Trailerville: Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

So...this looks better than I expected. Check it out here, because my imbed function is being silly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=34x6m-ahGIo
Viewed? Good. Let's carry on.

First Thoughts:
Tim Burton: Good.
Abraham Lincoln circa the Civil War: Very Cool.
Abraham Lincoln swinging an ax so hard a tree explodes: Awesome.

Also, trains. Fiery chasms. Vampires that don't look like Robert Pattinson. What's not to like?

Even with the rather poor (read: jarring) cutting of Johnny Cash's voice from "The Man Comes Around", this trailer actually makes me want to see this movie. Granted, the movie itself may still disappoint...but things are looking good so far.

"On Your Own" - a Whedon Misstep?

Today, I read Buffy S9, #6. I was less than thrilled. I thought about it for awhile. Then I read the whole thing over again. I was still angry and twisted up inside about what I had read. So I wrote this.

   [FAIR WARNING: SPOILERS ABOUND] As readers of this blog-or most of the other things I write-know, I am a die-hard fan of Joss Whedon and his work. I read both Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 9 and the new Angel and Faith series, I own complete series sets of his shows...and I'm way too excited for The Avengers premiere in May. So when I say this, I don't say it lightly: "On Your Own" Part 1 left me more conflicted on the work of Joss Whedon than I have ever been. 

   For those who don't know, the driving idea of the issue is this: Buffy is pregnant. She doesn't know who the father is, and she's still the Slayer, more or less alone in the world (or at least that's how she feels). 

   This story is paralleled by one set in 1973 that will be familiar to fans of the TV series - Nikki, a previous Slayer, finds herself in a similar situation to that of Buffy. As fans know, she is the mother of (former) Principal Robin Wood,  whom Buffy seeks council from in the present day on what to do about her pregnancy. Robin advises her to keep the baby, because he believes that she has the strength and courage to raise the child right, even with the duties of a Slayer in the mix.

   I applaud Joss for presenting the choice to keep the child despite the odds. I simply find it out of character that Buffy didn't make it. In the final panels, we see that Buffy has made the decision to have an abortion instead of keeping her child. 

   In my mind, Buffy has always been the epitome of a strong female character (both on TV and in the comics). Buffy has always been willing to make any sacrifice, putting the good of those around her and the world at large before her own. In Season 1, she died to save Sunnydale. In Season 5, she died to save her sister Dawn from her fate...and yet here, she seemingly chooses to end her own pregnancy, denying her own child the chance at life because it might be hard. Of all people, Buffy the Vampire Slayer knows that just because life is really hard, and sometimes really sucks, that doesn't mean it isn't worth living.

   But here's the problem. Whedon tells us, "I don't think Buffy should have a baby. I don't think Buffy can take care of a baby. I agree with Buffy." (You can find the full article here - it's worth a read).

   I think he is wrong. I don't think that the Buffy we all know and love would ever make the choice to have an abortion. Character-wise, the choice is truly a departure from the Buffy I know.

   I think it runs counter to the message Buffy has been giving us for close to the last decade: make the right choices, even if they're incredibly difficult. Don't take the easy way out - you can do better than that, you have the strength to do better than that.  As a fan, someone who both likes and respects Mr. Whedon and his work, I was disappointed by the choice to seemingly allow Buffy to sidestep the challenge of motherhood (intended or not, it is still motherhood). 

  I disagree with the character's choice on moral grounds. I have no shame in admitting that. I will never defend the ending of a child's life in the real world or in the pages of a comic book. 

   Yet, at the same time, I understand that Buffy is not my creation. I respect the fact that Joss Whedon holds differing views from my own, and it is his right to show them in his work, especially if, as he says, he feels it is true to the character and her story. I truly respect the creative freedom of storytellers (especially since I'm one myself).

   I also greatly respect the way that this subject matter was handled in the issue. There's nothing I hate more than a writer who blatantly shoehorns his or her own views into a story whether they naturally fit there or not. As far as I'm concerned, if they fit, fine. If not, they shouldn't be there - not if you want to keep the credibility of your story and your characters strong. In this case, the fact that the issue of abortion arose is a natural consequence of the story that Mr. Whedon is trying to tell. Not only that, but both sides of the issue were addressed, and not in a cursory manner. I truly wasn't sure what choice Buffy would make until she made it. And that is the mark of masterful, well-rounded storytelling. 

  I'm truly torn by this issue of Buffy Season 9. I feel that the strong credibility of Buffy's character was damaged - but then I wonder if she'll go through with it or not, and what that story will be like. I haven't stopped thinking about the issue since I read it this morning.  That, more than anything else, makes me respect Joss Whedon as a writer and storyteller even more than I already did. I may disagree with him, but he's telling a story that I am invested in and want to know the end to - and that excites me. 

