1,201

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

Sorry. I thought this was some sort of fund-raising venture for Pink Five.

1,202

(13 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Wow. That's awful.

1,203

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

He didn't say they're commentaries. He said they're doing Twister and they're doing speed.

$50 bucks on Brian. Also $50 on Trey throwing his back out.

After watching John Carter along with DIF yesterday, I made the most of my rental fee and watched it properly. I found that I liked it okay, for the most part.

Certainly, everything that the panel said was accurate. There is a hell of a lot of pipe being laid in the opening half hour, much of which is totally unnecessary. While the stuff with Bryan Cranston was funny, it's not a part of THIS story. And while the opening action on Mars sets up the stuff that we find later, it's confusing and largely unnecessary.

Instead, imagine opening with John Carter searching for his gold and getting chased by Indians into a cave. You could even involve Bryan Cranston if you like, just put it in open country. There's your opening action.

The death of the thern in the cave not only transports Carter to Mars but also causes the other therns to change their plans and give their spider-technology weapon to Sab Than. This might happen in part because of what Carter does when he initially arrives on Mars if he, say, attacks Sab Than and rescues Dejah Thoris but ends up getting thrown off the ship and lands near the thark hatchery.

Now the film proceeds as Stanton presented it but we now know the good guy, the bad guy, the princess, and the sky wizards cleanly and naturally before spending time with the tharks for a while. Carter now has a purpose: he wants to get back to help the princess but has to heal and gain allies among the tharks first.

Stanton's ending is clever, but the whole frame story is unnecessary. It's not in the book and doesn't help our understanding of the main story, altho it DOES make it more romantic. You could still use it—just cut the opening prolog to a few minutes.

Instead, the film spends several minutes with the baffling opening action, then several minutes with Carter in the city, then several minutes with Burroughs, then several minutes with the cavalry before getting Carter to the cave.

1,205

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't know if this is part of the Classic Who mythology, but I like to imagine that part of the tragedy of being the Doctor is that, while each new regeneration retains the memories of the previous ones, they lose emotional attachment to them.

That would explain Nine's half-hearted attempts at humor. the Time War is fresh in his mind, but it's like something he read about in a book—except he's in it.

It explains why none(?) of the Doctors visit past companions (except, as Ten did, his own companions).

And it especially explains Ten's desperate reluctance to regenerate. He knows he will lose his feelings for Rose and the others, and they will become no more to him than acquaintances.

I really wanted Ten to explain that to Wilf when they were having their maudlin conversation at the end of Ten's run. It seemed awfully selfish of the Doctor to lament his imminent regeneration to an 80-year old man.

1,206

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I thought I'd hate Rose at first, but I absolutely loved her. And her admiration for the Doctor made me like Eccleston. I actually think he was almost perfect as the Eighth Doctor because he was no good with the humor, which made him seem all the more haunted by the Time War.

Tennant was just great, and the second series is my favorite overall. I thought I'd love Marta but her mooning over the Doctor was annoying, and the third series finale was awful. Donna was okay. I don't see what some people see in her, but she didn't really annoy me much.

Smith is just terrific, and altho I didn't like the arc in series 6, series 5 and the development of Amy and Rory has been fun. I've never really liked Rory, but the producers heaped such endless misery on him that he grew on me just for his dogged persistence and humility. I liked River a lot at first, but as they tried to untangle her story, it just fell apart, and she became more and more annoying in her smugness and selfishness.

1,207

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

fcw wrote:
Zarban wrote:

And it would make sense for the Doctor to want to keep her close (insert snark here).

Well, David Tennant certainly thought so; he married her.

http://i.qkme.me/3q39y4.jpg

1,208

(26 replies, posted in Creations)

Cool! The low-budget roots certainly show, but I like the acting, and some of the visual effects are terrific. I was a little confused by the audio, tho.

Scarecrow's voice in particular seems disconnected from the character because, I think, the actor was recorded in a studio like a podcast but Dorothy was recorded on set with a boom. That tonal difference was quite noticeable. I thought it was some kind of voiceover at first before I realized it was supposed to be coming form Scarecrow.

1,209

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Invid wrote:

I am glad the show has gotten, somewhat, away from a single female companion. You do need someone traveling with him, so he can bounce dialog off of them (having him team up with a local can have the same function, true). Male companion, teen companion... hell, maybe a father/daughter combo. Lots of room to experiment, and with luck they'll have decades to try everything smile

Speaking of "father/daughter", the "Doctor's Daughter" had such potential. The episode was pretty dumb, but the girl was super cute and seemed like a great potential companion. And it would make sense for the Doctor to want to keep her close (insert snark here).

