Walking Dead had it's second season finale tonight. We watched it, then we watched Talking Dead for the first time.
Now I've been enjoying WD this season. The zombie action has been good, the character relationships developing nicely and the twists...um...twisty?
I stopped reading the comic very early on because it annoyed/bored me, and I have expressed that season 1 of WD was horrible in my eyes.
So how do I feel about season 2?
I like Daryl. Yeah, there are good characters and bad characters and I enjoyed the deaths of both Dale and Shane, but I can't stand watching seemingly intelligent people do stupid things over and over again just for the sake of drama.
But I do like Daryl.
So what I saw was a zombie overrun of the farm with Rick and Carl showing some inspired work on the barn and Daryl cowboying up. Oh and some other stuff.
I understand everyone is getting all excited about the introduction of a "fan favorite" character from the comics who popped up at the last minute in the finale. (I only know this "fan favorite" business because of Talking Dead, as I said, I stopped reading the comics early on)
What is really important here is:
1) Rick over the edge. Yeah! Shut those whiners the fuck up with your bad self.
2) Daryl still kicks ass.
As long as number 2 stays a factor in season 3 then WD will be 1.
Keep your citronella candles lit (zombies and mosquitoes hate citronella)!
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
On Stranger(er) Tides
As the cold Winter lingers in the Hampton Roads area and we desire Spring with all her pollen, hay fever, and uncertain insect population to bridge us into another warm season, I find my thoughts turning to the sea, to piracy, and to a book review. I have also considered renaming the blog to Summer Squash, temporarily, but I remain undecided there.
My book review: On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers (Here be spoilers)
I have wanted to read this book for several years and finally the chance arrived when Disney bought the rights to it and then very loosely based the 4th Pirates of the Caribbean film on it. I knew that a hit (or even mediocre) film would mean merchandising tie-ins, which would mean a reprint of this long out-of-print action novel that was originally published in 1987. Persons whose opinion I trust had declared this the finest piece of pirate fiction ever since the classics. The cover, shown above, was enough to draw the attention of a guy such as me. The book promised historical piracy setting, black magic, and adventure. What more could I want?
It took me nearly a year to read this book. I put it down for quite a while during the October to January time frame. Normally this would be to read Halloween and Christmas books, but honestly it had lulled a bit and I was bored with it. I wanted very much to like this book. The reviews I'd read on it, and since its re-release, all suggest that it is a perfectly written, brilliantly scripted, smart piece of sci-fi/fantasy.
I confess, I was disappointed.
I do not blame the Disney film adaptation, if one can call it that, for ruining my opinion of the novel. I believe if I had read this book 20 years ago I would have loved it. As it stands today I only sort of enjoyed it.
The Good:
Tim Powers is a decent writer. His descriptive powers are wonderful and he has the ability to evoke the locations of the Caribbean (islands, waters) in an emotionally satisfying way, while still using plain language. He uses enough nautical and sailing terminology to make the book feel "real" without bogging down in too much shipspeak. His choice of time and location, the early 18th century Caribbean, provides both the great pirate base of the Bahamas and some famous pirates, the most important being Blackbeard. Some of his characters, especially the pirate captain Phil Davies and the bocor Woefully Fat are wonderful original creations and a joy to read about, the latter being especially good (quite the scene stealer in his few appearances). His villains are convincingly evil as well, especially Hurwood who has one of the most interesting (and disturbing) villainous motivations I've ever read. Hurwood's assistant, for lack of a better word, is a forgettable character. I can't even remember his name and his brief back story was disgusting.
The voodoo that runs throughout the book is the fantasy element and a high point. From the simple mind controlling and zombies crews to the fantastical Fountain of Youth sequence, the magic is integral and not too obtrusive, for the most part. Magic is both minuscule and able to be employed by the meanest of pirates and complex, reserved for the most powerful of practitioners. As an integral part of the plot it works and I do like Powers's "rules" for magic quite a bit.
The Bad:
It lulls a bit in the third act, so to speak. The death of Phil Davies more or less made me want to put the book down and be down with it. Not all of the characters are winners, either. Of particular disappointment to me were the hero and heroine of the book. John Chandagnac, who becomes the pirate Jack Shandy, is a French puppeteer heading to the Caribbean to confront the uncle who stole his birthright. A nice enough back story, but the execution of the character is lackluster and he seems like just another wooden hero, not unlike the marionettes he uses in his trade. Even his use of his puppeteer skills and his rise to a position of leadership and heroic piracy are too pedestrian for what is an otherwise astounding setting. His revenge quest, which shifts to become a lover's quest, has perhaps the most uninteresting ending I've read in a long, long time. This is a shame, since had Powers not set up such a great story idea so rich with fantasy it would have been a great ending.
