In Defense of George Lucas or, Amy Farrah Fowler is full of crap.

I'll be straight with you, I have given up on the Big Bang Theory some time ago. Mostly because of the change in the show's dynamic. Once we brought on Amy and Bernadette the show has gone from Penny being the outsider looking in, and being accepted into the group on some kind of equal footing, to Penny being queen bee of her own group, and rolling her eyes at how big of dorks the men in her life are. This has really changed the show from a Frasier like feel of justifying but laughing with us to the TV equivalent of "let's laugh at the nerds!" So when I first heard the "incredible story" of how the character of Amy Farrah Fowler (played by former Blossom star Mayim Bialik) had rendered Raiders of the Lost Ark pointless naturally I was curious. Supposedly ruining one of the greatest action movies of my generation, with supposedly incredible and clever logic upset quite a few Indiana Jones fans!) It took me a while to see the episode. and To all those folks who wear Bazinga T-shirts, and think the show is some kind of Gospel. I can easily point out that despite her genius level I.Q., she is in fact so very and wholly without a doubt incorrect.

Her theory goes as follows, that without Indiana Jones' interferrence the events of the film would have played out the same. Belloq would still die along with a whole group of Nazis after stealing the Ark of the Covenant from it's resting place in the Well of Souls. "Oh no she didn't!" right? Sure Belloq pretty much signed his death warrant by throwing in with the third reich, but one small problem with her theory.

The flaw in the theory is this she implies that the wrath of God/Nazi slaughterfest that happened at the end of the movie was the whole point. all them dead German soldiers and officers would have dide regardless of Jones being there or not. but where did they take the Ark? Simple, they took it to the other side of an Island with a German submarine base on it. Now I highly doubt that opening the Ark, here to assure the Fuhrer's Prize would be confirmed before it's trip to Berlin was so important as to abandon a working shipyard in a time of war. In short not every soldier on the Island went to the opening of the arc more than half probably stayed at base to continue fueling, repair and monitoring for allied threats during the opening of the Ark. What's more any basic millitary protocol would have required some form of check in, after some amount of time, after they failed to check in,a search party would have been sent to report on the missing group. No Indiana Jones to hightail the Ark of the Island after the opening killed Toht, Deitrich, Belloq, means that once the German patrol came up on this scene of grizzly carnage caused by the wrath of God on the Nazis still would have left the Relic in the hands of the German millitary, and it may have been bombed, crated back to Berlin, or even dropped into the ocean. But due to Doctor Jones being present, he and Marion put it into the hands of US military intelligence. Where "top men" would study and pack it in a warehouse. Had it been left on the island we honestly have no Idea what the German army or Hitler would have done with the golden chest containing the fragments of the ten commandments. Thus while Indiana Jones may not have gotten the Ark for the University to study. his actions and his involvement with the  search for the Ark does indeed matter. His involvement did indeed change the outcome of events.

Look I am not the genius that Sheldon or Amy are supposed to be, but apparently I know a bit more about basic military protocol.

The League of Extraordinary Bloggers: Halloween

So the theme this week is Halloween, that being said it's time to try something new, so with that in mind, Nerd Rage Against the machine presents- The Best and Worst of Halloween!


BEST TRICK OR TREAT CANDY!

The Lion Bar- Maybe it's the fact that finding this awesome British candy bar here in the states requires me to order on line or an 8 hour trip to St Louis, but damn they are the kind of candy that if I found in my Trick or Treat bag (or my daughters) I would indeed be in heaven. Chocolate, caramel wafer and rice crisps make this damned delectable, with only the much vaunted Reece's peanut butter cup taking a close second.

WORST TRICK OR TREAT CANDY-

The Root Beer Barrel-I am not kidding when I say I would rather get a toothbrush in my bag than these horrible tasting solid sugar lumps of doom. they taste more like the nastiest licorice I can imagine than they do any actual root beer I have ever had, and to be honest I enjoy a nice root beer. But I would imagine vinyl siding to taste better than these horrid lumps, at least the toothbrush would be useful. 

BEST VAMPIRE MOVIE-

Shadow of the Vampire- This film NAILS IT! it is a fictional retelling of the filming of FW Murnow's Nosferatu. with John Malcovitch as Murnow, and the ever creepy Willem Defoe as Max Schreck. Incredible performances the vampire is an actual monster, not just someone tarted up who moans on about a beast I am lest a beast I become bullshit. This is an incredible film, from the talent to the story to and to the setting. 

