I suppose I was one of the last human beings on the planet to see James Cameron’s Avatar (I think of that as its title, to be abbreviated JCA right alongside TESB and LOTR).  I saw it this afternoon in a good theatre in Burbank that was utilizing the Real D 3D system.  My reaction?  “So what?”  I honestly thought the 3D-ishness (what little there actually was) detracted from my own immersion in the story.

As soooo many posts before this one have declared, 3D cinema has come and gone several times over the years.  I won’t belabor the point by listing them again.  Yes, this new version is better than those and yes, Avatar was shot with 3D as part of its very essence.  Cameron designed a new binocular camera system that was designed to better mimic human vision.  While Cameron’s setup is indeed better and easier on the eyes (I could barely sit through the very short Shrek 3D attraction at Universal Studios) I still don’t see (pun intended) the point.  Here’s why:

1. When the visual focus is chosen for you by the camera operator the film presents a decidedly unrealistic way of seeing.  Isn’t 3D supposed to be all about realism?  Rack focusing happens often in Avatar and shallow focus is used even more frequently.  It’s like the filmmakers want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to rely on the same tried and true visual shorthand they’ve had in their toolbox for years while at the same time embracing this new brand of 3D.  I say it would be better if 3D opened up an all-new film vocabulary.  Early dramatic filmmakers simply put plays on in front of a camera.  It was years before they figured out that they could do things other than what had been done on stage.  The same sort of thinking needs to happen with 3D.

2. Regardless of the attempts to keep things bright, Avatar looked awfully dim to me…especially after I took the glasses off and saw the bright image I should have been seeing in 2D.

3.  I wear glasses.  The Real D glasses sucked bones!  It was a very uncomfortable three hours.

4.  Image strobing ruined many of the more complex camera moves.  Shouldn’t new technologies make movies look better?

5.  I just didn’t see that much added depth in the images.

6.  The CGI glass glares that were added at mid-depth in many of the cockpit scenes made me think my nifty new 3D glasses were dirty.

As a special feature extra for this post, I’ll add these bonus gripes:

7.  Almost every design we see (and hear) is from another Cameron film.  The choppers look like a cross between the Aliens drop ship and the hunter killers in Terminator.  The neon nightime pallet and the floaty creature-seeds were curiously similar to the underwater aliens in The Abyss.  The corporate weasel reminded me of Carter Burke.  Need I go on?

8.  Sully looked different every single time he was on camera.  I’m sure Cameron has some justification for this but I cry foul at whatever he comes up with.  The problem is that actor Sam Worthington looks different in every movie he’s in.  He has at least four completely different looks here and they don’t proceed along in any sort of linear fashion.  It’s as if they had reshoots after the beard was gone and rather than have Worthington wear a chin wig they added a shaving scene.  I honestly think it would have been better to see Worthington proceed from the jarhead look he has at the beginning of the film to the pseudo-hippie John Lennon look at the end.  This is not a subtle film, folks.  It could have used this.

I know this all makes it sound as though I didn’t enjoy the movie.  I did.  I just think I would have enjoyed it more in 2D.  The 3D effects (and glasses) left me outside the dramatic action in a way few good movies do.

Midichlorians are the Devil!

Skinnerbox: The title says it all. Read the rant below.

via io9 by Charlie Jane Anders on 2/26/10


Lately, when people ask Lost’s producers if they’re going to answer our questions, they bring up Star Wars‘ midichlorians, as proof that some things are better not explained. But like so many people, they’re missing the real reason midichlorians sucked.

Damon Lindelof told E! Online a while back:

There are certain questions about the show that I’m very befuddled by like, ‘What is the Island?’ or ‘What do the numbers mean?’ We’re going to be explaining a little more about the numbers, maybe significantly more about the numbers, but what do you mean by ‘What do the numbers mean?’ What is a potential answer to that question? I feel like you have to be very careful about entering into Midi-Chlorian territory. I grew up on Star Wars; I’ve seen the Star Wars movies hundreds of times; I can recite them chapter and verse, and never once did anyone ever say to me or did it occur to me to say, ‘What is the Force, exactly? Can you explain that for me, better than Alec Guinness does?’ I understand, ‘When are we going to find out about Libby?’ That’s a very finite question. ‘Who is Jacob?’ OK, yes, we’ve been talking to this guy named Jacob, so those questions then should have answers, but ‘What is the Island?’ That starts to get into ‘What is the Force?’ It is a place. I can’t explain to you why it moves through space-time-it just does. You have to accept the fact that it does.