   

Back In Business

So I realized today that it has been almost a year to the day since I've posted anything remotely useful on this blog. To all 4 of you poor souls that occasionally come here (looking for what, I don't know) I am sorry. This year will be different, I promise. This year, I shall not abandon you for the allure of sites such as Tumblr (although you can in fact find me there: http://www.tumblr.com/blog/the9thwordslinger). I have things worth writing about. And some of them are even worth reading!

Even the worst published author in the world has one talent...

As writers, we've all read a book at some point in our lives that made us say "I can write better than that!" We all have that published author that we love to hate - for example, Stephanie Meyers.

But I've realized something important. All published authors, no matter how bad their work might be, or how heinously lazy their editor was - all these people have cultivated a talent that we all need to take notice of.

Perseverance.

Despite how poorly we might say the finished work was, one thing all these authors knew how to do was persevere. They sat down at their desks every day and decided to tell a story. That, at least, is something I can respect and desire to emulate. Because perseverance is a talent. It isn't cultivated by laziness or by waiting for inspiration to strike. It is cultivated by hard work. In my experience, the more you write, the more you persevere, the more you will desire to write and to continue writing. It's a vicious circle of the best type.

See, for every Stephanie Meyers out there, there's a Neil Gaiman or a Haruki Murakami or a George R.R. Martin. So let's strive to be like these writers: strive to persevere, to tell our stories and to tell them well - without the addition of any sparkly vampires.

Extra! Extra!

In honor of today's 'Review Session', I thought I would share this with you all. You know, for kids!
(Actually, no. Not at all.)

Review Session: Never Sleep Again

So, friends, I have a rather unique review for you today, to make up for my absence over the last week or so. Today, we'll take a ride through your nightmares with a look at the documentary feature Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. 

1, 2, Freddy's coming for you...
I'll just come out and say it. Never Sleep Again is a phenomenal documentary. If you couldn't already tell, it's all about the Nightmare on Elm Street horror film franchise. It was timed for release along with the 2010 reboot (which was largely a waste of time and money, unfortunately). But don't let not being a horror fan turn you off from this experience. Also, don't let the word 'documentary' scare you away. If you have even the slightest interest in filmmaking, horror movies, writing, storytelling, special effects, or just movies in general, there's something here for you - perhaps several somethings.

3, 4, Better lock your door...
A Nightmare on Elm Street started as the brainchild of Wes Craven, the now-legendary horror director, when he was just getting started in the business. It spawned 7 sequels as well as a spinoff TV series, and fueled the rise of New Line Cinema company. Never Sleep Again tells the story from start to finish,and spins a fascinating tale. It features interviews with Wes Craven, Bob Shay (CEO of New Line), Robert Englund (who played Freddy Krueger) as well as the directors and most major cast members of every Nightmare film. We learn about everything, from the inspirations for the story, to behind the scenes trials and tribulations (of which there were quite a few), to details of some of the most original and groundbreaking stunt and special effects work of the 1980's and 90's.

5, 6, grab your crucifix...
I won't dive into too many more details here, but suffice it to say, this documentary is absolutely worth the watch. It delves deeply into what can make a great movie - or stop one from being made. We learn how a little horror movie, made on a shoestring budget, turned into a veritable cash cow and turned New Line Cinema from a tiny independent film studio into a true competitor in the movie business.

7, 8, Stay up late...
Highlights for me included:

•  in-depth looks at special effects work (including building a room that rotated 180 degrees).
• Interviews with Robert Englund, an actor who clearly just loves what he's doing and had dozens of stories to share about every film in the franchise.
• Info on a never-developed script written for Nightmare 6...by none other than Peter Jackson. 

9, 10, never sleep again...

   Clocking in at an eye-widening four hours, the doc is something best digested in a few sittings, but is completely satisfying and interesting from beginning to end.

From the Vault

The Internet is a wonderful place for geeks. There's all sorts of cool stuff to be found, the trick is knowing to look for it. So, here's the debut of a little segment I'm calling "From the Vault". The things I talk about may not be new for everyone (in point of fact, they probably won't be, if you've been around for awhile), but they're new to me - and I think they're cool. Enjoy!
This time, we're featuring a lost gem from the TV series 'Angel'. Back when the show spun off of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Joss Whedon said of it,


"We wanted a much darker show, darker in tone. It's set in Los Angeles because there are a lot of demons in L.A. and a wealth of stories to be told. We also wanted to take the show a little older and have the characters deal with demons in a much different way. Buffy is always the underdog trying to save the world, but Angel is looking for redemption. It's those two things that creatively make the shows different." (Credit: Wikipedia)



Overall, 'Angel' certainly achieved this darker tone. What many people don't know, however, is that the script for Episode 2 of the series was blocked by the network because it was too dark. The episode was never shot, replaced instead by 'Lonely Hearts'. 