WORST VAMPIRE MOVIE-

Twilight (series)- Yes I realize that hating on twilight is more obvious than hating on the Star Wars Prequels but that won't stop me from doing it. I did try to sit through the first one, I went throught 4 years of film school, and watched a lot of dreck, so how bad could it be? Bad. It was less of a vampire film and more about a group of people with super powers that seemed to emulate the powers of vampires. The dead eyed stares of Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart were hardly any help here. The only plus is that Edward was smoother with the ladies than Anican Skywalker, but only by a little. 

BEST HORROR COMEDY MOVIE-

Evil Dead-2- This is a no brainer, take a horror script, add Bruce Campbell, and shoot the whole damn thing like a 3 stooges film on acid. The Result? This is why Bruce Campbell is a cult film hero, right here. a man who can deliver exact comic timing and still go insane enough to cut off his own hand with a chainsaw making it both creepy and funny at the same time. The sequel (Army of Darkness) Is also verymuch worth seeing. 

WORST HORROR COMEDY MOVIE- 

Scary Movie (series)- I sat through Scary Movie 2 with a friend of mine who thought I would like it because in his words I like "dumb comedy" you know like Monty Python, or the Venture Brothers. I sat through this 2 hour cinematic bowel movement stone faced. Not one scrap of celluloid inducing so much as a smile, and yes I was willing to give it a try. The jokes (if you can call them that) seem like the kind of crap high school kids would come up with for a pep rally. Mostly consisting of "remember this piece of obvious pop culture" gags using the most obvious toilet humor to play them to their conclusions. and no movie from the creators of has proven to be one iota better. I could fill this blog with my loathing for this piece of garbage but why bother? 

BEST FAMILY FILM FOR HALLOWEEN-

Hotel Transylvania- I know some of you out there are crying foul right about now. "what? Not Nightmare before Christmas?" "How dare you?" "Tim Burton's Masterpiece is a work of Genius!" Well, I disagree. Tim Burton is a highly derivative director who took 90% of his visual cues from Robert Weine. Don't believe me? Watch the Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, and compare the look of Burton's films. The architecture? Check, The characters? Check (doesn't Edward Scissorhands look just  like Cesare?) Yes it has some very catchy tunes but it's not the greatest film ever made. And I will admit this is also true of my choice, but as a father to a beautiful baby girl, it strikes a chord. The gags are cute, the film flows well and is written with adults in mind with many jokes, and the whole thing was directed by Gennedy Tartikofski (Dexter's Lab/ Samurai Jack) what's not to like? 

WORST FAMILY FILM FOR HALLOWEEN-

Elvira, Mistress of the Dark- O.K. Not a horrible film, but definitely a poor choice if you have small kids around. I'm Jus sayin'

MOST OVER RATED MONSTER- 

The Zombie- Look, I get it zombies are a great stand in for an overwhelming tide of humanity infecting what is pure in humanity. Romero's Night of the Living Dead could have been an analogy for  the communist threat. Now a day it could be a stand in for consumer culture or a culture to inwardly obsessed with the digital world to make a mark in the real one. But they are also a great monster because they have almost no sympathetic side in their purest form. It's not racist or evil to hate or want to riddle zombies with more lead than a Chinese toy factory. They are a survivalist's wet dream for an enemy. A real communist, may have a point or even be able to rationalize with you. But not Zombies they are solely here to make you one of them and eat your brains. but Aliens, Vampires, and Lycanthopes can all be sympathized with, even loved. This is why there are so many games and movies about zombies, kill em' no one will mind. 

MOST UNDER RATED MONSTER- 

Mankind- Lets be fair until we find real monsters, Man is the template for all of our made up ones. We have a history of being unwaveringly cruel, evil and vile. and this makes for some of the scariest stories. from the Shining, to Psycho, to even Tod Browning's freaks where the menagerie of deformed folk were not at all evil and the most twisted foul beasts in the film were the so called normal and beautiful people. In short we really can be the true face of evil. 

Now let's see what trick and treats the rest of the league has to offer! 
The Monster Cafe
Nerd Out With Me
Goodwill Hunting 4 Geeks
the 30ish Year old Boy
Team Hellions
Diary of a Dorkette
Cool and Collected

Justice League movie part 4- The Man of Steel, and the Superman/Batman Movie.

So it's been a while since I have revisited this, but with Comicon, over the world's largest focus group is over, and the announcement of a Superman/Batman movie is out of the bag, and the Man of Steel is in theatres, I gotta say not just that DC dropped the ball with Man of Steel, but that I am liking the prospect of a Superman/Batman movie less.

