The Wolf Man (2010): The Signs Seem to Hint at a Classic Movie Renaissance

When it comes to iconic horror characters, Universal has the catalog to beat all catalogs. The classic Universal monsters include The Mummy, Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstein, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon -- classics all. Each of these monsters touches at a different "fear button" deep within the human psyche. For many, it is Dracula -- with his vampiric combination of death and sex -- who resonates most deeply and draws viewers and readers to peer into the abyss that can await.

For me, it has always been Lawrence Talbot -- the Wolf Man -- who seemed to both capture my empathy and fear. In the classic Universal film, gentle Lawrence Talbot acquires the curse of lycanthropy and nearly destroys all that he holds dear. The Wolf Man is a wonderful deconstruction of the typical hero narrative. While I am often critical of narratives that deconstruct the hero, I am quite fond of this particular deconstruction. A part of the reason for my fondness is that this particular deconstruction ends in tragedy -- when the hero through the act of heroism becomes a force of terror tragedy should result. It is when a hero becomes a force of terror and is narratively rewarded that I find myself often annoyed. Talbot is an extremely sympathetic man. He has a virtuous heroic streak and has found someone who may be the love of his life, yet it is his actions that will doom his happiness -- actions that were noble and not vicious. This is where the horror of the Wolf Man lies, it lies in the fact that we might destroy the things we love even without action ignobly -- or at least without initially acting ignobly.

It is a timeless and classic tale, as are the tales of all the Universal monster catalog. Yet, it is not a tale that is always captured well. The original Wolf Man (1941) with Lon Chaney was a delight (itself a descendant of Werewolf of London), as were the Hammer Curse of the Werewolf with Oliver Reed as the cursed man and John Landis' 1981 An American Werewolf in London. Each pulled the right heartstrings. There have been historic "campy" tellings of the of the tale as well -- in fact most of the Universal monsters have become fodder for parody throughout the years.

By the late 80s, the "Universal Monsters" had pretty much become "universal monsters." The creatures, and their look-a-likes, could be found everywhere in popular culture. So it was no surprise that Universal Pictures claimed the right to redefine these classic characters for themselves in the early 90s. It's no surprise, but it largely lead to disappointing films that lacked the heart of the originals.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) by Francis Ford Coppola lacked visual appeal, had terrible costumes and makeup, and included mediocre performances by talented actors. The film, which was the film my wife and I saw on our first date, was lackluster and an unworthy descendant of the Bela Lugosi film. Frank Langella was a more haunting Dracula in the 1979 film than Gary Oldman. Coppola's venture into the Universal Monster was a misfire that lacked heart.

Wolf -- full film at link -- (1994) starring Jack Nicholas Jack Nicholson (I blame my recent viewing of Back Nine at Cherry Hills for the error, but it's pretty unforgivable.) seemed more a Mike Nichols film than a true werewolf tale. It tried to hard to be topical and not enough time exploring the psychological aspects of the deconstructive narrative. James Spader plays the same character he played in Baby Boom (1987) -- with a bit of a twist. The film entertains as an allegory for how the business world can corrupt and consume, but it fails as a "horror" movie.

It wasn't until 1999 with the release of Stephen Sommers' take on The Mummy that Universal had a new "Universal Monster" movie that both captured the magic of the original and added a magic of its own. Brendan Fraser was such a compelling pulp hero, as Rick O'Connell, that it became easy to envision Fraser as the titular star of a Doc Savage film. Arnold Vosloo was a compelling Mummy with a compelling story -- audiences both loved and hated him. The film worked as blockbuster and as Mummy movie.

Sadly, Universal made audiences sit through The Mummy Returns and handed Sommers the reigns to Van Helsing -- more than balancing the 1999 gem with subsequent drivel. The Scorpion King "prequel" to The Mummy Returns was fun, and Sommers showed with GI JOE that he still knows how to have fun without needing to use Frankenstein as the circuit breaker for Dracula's electrical/mechanical Uterus (yes...that's the plot of Van Helsing).

