awesome?” I don’t even watch How I Met Your Mother and I’ve barely seen Segel in anything, but I still feels like a buddy of mine got his dearest wish and I’m proud for him. You can see how much this means to him, even when he isn’t flat-out telling you so through Walter. Yet as with SUPER 8, it expends more effort reminding me of how awesome the other stuff is than actually being awesome itself. I don’t want movies to keep making me nostalgic for 20 years ago. I want movies that I can be nostalgic for 20 years from now.

At its best, the Muppets feel like themselves again (even when they’re not). The recreated Muppet Show intro number is a moment of real "they're back!" joy, brief as it is. But when Segel/Walter and their story insist on stepping into the spotlight, the Muppets are in turn forced out of it, and feel like they’re being commanded to behave in a different way, commanded to serve the film instead of the film serving them. For the first time in my life, I watched the Muppets and they felt like puppets.

This isn’t their lowest point, and it might even be the start of a new era. It’s a major Hollywood big-budget release, not some trashy Reno lounge; but it still isn’t quite where I would have wanted to find them, not what I’d want to see them having to do to prove their continued relevance, not after what they’ve meant to me. But goddammit, Muppets, for all of that: it’s really good to see you.

916

(49 replies, posted in Episodes)

Those reviews are of questionable quality themselves; most of his points boiling down to "It's different than other Batman stuff and I won't abide it!" and his TDK review spends paragraphs detailing why it's bullshit that Joker had no plan based solely on the fact that Joker says so, never considering that Joker might be, you know, lying.

I'm not going to say the Nolan Batman films are brilliantly written -- the "you either die a hero" line makes me want to scream, too -- but I do watch a lot of movies and they are certainly in Sturgeon's 10% of not-complete-crap. If he loves the animated Batman that much, Nolan's not going to break into his house and take the DVDs away from him.

johnpavlich wrote:

I'm not sure if people are complaining that Nielsen is discriminating against "geek favorites", but I do often hear/read that they believe Networks are doing that. The biggest offender being Fox.

Which makes absolutely no sense. People have convinced themselves that the networks pay money to make shows just to snatch them away once they become popular. There's no part of that which makes any sense.

Well I hope you've learned your lesson alt-Trey.

what is even happening

It's also a high-concept issue. More interesting shows are harder to explain and therefore to sell. I've never seen an episode of Survivor, but I know what it's about and whether I care to see it. Despite its popularity among many of my friends, I have NO IDEA what Community's about. And the more I hear references to it, the more baffled I become. I'm not saying that's a bad thing artistically, and I'll check out Community, but marketing wise it isn't doing the show any favors.

On the other hand, we did neglect in our Nielsen discussion to mention an example of a recently announced resurrected show: Arrested Development. An outlier, to be sure, but an interesting one. I wonder what data the Penguins have been seeing to make them decide this was worth doing.

EDIT: Oh, I see.

921

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't think those are quite the right comparison. Those are simple things you're either doing or not. If you frame a shot in thirds you're probably not going to get a bad shot. You probably won't get a great one, either, if that's the only thing you know about framing, but you can hit the "competent and serviceable" bar pretty much every time. Whereas mindlessly following the three-act structure (and particularly the page count dogmas that screenwriting books like to put out there) won't guarantee you a competent result, and in fact has a tendency to create problems in the final product rather than solving them. There's a lot of moving pieces in a well-told story, and the necessary pieces will change depending on your story; whereas like I said, a shot is either framed in thirds/a line cross, or it's not.

Disclaimer: I am not Eddie.

The short reason as I understand it is that the various company logos and trademarks have not been "cleared" to appear on the show. So they blur it out because, on the one hand, a company may not want to have their logo or other branding associated with the content of the show, and having it appear in said show can give the appearance of endorsement. So the production company staves off a lawsuit. Same reason they have to blur faces on COPS or in the background of man-on-the-street interviews -- they didn't get permission to show those peoples' faces on television. This also, I believe, extends to artwork and graphic design. Just like if you want to use a stock photo or video, you need to pay for the license, if you want to display someone else's visual IP -- even something like a KFC menu -- you have to either get permission or blur it out. Additionally, the production company doesn't want to give anyone free advertising -- especially if the brand in question is a competitor of the show's actual sponsors -- so it behooves them to blur out any identifiable branding for that reason, too.

If you're seeing branded signs or T-shirts that are not blurred on American television, you can expect to see ads for that brand at the commercial break.

923

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, but it's, you know, it's cool. No biggie.

sad_tennant

924

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Any story has three broad stages -- beginning, middle, end. Shit starts happening, the shit gets worse, the shit gets resolved. You can choose to subdivide those categories any way you like -- even hardcore three-act cheerleaders will divide the first act into introduction and inciting incident, the second has a "midpoint turn" bisecting it, and the third act typically includes both climax and denouement -- but in the end the story falls into one of those three stages.

The three act structure is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's useful when telling a story, especially in screenplay format where you have rigid page count restrictions, to be able to divide the script into thirds and get a feel for how well it's paced. If it takes you until well into the "second act" (or, god help you, the "third") to actually get to the point of the fucking script, you have a problem. If the "second" act isn't a constant escalation of complications, you have a problem.

The mistake people too often make (because all the screenwriting books tell them to) is to to fit every story into the same box. Oh shit, I'm on page 72, it's time for The Romantic Leads Have A Falling Out. There's no legitimate reason for them to, at this in the story, but the Page Count Gods have declared it thus. This is what "formulaic" means.

Storytelling is a fractal thing. At every level you're dealing with beginning, middle, end. Ideally, you should be able to subdivide a story into as many acts as there are scenes, because every scene should end with the characters somewhere they weren't when the scene began -- emotionally, physically, knowledgably, geographically -- with no easy way, or no way at all, to get back to where they started. Because if a scene doesn't accomplish that, it better be funny as fuck or there's no reason for it to exist.

Three act structure isn't a myth, but following it slavishly and calling yourself a writer is like doing Video Copilot tutorials and calling yourself a VFX artist. You know which buttons to push to accomplish a very specific task, but you don't understand what each step is doing and can't synthesize them into anything new, which is where artistry actually begins.

925

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/879/zoidberghooray.gif