So from here on a quick warning the following article includes spoilers, rants and a possible incent to riot. if you want to read on please do but be warned...

The League of Extraordinary Bloggers: Jerry MacGuire. (God I hated that movie.)

So the new challange is if I were a sports agent whom would I sign, that would be easy

I would have to start with Jeffery Lebowski, expert Bowler, and If I were to start a team, an excellent coach, the Dude abides, and he has Walter for all the screaming and yelling, and Donnie for all the technical stuff.

As for athletes from the world of Pop Culture, I have quite a few Ideas,  First off Bobby Bouche, an incredible athlete, and offensive tackle. A man with strategy (visualize and then attack) and he performs double duty on the field, what's not to like?

Now for my next choice, I am going Olympic, and I want to make it clear that magic is not the same as juicing. I will not abide performance enhancing drugs (but magic potions are not the same) They were a hit at the Olympic Games (Cesear said so) Asterix and Obelix, Olympic champions and definitely not juicing (magic DOES NOT count as juicing!)

Speaking of magic and sports I am also going to claim Harry Potter and the whole Griffyndor Quidich team, it's a rough sport as is but add that he survived attacks by he who must not be named, and live, he could make a mint going pro!

and last (But by no means least) a man who makes Chuck Norris piss his pants in terror, Mr. Brock Sampson! Seriously compare Chuck to Brock, Brock has done way more awesome things (and doesn't have to hock the total gym to make extra scratch!) Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Walker, Texas Ranger!

To mess with one must be suicidal or perpetually inebriated, which explains this picture with Sterling Archer,

If I had to guess this will be how Archer meets his maker.

Well that's my team let's see the rest of the league's rosters!
Fortune and Glory (Days) 
Infinite Hollywood

Why? No Really Why?

So the latest League question is both simpler and more complex than normal, thus I think it's time to do the same with the article the question they wanted is "Why" Why am I called a racist?

What?  Racist? how in the hell did you equate why to racism? I know both are bad pet names (so is spam by the way) but what do the two have in common. It's simple Why is the question I seem to always ask when I see some of the dumbest choices in casting. Thus I think I have to label myself a cinematic racist.

I say this because I am the one who get annoyed when Idris Elba is cast as Heimdall,  I mean WHY? after all it is not as if Asgard wasn't pointed out to be a nordic culture and the basis of nordic religion, why cast Elba as Heimdall? is it just political correctness gone amuck. Yeah he did a good job albeit a pretty limited part. but Why?

By comparison Donald Glover petitioned very hard to get the coveted role of Spiderman in Sony's new film and it fell on deaf ears. Instead we went with a british kid named andrew Garfield who (and I am more than willing to blame the director and scripts as much as Garfield) played a sullen boardpunk version of parker that I simply did not like. Glover (who is best known by most as Troy Barnes on Community) would have made a spectacular Spiderman (Pun completely intended) his optimism is infectious. So what is the difference?

In my mind it's simple, race just isn't what makes spiderman, spiderman.  Spiderman (and his alter ego of Peter Parker) are about being the nerd, the geek, the social outcast, and still never giving up. he is a hero who in many ways has every right to be as sullen as Batman but just isn't he refuses to be. and Glover could have easily brought that to the role. Though it's not like the new Spiderman movie was anything to crow about, maybe there is still a chance for a good reboot!

I heard the same thing in Star Trek: Into darkness as Benedict Cumberback, (a lily white British guy known best for playing Sherlock Holmes in the modern adaptation by the BBC) got a ton of flack for playing Khan as he was originally played by Mexican actor Ricardo Montelbon, who played Khan in the original series, yet even there Khan was a Sikh.

I don't think one was any better or worse choice than the other, neither looks particularly like a Sikh, but also Khan's ethnicity didn't really enter into it, he was a genetic superman, that was the important part of his origin.

Yet no one took issue with Bane being played by equally white brit, Tom Hardy. WHY!? Bane is latino in origin, his costume is that of a Luchador, he is a luchador, That's all part of his origin, A luchador is a mexican masked wrestler, yet no one complained when bane was simply as mexican as fish and chips!

This is the time it may have mattered more than Khan. Or what about the film Mortal Kombat when Raiden the Japanese god of Thunder was played by....

French actor Chrisopher Lambert. considering his thick accent I really doubt they hired him for his elocution. Considering the lack of fighting Raiden had to do in the film, and the possible desire to have Raiden explain everything in the plot, why not choose someone like I don't know...