Looking at the newly release trailer for 2010's The Wolf Man starring Benecio Del Toro as Talbot, it appears as if Universal has found the right director in Joe Johnston. Johnston has an extensive filmography that includes Hidalgo, October Sky, The Rocketeer, and the upcoming The First Avenger: Captain America. The inclusion of the talented and beautiful Emily Blunt as the romantic interest is a good choice. Blunt was one of the three bright spots in 2006's The Devil Wears Prada, the other being Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci. The inclusion of Anthony Hopkins among the cast hints at a nice balance of drama, and Hugo Weaving adds some additional geek appeal.

If the trailer is any clue, then The Wolf Man will stand next to Sommers' The Mummy as a film that captures the old while adding new inspiration.

Fantasy Flight Games Publishing 3rd Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game -- And You Thought 4th Edition D&D Was Controversial

In 1986, there were few games that could compete with Dungeons & Dragons for a share of the Fantasy themed role playing game marketplace. Other than a few successful (but niche) games like Runequest and Dragonquest, most Fantasy themed rpgs were pretty much D&D rip-offs. 1986 was the year that all changed. Steve Jackson released GURPS and Games Workshop -- a giant in the fantasy miniature wargaming field -- released Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.



Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WFRP) had the subtitle "A Grim World of Perilous Adventure," which turned out to be something of a vast understatement. Where other games tried to compete with D&D by giving the characters played by gamers more powers in a familiar system, WFRP made the characters more human. In AD&D, there are points in character advancement (an rpg term describing how characters acquire new spells and combat efficiency as they gain "experience") when the threat of character death lessens. This is never the case in WFRP. D&D is a game of kicking down doors and killing orcs. WFRP was a game of giving a second thought to being anywhere near the door. "Can't we just get the city guard to go instead," is a phrase frequently uttered by WFRP characters. WFRP's mechanics helpt to create narrative tension by having high levels of character vulnerability.

Add to the narrative tension and easy to learn system based on, but very different from, the system used in the Warhammer Fantasy miniatures game and you had a game destined to find an audience. When looking at the 1st edition Warhammer Fantasy miniatures rules one could still see reflections of TSR's Chainmail miniatures game. In fact, were it not for knowing how to play Warhammer I probably still wouldn't understand how to play Chainmail. By the time those systems were extrapolated to create WFRP, there is almost no relation to any form of D&D. Where D&D was chart heavy and had little granularity when it came to the skills characters possessed as unique individuals (only Thieves have any skills worth mentioning in early D&D), WFRP had a task resolution system based directly on the capabilities of the characters and the skills they possessed.

WFRP was cutting edge game design at the time -- it includes design elements influenced by Traveller among other games -- and added some elements that still influence modern game design. Some WFRP skills can only be described as "proto-feats" given the way they influence play. WFRP was a breath of fresh air, but it didn't stay in the limelight long and seemed to wither for a while. Then in 1995, James Wallis' Hogshead Publishing re-released the game for a new audience and reprinted some of the more difficult to find books for those of us who loved the game but had lacked well stocked game stores in the 80s. It should be noted that one of Wallis' current projects is an equally valuable reprinting of the wonderful Dragon Warriors rpg through his Magnum Opus Press. But the Hogshead renaissance was too short lived and as the rpg market became overwhelmed with D&D fever in the wake of D&D 3rd edition in 2000, WFRP fans were left wondering if they would be left out in the cold.

That wonder was answered in 2005 when Green Ronin, under license from Games Workshop, designed and released Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition. The game remained close in design to the original rpg, but added some new design elements and tried to clean up some ambiguities. It was also a marvel to look at.



Green Ronin's revitalization of WFRP contained the great strength of being largely compatible with the previous editions, but it also suffered from one major weakness. That weakness? That the game was largely compatible with the previous editions. This meant that the game, while easy to learn for an rpg veteran, isn't new gamer friendly. While the books are beautiful in art and layout, there was no "basic set" boxed edition targeted at the new gamer. WFRP 2e was targeted and marketed at an existing market -- those who love WFRP. This is too bad because while the list of "those who love WFRP" has been relatively stable over time, the list of "those who love Warhammer related products" had grown significantly.