Carlton Cuse similarly told the Chicago Tribune’s Maureen Ryan:

I mean, mystery exists in life and we kind of always go back to the midi-chlorians example [in the 'Star Wars' prequel films]. Your understanding the Force was not aided by knowing that there were little particles swimming around in the bloodstreams of Jedi.

This is part of a wide-spread problem with midichlorians — I would say a galaxy-wide misconception, in fact. People understand that midichlorians were a terrible idea, but they don't understand why they were a terrible idea. And this misunderstanding allows storytellers to get away with saying they won't explain stuff which they really should explain.

(And for the record, I still have faith that Lost will answer the questions that really need to be answered — including why the heck this island is so important, and why the battle over the island's future isn't just a random real-estate dispute, no different than your uncles fighting over your grandma's Florida beach condo. This isn't especially a slam against Lost — just trying to clear up a disturbance in, you know, the Force. And stuff.)

So let’s break this down once and for all.

1. We already had an explanation for the Force.

Check out what Obi-Wan Kenobi says in the original Star Wars:

Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together…. A Jedi can feel the force flowing through him.

That’s actually a pretty clear-cut explanation, although it doesn’t go into particle physics or anything. But compared to a lot of science-fiction explanations, it’s refreshingly free of technobabble, and it’s fairly specific: The Force is an “energy field created by all living beings.” Possibly mystical and soul-related, as Han suggests, or possibly just some kind of life-energy. And certain people have an in-born ability to sense and interface with this life-energy.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

But midichlorians actually contradict this explanation. All of a sudden, instead of there being an energy field that “binds the galaxy together,” there are little microscopic life forms inside of the Jedi, allowing them to… do what? What do the microscopic entities have to do with the galaxy-wide life force? Are they like symbiotes that allow you to connect to the energy field? If the Force is in every living thing, then why do only some people have midichlorians? Does the Dark Side of the Force have different-flavored midichlorians than the light side?

What was a fairly clear-cut explanation suddenly becomes incredibly muddled.

It’s like the sort of thing that happens to superheroes all the time. Spider-Man used to have a clear-cut (if silly) explanation for his powers: he was bitten by a radioactive spider. But then, at some point, the writers of his comic decided there needed to be a “Spider totem” involved, and a spider queen, and Anansi knows what else. Flash suddenly had to have the “Speed Force” bolted on top of his previously simple origin, and Green Lantern had to have a whole emotional spectrum, with different colored rings for different emotions. And so on. It’s part of the nature of retcons: What was once simple becomes baroque.

Instead of building on the explanation we already had, Phantom Menace demolished it to put up an ugly new monstrosity.

2. If someone had told you Episode I explains more about the Force and how it works, you’d have been stoked.

Seriously. Imagine if, back in 1998, someone had told you the new movie includes the Jedi finding young Anakin and discovering his huge potential Force powers — including the means by which they determine that the Force is moving strongly in this one. You'd have thought, "Ooh, Lucas is going to open up the mysteries of the Jedi. There'll be cool Yoda-esque koans and riddles and spiritual disciplines, and possibly more blindfolds."

And you'd have been right — in theory, more understanding of the Force would have been a good thing. It's one of the coolest things about Star Wars. If you wanted to go back in time and take all of the discussion of the Force out of Empire Strikes Back, I would have to go back in time and stop you, because that stuff all rules. So yeah, more of that type of exploration of the Force would have been terrific.

It's not that midichlorians were an explanation for something which should have been mysterious — it's more that they were a dumb, ridiculous technobabble concoction. And they're not an explanation you can build on, which is even worse. You can build a whole architecture on top of "an energy field that connects all living beings," and the original trilogy did, quite well. But you can't build on top of "microscopic critters in the blood."

It’s the difference between explanation (Empire Strikes Back) and hand-waving (Phantom Menace). What the Force is, and how it works, is something that we’re better off being shown, through examples like Yoda’s Taoist teachings. Telling us how the Force works, by tossing around silly jargon, isn't really an explanation — it's just Lucas flailing around with a glue-gun, sticking things together randomly.