I mean it's not like he is not charismatic, has a deep booming voice that can command respect, and is also ironically enough not just asian looking but ACTUALLY JAPANESE!! THis decision can only make sense if Takei was offered the part and declined.

So I have been called racist on forums for disliking Heimdall, or the like but let me put it to you, if race matters why would you not at least TRY I understand that if you are casting a hollywood movie about inuits that celebrity inuit actors who can speak good 'Merican for a hollywood film may be in short supply. I am also cool with an Asian actor playing the Flash, or a black Harry Dresden, I am decidedly less cool with say Matthew Maconahay playing T'chala's brother, or cousin in a Marvel Black Panther movie. But why am I a racist for wanting authenticity in a role when race mattered in the script/ original source?

So now that I have that off my chest what is everyone else up to?

Yelinna
Cal's Canadian Cave of Cool
Infinite Hollywood
30(ish) year old boy
Geek til it hurts
claymation werewolf
Toyrific
Pop Pop, It's Trash Culture
Fortune and Glory (days) 
Diary of a Dorkette
Pop Rewind
Cool And Collected

Oh really James? Really?

So I just heard this recently and had to post about it. James Cameron when prompted about his sequel to the 2009 movie Avatar, stated that  unlike Peter Jackson He didn't have a book he could mine, that he was doing this all on his own.

Poor you. Seriously. Poor you Mr. Cameron. Your film was a paper thin plot loosely based on several themes that have been done to death in Hollywood, including but not limited to Ferngully, Dances with Wolves. Pocahontas, and even Transformers, not to mention some of your previous works. You may think that Jackson is just sitting on a couch barking out orders, based on a few chapters, but let's look at the facts Tolkien is more than a book. It is a series with a massive fan base that can turn all kinds of ugly with just a few missteps. Don't believe me Look at Joel Schumacher's Batman, and he didn't even have to follow nearly as closely as jackson has to. had he cast say, Jack Black, or Ryan Reynolds as Bilbo, the film would have been the subject of countless ire on the internet. even an attempt to expand a slim single volume book like the hobbit into 3 films and padding it with cannon Tolkien material has earned him some ill repute. Meanwhile how many people were upset about Sam Worthington being cast as Jake Sully, none, save for maybe a few actors who were also up for the role. why because no one had an attachment to Jake Sully before the movie came out, and just as many have an attachment to him now. No one has wanted more info on Jake Sully no Avatar comics, novels or RPG have been attempted to fill in the blanks. Why because no one cares enough to make these worth doing. In contrast Battlestar Galactica started it's life as an attempt by a TV network to cash in on the Star Wars craze. yet even Classic Galactica had fans talking about Starbuck and Apollo. The revamp even more so, I would continue to to off on your so called opus but I think the folks at Red Letter Media Said it best and put more work in it than I actually want to.

mediocre movie Monday: Atlas Shrugeed parts 1&2

Warning! this post is about to get political, you have Been warned.

at lash shrugged is over 4 hours cut across 2 movies so we can get this "epic tale" in it's true scope and majesty. Similar excuses are why the last Harry Potter, Twilight and why the hobbit were cut into multiple pieces, mostly in the case of the last 3 it's because studios wanted to extend the life of these gravy trains as longs as they could. After the Hobbit, there is no real market for other Tolkien films. As for Potter and Twilight, both authors could continue making sequels with no real guarantee that fans will love them like last time. But imgaine if Lord of the rings couldn't have kept it's leads from one move to the next. Imagine Viggo Mortenson, Orlando Bloom, and even Ian Mc Kellan, jumping ship before the Two Towers even filmed. Then imagine it Fellowship was a flop. I mean, almost to direct to video failure. Contract or not, Two Towers would probably be shelved. But in the case of Atlas Shrugged the makers felt it was so important to make make sequels, to the first film despite just these issues. They had to recast all the leads, and the first film didn't make the kind of money that a Scary Movie, or a Pearl Harbor. Why? Because the message of this film is so important? If that is the case, you still have to wonder will you be able to get someone to sit through 4 hours of long and plodding storyline, to get Ayn Rand's message of objectivism. This film is called a science fiction tale, but with it's improbable logics, and flat out goofy world view this seems to me like calling Ridley Scott's Alien as a Romantic comedy.