This was in no small part because Games Workshop had worked very hard to make the Warhammer Miniatures games (both Fantasy and 40k -- their SF game) easier to learn and quicker to play. Warhammer Fantasy Miniatures and Warhammer 40k hit their "mechanical arcane density peak" in the late 80s with the release of the Realms of Chaos books. After a complex edition of miniatures rules, comprised of several dense volumes of rules, Games Workshop began to make their rules clearer and quicker to appeal to new gamers. They also made the games more modular and began a release cycle patter of "Core rules, Army Lists, Campaign Settings, Spin Off Tactical Game, New Edition with new sculpted minis." The system has worked very well and while Wargamers grumble about the cost and edition creep of Warhammer, it has become so constant as to be a hobby in itself and not a real uptick in anger.

Quicker, cleaner, easier, the tabletop wargame had that philosophy, but the rpg didn't. At least it didn't until last week. Fantasy Flight Games, the current holders of the WFRP license, have announced a new edition of the WFRP game.



As it is only four years since the triumphant return of the game in a new edition, the new release had more than its share of disgruntled detractors. Add to the short time frame between editions that a) WFRP gamers tend to favor a particular style of "old school" gameplay, b) the general environment of new edition anger permeating the internet due to other games new editions, and c) the high cost of an introductory box set, and one can see why there has been a little bit of an internet hubbub about this game.

But the game does need a new edition that appeals to a larger audience, if the game wants to expand the rpg marketplace and not merely peel off another segment. Looking at the components below, I think this might be the game to do it. It uses self explanatory dice, character cards, and comes in a boxed set. These are things that made Heroquest, Heroscape, and Runebound popular games.





If you add to all the pretty bits an engaging, clear, and quick to play rules set that has some depth with regard to rounding out character concepts you might just have a game that can bring some new gamers into the hobby. Oh, and if the rules are good enough, you may just be able to win over many of those who love WFRP already.

Time will tell, but I am excited.

Hulu Recommendation Friday: Battlestar Galactica Classic

With today's news that Bryan Singer is signing on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica movie, inspired by the original series, it seems only appropriate that this Friday's Hulu recommendation be the Glen Larson epic.

Singer has a strong track record in genre films, with only one argument starting hiccup. Singer's X-men movies perfectly captured the tone of what made the Claremont/Byrne run of the comics so engaging, while simultaneously translating the narrative to a different medium. This was no small task and Singer should be rightfully praised -- especially since audiences would soon learn how easy it is to make a bad X-men movie when the third film in that franchise hit theaters.

Singer's one hiccup is his attempt to make an engaging and topical Superman film. His Superman Returns managed to simultaneously get everything right regarding how amazing Superman can be, while getting everything wrong about what makes the character great. The film is beautiful and follows in the footsteps of two excellent Superman films, ignoring the misguided 3rd and 4th films, but it is exceedingly flawed. While it is plausible that in the minutes following the ending of Superman II Kal-El would fly off into space to find news of his home -- especially after the meaningful final conversation with Jor-El -- Superman as deadbeat dad is still a painful concept with which to grapple. It also forgets the most critical aspect of Superman's personality, and the underlying reason Superman has a secret identity. There is no practical reason for Superman to have a secret identity. If Superman were Superman full time, no one would be at increased risk of villain attack. Unlike Spider-Man, Supes secret identity doesn't protect an "Aunt 'Em." Unlike Batman, his identity doesn't protect a vast fortune that can be used to aid the needy. Superman's having a human identity actually puts people at risk rather than protects them. His secret identity causes more problems than it solves. But it does do one thing, it allows him to become human and connect with community. Superman -- like the "perfected man" in Aristotle -- needs the city, that's why he has a secret identity. Singer would have been well served to remember this one fact. Still, the film is spectacularly beautiful and contains two of the best Superman sequences ever filmed. It is a work of contradictions.