Beth Hurwood, the daughter of the main villain and Shandy's love interest will not be winning any awards for memorable female lead. She spends 99% of the novel as a dyed-in-the-wool templated Damsel-In-Distress, only to suddenly become a heroic counterpart to Shandy in the last 6 pages or so. One is reminded of the character played by Lysette Anthony in Krull, who spends the whole movie waiting for a rescue and then at the end uses the Krullian marriage ceremony to give the hero a power boost to kill the villain...
Which brings me to the really bad bit: the ending.
The book ends much like the 1983 film Krull, mentioned above. Shandy confronts his uncle, uses his resemblance to his father and his uncle's belief in voodoo to cause the evil uncle (who is a minor character at best) to get his comeuppance, then fights the resurrect voodoo powered Blackbeard (in new bald head disguise) not once, but twice (like a video game final boss) to save the woman that he decided he loves while he was shagging Anne Bonney on a New Providence beach. Yeah, that Anne Bonney.
Blackbeard being steeped in voodoo proves unbeatable by Shandy. Blackbeard will forcibly marry Beth Hurwood and live his voodoo power retirement to the fullest. Beth commingles her blood with Jack's and they exchange marriage vows during a sword fight and viola, dead Blackbeard. Yeah, I wish I made that up.
How it differs from the Disney film:
In almost every possible way.
The film has mermaids, zombies, Blackbeard with a magic sword, Sparrow, Barbossa, and Blackbeard's daughter. A love subplot between two young people (Philip and Syrena) was shoehorned in.
The book and the film have the Fountain of Youth, voodoo (already a POTC staple) and well, the locations.
Jack Sparrow is not a Jack Shandy, so the plot was substantially rewritten. I do not really feel the film is an adaptation of the book. I still enjoy the film immensely.
So that's me review. On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers, 2 coconut monkey heads full of booze out of 5. Give it a miss.
My book review: On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers (Here be spoilers)
 |
| Original Edition, not the edition I own |
It took me nearly a year to read this book. I put it down for quite a while during the October to January time frame. Normally this would be to read Halloween and Christmas books, but honestly it had lulled a bit and I was bored with it. I wanted very much to like this book. The reviews I'd read on it, and since its re-release, all suggest that it is a perfectly written, brilliantly scripted, smart piece of sci-fi/fantasy.
I confess, I was disappointed.
I do not blame the Disney film adaptation, if one can call it that, for ruining my opinion of the novel. I believe if I had read this book 20 years ago I would have loved it. As it stands today I only sort of enjoyed it.
The Good:
Tim Powers is a decent writer. His descriptive powers are wonderful and he has the ability to evoke the locations of the Caribbean (islands, waters) in an emotionally satisfying way, while still using plain language. He uses enough nautical and sailing terminology to make the book feel "real" without bogging down in too much shipspeak. His choice of time and location, the early 18th century Caribbean, provides both the great pirate base of the Bahamas and some famous pirates, the most important being Blackbeard. Some of his characters, especially the pirate captain Phil Davies and the bocor Woefully Fat are wonderful original creations and a joy to read about, the latter being especially good (quite the scene stealer in his few appearances). His villains are convincingly evil as well, especially Hurwood who has one of the most interesting (and disturbing) villainous motivations I've ever read. Hurwood's assistant, for lack of a better word, is a forgettable character. I can't even remember his name and his brief back story was disgusting.
The voodoo that runs throughout the book is the fantasy element and a high point. From the simple mind controlling and zombies crews to the fantastical Fountain of Youth sequence, the magic is integral and not too obtrusive, for the most part. Magic is both minuscule and able to be employed by the meanest of pirates and complex, reserved for the most powerful of practitioners. As an integral part of the plot it works and I do like Powers's "rules" for magic quite a bit.