In short the story is about Dagney Taggart, a woman who's grandfather built a railroad. She is meant to be a heroic ideal of an industrialist beset on all sides by an evil government forcing collectivism. The "evil government" is obsessed with destroying exceptionalism by forcing companies to share resources with the government. And she and a few others spend the films defying this collectivist government. Meanwhile all kinds of exceptional people are disappearing and here comes all the the "who is John Galt?" A question no one really needs an answer to. The real problem with this movie is Rand's obsessive intent to show her point, she makes an insanely unlikely scenario come to place. The government liberals are so cartoony it's not even funny. The villains are so polarized as to not be believable. As the heroic industrialists begin to leave the evil government, in protest. There is a ton of scenes of people crying about the lack of talented and intelligent people to pull us out of this crisis, because everyone knows that people only create greatness when they are getting paid for it, just look at Linus Torvaldis, Jonas Salk, and Mahatma Ghandi, none of these guys would have toiled or sweat without massive bank being promised right? The other problem especially with Rands fans is that there is a divide in the book between the makers and the takers the government is always portrayed as takers, no better than common criminals with wealthy industrialists being seen as the heroic makers,job creators and overall improves to the human condition. What about bankers, and insurance agents and other middlemen, all absent from Rand's "epic vision" bankers don't make anything, they take your resources, redistribute them and TAKE a profit. Insurance people take your hard earned money on a. Promise they might give you some back if you get into a horrible accident. So why all the Ayn Rand love by the bankers and government types. This movie saga was not worth sitting through with it's long plodding discussions and near total lack of action or intrigue. In short, I give both films 1 star, and they can fight it out or learn to share it.

Five of my favorite under rated movies.

I think we all have a few movies that you know and love that aren't well know the ones that fall through the cracks. These aren't movies that I secretly like while others hate (O.K. I'll admit to really digging Speed Racer which got pretty poor reviews but that movie was well known and very well promoted. and people know about it, some even actively dislike it. These are films few seem to know about, but in my humble opinion are well worth seeing.

5- Bob Roberts-  If nothing else for Jack Black playing an ultra con fanboy of a republican senator a few years before he became well known, you should check out this mockumentary. Tim Robbins plays the Titular Bob Roberts who is an ultra conservative Rush Limbaugh type senator who uses folk music to convey his message the Mockumentary takes place during his senate bid. Probably a bad film if you are a Limbaugh fan, but otherwise some incredible performances and catchy (if evil tunes).

4- Comic Book The Movie- One of my favorite films starring Mark Hamill, yeah maybe even more than the obvious choice. Hamill directed and stared in this mockumentary (I seem to like those) as Don Swan a Wisconsin high school history teacher/comic fanboy, who is also making a documentary on the release of a film based on one of his favorite comic heroes Commander Courage. The Commander however has been given a post 9-11 reboot and is not Codename: Courage. Which don clearly has a lot of nerd rage about (see what I did there) lots of very cool inside jokes for comic fans and references.My favorite is seeing David Prowse, Jeremy Bulloch and Peter Mayhew at a table, and Hamill asks if he can take a seat Prowse (the body actor of Darth Vader) replys "no, move along son." classic.

3- Under the Rainbow- Speaking of Star Wars Alumni, this was a one of project of Carrie Fisher, that she did about the same time Ford was hip deep in snakes in Raiders of the lost ark, and set in the same time frame, but definitely not connected. Under the Rainbow is a comedy about the filming of the Wizard of Oz, and the near infinite troubles of wrangling about 100 or so little extras to play the munchkins, it also adds many bizarre twists such as a Nazi plot to transfer a file to their Japanese allies in the same hotel used by the munchkins forcing the Nazi spy (played by Billie Bartey) to hide amongst  the munchkins.

2- J-Men Forever- So far these all kinda fit together huh, this 1930's style film is the parody work of the Firesign Theatre (of "don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers" fame) as radio comedians they lend their voices and comedic talent to this re-voicing and re-editing of a collection of republic serials. the results are riotous. The scenes with the caped madman are well worth the price of admission alone. oh and this clip is the full movie, how cool is that?

1- Rock and Rule- The only Animated film on the list and technically the only foreign film, this Canadian post apocalyptic story is as close to a real rock musical as there has ever been or may ever be. It is not a musical that uses rock lyrics and tunes in a more hollywood musical way such as Rock of Ages, but uses real rock music from Lou Reed, Cheap Trick, and Blondie. the animation is in my mind superb, and the story is very cool the ending sequence of Angel and Omar coming together to sing the beast back is still in my mind a pretty iconic moment. I was also able to locate the full version of this on Youtube as seen above. This is the Canadian cut which has a different actor playing Omar (Paul LeMatt played him in the US version, but no major differences.

Can someone please explain this to me...

