Messages

Your comment is literally the only response I've seen to the movie.

But it sounds like Beetlejuice's characterization is slightly closer to the cartoon show. In the show, I remember him being portrayed as a basically good-hearted ne'er do well and sidekick for Lydia. Is that sort of how he's done in the movie?

Mu understanding is that Phoenix was only contracted for the one movie. Plus, Lady Gaga's salary is probably several million dollars above minimum wage.

I can't blame everything on sheer payroll bloat. But if it came out that WB laid out at least $50 million to get Phoenix and Gaga aboard, yeah, that would add up.

The Johns run is seemingly designed to give both veteran readers and new readers a gateway into the storyline. Start reading with Rebirth, kick back and enjoy the ride.

I think Hal Jordan was being prepped as DC's new mascot. At the time, the Siegel lawsuit threatened to strip DC of Superman. It looked like it was going to happen. And obviously, some other character would have to take his place as DC's biggest name. For some reason, DC eventually backed off from that. Maybe it was the failure of the GL movie. Because after the movie tanked, it was like DC instantly backpedaled from all that.

But I'm very sure that at one point, DC was making some effort to replace Superman's stature in the DC universe with GL/Hal Jordan.

At the risk of piling on, I wouldn't be the first one to notice that describing oneself as a "male feminist" (as Gaiman has done at various times in the past) seems to be a precursor to some very bad behavior.

The way things are shaping up, I'm starting to think that someone proclaiming himself to be a male feminist is a red flag and people would do well to avoid that guy.

It's all just sad and weird and disgusting, frankly.

not a faithful adaptation of Washington Irving's story

I'm not sure if the film is better for that or not.

I mean, the good is obviously (and unassailably) good. The cast is top notch and I rather enjoy the film as a horror-themed detective story period piece. It's strange for one film to wear so many hats. But Burton does it seemingly effortlessly.

Still, I have such a soft spot for Irving's novel. It's important to American literature inasmuch as there was very little truly noteworthy American literature up to that point in history. As an early classic of American literature, I've always wanted to see the novel done justice on film.

And Burton's film makes very little effort to achieve that. The film is great unto itself. But my affection for Irving's novel runs deep and I do wish that a more faithful live action version could be someday be made.

Mind you, I don't know that I trust Hollywood with that right now. Maybe in a year or three judging by the way certain things seem to be changing. But not now.

AfrAId
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE5QzD_qtxs

Caught this one on Monday. Now, I'll be the first to admit that my fascination with this film could entirely be me and my own baggage. It could be that I'm projecting all sorts of brilliance and sophistication onto this film which isn't actually merited.

Still, I enjoyed the film. It's a fun little low calorie horror film about the potential dangers of AI. Which wasn't new territory even twenty years ago. But I'm kind of a sucker for the whole Evil AI trope. And I think AfrAId handles the trope quite well.

The cast members are all good to serviceable in their respective roles. Nobody is winning an Oscar on this one. But nobody's stinking up the screen either. Which is kind of impressive considering the number of child actors with speaking roles in this film.

In any case, it ultimately comes down to John Cho as Curtis. His character is the main focus of the film.

And... I would argue that Curtis is also the main focus of AIA, your Evil AI in this story. Everything AIA does seems designed alternately to impress Curtis or, when that fails, to at least subdue him into compliance.

It's a minor plot point that AIA's voice is based on Melody, a supporting character. The movie doesn't make a big deal out of it. But when Curtis and Melody first meet, it's evident that there's some attraction there. Curtis, an otherwise happily married man, makes no effort to pursue that. For that matter, the movie itself makes almost no effort to pursue that.

Until the big climax of the film, where Curtis and Melody find themselves holed up in a hotel to hide from AIA. Or so Curtis thinks. But in reality, holing up in the hotel was basically an excuse for AIA to get Curtis and Melody, well, to hole up into a hotel. Melody makes it VERY clear that AIA expects Melody to make herself "available" (if you know what I mean) to Curtis. Anything he wants, whenever he wants it.

The movie abruptly drops that aspect of the story as Curtis rushes back home to potentially save his family's lives.

But there's a level of plot and motivation that went into AIA's attempt to get Curtis and Melody, you know, together. AIA is clearly preoccupied with ingratiating herself to the rest of the family. But she seems especially determined to get into Curtis's good books.