The Bad:
It lulls a bit in the third act, so to speak. The death of Phil Davies more or less made me want to put the book down and be down with it. Not all of the characters are winners, either. Of particular disappointment to me were the hero and heroine of the book. John Chandagnac, who becomes the pirate Jack Shandy, is a French puppeteer heading to the Caribbean to confront the uncle who stole his birthright. A nice enough back story, but the execution of the character is lackluster and he seems like just another wooden hero, not unlike the marionettes he uses in his trade. Even his use of his puppeteer skills and his rise to a position of leadership and heroic piracy are too pedestrian for what is an otherwise astounding setting. His revenge quest, which shifts to become a lover's quest, has perhaps the most uninteresting ending I've read in a long, long time. This is a shame, since had Powers not set up such a great story idea so rich with fantasy it would have been a great ending.
Beth Hurwood, the daughter of the main villain and Shandy's love interest will not be winning any awards for memorable female lead. She spends 99% of the novel as a dyed-in-the-wool templated Damsel-In-Distress, only to suddenly become a heroic counterpart to Shandy in the last 6 pages or so. One is reminded of the character played by Lysette Anthony in Krull, who spends the whole movie waiting for a rescue and then at the end uses the Krullian marriage ceremony to give the hero a power boost to kill the villain...
Which brings me to the really bad bit: the ending.
The book ends much like the 1983 film Krull, mentioned above. Shandy confronts his uncle, uses his resemblance to his father and his uncle's belief in voodoo to cause the evil uncle (who is a minor character at best) to get his comeuppance, then fights the resurrect voodoo powered Blackbeard (in new bald head disguise) not once, but twice (like a video game final boss) to save the woman that he decided he loves while he was shagging Anne Bonney on a New Providence beach. Yeah, that Anne Bonney.
Blackbeard being steeped in voodoo proves unbeatable by Shandy. Blackbeard will forcibly marry Beth Hurwood and live his voodoo power retirement to the fullest. Beth commingles her blood with Jack's and they exchange marriage vows during a sword fight and viola, dead Blackbeard. Yeah, I wish I made that up.
 |
| This guy is NOWHERE in the book |
In almost every possible way.
The film has mermaids, zombies, Blackbeard with a magic sword, Sparrow, Barbossa, and Blackbeard's daughter. A love subplot between two young people (Philip and Syrena) was shoehorned in.
The book and the film have the Fountain of Youth, voodoo (already a POTC staple) and well, the locations.
Jack Sparrow is not a Jack Shandy, so the plot was substantially rewritten. I do not really feel the film is an adaptation of the book. I still enjoy the film immensely.
So that's me review. On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers, 2 coconut monkey heads full of booze out of 5. Give it a miss.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The "Flash Gordon" look
I was playing with the Style Tab on my DCUO hero, Rex Rumble, and put together this "Flash Gordon" look from my available costume bits.
I have no shame.
I have no shame.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Equal Time for Villains
Just thought I'd give my villain some equal time.
The Crimson Apparition is "inspired"* by the pulps and serials of old.
See?
*Shamelessly ripped off from
The Crimson Apparition is "inspired"* by the pulps and serials of old.
See?
*Shamelessly ripped off from
Friday, February 24, 2012
Rex Rumble, Super Hero
I play DC Universe Online off and on. I am not committed to it and play for free, which means I only get 2 characters. I kept making and deleting characters to try out different specs and powers and such. What I finally decided was that I needed a character that could be easily modded, since gaining new costume bits is fun. If I go to great lengths to design the perfect costume, like in Champions, I will become annoyed when a new piece of gear replaces it. The ability to alter the style, that is, keep a look while equipping a new piece of gear, means you can have variation when and if you want it.
Which is what led to Rex Rumble.
I didn't really want a bunch of crazy powers. I fancy the older Golden and early Silver Age heroes when a few powers, toned down, were the norm.
I think the domino mask is what really sells it. Nothing says HERO like a domino mask.
Which is what led to Rex Rumble.
I didn't really want a bunch of crazy powers. I fancy the older Golden and early Silver Age heroes when a few powers, toned down, were the norm.
I think the domino mask is what really sells it. Nothing says HERO like a domino mask.