Why does hollywood screw up so many live action films so poorly and then turn good scripts into animated "throw away" direct to video releases? Take a look at a Few here for examples. When Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were in production Wizards of the Coast scooped them both with the Dungeons and Dragons film, now with hundreds of D&D novels and well loved characters like Rastelin, or Elminster or Even Dritz (who I am not a fan of) what would the production staff choose to do? a full live action Dragons of Autumn Twilight (first Dragonlance novel) might have made tons of new fans for the venerable series of D&D books, What bout Live action Dritz? or at least set it in the Forgotten Realms and have a cameo by Elminster right? Nah! whole new world whole new story, screw thousands of fan favorite ideas that were already time tested for what? For this!

Total crap, cheezy story, dialogue Adam West wouldn't be caught dead saying and oh yeah nothing says most venerated fantasy game of all times like Marlon Wayans as comic relief. This movie was paper thin fantasy with almost no real connection to Dungeons and Dragons at all other than authorized by the license holders. And what about Margret Weis' and Tracey Hickman's seminal fantasy work that prettymuch launched D&D novels into the main stream, well they get this.

SERIOUSLY!?! A live action film of this could have been amazing and calling Dungeons and Dragons: Dragons of Autumn Twilight would have gotten just as many if not more into the theatre than offering Marlon Wayans as comic relief. In retrospect Lord of the rings spawned 3 more sequels in the Hobbit, and the D&D movie had 1 direct to TV movie on SYFY. maybe there is a lesson here. 

Same can be said of G.I. JOE- At the time that steaming turd of a movie was getting released Warren Ellis of R.E.D. and Transmetropolitan fame penned G.I. Joe Resolute an incredibly well done script that shows a more real and mature version of the 1980's cartoon. It was as good of a reboot story as Ron Moore's take on Galactica. So what happened, direct to video cartoon that bad boy, it starts with crap like Major Blood being found dead on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, and Cobra Commander Blowing up Moscow. It includes a serious and feasible plot, but retains the boyish action roots of the cartoon, so show it once on adult swim and bury it in the back bins of your local Wal-Mart because what we need in a G.I. Joe film is MORE MARLON WAYANS!!!

YEP Marlon Wayans is the perfect man to play ginger paratrooper ripcord, and while we are at it let's make the Baroness as American as we can get her, and a completely non ironic Team America attack on Paris moment, ignore any sense of lore the cartoon or comic made to make a film. People will go because it's a popcorn film tons of action and fun. right? and if this works we can apply the same logic to making a movie based on the game Battleship! 

Toys and Games aren't Immune Wonder Woman almost had the same issue but thankfully the new TV show did not get to see the air. but here is a shot of the costume they had chosen. 

YUP! Kinda looks like a slightly more modest bad halloween costume, she was also supposed to fight Elizabeth Hurley who was to play some evil makeup corperation owner. because you know chick superheroes can only fight chick supervillians and this unflappable logic worked with Sharon Stone in Catwoman so well. But to DC's credit an animated film with Nathan Fillion as Steve Trevor did come out and focus on what makes the character cool. It was like a blueprint for how to make a good live action film for a character so few people outside of comics really get. A live action film like this could be easily as good as Thor was for Marvel but alas, it's a one shot, forget about it find it on clearace in the big bins at Wal-Mart.  Here is a small clip. 

So What is Nerd Rage?

I have tried to blog a few times before with limited results, (either I didn't stick with it, or it seemed to be going no where) but I am rather optimistic about this subject. So you may ask what is "nerd rage"? So here is just a quick sampling of what nerd rage means to me.

NERD RAGE IS

When the re-release of a game you love takes all of the games sacred cows to the abattoir

The killing of a comic icon to cheaply boost sales of the comic.

Reviving the comic icon because people cry about him being gone.

What you feel when think about what Fox did to Firefly.

When you have spent hundreds on buying and hours painting an army for warhammer only for the new edition to nerf the hell out of it. 

Finding out your favorite comic is going to become a movie, as little as you have seen in the preview makes you realize they have ruined it. But yet you pay $12.00 to see it in the theatre anyway

finding out that there is going to be a really cool action figure released, only at Comicon, ha ha loser, hope you don't have to pay too much when we gouge you for it on Ebay later.

Watching the kind of jackasses you went to school with who gave you no end of crap for being into comics now rave about the newest comic book movies "Dude totally loved the Avengers, I am so like Tony Stark!" 

Embodied in the character of River Song, Oh how I loathe her marysue Doctor Who ruining ass!