1,210

(104 replies, posted in Episodes)

I just got an insurance payout (whoo hoo! Mom didn't need that leg!), so I contributed handsomely. Well, inoffensive-looking-ly.

1,211

(22 replies, posted in Creations)

That Instagrams my heart.

I made one into my computer wallpaper.

Dorkman wrote:

It makes sense to me that Precrime, especially the guy running the "prison," would talk about peoples' thwarted crimes in the past tense ("he drowned her").

Well, the film makers clearly agree with you and not Matthew. PreCrime definitely thought Lively was alive because Anderton's "Where is she now?" indicates that he isn't misled by the phrasing "he drowned her". What baffled me on first viewing was, if Lively was murdered less than a minute after the arrest, how did the cops not think it was weird that she didn't show up for the indictment, trial, and sentencing? I mean, Anderton gets suspicious about Lively after noticing she's missing during a cursory investigation of the containment prison. Spielberg would probably pull a ninja punch in the nuts by saying "Well, everything after Anderton gets put in the containment prison is his revenge fantasy, per the creepy guard, so it doesn't matter."

Dorkman wrote:

The much bigger issue is: why does the ball drop with Anderton's name? ... It was all part of Lamar's plot to eliminate Anderton, but Lamar did nothing in the real world to set Anderton along the path of discovery. So how in the hell did he trigger the ball?

The most frustrating part is that this has a fairly simple fix: just have Anderton receive an anonymous tip with information on his son's disappearance

Well, Burgess hired Crow to portray Anderton's son's killer. I agree that he then needed to clue Anderton in, but he did that because Anderton asked about Lively, which... seems really unnecessary. He could have just said, "I looked into that Lively thing you asked about. She got scared and decided to live off-grid after the crime. [smirk] It took Missing Persons all of about 4 hours to find her." Ha ha, question answered; no need to frame your close friend for murder.

Of course, THEN you have Agatha freak out and clue Anderton in that Lively really is dead, and the minute Anderton looks into it himself, Burgess knows he's screwed. He hires Crow and gives Anderton an envelope with "all you need to know". Anderton gets the ball and does what he does, only opening the envelope LATER when he's on the lam. It just says "Leo Crow killed your son." Since Anderton WOULD have read that eventually, he would have tracked down Crow regardless.

Something I think is funny about Minority Report (aside from the ridiculous bullshit about getting your eyes replaced so you can't be found because you're a fugitive and then REPEATEDLY using them to get thru security because you're a VIP) is the idea that Leo Crow thinks he's going to make bank on his plan. Leo, man, no one has been murdered in DC in SIX YEARS. The cops ALWAYS stop it! Make your deal to get paid based on the dude getting ARRESTED, you PUTZ! Then find a way to dispose of Anderton's son's picture (hint: go digital) and tell the cops it was all a big mistake.

Waiting on the ground is completely different for obvious reasons.

National and Baltimore, as well as Andrews Air Force Base are all less than 5 MINUTES from Dulles by air (Baltimore is basically just where DC stores its excess street crime). You don't even have to know about stuff like reserve fuel times and minimul fuel priority status to know that Die Hard 2 is idiotic. You just have to think about the fact that when there's bad weather and airports get backed up, airplanes don't start falling out of the sky.

The film makers could have chosen a remote airport that the McClanes were visiting on vacation. That would have made a little sense.

There are several things wrong with Minority Report, and certainly that's a major one. However, I personally think that the biggest plot hole in the history of the universe is the fact that the airplanes in danger of running out of fuel in Die Hard 2--the whole threat behind the bad guys' plans--could have just landed at Washington National or Baltimore. No pilot would just circle until he got so low on fuel that he couldn't divert to a nearby airport.

1,215

(3 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://www.zarban.com/pics/i-want-to-believe-travolta.jpg

1,216

(3 replies, posted in Off Topic)

OMG! Now Horshack has died!

Think about it! Robert Hegyes, Ron Palillo, that guy who played Kenickie in Grease. John Travolta is killing everyone he can't trust with his secret!

Olivia Newton-John's boyfriend even FAKED HIS OWN DEATH to avoid being murdered! He knew too much!!

Rashomon (1950) is Akira Kurosawa’s dramatic meditation on perspective. It is, ostensibly, a period murder mystery, with the story told in flashback by the different characters, each of whom has a very different version of the events. Anyone familiar with Kurosawa’s later samurai adventures (Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Sanjuro) will likely find this a little slow and cloistered at first. It consists of just two sets and a few locations in a woodland, and the cast is so small that we don’t even see or hear the investigators who question the witnesses, just the witnesses’ responses.