Monday, February 20, 2012
In Defense of Plan 9 From Outer Space
Some Facts:
Working Title: Grave Robbers From Outer Space
Released: July 22, 1959
President of the United States of America in July 1959: Dwight Eisenhower (Ike)
Sputnik Launched Into Low Earth Orbit By the USSR: October 4, 1957
H.G. Well's War of the Worlds published: 1897 (serial format)
Them! released: 1954
Invasion of the Body Snatchers released: 1956
Creature from the Black Lagoon (final "Universal Monster" to hang with the "big boys") released: 1954
This Island Earth released: 1955
Forbidden Planet released: 1956
Starship Troopers published: 1959
Elvis's Army hitch: March 1958 to March 1960
Television: Twilight Zone debuts, Rawhide debuts, I Love Lucy in its penultimate season, Westerns are very popular, more so than science-fiction.
Plan 9 From Outer Space is famous as being one of, if not the worst film ever made. It must be true because critics hold it up as a benchmark for low-quality film and popular culture proclaims it loudly. Clearly these people have never seen Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, or Dinoshark, or Titanic. Tastes are somewhat relative, but human nature is to follow the herd and obey "authority" figures like Roger Ebert and that guy who has his own blog (commence mind control feed now). We are a social species and we follow the tastes of our society, and where we don't we usually go against the grain to prove we are not so easily led, which amounts to the same thing.
Is Plan 9 that bad?
Is it deserving of the being called (one of) the worst film(s) of all time?
I say it is not and it is not and, well, modern audiences actually seem to like it.
A quick look at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the Wiki articles will show that it has gained a loyal following in certain segments of society and acceptance in others. There have been so many films since its release in 1959 that one could hardly hold this little Ed Wood opus responsible for the film making atrocities some have claimed it to have.
So it's not still considered the worst film ever, or even in the top 100 of worst films.
I, however, want to take a different approach here and say that I believe, and hope to prove here, that Plan 9 From Outer Space may be the perfect movie within the confines of its genre.
Plan 9 was shot in 1956, previewed in 1957 and finally released in 1959, written and directed by Edward D. Wood Jr. and starring footage of Bela Lugosi. Everyone who has seen the film Ed Wood (by Tim Burton) knows what I have just written. Now, put that into context.
1959 was the last year of the 50's. The real 50's, not the television 50's. In 1957 the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik into space and the supreme paranoia and fun of the Space Race began. In 1945 the United States introduced the world to the power held inside the smallest atom in existence, effectively ending WWII and setting in motion the Cold War. The Cold War was a great time that happened to also coincide with scientific advancement and social conformity. Yay bombs! Wood wrote and filmed his opus in the years following the creation of the Comics Code, prior to and along with Sputnik and the Space Race.
Humans had shown an interest in the earliest science fiction since the likes of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, and maybe even as far back as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (which is apropos given where my argument is going) and we all know the historical significance of Orson Welles 1938 adaptation of H.G. Wells's classic 1897 War of the Worlds. Horror and Science Fiction are siblings, perhaps lovers, I don't want to delve into this metaphor too much. Any fan of H.P. Lovecraft knows that his Elder Gods are not demonic entities but alien lifeforms, uncaring and unknowable. After the technological advancements of the Atomic Age began to get moving in full swing, an increased interest in Science Fiction was seen. On television the popular programs were still Westerns and Police shows (and Western genre films would continue to be popular as B Movies, the stuff of the Double Feature), but the magazines and comics were reflecting the youth taste for horror and science fiction, and boy did they hunger for it.
In 1954 Atomic Horror brought us giant ants in Them! and in 1958 alien goo would devour humans (but not Steve McQueen) in The Blob. Thanks to Senate hearings the comics companies would self-regulate and create the Comics Code Authority in 1954, toning down the gore and horror, but the kids still loved it.
In 1959 the film whose working title was Grave Robbers From Outer Space was released as Plan 9 From Outer Space. What was Plan 9? Long range electrodes shot into the pineal and pituitary glands of the recently dead, creating undead slaves to use against the humans by alien invaders was Plan 9. Aliens using undead slaves to invade Earth. A perfect synthesis of the two great genre themes of Science Fiction and Horror!
That was Plan 9 From Outer Space!
Is the film deserving of criticism? Of course it is; what film isn't?