Is seeing how corporate America treats some of your favorite stories, such as using Green Lantern to hock Hot Wheels, or the Hobbit to push crappy food at Denny's

More on this later.

O.K. this is too cool not to show off!

aw yeah! more dispicable me!

Five Ways Hollywood drops the ball when it comes to comic based movies

Don't get me wrong there have been some successes, such as the Avengers, the Dark Knight trilogy or even the New Dredd, or Sin City. But for every one of these kind of films that makes you go "Woah, they totally got it right!" there is a Green Lantern, or a Fantastic Four of a Stalone's Judge Dredd to show you how wrong it can go. I blame Hollywood for this, due to a desire to move product rather than treat the source with reverence. Sure movies made from books drop or forget things like Harry Potter ignoring Peeves the poltergeist, and the Hunger Games coming up with a different reason she had the mockingjay pin. but these aren't as big of deal breakers as Making Lawmasters into Flying motorcycles in Judge Dredd, or making Latverian Ruler Doctor Doom into a New Englander. Hollywood often opts for less forgivable transgressions, due in no small part to assuming fans won't care, or that since fans are a smaller (albeit vocal) group, joe six pack will be the real source of money from this picture so no big right? Well wrong, these comics garner such large fanbases because of what they are not the other way round. so if you are listening Hollywood, here is the 5 biggest screw ups normally made and hopefully you can use this as a road map to avoid them in the future (but I don't hold out a ton of hope.)

5- Celebrity Versus Actor- The job title here says it all. Actor. Not celebrity, so why must we rewrite characters to fit their celebrity persona. a good example of this is with Joel Schumacher's horrible Batman films, The Riddler is an intellectual villain who's pathological need to leave clues in the form of riddles could make for a very interesting foe. But hey, we got JIM CARREY, Straight off playing the Mask, Let's make Edward Nigma into a manic comic villain who suits the well known comedy stylings of a multi-million dollar comedy talent. Everyone loved Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber, and that's what they expect from Jim Carrey, so instead of a dark serious villain we get a rehashed Jim Carrey routine. Same with casting lovable rogue George Clooney for Batman, gone was the gritty tortured soul of a man who turns his loss of parents into a crusade against crime, and in it's place we get George Clooney, not acting but simply being George Clooney in a benippled batsuit with quips like "This is why Superman works alone." Why was Nolan's Batman a success, ACTING!, look at Cillian Murphy now tagged in Hollywood as a perfect man to play a sociopath, but look at him in the movie he did before Batman Begins, it was called Breakfast on Pluto, and Murphy played about the polar opposite of the Scarecrow in every way, and Liam Niessen played his estranged father, yet on the Batman set you would see none of the tenderness, none of the parental bond, they share in Breakfast on Pluto, instead you get very good straight evil performances that have since cemented Murphy in his celebrity role as a sociopath. 

4- Read the Goddamn book!- Sometimes, yes changes have to be made and believe it or not fans get that. I never heard anyone pitch a fit about the fact that Iron Man's origin now takes place in the middle east instead of China, no Balking at Bryan Singer's X-Men movies at the omission of core X-men and adding Wolverine,Storm and Rogue as X-men before they would have been X-men chronologically. Still often times Hollywood finds a need to change it up. Take the film Kick Ass, where 1 single line of dialogue changed the focus, Dave in the comic attributes his origin to a uinque mix of depression and isolation, in the movie Optimism and Obliviousness, see why that might change things. then we have to turn hit girl into a far more sexualized character (really she's like 12, she never had the need to wear a catholic school girl outfit in the book, why put it in the film even going as far to have Dave's friend remark about her being "hot") Further more Big Daddy was simply Crazy in the book, the story of him being this great cop, and being betrayed was a BS story he told his daughter, he was an accountant he chose to attack Demico, because he needed a villain. Instead Hollywood figures audiences can believe the crazy BS story of him being king of cops, over he's just plain nuts. These changes weren't there because we needed to cut time, (hell quite a bit was added to the film as well). So this isn't the X-men trying to cram 40+years of comics into 2 hours or Iron Man's Communist China simply isn't the big threat it once was. Nope this is just change to make a "better" movie. or because they believe the average movie goer isn't smart enough to get concepts like "he's crazy" 

3- Pointless Name Checking- This one is a stick wicket, when done right it can be effective to imply things from the greater universe of the comic, such as subtly giving an extra a well known minor character's name. Case in point professor Xavier saying "goodbye Kitty" as a young girl scoops up her books and phases through the wall, we get it, SHE'S KITTY PRIDE!!! but as many times this effect can add insult to injury Green Lantern turned space cop Hal Jordan into a caricature of Ryan Reynold's most popular roles and ignored the point of the character (effectively falling into the two traps we just talked about) but we DO get a treat of using Hector Hammond as the villain, as well as seeing some of the extended Jordan family including his brother Jim. What this says is "see we can make obtuse references to the source, thus we MUST know what we are doing." In reality the ability to cut and paste from a wikipedia article does not make one an expert and often times these names can be used improperly Hammond was nothing like the character in the film (other than the oversized head, kind of) but using this name as the villain sure seems like we know what we are talking about more than say using Sinestro, as he his Jordan's most known foe.  In short worry about the big things before you try to BS fans with the little things.