Melody's voice is not AIA's default voice. AIA affirmatively chose that as her voice when Curtis and the rest of the family unboxed her. Did she detect Curtis and Melody's low level attraction to each other? Did AIA choose Melody's own voice for herself because she has some level of attraction to Curtis too?

Again, the film makes practically no effort to explore any of that. But when you read between the lines, there seems to be a LOT going on with AIA and her fascination with Curtis.

The movie is flawed. The business between Curtis and Melody deserved greater attention. In fact, quite a few subplots deserved greater attention. For example, Curtis's daughter Iris goes through a pretty traumatic episode with her boyfriend at school which gets somewhat swept under the rug. AfrAId would have greatly benefited from a little more narrative balance. Even if it meant deleting certain subplots so that other subplots could've been more fully explored.

But I still see merit and value in this film. AIA is fairly unique among AI villains in that she seems more determined to conquer individual people, families and so forth rather than conquer the entire world. She's aiming lower. And because of that, the threat she poses somehow seems greater. Because none of us can truly envision a Skynet/Judgment Day type of scenario. But we can easily imagine getting blackmailed or in some other way coerced into compliance.

All of this is enough to make me wonder what an AfrAId sequel might offer. And yet, a sequel seems highly unlikely considering the film's critical reception and box office returns. Which is too bad. Because while Evil AI might be a well-explored trope, I maintain that this movie handles the trope in effective and unique ways.

Anyway. It's worth checking out.

I'm wondering how much of this is sincere and how much of it goes back to It's The Current Year nonsense.

At this point, nothing will stand between me and this movie's opening weekend. But the mixed reception is a little intriguing.

I've never understood the desire to make follow-ups to the 1994 original. The bar has been set pretty high. If O'Barr wants to make other Crow comics, then more power to him, I say. But on the film side, it doesn't seem like the sequels/remakes want to experiment very much with the basic formula.

This is a franchise that never should've become a franchise to begin with.

I want to revisit this partly for clarification. Because what I wrote ain't exactly a hot take.

Point being that I've never seen any of the sequels. However, they all looked like they were trying WAY too hard to photocopy the original rather than be their own thing. I'm convinced that the core concept of The Crow could have sequel merit to it. The problem is that the sequels we've gotten so far seem to mostly be cash grabs rather than an effort to tell a worthwhile story.

At this point, it's wide open to debate if this "franchise" has any gas in the tank at all anymore. Or if it ever did.

But one thing you might do to simultaneously honor the original while also being original is adapting the original Eric Draven storyline. The 1994 film didn't stick super close to that original comic book. So, if a sequel/reboot/remake/whatever MUST be made, then why not go back to the source, honor the original film but adapt the original comic book more closely?

Even that might be a fool's errand. Especially at this point. But I can sooner buy the legitimacy of a purer and more direct adaptation of the original comic book than yet another sequel that somebody pulled out of his ass hat to retain film rights or whatever other stupid thing.

Watch the original instead

I've never understood the desire to make follow-ups to the 1994 original. The bar has been set pretty high. If O'Barr wants to make other Crow comics, then more power to him, I say. But on the film side, it doesn't seem like the sequels/remakes want to experiment very much with the basic formula.

This is a franchise that never should've become a franchise to begin with.

I liked New Blood well enough, but truth be told I need to watch the whole series all over again as a refresher. It's been a while. I did not see either of these projects coming. At all. I thought Dexter as a franchise was thrown overboard and down in the depths never to be seen again. But here we are. I'm not sure how Dexter himself is resurrected for real other than being a dark passenger for Harrison. But I'm open to be proven wrong there if the execution (ha) is up to scratch. Consider me interested regardless. Same goes for Original Sin. Especially now I'm finding myself more interested in my true crime stuff (Bundy, Ramirez, etc) than fictional entertainment, give or take a few new things that occasionally pique my interest.

Hall did an interview where he hinted at what the deal with Resurrection might be. He pointed out that the ground that Dexter fell on was cold. Very cold. I (and others) took this to mean that Dexter survived New Blood.

And honestly, Angela's case against Dexter is mostly circumstantial. Dexter could have that exact same evidence against him and be 100% innocent. The one thing that can't get swept under the rug is the murder of the deputy. And I have no idea how that can get addressed.

I'll check Resurrection out. But I think Original Sin sounds far more interesting. There's the potential to revisit a lot of the same material from the Early Cuts stuff you can probably still find on YouTube. I'm expecting Original Sin to have far more mojo to it than Resurrection.