The acting is par, not bad, not good, just okay. The sets were cheap, but then so were Shakespeare's. The plot makes sense. An advanced alien race finds mankind to be a threat to the universe at large (much like in The Day the Earth Stood Still [1951]) and as they cannot control humans ("Their souls are too strongly controlled") they use the recently dead as a (small) force to further their agenda. There is a message in the film that is allegorical to atomic destruction and is, ultimately, not anti-war, but anti-destruction. Yes, the aliens do seem a bit hypocritical at the end (and a bit loony) but that's how Ed wrote it. At least it has less plot holes and better dialog than any of the Star Wars prequels. 1959 was the same year that Rod Serling's
Television: Twilight Zone debuts, Rawhide debuts, I Love Lucy in its penultimate season, Westerns are very popular, more so than science-fiction.
Plan 9 From Outer Space is famous as being one of, if not the worst film ever made. It must be true because critics hold it up as a benchmark for low-quality film and popular culture proclaims it loudly. Clearly these people have never seen Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, or Dinoshark, or Titanic. Tastes are somewhat relative, but human nature is to follow the herd and obey "authority" figures like Roger Ebert and that guy who has his own blog (commence mind control feed now). We are a social species and we follow the tastes of our society, and where we don't we usually go against the grain to prove we are not so easily led, which amounts to the same thing.
Is Plan 9 that bad?
Is it deserving of the being called (one of) the worst film(s) of all time?
I say it is not and it is not and, well, modern audiences actually seem to like it.
A quick look at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the Wiki articles will show that it has gained a loyal following in certain segments of society and acceptance in others. There have been so many films since its release in 1959 that one could hardly hold this little Ed Wood opus responsible for the film making atrocities some have claimed it to have.
So it's not still considered the worst film ever, or even in the top 100 of worst films.
I, however, want to take a different approach here and say that I believe, and hope to prove here, that Plan 9 From Outer Space may be the perfect movie within the confines of its genre.
Plan 9 was shot in 1956, previewed in 1957 and finally released in 1959, written and directed by Edward D. Wood Jr. and starring footage of Bela Lugosi. Everyone who has seen the film Ed Wood (by Tim Burton) knows what I have just written. Now, put that into context.
1959 was the last year of the 50's. The real 50's, not the television 50's. In 1957 the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik into space and the supreme paranoia and fun of the Space Race began. In 1945 the United States introduced the world to the power held inside the smallest atom in existence, effectively ending WWII and setting in motion the Cold War. The Cold War was a great time that happened to also coincide with scientific advancement and social conformity. Yay bombs! Wood wrote and filmed his opus in the years following the creation of the Comics Code, prior to and along with Sputnik and the Space Race.
Humans had shown an interest in the earliest science fiction since the likes of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, and maybe even as far back as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (which is apropos given where my argument is going) and we all know the historical significance of Orson Welles 1938 adaptation of H.G. Wells's classic 1897 War of the Worlds. Horror and Science Fiction are siblings, perhaps lovers, I don't want to delve into this metaphor too much. Any fan of H.P. Lovecraft knows that his Elder Gods are not demonic entities but alien lifeforms, uncaring and unknowable. After the technological advancements of the Atomic Age began to get moving in full swing, an increased interest in Science Fiction was seen. On television the popular programs were still Westerns and Police shows (and Western genre films would continue to be popular as B Movies, the stuff of the Double Feature), but the magazines and comics were reflecting the youth taste for horror and science fiction, and boy did they hunger for it.
In 1954 Atomic Horror brought us giant ants in Them! and in 1958 alien goo would devour humans (but not Steve McQueen) in The Blob. Thanks to Senate hearings the comics companies would self-regulate and create the Comics Code Authority in 1954, toning down the gore and horror, but the kids still loved it.
In 1959 the film whose working title was Grave Robbers From Outer Space was released as Plan 9 From Outer Space. What was Plan 9? Long range electrodes shot into the pineal and pituitary glands of the recently dead, creating undead slaves to use against the humans by alien invaders was Plan 9. Aliens using undead slaves to invade Earth. A perfect synthesis of the two great genre themes of Science Fiction and Horror!
That was Plan 9 From Outer Space!
Is the film deserving of criticism? Of course it is; what film isn't?
The acting is par, not bad, not good, just okay. The sets were cheap, but then so were Shakespeare's. The plot makes sense. An advanced alien race finds mankind to be a threat to the universe at large (much like in The Day the Earth Stood Still [1951]) and as they cannot control humans ("Their souls are too strongly controlled") they use the recently dead as a (small) force to further their agenda. There is a message in the film that is allegorical to atomic destruction and is, ultimately, not anti-war, but anti-destruction. Yes, the aliens do seem a bit hypocritical at the end (and a bit loony) but that's how Ed wrote it. At least it has less plot holes and better dialog than any of the Star Wars prequels. 1959 was the same year that Rod Serling's
Twilight Zone premiered, and while not every episode is a gem, that show's success demonstrated the public's enjoyment of a morality tale disguised as Horror or Sci-Fi.