2- Retrograde Modification- Of course even if you do screw something up why not fix it on the back end. This is a relatively new thing but just as annoying. If fans balk at a change simply put it in the book, then it's cannon right? No then you've just screwed up the book on top of screwing up the movie.  Judge Dredd was guilty of this when DC got the US rights and issued a new comic that Mirrored the Stalone film, result? No one liked the US Judge Dredd Comic either! and We see this a lot in Green Lantern the "New 52" initiative at DC turned Hal into a warmed over Ryan Reynolds clone, and took Amanda Waller, a woman who was the female equivalent of Nick Fury for DC who had all the sexual appeal of Nell Carter and since she was played by Angela Basset in the film turned her into a smoking hot Female Nick Fury complete with jumping into the field. My reaction? I quit all DC books after the new 52, shame Green Lantern was one of my all time faves. 

1- Assuming your audience- I once had a film professor tell me that fanboys are just so overcome with joy that a movie is being made about their favorite hero that they won't care if it's wrong. This is flat out wrong. In fact it is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard about fandom. Fans if anything will be very critical, This doesn't mean we won't forgive some things. Everyone can get basic concepts like Venom's origin cannot be told accurately in the course of a movie as we would have to explain secret wars and Spidey's new suit all of which makes the continuity work to put the Avengers on film look like child's play. But tricks and making things for "joe sixpack" instead of for the fans only assumes we must write the lowest common denominator, and that the comic wasn't a fan favorite for anything but a few esthetics that we can easily clone. Fans are smarter than that, hell non fans are smarter than that. If the medium worked the first step is to look at what made it work and treat those parts like sacred cows, don't change huge swaths of it because you think you can sell more toys or excite non fans with a cameo, if it worked then fans will flock because it was right, and non fans will get turned on to it because it was popular for a reason! 

Mediocre Movie Monday: Transformers: Dark of the moon!

So why wait until now to review this one? Simple now that it's on netflix I can feel better about seeing it than I did after paying to see the first one in the theatre and the second one as a rental. That beings said I have to admit that it was the best film of the three. Of course the shiniest turd is still a turd. The dark of the moon places a decent amount of energy into a government cover up of the autobot's ark found on the dark side of the moon, and this part was find of interesting. The main issues with the film is it is a  far from stand alone affair, much like praising Revenge of the Sith as the best of the new Star Wars trilogy, you still need the other two as they are referenced constantly. This is even more true of Dark of the Moon. The Autobots still working for the NEST, and Shia Lebouf now complaining about entering the job market without being able to put planetary savior on his resume. Of course Megan Fox wasn't missed, as she was replaced with a blonde British girl replacing her as the token eye candy role. 

Leonard Nimoy made his second appearance voicing a cybertronian, (the first was Galvatron in the animated Transformer movie) as Vector Prime Nimoy added some gravitas to the plot and plays an interesting take on the judas type. Also Patrick Dempsy made a decent villain with an uniquely deep concept. It's not shaespeare but for a movie that was based on a toyline and that got maybe 15% of the lore from the cartoon correct, it wasn't bad. 

regardless I still hate the way they butchered Bumblebee it's a perfect example of what was wrong with Bay's "vision". Bumblebee was a VW beetle, because he was meant to be a link between humans and autobots. He carried no guns, and had was quite talkative. Instead we get a muscle car who talks by suing the radio, I know Volswagon apparently have taken issue with thier car being used to hock "war toys" but he could have just as easily been a Mini Cooper, PT Cruiser or a Fiat. but no, let's make him a mustang! That makes sense! And he can pee on John Totouro! I mean how hard would it be to make a good movie, the cartoon did a better job with a shoestring budget than bay did with Spielburg backing him and an unlimited amount of 'Splosions!  O.K. Rant over.

I give this move one and a half star for it's watchability which is 5 stars more than I would give either of the previous films.