The same may end up being true of Singer's Battlestar Galactica. All signs point to his version being closer to the vision of series creator Glen Larson. Larson's BSG was Mormonism as SF narrative. It was biblical allegory with a touch of humor. It was filled with hope in the face of despair. It was more Orson Scott Card than William Gibson, it was more Heinlein than Haldeman. For these reasons, a generation of viewers were engrossed each week as the show aired for its sole season -- we won't count Battlestar 1980. It was a perfect example of golden age SF Space Opera.

When Ron Moore -- who shall forever be known to Cinerati as the man who killed Kirk because Picard couldn't win a fist fight -- re-envisioned the franchise for his 73 episode run, he did so as a writer influenced by Gibson and Haldeman and the events of a post-9/11 world. The story was dark and hopeless, and featured a human civilization not worthy of saving. The colonies of Moore's BSG are craven and deserve destruction, but as individuals they are more human. The series is often praised for its writing, but such praise is misguided. The show is amazingly acted -- the cast does a phenomenal job -- but any series that ends with the ultimate SF cliche ("and their names were Adam and Eve") lacks the depth that its facade presents to the world at large. BSG is the poster child for a generation of viewers/readers who believe "grim means philosophically deep." For those who grew up on the SF of Heinlein and Asimov, deconstructive tales are refreshing. For those who grew up on the SF of Moorcock, Haldeman, and Gibson, deconstructive SF is stale.

I am among those who found BSG stale and staid, but well directed and acted. It is the "reconstructive" narrative that I find refreshing. Give me The Incredibles and Wall-E over most modern SF. Give me Old Man's War instead of Forever War. These are what I find well crafted, innovative, and refreshing.

Singer will have an arduous task ahead of him. Moore's BSG won critical acclaim and brought new audience to the IP, at the expense of losing some of the nostalgic crowd -- people like me. Larson's original is dated and overly campy, so it can't be directly remade. It must be properly reconstructed or those fans who were dissatisfied with Moore's work will still be dissatisfied. But it also has to have complex characters, something Moore's definitely had, or those newer BSG fans will reject the vision as well.

Singer has the same challenge he had with Superman Returns, presenting a narrative of hope that contains complex characters. It is likely any Battlestar he creates will contain some of the same flaws as Superman Returns. Given Singer's ability to craft beautiful visuals and given the stable of actors who frequent his films, I look forward to seeing Singer's Battlestar...flawed or not.

As always -- for those in the US -- hit play, then click on the full screen button and enjoy.

Anne Thompson, Toy Movies, District 9, and the Indie/Popular Divide

I am a great admirer of Anne Thompson and find the majority of her coverage of Hollywood to be insightful, and to be honest "must reading." But there are times when I just have to cross her name off of the Holiday card list, and her recent post discussing the merits of District 9 while excoriating Hollywood for making films like GI Joe is one of those times.

Certainly, Thompson is right to praise a film like District 9 which manages to bring to the big screen quality science fiction at a budget price. Geekerati plans to do a show this weekend begging the question, "is there an inverse relationship between budget and the quality of an SF film?" Where Anne wanders off into the hinterlands of privilege, snobbery, killjoydom, and filmic cultural selectivity is when she writes, "That’s why I want G.I. Joe to take a dive this weekend (sorry Lorenzo Di Bonaventura), not because I want Paramount to lose money but because I want the Transformers-blinded studios to see that derivative toy movies are not the only way to go." Even worse, she goes on to claim that Hollywood executives, "In their search for franchises and tentpoles... ignore the obvious: most of them were once originals, from Star Wars and Lethal Weapon to The Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark."

One find's it hard to believe that a journalist covering Hollywood could write such passages, that is unless the same journalist happens to be wearing her Blinders of Public Disdain +5. Apparently, Anne owns a pair of those not so rare magic items -- or maybe she has the powerful artifact Schiller's Monocle of Aesthetic Disdain. Whatever the case may be, her statements are not only disrespectful of a particular audience demographic (Gen X and younger males), but are just plain incorrect at one level -- she is correct in stating "studios often forget what their customers really want: something new that they’ve never seen before". She just forgets that they equally want something that they are nostalgic for.