We who enjoy the twinned genres of Horror and Sci-Fi know how they play well in the right hands. The Creature From the Black Lagoon broke conventions for its time talking about evolution and such (see article here) and This Island Earth had a signature monster in the Metaluna Mutant (pronounced Mute-Ant, interestingly enough). Plan 9 offered us a similar mix of Monster and Alien mayhem.
Plan 9 Checklist:
Flying Saucers
Aliens
Rayguns
Undead/Revenants
Bela Lugosi Body Double
Square-jawed All-American Hero
Moral
How is this NOT an example of the greatest the Science Fiction/Horror genre has to offer?
Consider this:
The movies that are cult favorites were once first run films and the point of any film is to earn money. Today we have Asylum Films and the SyFy channel to provide what the drive-in once did: cheap entertainment. Films like Megashark vs Giant Octopus are simply fun. Not truly mindless entertainment, they trade on the sort of comic book logic that gets the viewer to the action and if not predictable, they are at least comforting in their plotting. These films earn money; they don't win Oscars. Oscars are overrated anyway.
Now consider that Plan 9 was meant to make money. It was a man's artistic vision, sure, but it was also not supposed to be charity. This isn't the Diary of Anne Frank, here, it's a story about aliens that make undead slaves. That's good genre stuff.
Most importantly, the thing I want to express is that this film combines horror and science fiction into a single film. Aliens create undead (I refuse to pander to all you zombie people out there...although...undead slaves...okay, Space Zombies!).
It really is a good film for its genre.
Okay, it's not all good:
There are flubs, boom shadows, science abuse, yes all of that, and some poor dialog, but in its way, the dialog is fun. Criswell's opening remarks, "Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future." are a particularly fine example of such dialog. My favorite bits of dialog are delivered by Eros, the commander of the expedition to Earth.
"Stronger. You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"
But it is lines like that above that really sell the film for me. Just because you are part of an advanced alien race does not mean everything you say is going to be smart. Look at humans...
I admit that much of this started because of the Fome Guild Mages.
See, I recently purchased a board game (which is something I haven't done in quite a while) called Conquest of Planet Earth. It is made by Flying Frog and is a game of 50's sci-fi stylings where you play an alien race attempting to conquer Earth. One of the races, the above mentioned Fome Guild Mages are aliens that use space-necromancy to raise undead armies. Which pretty much describes Plan 9, doesn't it? And that is what got me thinking about all this. So I maintain that Plan 9 is a great example of the Horror/Sci-Fi film in concept, if not in execution, and that we should cut it a break on execution because it is just too cool.
I also freely admit that I am some sort of freak who should probably not be allowed in polite society. Which is why I work in IT.
We who enjoy the twinned genres of Horror and Sci-Fi know how they play well in the right hands. The Creature From the Black Lagoon broke conventions for its time talking about evolution and such (see article here) and This Island Earth had a signature monster in the Metaluna Mutant (pronounced Mute-Ant, interestingly enough). Plan 9 offered us a similar mix of Monster and Alien mayhem.
Plan 9 Checklist:
Flying Saucers
Aliens
Rayguns
Undead/Revenants
Bela Lugosi Body Double
Square-jawed All-American Hero
Moral
How is this NOT an example of the greatest the Science Fiction/Horror genre has to offer?
Consider this:
The movies that are cult favorites were once first run films and the point of any film is to earn money. Today we have Asylum Films and the SyFy channel to provide what the drive-in once did: cheap entertainment. Films like Megashark vs Giant Octopus are simply fun. Not truly mindless entertainment, they trade on the sort of comic book logic that gets the viewer to the action and if not predictable, they are at least comforting in their plotting. These films earn money; they don't win Oscars. Oscars are overrated anyway.
Now consider that Plan 9 was meant to make money. It was a man's artistic vision, sure, but it was also not supposed to be charity. This isn't the Diary of Anne Frank, here, it's a story about aliens that make undead slaves. That's good genre stuff.