So your take-away point here is that it's not that explanations are bad — ham-handed, idiotic explanations that make things less cool are bad.

3. Star Wars never made “What is the Force?” into a central mystery.

There’s a reason that Star Wars explains what the Force is the very first time we hear about its existence: It's part of the set-up. We're not supposed to sit around wondering what the Force is, except to the extent that we see Luke learning how to use it. Luke's lessons in the Force are our way in to understanding its subtleties — but the over-arching question of what the Force is? We know that from square one.

Likewise, we’re not really supposed to wonder how the Enterprise flies on Star Trek, or how the TARDIS dematerializes on Doctor Who, or how the ships can “jump” on Battlestar Galactica. Those things are not set up as huge mysteries that the characters are trying to get to the bottom of. We don’t get tossed clues about the nature of the Enterprise’s engines. The mystery of the Enterprise’s engines and how they work does not deepen over time. Scotty does not say “I’m doin’ the best I can, Cap’n, but I canna understand what these Dilithium crystals have to do with anti-matter in the first place!” Every now and then, these shows will throw fans a bone, by mentioning some new details of how these things work. But we’re not supposed to think of these things as central mysteries to be solved.

The Force is the same way.

Lost’s island, though, is mysterious from the moment our castaways crash on it, and its mysteries deepen in every episode. Even now, I constantly see promos for Lost reruns which show Charlie asking where the hell this place is. The show has gone out of its way to play up the mystery of what the island is, and who Jacob is, and how the Man In Black got there, and so on. It is the central mystery of the show, and one I still have great confidence will be resolved, in spite of Cuse and Lindelof’s statements trying to lower our expectations.

Why would Cuse and Lindelof be trying to lower our expectations anyway? Could it be because they saw another show with a cult following, which promised “all will be revealed,” over and over again, and then turned out to have a somewhat… idiosyncratic definition of the word “all”? But let’s not reopen old wounds.

The point is, there’s a difference between your set-up and your big mysteries. We don’t expect Lost to explain how the plane that crashed on the island was able to fly in the first place — Even though I don't fully comprehend all the principles of aerodynamics that go into keeping a jet plane in the air, I know they work because I've flown in them. I'm not even looking for a detailed explanation of, say, how the island is able to move through time and space. We've seen it work, so we know it works, and we've gotten enough details about unique magnetic forces to let us fill in the blanks.

But when you set up something as a central mystery and you make people start talking about it in grandiose terms (i.e., referring to the island as more important than, say, Tuvalu) then you owe us an explanation, all right. It doesn’t have to be a series of diagrams or schematics, or go into ridiculous detail. It shouldn’t contradict what we’ve already learned. And it would be nice if it had some element of showing along with the telling. But one way or another, if you make a big deal out of asking a question, then you have to provide an answer. That’s just basic storytelling.

So let’s stop using midichlorians as shorthand for “explaining stuff which should remain a mystery.” Midichlorians are more like “a clumsy retcon that screws up an explanation we already had.”

Posted via email from skinnerbox’s posterous

CubeDude V.I.N.C.E.N.T.

Pretty cool Lego-inspired V.I.N.C.E.N.T. There seems to be a resurgence in interest in this character. Does anyone even remember Disney’s The Black Hole anymore? Apparently so…though I’d really like to forget that final sequence in the movie. It gave me nightmares for years.

Posted via web from skinnerbox’s posterous

So are you going to pick this up? I’m still on the fence…

Posted via web from skinnerbox’s posterous

The Iron Tater


Ok, so I guess by now everyone thinks the whole Mr. Potato Head-Movie Tie-in is overplayed, and maybe they're right. Still, you gotta hand it to them – the Iron Man 2 Potato Head is nicknamed "Tony Starch"?  Brilliant!

Posted via email from skinnerbox’s posterous

Irredeemable by Mark Waid: A Review

There was a moment in Superman III when the briefest window of potential in an otherwise dismal film irised open. When Superman was divided into two halves – one purely good, the other purely evil – viewers glimpsed the possibility of a once pristine superhero devolving into a malevolent ultra-human. Blink during the film (or sleep, which wasn’t hard to do in Supes III) and you’d miss Christopher Reeve in a dirt-encrusted Superman leotard getting drunk and generally causing mid-grade havoc.