It's one thing to assert Anne's wrongheadedness, but one must address the individual statements and analyze them as well.

First, why should Anne want GI JOE to fail because she "want[s] the Transformers-blinded studios to see that derivative toy movies are not the only way to go?" Is it necessary for studios to fail for them to see that movies inspired by nostalgia for a particular intellectual property aren't the only way to go?

Not a chance.

If the films should be required to fail, it should be because they fail to inspire the same level of awe that was created by the intellectual property audiences feel nostalgia for in the first place. Hollywood should make hundreds of "derivative toy movies" if they manage to capture the mystique of the original IP -- especially if they are profitable. Transformers has failed to do this twice, largely because they have erred to much on the side of making adolescents laugh and not enough on telling a good story. This is the opposite error that many childrens movies make today, the modern kid flick spends to much time making sure to wink at the adults in the audience and not enough time telling a compelling story. If Transformers 2 had fewer "ball" jokes, and a more coherent narrative, the film would have been amazing. Sadly, that was not the case. It's hard to say that Transformers had a derivative narrative, since it's hard to say what the narrative of the film even was -- other than giant robots blowing stuff up.

This isn't true of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The Joe film managed to have an underlying narrative that was fairly original.

[Spoiler Alert that contains information that even those who saw the movie may not have understood] Cobra's plan was to replace the President of the United States with a Cobra agent so that when a major terrorist attack took place the world would turn to the US for leadership, only to end up under the direct control of the terrorist group behind the attack.[End Spoiler Alert]

That's a pretty cool underlying premise. The execution of the film is flawed, as the film tries to do to much in some areas and not enough in others, but that's not a particularly derivative story. In fact, in structure and execution one could argue that the GI JOE film is the true heir to the 007 films of Connery and Moore -- as the Craig movies are more a return to the tone and feel of the novels. One can argue that Joe wasted money on cast, money it didn't need to spend, since it is the IP and not the cast that brings one to a nostalgia fest, but one shouldn't argue that it was derivative. "Original?" No. "Awe Inspiring?" No. But if one imagines what the collective mind of 12 year old boys in 1984 want out of a Joe film, one gets a film pretty close to what ended up on the screen. That was the point, to fuel and feed off of nostalgia.

Even more to the point of it not being "necessary for studios to fail for them to see that movies inspired by nostalgia for a particular intellectual property aren't the only way to go?" Let's look at some very successful films from the past decade that break from the "tent pole" assumptions. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Mama Mia! by themselves provide ample proof that lower budget movies aimed at a "non-tent pole" audience (read: not 18-35 males) can make an amazing amount of profit. It is necessary that non-extravaganzas be made and be successful for studios to see these films have value. The more that are made, the more that will be made...by the studios. Studios will go where the money is. It is easy to do a Net Present Value analysis of an existing IP, with an established fan base. It is much more difficult to do one on an unknown idea. You have to be willing to take a risk and lose money, and that's something that business people don't like to do. They don't like to spend good money after bad.

Want to watch your investment money disappear faster than an addiction to crystal meth? Invest in an independent movie that you believe in. Risky films are risky. That's why Hollywood, which is risk averse because it likes profits, doesn't make a lot of these films. Show them that the risk isn't as big as they believe, and you can and will see more films like Juno.

Never mind the logical fallacy that "toy movies" need to fail for studios to learn there are other options, even more egregious is Thompson's assertion that "most of them [tentpoles] were once originals, from Star Wars and Lethal Weapon to The Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark." Originals? Really? Are you serious? I'll give you The Matrix (just), but the others?

Can Thompson actually believe that Star Wars, a masterful combination of the narratives of Hidden Fortress and the Flash Gordon serials -- which includes frames lifted straight out of Flash Gordon, is original? Shoot me now. Star Wars is amazing, but it is highly derivative. It is homage.