Most importantly, the thing I want to express is that this film combines horror and science fiction into a single film. Aliens create undead (I refuse to pander to all you zombie people out there...although...undead slaves...okay, Space Zombies!).
It really is a good film for its genre.
Okay, it's not all good:
There are flubs, boom shadows, science abuse, yes all of that, and some poor dialog, but in its way, the dialog is fun. Criswell's opening remarks, "Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future." are a particularly fine example of such dialog. My favorite bits of dialog are delivered by Eros, the commander of the expedition to Earth.
"Stronger. You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"
But it is lines like that above that really sell the film for me. Just because you are part of an advanced alien race does not mean everything you say is going to be smart. Look at humans...
 |
| Rise! Rise, my undead slaves! |
See, I recently purchased a board game (which is something I haven't done in quite a while) called Conquest of Planet Earth. It is made by Flying Frog and is a game of 50's sci-fi stylings where you play an alien race attempting to conquer Earth. One of the races, the above mentioned Fome Guild Mages are aliens that use space-necromancy to raise undead armies. Which pretty much describes Plan 9, doesn't it? And that is what got me thinking about all this. So I maintain that Plan 9 is a great example of the Horror/Sci-Fi film in concept, if not in execution, and that we should cut it a break on execution because it is just too cool.
I also freely admit that I am some sort of freak who should probably not be allowed in polite society. Which is why I work in IT.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
You say B movie like it's a bad thing...
Language and culture are evolving things, ever-changing as the disparate components that use it and make it up, respectively, change themselves. I don't mean to suggest that by evolution they get better; that is a misunderstanding of the definition of evolution, but that misunderstanding does illustrate my point about language and culture.
Take for example the word moot. Moot is an Anglo-Saxon word that means a meeting and carried the further definition of an argument, discussion or debate. Thus when used in the following sentence, "That is a moot point" it meant that the point was open for debate or discussion, hardly a solved thing. Now it means something like "decided" or "rendered meaningless". It got this way through usage, which is how languages change over time. For an old English major like myself (a construction that Microsoft grammar checker hates, but it is completely legitimate) this is a major annoyance.
I liked the old meaning and saw no reason for it to change save for ignorance.
This brings me to my point as stated by the title of the post. B movies are not, de facto bad movies. B movie was an industry term for the second film in a double bill, typically this was a film made on a lower budget than the A film and featuring less, shall we say marketable stars. I could have said lucrative in that sentence as well. This does not imply a hack film, poor quality film or exploitation film. Genre films are often chosen for the B slot, but again that does not mean poor quality. Yet over time people, and not professional critics and film historians (at first, at least, but even they change to suit the audience tastes) have equated "B" with "trash". This is often taken to the extreme of poor acting, bad dialogue, cheap sets, inane plots, and insane concepts.
You know, Roger Corman pictures.
In defense of Mr. Corman, he is a great movie-maker. He freely admits that his style of film making has been called high concept, exploitation, and genre films, noting that regardless of what you call it, he can make it. Corman was an expert at shooting a film when a major star had 4 days left on a contract and the studio handed that star over to get the last bit of work out of him, or when the sets still had 2 weeks left on the lease. The money was spent, the studio reasoned, might as well use it.
The best way to think of the B film is to think of the early days of record studios when the 45 single was popular. The artist would record the "hit" single then the studio would need something for the B-side of the record. Usually these were not very popular, but sometimes due to public tastes, fate, or whim the B-side became popular, maybe even more than the A-side.
So that's what a B film was. What people seem to have forgotten is a thing that got rolled into the populist concept of the B movie: the Potboiler.
Ah yes, the Potboiler. Oh, you don't know what a Potboiler is...okay, let's see...
A writer, director, producer, painter, what-have-you needs to eat. This creative person who very much loves designing conceptual weapons of war or writing avant-garde music or fiction needs to keep the lights on, keep the landlord happy, eat food, and, essentially, needs wood to keep his cooking pot boiling. So this artiste makes a work in a commercially proven genre to pay the bills. That work is a Potboiler. You see these novels in airport bookstores; they are often the size of a small nation and are just as stupid. Sometimes the Potboiler is an attempt to get some capital for the "real project". Such happened with Sean Cunningham made Friday the 13th in an attempt to "keep the lights on" while he pushed for a television pilot about a soccer team.
Yep, Friday the 13th, today a classic, was a Potboiler (although a quality Potboiler).