Fortunately, the potential lost on film has been recaptured by writer Mark Waid and artist Peter Krause in Irredeemable, a new graphic novel compilation released by fledgling Boom Studios. Waid is incredibly well-known in the comics field, graduating from the ranks of DC Comics’ editors to become one of its most prominent writers. His forte, or at least so says the conventional wisdom, is writing modernized, action-oriented superhero stories that somehow manage to stay true to the traditions of the classic characters he’s assigned. Over the years, Waid has revitalized The Flash, Superman, the Fantastic Four and others. None of this work, however, can prepare you for what he has done with Irredeemable. Inscrutably, this writer of classic, traditional comics has taken the Superman tradition and twisted it straight to hell.

Imagine if Superman became totally corrupted – not by some rainbow variety of kryptonite or by some stock villain of the week, but by something far more common and insidious – the common man. Imagine having super hearing, only to always hear every snarky, sarcastic, hateful comment uttered by an otherwise “adoring” public. And imagine trying to live a normal life when the paparazzi can just never, ever get enough of you. Think Brad and Angelina have it bad? How much worse would it be if they had super powers?

None of the traditional Superman iconography is present in the book, but it doesn’t have to be. By decontextualizing the Superman character (referred to in Irredeemable as The Plutonian) readers get a clearer “take” on the man-god than could ever be accomplished within one of the Man of Steel’s actual books. In many ways, Superman’s costume and image engender so many pop culture-driven connotations there is really no way to critically examine such a character. So Waid has done the next best thing by giving readers a Superman they can deconstruct.

Most comics fans will recognize that many of the themes, techniques and characterizations in Irredeemable have been seen before, most notably in Alan Moore’s Miracleman (Moore’s take on the Captain Marvel story) and Watchmen (where Dr. Manhattan represents the loss of humanity that comes from gaining super powers). That is not to say, though, that Irredeemable is a cheap copy or stylistic cheat of some kind. Far from it. Consider it instead a kind of amalgamation: one part gee-whiz-bang-pow locomotive of an action story, another part cultural commentary, and a third part subversion of the archetypal superhero motif. Read it…trust me…and don’t even THINK about watching Superman III on cable this weekend.

Cross-posted on GuysLitWire.

Devastating!!!

So….I’m not too hyped up about Transformers 2. Actually, that’s more than a small understatement.  I see absolutely no reason to see Transformers 2, as everything I’ve seen thus far looks exactly like the first movie (thanks, Michael Bay).  That doesn’t stop me from lovin’ the toys, though, and the one pictured above is just full-on awesome.  Constructicons are cool enough on their own, but combined into Devastator they make the must-own toy of the summer, if I can figure out how to put it together…

From Newsarama:

A lot of fans out there have been campaigning for genre superstar Nathan Fillion to fill the emerald boots of Green Lantern.

Well, Youtube wunderkind Jaron Pitts has taken one step further, with a truly awesome fan trailer, incorporating the Firefly alumnus as well as Kilowog, Tomar-Re, and the Guardians of Oa:


Now according to Pitts’ notes, he’s used clips from more than two dozen propertes, ranging from the Fountain to Iron Man to G.I. Joe, to make this awesome trailer. Talk about some awesome work, right? If you dig it, click the link above and rank him high!

[Link found at Loyal K*N*G]

[From Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern? Not as crazy as you’d think]

Iron Man 2 is now shooting at Raleigh Studios (AKA Marvel Studios for all intents and purposes) in Manhattan Beach, CA.  As luck would have it, I got a chance to visit Tony Stark’s house (hizouse?) today and I gotta tell you, that is one impressive set.  I’d happily live there even with it parked on a soundstage wrapped in bluescreen.  There is that big hole blasted out of the ceiling that I’d want fixed first but other than that, I’m ready to move in.  Second unit was shooting so there wasn’t a lot to see but I got a chance to eyeball the Mark II armor in person and I got a glimpse of what appeared to be the Mark IV.  Judging from the pic above there must at least be a Mark IV in the new movie.  What do you think?

Why is Wolverine Popular?

