all supply, no real demand

Here is a rant I went on against a Star Wars fan who had posted on imdb "Star Wars returns to theaters in February!"

I had argued that The Phantom Menace is what is being released in February and that it
doesn't deserve the name Star Wars and that it was like
saying The Star Wars Holiday Special and the Ewoks cartoon are Swar Wars.

"The Six features are cannon.
Each film is as much Star Wars as the other."
- sanoma6

This is like saying Godfather Part III is
automatically on a par with its predecessors.
Or Jaws The Revenge is inherently as valid as
Jaws or Jaws 2.

Or that Dumber and Dumberer: When Harry met Lloyd
is anywhere near as good as Dumb and Dumber.

I'm sure Oliver Stone considers Wall Street 2:
Money Never Sleeps "canon" in his work.

Side note: Even though nobody would argue that TV's
Young Indiana Jones prequels are as engaging as the features, they were all released on VHS in numbered
sequence, including the features, counted as one long
epic and all Cannon by Lucas. And as much as I am a defender of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I don't
dare say it is "as much Indy" as Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The Star Wars prequels are counterfeit Star Wars, even
if they come from the same printing press as real Star Wars.

They are inferior, and they have sunk a strong brand which
declined in value sharply after May 19, 1999.

Oddly, because the Clone Wars animated show require so much
content they are farmed out to a team of other writers and
directors. Despite being in an era that involves characters
I don't prefer, they are close to the tone of the OT.
The stories are all competant and often compelling, and
certainly fun.

But the Clone Wars feature - at a time when animated
features do good business - is regarded as the least
successful SW feature and Phantom Menace the "most
successful" which is nonsense.

The brand was damaged. I saw Clone Wars in a theater
and I didn't actually mind the baby Hutt because it
was the "boon" that is followed in good adventure
storytelling. It, arguably, is cannon, financed
and ordered by Lucas. But the distinction of "cannon"
means nothing.

People were burned from Phantom Menace through Sith.
Only the most hardcore fans will read all the novels
and comics, the rights to which are basically whored
out by now. Timothy Zahn's forst trilogy of post-Jedi
novels brought fans back from the late-eighties nadir
of Star Wars when the Marvel Comics had ended their
SW run and Kenner opted not to renew its licencing with
Lucasfilm. (On that last point it is terrific that Lucas
got the last laugh when Kenner was bought out by Hasboro
and Lucas was given half ownership of Hasboro in the late
nineties as the price of a new licence agreement when the
hype had returned with re-releases and optimism about the
prospect of Episode One.) How sad that Hasboro has gone
through Post-Menace period of being ready to give away
action figures, when KFC and Taco Bell cringed at the
prequel decorations in their restaurancts, and Exhibitors
resented the contract Lucas had insisted upon which kept
their screens occupied by The Phantom Menace weeks after
word of mouth caused audiences to dwindle.

The hard bargain Lucas once drove couldn't happen by the
time the Clone Wars feature was being made. He ended up
cutting a deal with Warner, but he got a lot of rejections
and for a while there were no takers even for the quite
good Tv series.

What is especially bothersome about these upcoming 3D
releases is that they will only be accepted by exhibitors
because of the 3D gimmich, which won't be Avatar quality.
it will just be another way to condition us for the regular
ticket fees to be jacked up again, even for non-3D movies.

Fans have to learn to be more critical. Nobody is really
asking for the prequels to hit theaters again. When Lucas
first showed examples of the 3D conversion at Comic-Con it
was scenes from the 1977 Star Wars made 3D.

So all this talk of a year to complete that process
is nonsense - HE HAS HAD FOUR YEARS SINCE THEN,
and has ALREADY GOT A NEW HOPE CONVERTED.
That COULD be the first one released. But he KNOWS
if he shows the OT first, nobody will go to the
prequels. And he floats a bully stance that "the
older films will be released in 3D if these ones
do well." Which is like saying "eat three turds,
with nothing to cleanse the pallet, and then I
will give you the best cheezeburger available."

The re-release of the prequels needs to be boycotted.

imdb debates -further trashing of Star Wars prequels

Okay, here are a few things I've said in response to a young Star Wars prequel fan who refuses to look at them with a critical eye. I know it's beating a dead cat, but the upcoming aboninations of 3D-converted re-release make it part of the soft boycott I'm sort of doing.

OCCASSIONALLY wooden acting? Compare the work of any cast member to their non SW prequel work. Even Jake Lloyd is more bearable in Jingle All the Way. And I'm sure it's no accident that there isn't any mention of Haley Joel Osment screen testing for Anakin on the DVD documentary.

Minor plot holes with OT - Padme's death in III despite Leia's memory of interacting somewhat with her, as described in VI ? That's minor?