After the drive-ins closed and cinemas stopped showing double features (remember, at one time it was cartoons, shorts, a newsreel, and a feature or a double feature all for one low price) the niche left by Potboilers, exploitation cinema and B movies would be filled by home video and cable television. I could go into the genius of Full Moon at this point, but instead I will just say that this is when Full Moon found great success by making straight-to-video films. Those films were Potboilers and exploitation films, but by that time people had started using the term "B movie" with a sneer and the insulting connotations could not be removed.
Thus a solid film with solid actors, as opposed to glitzy, high-dollar Movie Stars, became a term for cheesy schlock, which is a genre in its own right and should be respected as such.
That really is the worst thing about this lumping together of multiple genres, we fail to appreciate the multitude of choices and products due to negative labeling.
And yes, I like B Movies. And schlock.
Take for example the word moot. Moot is an Anglo-Saxon word that means a meeting and carried the further definition of an argument, discussion or debate. Thus when used in the following sentence, "That is a moot point" it meant that the point was open for debate or discussion, hardly a solved thing. Now it means something like "decided" or "rendered meaningless". It got this way through usage, which is how languages change over time. For an old English major like myself (a construction that Microsoft grammar checker hates, but it is completely legitimate) this is a major annoyance.
I liked the old meaning and saw no reason for it to change save for ignorance.
This brings me to my point as stated by the title of the post. B movies are not, de facto bad movies. B movie was an industry term for the second film in a double bill, typically this was a film made on a lower budget than the A film and featuring less, shall we say marketable stars. I could have said lucrative in that sentence as well. This does not imply a hack film, poor quality film or exploitation film. Genre films are often chosen for the B slot, but again that does not mean poor quality. Yet over time people, and not professional critics and film historians (at first, at least, but even they change to suit the audience tastes) have equated "B" with "trash". This is often taken to the extreme of poor acting, bad dialogue, cheap sets, inane plots, and insane concepts.
You know, Roger Corman pictures.
In defense of Mr. Corman, he is a great movie-maker. He freely admits that his style of film making has been called high concept, exploitation, and genre films, noting that regardless of what you call it, he can make it. Corman was an expert at shooting a film when a major star had 4 days left on a contract and the studio handed that star over to get the last bit of work out of him, or when the sets still had 2 weeks left on the lease. The money was spent, the studio reasoned, might as well use it.
The best way to think of the B film is to think of the early days of record studios when the 45 single was popular. The artist would record the "hit" single then the studio would need something for the B-side of the record. Usually these were not very popular, but sometimes due to public tastes, fate, or whim the B-side became popular, maybe even more than the A-side.
So that's what a B film was. What people seem to have forgotten is a thing that got rolled into the populist concept of the B movie: the Potboiler.
Ah yes, the Potboiler. Oh, you don't know what a Potboiler is...okay, let's see...
A writer, director, producer, painter, what-have-you needs to eat. This creative person who very much loves designing conceptual weapons of war or writing avant-garde music or fiction needs to keep the lights on, keep the landlord happy, eat food, and, essentially, needs wood to keep his cooking pot boiling. So this artiste makes a work in a commercially proven genre to pay the bills. That work is a Potboiler. You see these novels in airport bookstores; they are often the size of a small nation and are just as stupid. Sometimes the Potboiler is an attempt to get some capital for the "real project". Such happened with Sean Cunningham made Friday the 13th in an attempt to "keep the lights on" while he pushed for a television pilot about a soccer team.
Yep, Friday the 13th, today a classic, was a Potboiler (although a quality Potboiler).
After the drive-ins closed and cinemas stopped showing double features (remember, at one time it was cartoons, shorts, a newsreel, and a feature or a double feature all for one low price) the niche left by Potboilers, exploitation cinema and B movies would be filled by home video and cable television. I could go into the genius of Full Moon at this point, but instead I will just say that this is when Full Moon found great success by making straight-to-video films. Those films were Potboilers and exploitation films, but by that time people had started using the term "B movie" with a sneer and the insulting connotations could not be removed.
Thus a solid film with solid actors, as opposed to glitzy, high-dollar Movie Stars, became a term for cheesy schlock, which is a genre in its own right and should be respected as such.
That really is the worst thing about this lumping together of multiple genres, we fail to appreciate the multitude of choices and products due to negative labeling.
And yes, I like B Movies. And schlock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)