Take a look at the various outfits Logan has worn through the years | Marvel.com News | Marvel.com.jpg

Friday’s premier of the X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie prompted critic Roger Ebert to write:

Am I being disrespectful to this material? You bet. It is Hugh Jackman’s misfortune that when they were handing out superheroes, he got Wolverine, who is for my money low on the charisma list. He never says anything witty, insightful or very intelligent; his utterances are limited to the vocalization of primitive forces: anger, hurt, vengeance, love, hate, determination. There isn’t a speck of ambiguity. That Wolverine has been voted the No. 1 comic hero of all time must be the result of a stuffed ballot box.

Pretty harsh (the review doesn’t get any more complimentary as it goes) but it raises a legitimate issue. Why IS Wolverine so popular? Long before the idea of film franchises lit the eyes of Avi Arad, Wolvie was supremely popular among comic book fans. The team of John Byrne and Chris Claremont made the character an icon, and the Wolverine mini-series featuring art by Frank Miller cemented the deal. That said, here are our top reasons why Logan/Patch/James Howlett/Wolverine has such lasting appeal:

  • The Beast with a Heart of Gold: And no – by “Beast” I don’t mean Hank McCoy. By now, everyone (and I do mean everyone) knows how Stan Lee transformed the comic book industry by creating characters who were more complicated than the standard 1960s fare. By the late 70s/early 80s, however, these once “fresh and complex” characters were becoming flat and lifeless once again, as the Marvel formula for superheroes became the de facto standard. Enter Chris Claremont and John Byrne, whose revitalized X-Men series ushered in a new age for comic book character development. If Lee added a second dimension to characters (rudimentary motivations for behaviors, guilt complexes, etc), Claremont and Byrne began adding a third. Their X-Men were friends first, teammates second, comic book superheroes third. By allowing characters to interact on a personal level, readers began to relate to these once iconic and godlike figures. Chief among these was Wolverine, whose tortured soul and misunderstood status appealed to the often-outcast comic book geek. Here was a sensitive character (who was physically short and often called “runt” by others) who could do more than just stand up for himself. Here was a more accessible Clark Kent for the masses. While less physically strong than Supes, he was nonetheless invulnerable/indestructible, and carried a six-pack of switchblades as well.
      Amazon.com_ Origin (Wolverine)_ Bill Jemas, Paul Jenkins, Joe Quesada, Andy Kubert.jpg
  • The Past Shrouded in Mystery: It’s no secret that comic book fans love a good mystery, and Wolverine’s unknown origin has proven to be a cash cow for Marvel again and again. Bits and pieces have trickled out over the past thirty years, and not all of them have been consistent with one another. Still, Marvel was able to keep interest high in this character’s background for decades before finally revealing all (or at least most) with the Jenkins/Kubert Origin mini-series. It remains to be seen, however, if interest will continue to remain as high now that so much is known about the character. Is Wolverine inherently compelling as a character, or only when his background is largely unknown?

  • The Super-Powers: Part Batman, Part Superman: The final part of the equation is that Wolverine is an intriguing amalgam of DC’s two iconic characters: Superman and Batman. The Superman connection has already been mentioned earlier in this article, but it bears mentioning again that comic book fans, notorious underdogs that they are (or were, depending on your view of the recent influx of comics-related culture into the mainstream), easily gravitate to characters who are physically impervious to harm. And, unlike Superman, Wolverine actually feels the pain of his injuries. He simply doesn’t die from them. As for Batman…well, no, Logan isn’t a normal fellow like Bruce Wayne (though “normal” is a relative term – how many multi-billionaires with murdered parents do you know?), but his brooding nature, coupled with his troubled past, gives him a strong connection to Bats. And while Wolverine doesn’t have a utility belt, don’t those adamantium-laced claws and bones count as gadgets of a sort? Is it any wonder, then, that a character with many of the appealing traits of two of the most enduring comic book characters should also garner popularity?

I agree with Mr. Ebert on a number of his points, as there are certainly weaknesses in Wolverine’s appeal, and hopefully I’ll be able to address those in the future. At this point it remains to be seen if the film will be as successful as initially hoped. Do comic book and movie fans of the character and franchise really want all of these mysteries revealed after all?