- Here, have something to drink without even sniffing it for poison despite the disturbance you feel in the Force.

- Why would anyone want balance to the Force when there are supposedly two Sith in the Universe and a community of Jedi? That's the right kind of ratio.

- The wisdom of the Jedi is apparently to be humorless, reckless and fearless despite paying lip service to the opposite. A character must REACT with fear to new surroundings so the audience can feel suspense, even if they summon the strength to overcome it.

- In OT, decisions were usually made under fire and in a crunch, on the fly. In the prequels, there is usually no urgency and things are decided or discussed in periods of rest. (Except of course scenes like "rational" Obi Wan jumping through a window instead of pulling the floating robot to himself with the Force, despite saying he "hates when" Anakin jumps from a flying vehicle).

- One point in the Sith review that makes GREAT sense is that it would be common practice for the Jedi to "watch the watcher" or keep an eye on Palpatine or anyone else in power. Knowing that absolurte power corrupts absolutely. They need only look into the heart of anyone they encounter, including Palpatine, and if they are blocked then they know that person is communing with the Dark Side in order to do so.

- I don't care about the rationalizations. "I didn't really come here to free slaves, " is an INFURIATING line coming from "Schindler" but it is also not befitting any Jedi or any protagonist in a heroic adventure. Freeing slaves and disregarding an outlying system's WRONGHEADED tolerance of it would have been a rousing and engaging central premise. And LEAVING Shmi Skywalker to live as a slave and not even check in on her for, what, 10 years?

Fear of Anakin's mother suffering is a REASONABLE fear, and NO relation whatsoever to Fear that we overcome, like prejudice -- which I what I thought Yoda was talking about when I saw the trailer, and what other fans nodded appreciatively over.

The business of "attachment" being forbidden is paradoxial, since a Jedi may be attached to irrelevant rules at the expense of what is worth a hero giving his life to defend.

- Anakin talks about a device he has invented for scanning where slaves have their incendiary devices planted in their skin. THAT should lead to a quite worthy sequence! Is Qui-Gon removing Anakin's explosive when he takes the blood sample? I don't recall WHAT he was doing. Then why not Shmi's explosive next? Why not make a point of covertly ridding all of Anakin's friends of their bombs? Maybe Shmi is off at work when this happens and she has to be among the last, and maybe she crosses a perimeter and Watto sees this and activates his remote.

THAT would have been an ideal circumstance for her to die, right in front of Anakin, and maybe in reflex he mentally swats Watto against a wall like a fly. Might not be apt for a children's film, but certainly okay if Lucas cared to establish a tone that naturally ended with the PG-13 finale of Anakin's legs being chopped off before he burns beside a lava lake.

- The chief accomplishment of Attack of the Clones is they manage to have a battle between armies of robots and Jedi and make it boring. They have also made peace boring, which is quite offensive in a set of stories about war and mostly released during war time.

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. Years from now melchiahdimension-1 you'll watch these prequels and wonder WTF you were thinking.

On close examination of the most basic points, it all falls apart.
George Lucas is all about negotiations and deals and those transactions are a big part of the "story" in the prequels. It doesn't make them more civilized. It makes them false and out of touch with the human spirit.

The fact that Lucas will re-release The Phantom Menace in 3D February 2012 and not stick to the OT just willfull greed and shortsightedness. The prequels are a disgrace.

V for Vagnerian, Veneration, Vegetarian. . . .

A twit on the imdb.com discussion board for Scott Peters the current producer of the reboot of Kenneth Johnson's V found an old post of mine where I was rejecting the show and calling it an anti-Obama tract. But that was in the earliest episodes of the reboot where frankly it wasn't a well written show. The plotting and transitions were very scattershot and I think the scenes had an arbitrary rushed pace to them. The show eventually found its way. But the thing about an imdb post is that people find the old ones and reply as if they were written yesterday.
I still kinda prefer the old 1980's version with its World War II analogy, but I also think whatever had been intended as a subtext for the current V for Version of V isn't much there anymore and we're better off without that. Subtext worked for Battlestar Galactica's reboot, but now that the Bush era is over there is not as much to seeth over.
Here is my reply to that imdb user:

Actually the show has improved vastly since its first few episodes. And one thing that has eased off and then disappeared is any connection to that subtext. Now that the fuss over the flu is done there isn't much in V to mirror it anymore. Any connection between blue energy et cetera and healthcare would be laughable. There is nothing sinister behind universal healthcare in Canada. Let alone big, sharp teeth and pointy tails to impail people.