This lost episode is titled 'Corrupt', and was written by 'Buffy' and 'Angel' scribe David Fury, who went on to write for 'Lost' and '24'. The script contains several bits that would eventually resurface in other episodes of the series, but the overarching plot, which concerned a prostitution ring and introduced Detective Kate Lockley as an undercover officer who had fallen prey to her surroundings, had to be abandoned. 
But, lucky for us, the interwebs are around to catch the things that the studio discards. 'Corrupt' can be found in its entirety here. It's well worth checking out. You can also find more general information about this episode here.

10 Points....

To anyone who finds this clip from the movie Terminator 2 'Wayne's World' as great as I did.

Fun Fact to Know and Tell #1

Josh Holloway, best known as 'Sawyer' on the series LOST, guest starred on the series 'Angel' in 1999. He was in the pilot episode, "City Of", credited as 'Good Looking Guy.' Do with that what you will. Also, this would be a killer bit of info to have the next time you play that 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game.

Yep, before he landed on that island, he was a vampire.

Review Session: Scott Pilgrim vs...Himself?

The Lowdown:

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is the story of Scott Pilgrim (as played by Michael Cera), a regular slacker of a guy who is also in a band that appears to be going nowhere (Surprise!). Anyway, one day, he meets the 'girl of his dreams', one Ramona Flowers. The catch is, in order to be with her, he must defeat her 7 Evil Exes. All of whom apparently have different types of video-game inspired superpowers. Aaand...we're off!

"If your life had a face, I'd punch it."

I'll be honest. After seeing the trailers for this movie, I was on the fence about it. I'd heard it was a bit of quirky, slightly odd fun that often incorporated video game imagery. Not being a gamer (the single area of geekdom in which I am lax), I wasn't sure what to think about Scott Pilgrim. I'd also never read the graphic novel series on which the movie is based.
But, truth be told, the movie lived up to its hype - mostly. It was a little better than I'd expected, and certainly not worse. In point of fact, everything about this movie worked for me. Everything, that is, except Scott Pilgrim himself.

First, the good: Scott Pilgrim is a visually crazy movie. 8-bit video game images figure heavily into said visuals - for example, every time Scott faces an Evil Ex, they battle one another in arcade game fashion, and when they're defeated, the loser collapses into a pile of coins. You'd think it would be weird, but the visuals are so consistent and creative (not to mention funny) that they actually add a lot to the story. This, combined with the editing style and musical oddities, gives the film quite a distinct feel. The supporting cast (both actors and their characters) are great. Mary Elizabeth Winstead (as Ramona), presents a strong female lead; and Alison Pill (as Kim, the drummer for Scott's band) is a scene-stealer even with minimal lines. The story is cool, albeit over the top, but the pure fun of it tended to gloss over the flaws, and the majority of the dialogue was snappy and well delivered.

But then there was the character of Scott himself. Michael Cera is fine in the role, doing his typical man-child thing (See also: Juno or Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist). Normally, I can deal with that. Not here. About a quarter of the way through this movie, I realized something. I kind of hate the character Scott Pilgrim. He’s a weak-willed, slightly aggravating individual who for most of the movie lacks anything resembling a moral compass. When we first meet him, he’s 22 years old, and dating a 17 year old high school girl (which, for the record, would look insanely creepy on film…except for the fact that Cera still looks about 17 himself). So anyhow, from there, Scott suddenly becomes infatuated with Ramona Flowers, and starts dating her – without breaking off his other relationship first. For a good 20 minutes, we’re treated to the spectacle of Scott keeping both girls in the dark, while still enjoying the benefits of both relationships. IMHO, this is an a-hole move, and one that made me REALLY dislike the character. Just because his 2-timing ways make for a few laughs in the context of the movie doesn’t make it right.

No, Ramona, just staring at Scott like that won't make him grow up.


Still, I would be much less critical of Scott if he showed the slightest hint of real progress toward maturity as the film goes on. Which he doesn’t. In point of fact, he causes the character of Ramona to regress. Which is exceptionally frustrating.

When we meet her, Ramona is fiercely independent, and very self-assured: in short, a pretty strong female character who doesn’t need a guy to make her important (If you want to see the opposite, go watch Twilight sometime). By the end of the movie, she’s all about Scott, and at one point even gets down on herself for not deserving him, because he’s “the nicest guy she’s ever dated.” Not once does she attack Scott for two-timing her, or even demand an explanation. No sane, self-respecting woman I’ve ever met would act that way, and it really brings the character down a notch.

Essentially, by the end of the movie, Scott’s character hasn’t changed a bit, and for the sake of the storyline, she has to instead. It’s an inane move, and one that made the end of this movie ring hollow for me. Scott’s character made this movie into an entertaining ride with an unfortunately disappointing ending.