We've moved!

This blog is mothballed. Check out Blog 3.0, Greetings From the New Brunette.

An amusing John Byrne story from a recent column by Erik Larsen:

"There was, I'd heard, a dispute with Stan Lee over something - I don't recall exactly what. I do remember John objecting to the name of Stan's soon-to-be new character called 'Ravage.' I recall John relating an incident when he was trying to explain to Stan why he found it objectionable. He's equated it with rape and said to Stan something like, 'What if I said to you that I was going to ravage your wife?' and Stan 'didn't seem to get it.' The reason Stan didn't get it may have been that John appeared to have confused the word 'ravage' (which does not mean rape) with the word 'ravish' (which does)."

Meeeyow!

Watch Steve Carell appeal to wealthy cats for them to donate money to the New York Center for Autism.

Thoughts on Heroes

I like the new show Heroes but I've got this nagging feeling the creators have some messed up attitudes towards women. The two main female characters are: 1) Claire, a sweet cheerleader and 2) Niki, Internet stripper/single mom. Of course, there's also the cop's estranged wife, a woman torn between two men, and a pixie-cut girl who mainly acts as a soundboard to another character's rantings. But I have a suspicion these three won't remain past the first story arc. I suspect at least one of them will die* and pixie-girl is some kind of double-agent or spy. Anyway, to me the two extremes of cheerleader/stripper (oh, heck, let's call it what it is -- virgin/whore) embodied in the female leads doesn't bode well for the show. But it's been entertaining so far and I'm hoping that once we get past the origin arc the writers will put these characters into more interesting situations.

Then, I came across this article on Heroes which contained this telling quote from executive producer Tim Kring: "'One of the things that has really popped for people, especially with women, is this kind of strong female character [Niki, the stripper],' he said. 'A lot of that is the sexuality of this character that I think women can really relate to, especially women who are mothers. The idea that this is a mother who can actually own her sexuality is a very powerful thing for women.'"

So apparently the producer's idea of a woman "owning her sexuality" equals stripping for money. Uh, okay... But wait! She's trying to be A Good Mother and only strips because she's trying to support her son. That could almost be bearable if it weren't for her powers, which appear to be turning into some kind of Mr. Hyde/Incredible Hulk type who can do the nasty stuff Niki won't (like killing and having sex.) Maybe it's just me but a character who has to let another personality take over in order to get the real work done and then has no memory of the event does not strike me as particuarly strong.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but I just thought I'd thow my observations out there. And I know I'm not the only one who thinks so.


* As well as Ando, Hiro's buddy. Everyone hero needs an Uncle Ben!

V for Vendetta review

(There aren't really any spoilers in this review for either the book or film if you're still trying to decide whether to see it or not.)

"I went to see V For Vendetta last night."
"Was it any good?"
"It's complicated."

I describe my impressions on the film as complicated because my opinion is inextricably linked to having read the book first. For a while I wasn't even sure I was going to see the film. The things I read online concerning the changes in plot, involvement of the Wachowski brothers, and Alan Moore's insistence his name be taken off the project, all boded badly. However, the trailer looked good and the poster artwork was pretty swanky as well. If nothing else, the film would certainly look good. In the end, I decided it was worth a shot.

Fortunately for this review, my thoughts on the film were perfectly summed up by an overheard conversation behind me at the theatre. After the trailer for Poseidon finished, a man remarked to his date: "Do you know who Poseidon is? He's the Greek god of the ocean." Now, I did not check to see if his date was in fact his 7-year-old daughter so I might be going a little far with my next statement and will sound like a huge snobby elitist. However, what kind of a man: 1) Dates a woman who doesn't know who Poseidon is? 2) Enjoys patronizing his dates with this commonplace knowledge to show that you get a literary reference in a trailer for a remake of a cheesy '70s disaster flick?

This notion of having to explain basic, obvious facts and concepts for people is what sunk the success of V (the film) for me. Although it was pretty faithful to the book it was inevitable that certain changes would have to be made to make the story of an anarchist anti-hero in totalitarian Britain more palatable for American audiences. Some of these changes weren't so bad, such as the state's use of the mass media to placate the nation. I found it more original and realistic than Moore's use of the radio in the book.

However, huge chunks of the film were taken up by unraveling the mystery of V's origins and motives. Most irritating was the film's insistence on explicitly explaining things which were only hinted at in the original novel. It's as if the filmmakers didn't trust that the audience would "get" the message so they had to write new, superfluous scenes to hammer the point across. For instance, Evey's interlude with Stephen Fry's character was entirely unnecessary, since many of the points made are covered in other scenes.*

So if anything, the film was too ambitious. I suppose there are worse crimes when it comes to cinematic adaptations of novels. But in my opinion, films shouldn't try to step too far beyond what the author laid out in the source material. V's attempt to link everything together in one grand fictional conspiracy, make a statement about our current political climate AND still be an action flick are simply too much to handle. As a result, the film sags under its own pretensions and long-running time. But in all fairness, the visuals were excellent and I have to admit it was cool to see V on the big screen.

* -- Although I never object to gratuitous Stephen Fry in anything that I watch, as I adore him. When is he going to guest-star in House, by the way? You just know it has to happen. He can play an absent-minded professor whose invention accidentally whisks House & Co. back in time to Pre-WWII England where they must prevent House being married to a horrible flighty socialite. (Hey, it could happen.)

Wonder Showzen

Since I only get about ten channels through my analogue cable, and about 70% of those are public broadcasting of some sort, I had not heard about a show on MTV called Wonder Showzen. But then I read an articlean interview with the shows creators from TV Tattle and it piqued my curiousity. I quickly learned the basic premise of the show is Sesame Street for twisted adults like me.

Thanks to You Tube, my new best friend, you can see a bunch of Wonder Showzen clips here. Among my favourites is "Beat Kids 104," in which an 8-year-old girl grills Wall Streeters on capitalism; "Slaves!" a musical tribute to cheap labour throughout the years; and "What Are You Running From?" where people get waaaay too upset when a hand puppet tries to interview them on their morning jog. Season One is coming out soon on DVD. Can't wait!