I'm not the one with something to cry about. I don't live in America where the people who still have a stranglehold are the Republicans. And by the way Ms ALLCAPS Esplin obviously by "EVERY OTHER TV SHOW" you skip Fox "News" and CNN, which is surprizing considering the Republican tendancy to cower from anything other than their own camp. In most TV there isn't any such thing as absolute right or absolute left. Just because someone supports Obama doesn't mean we TiVo Glee hoping to swoon each week as two guys sing to each other. There is just enough smart-Liberal stuff is out there that we don't have to settle for Pandering-Liberal.

Somehow I get the sense you are not an avid fan of Bill Maher or even Jon Stewart. V has become a fun show, shocking and interesting, and my boycott stopped after it corrected course returning from its abrupt break in the middle of season 1. Season 2 with Jane Badler is outstanding and they've shown excellent taste in the gesture of filling the void of her departure with the inclusion of Marc Singer. I no longer read any Republican underpinning into the program.

I do however think that it is vital that people "kill" their idols or heros in the sense that they say the highest level of Buddhism encourages adherants to "kill the Buddha" and Christians can get more out of our own stated values if we "Kill" our image of Christ and the facts of stories so we can see the forest through the trees. People need to band together and not expect an indivual to be the perfect saviour and solve all problems. Interestingly enough in the case of Obama you mention -- his biggest FAULT has turned out to be his bipartisan approach. Had he been as underhanded as Republicans had been for 8 years and had he shoved all left-wing policies down the throats of Americans during his first year while he had a Democratic house (which he should have) then I can understand the Right demonizing him as a V. Instead he let himself be mired in bipartisanism so even his allies at the Left are drifting to the middle (ironically, that's where he is and yet it is hurting his team).

So I wouldn't say that I'm "crying" but I am concerned. More about the real world than what has now turned out to be a pretty cool show more in the spirit of classic V than the mess it was during the first few reboot episodes.

Red Letter Media's review of Attack of the Clones

Harry S. Plinkett's bang-on observations use clips as proof, whether or not he is as insane as his home movie clips demonstrate from time to time throughout the visual essay on Attack of the Clones.

film analysis: The Phantom Menace

With the announcement that George Lucas plans to re-release Star Wars movies in 3D but starting with "Episode 1" from 1999, the worst of the series, it might be a good time to remind people of the thorough, but-busting funny practical essays by Red letter Media. It's long, but never a dull moment (which can't be seen of the movie).















At least the psycho storyline that runs through his reviews of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith shift speculation away from whether he is a geek. We can be assured that he is merely insane. But his points about the prequels are well observed.

Justin Bieber on rape and abortion ?

Remember when the Internet had a collective meltdown over what Justin Bieber said about abortion to Rolling Stone? Well, the magazine apparently made a slight “editing error” (their words) when it came to his answer. “The full quote, his response to whether abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, reads: ‘Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.’” Do with this information what you will.

That's the blurb I've recently seen posted. I left this remark in the comments:

I missed hearing about the fuss over the truncated version. He seems to be giving a sensitive answer that should alienate nobody. It's a little fishy that he was asked anything other than a softball question. A question about abortion seems designed to trip up someone with his target audience. It could be noted that a fetus gets DNA and RNA from the mother but only DNA from the father, so it is more a part of her. Also, intelligence is supposedly passed maternally, so the kid is not likely a destined rapist. And there is a 51 percent chance the unborn mystery guest is female, so even less likelihood she will rape anyone. People will abort, but let's not varnish the why: she likely thinks she is getting back at the rapist, who most likely would be delighted to show she aborted. Forcing someone to give birth might very well be an extension of the rape, but if I were talking to the pregnant woman I would not spin the fact of gestation as a mere phase of human life. Justin is right in saying that it is sad.

Published Philosophies

On Sex Talk

Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.

On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip

There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.

On Abortion

People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.

To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.

Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.

Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.

Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.

Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.

Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”


On voting under a veil

Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.

Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.

Oscars 2011

I didn''t watch them broadcast. I saw a bit of youtube crap from the red carpet and I find I have a low threshhold for Fashion talk.

I caught a few blurbs and opinions from people disappointed by the program and the hosts, then I actually found the ceremony on a file-sharing website which is illegal but also noble, generous and necessary. The show and the hosts were no worse than other years. I had no problem with James Franco other than when he sported a dress. There was a weird time-killing moment with Anne Hathaway singing a song apparently to Hugh Jackman which went nowhere, and I could have done without the Somewhere Under the Rainbow" ending which was pure cheese. I think there is legitimate complaint that the kid from Lost Boys was not included in the dead montage. After all, there are some names I'd never heard of included and a simple google would have likely coughed up a complete list of dead celebrities of 2010. In fact, didn't a couple of those people that were included die in 2011 ? I'm not sure how they organize that.

For Franco's movie, I would have made a joke about the sound of one hand clapping.