The story is closely adapted from a much older Japanese short story (“In a Grove”) and borrows its frame from another. The frame consists of a woodcutter, a priest, and a peasant who wait out a torrential rain storm at a ruined city gate (Rashomon gate) and lament the state of humanity based on what the woodcutter and priest have witnessed. The two have just testified in court about a rape and murder case involving a bandit, a woman, and her samurai husband. Having told what ancillary knowledge they have of the case, the two men sit and hear the conflicting stories of the three people directly involved—including the murdered samurai, via a spirit medium(!) Each of the stories has elements that sound plausible and others that sound self-servingly false.

Reportedly, even the actors themselves did not know the “truth” about the case, and Kurosawa carries forward the original author’s decision not to reveal all. Clearly then, this isn’t a drawing room mystery whose solution will be handed to us (altho Kurosawa pretends to do so with another version of events—and then yanks it too away from us). Instead, as the story unfolds again and again from different perspectives, the director invites us to speculate and meditate on the “true” facts and the ulterior motives of the speakers.

It’s a fascinating story—once it gets going—and an engaging mystery despite the director’s clear intent that we focus more on the genuine differences in perspective and the face-saving lies. It feels like a trippy mystery with an answer (a bit like Mulholland Drive) but with a broader point than merely entertaining us with a sordid tale. It really does seek to enlighten us a little about human nature.

Many critics and scholars have speculated on the symbolism in the film. I’m of the mind that authors rarely plan such things and rarely succeed when they do plan. But I don’t doubt that Kurosawa consciously uses the storm at the gate to represent the commoners’ doubt in humanity and the dappled sunlight among the trees during the crime to represent the varying shades of truth we are seeing. And each time we return to the Rashomon gate, the commoners are tearing pieces off it to use as firewood, implying that truth can be altered and destroyed when used for selfish purposes.

In the end, Kurosawa abandons his sources (both of which end sourly) and constructs a reason for the sky to clear for his commoners and us. But it feels a little artificial, and we can, I think, be forgiven if we imagine that the director has himself slyly altered the story to suit his purposes.

speculation on the mystery Show
For the record, I think the woodcutter’s story comes closest to the truth, but he clearly lies about the valuable knife and therefore about the manner of the samurai’s death. I think the woman goaded the men into a duel and ran away while they fought clumsily. The fight actually ended with the bandit running away, as the samurai claimed (altho he omitted the miserable duel). The woman returned, only to find her husband having committed ritual suicide with her dagger. Then she left, and the woodcutter came out of hiding and stole the knife.

Seth_Brower wrote:

http://denism79.deviantart.com/gallery/

Just going to post a link, as there are quite a few great images that this guy has done.

He has been on a kick of character concept designs in different genre's. So we get things like ...
Rockabilly Batman & Villains
Steampunk Spiderman & Villains
Old West Justice League

The Star Wars redesigns are cute, but the Old West Justice League makes me melt.

Squiggly_P wrote:

I just watched another movie via Netflix instant, and apparently in the time between The Hunter and Ronin they updated their player so that at the end of the flick it will shrink your player and show you some suggestions for other movies as well as allow you to rate the film (something that I actually like).

So Netflix is turning itself into YouTube? <seinfeld>Who are the ad wizards who came up with that one?</seinfeld>

1,220

(60 replies, posted in Creations)

Teague wrote:

Is it just me, or is Zarban going from amusing to fascinating in a "this guy might be Oscar Wilde" sort of way?

Oh, man, I totally should rewrite The Importance of Being Earnest to be set in the Star Wars universe.

LADY BRACKNELL*
To lose one parent, Commander Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness. Who was your father?

ERNEST
Well, I don't actually know who I am. I was found by a protocol droid of charitable disposition in a battle droid factory on Geonosis and given the name "Worthing". Worthing is a class 1 space port there.

LADY BRACKNELL
And where did this charitable protocol droid find you?

ERNEST
In a bag of leftover hands.

LADY BRACKNELL
A HAAAANDBAG?!?!!!

1,221

(19 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This is what the digital cinema revolution is all about. Holy cow those are some terrific short films.

I'm not sure I ever would have believed that a superhero dolly (they call them dollies, right?) could stand in for real actors in a closeup, but that Knightfall short made me believe that—under the right circumstances—it could work.

1,222

(60 replies, posted in Creations)

High Flight of Barbarella
by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. and Zarban

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — rocketed high and fast among
The eerie, tinny silence. Orbiting there,
I’ve sought Durand Durand, and flung
My eager craft through high halls without air....

Up there, beyond the burning blue
I’ve searched Tau Ceti's heights with easy grace.
Where never lark, or ever angel flew —
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Unzipped my spacesuit and showed my boobs to God.

1,223

(5 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Invid wrote:

The police detective is playing the same role he had in an earlier Lang film, intensionally leading viewers at the time to think the story was going one way instead of where it eventually did.

Are you sure? The Lohmann character? Wernicke played Lohmann later in the Mabuse sequel, but I don't see him earlier. Or do you mean one of the others?

EDIT: Something just occurred to me. The only music in the film is whistling, and it's the killer (famously), Inspector Lohmann, and the Safecracker (the leader of the criminals) who do it. I'm not sure that Lang wanted us to equate them in any way, but they are the three main characters, so it's interesting....

1,224

(5 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

I always assume that when an author leaves the ending ambiguous it's merely because he or she didn't know how to end the story satisfactorily. I'm willing to grant that sometimes it's done for purposeful artistic reasons, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Lang contended that M is ultimately anti-death-penalty, but his wife was the writer, and she was more politically conservative (and, in fact, a Nazi sympathizer). The Nazis agreed with her and offered to make Lang head of German film studio UFA. (He fled Germany that night.)

I don't have a problem with the ambiguous ending, but it's one more thing that makes me feel like the movie is not as tight as it could have been, and its reputation relies on Lorre's terrific performance.

1,225

(5 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Fritz Lang's M is a 1931 German expressionist thriller about a child killer case. I liked the film—it's often clever, and Peter Lorre gives a landmark performance—but it's not quite the masterpiece I'd expected.

The story is very simple: in an effort to appear effective while a child killer is on the loose, the cops squeeze the underworld so tightly that the criminals decide to track down the killer themselves. It's a very early talkie and so has almost no music and long stretches with no sound at all. It's shot beautifully (except for some very clunky dolly/boom work) and has some effective bits of humor and suspense.

But it feels like Lang wasn't sure if he was making a character piece about the murderer, a police (and criminal) procedural, or a parable about how communities deal with faceless threats.

As for character, Lorre is hardly present for the first 50 minutes, and we see almost nothing of him that isn't "the killer" (that is, we don't see him holding a job or interacting normally with people other than one scene where he buys some apples). And the famous use of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" as Lorre's whistled theme is very mannered. It's effectively spooky, but it's too complex to whistle idly.

Most of the characters aside from the killer are almost cartoons. The chief inspector is mocked by the criminals at his entrance but later appears to be strong and competent and then at times buffoonish (particularly in a bizarre up-angle shot in a chair that emphasizes his crotch).

Yet the criminals are not exactly depicted as geniuses. They are led by a dapper and rather militaristic man called the Safecracker, but most of them are pretty buffoonish themselves. And they are directly compared to the police using very arch match cuts between similar smokey meeting rooms.

As for procedure, we see a bit of police investigative techniques and the criminals' clever, more practical, and more ruthless version. And yet the police ultimately prove to be almost as effective in tracking down the right man. But undercutting the procedure is the fetishism of collections of objects (the possessions of criminals caught in a raid, the tools and silverware in a shop window, etc.). They're not tied to a collection of trophies from victims, for example, or anything else related to the murders. It seems to be a visual motif that merely decorates the procedural aspect of the film.

And as for parable, are the mob scenes of people misidentifying innocent people as the killer supposed to frighten us with the wrongness of mob rule? Because it's a mob that eventually captures the real killer. And the ambiguous ending doesn't help us decide who is right and who is wrong. To be sure, the film comments on 1930 Germany (Hitler wouldn't come to power for three more years, but the scent of fascism was surely in the air), but it doesn't seem to say anything particularly pointed. Even the scholars on the commentary remark on the film's ambiguity and inconclusiveness.

Last, the film is about 15 minutes longer than it needs to be. The killer is cornered at the 65 minute mark, when (in the Criterion release) there is still 45 minutes to go. The perverse sort of heist that follows is interesting and suspenseful but doesn't speak to character at all; then a protracted interrogation of a different criminal grinds the story to halt for nearly 15 minutes.

In all, it's a very interesting film and worth a look. It's certainly much more sophisticated than Hollywood drawing-room mysteries of the time and strongly reminiscent of Hitchcock's early work (Hitch worked in the German film industry for a while during the silent era). But it seems to be a strong character turn by Lorre wrapped in a thin plot, embellished with a thick procedural, and set in a vaguely fantastical dystopia. If that doesn't give you whiplash, you may well enjoy the ride.