The same is true for the Allan Quartermain inspired Raiders of the Lost Ark. Could this movie exist without King Solomon's Mines? Not a chance. Raiders is phenomenal because it captures the essence of the old serials and combines it with the raw fun of H. Rider Haggard's tales. As an aside, King Kong is a combination of Haggard's tales with Conan Doyle's The Lost World. Raiders appealed to a nostalgia in a particular generation and did it so well it created nostalgia in a new one.

If Thompson is even trying to hint at the fact that Hollywood's great movies were "original," I can already feel the milk bubbling through my nose from the laughter.

Gone with the Wind? Based on a novel.
Wizard of Oz? Based on a novel.
West Side Story? Based on a Broadway musical, based on Romeo and Juliet.
The Maltese Falcon (1941)? Based on a Dashiell Hammett novel and had three theatrical versions between 1931 and 1941. Three in a decade before they made a great version?!
Yojimbo? Based on Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest with a touch of The Glass Key thrown in for good measure.
Rashomon? Based on a short story.

I could go on and on and on. Hollywood isn't in the business of making "original" stories. Heck, film makers aren't in the business of making "original" stories. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Film makers are in the business of entertaining. Sometimes they entertain us with original ideas, and some times they entertain us with familiar ones. I put no preference on either category. I just want to be entertained...and sometimes educated when I'm feeling Aristotelian.

As for District 9? I'm excited about this combination of Alien Nation, V, and Cry Freedom. Though I do share some of Science Fiction author Steven Barnes' concerns.

Truth is, there is a lot of truth in Anne's article. Hollywood should remember that there is a relationship between risk and reward. The higher the risk, the greater the potential reward. Films like GI JOE may have a predictable NPV, but they aren't going to provide the high levels of profitability that something like My Big Fat Greek Wedding are going to bring.

Hollywood should take some risks.

But Anne...you need to stop hating the male Gen X and younger audience. We just want to be reminded of those afternoons when we and our friends made up stories while playing with our GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS action figures.

Hulu Recommendation Friday (on Monday) -- The Legend of the Seeker

Since 1994, Terry Goodkind's objectivist Sword of Truth has been flying off the shelves. The series combines objectivist philosophy with traditional fantasy storytelling to very good effect. If you ever wondered what a fantasy series written by Howard Roark would read like, the Sword of Truth series is a pretty good approximation.

The first novel, Wizard's First Rule, is the novel that suffers the most from "generic-itis." The overall story in the novel is very similar to the underlying narrative of Terry Brook's wonderful Sword of Shannara -- itself reminiscent of the Tolkien classic Lord of the Rings. Both Goodkind's and Brook's novels focus on the importance of Truth and the dispelling of "illusion." Both books are entertaining, but each approaches the central theme of Truth from a different perspective. Brook's Shannara series uses the more traditional fantasy toolkit of mythic tradition to advance his argument. Goodkind, on the other hand, uses the novel as a place to embed philosophic discussions. Beginning with the discussion of the titular "wizard's first rule," and not really ending in the first novel, the book continually examines the best tools for determining Truth.

Goodkind's books are entertaining and insightful, and one need not be an Objectivist to appreciate them.

The Legend of the Seeker television series is a very entertaining adaptation of the Goodkind series to the tv medium. Sam Raimi's production company Ghost House Pictures is affiliated with the show, but unlike Raimi's prior fantasy foray's Xena and Hercules this series doesn't fall as much into slapstick. Xena and Hercules were fantasy for Three Stooges fans (which includes Cinerati), but The Sword of Truth is fantasy for television fans.

As always, click play then click full screen and enjoy.

The Voice of a Suburban Generation: Director John Hughes Dead at 59

I am saddened by the death of film director John Hughes.

When I think of the 1980s, I think of two things -- High School and the movies of John Hughes. I don't know if John Hughes' films perfectly captured the high school experience my friends and I lived, or if his films shaped the way that we perceived the world around us. All I know is that John Hughes' early films have touched my heart in wonderful ways. I empathized with Molly Ringwald's character in Pretty in Pink. I wasn't one of the popular kids in school, but I wasn't one of the rebels either. My lot was somewhere between them all. When I watched The Breakfast Club, I saw a little of myself in all the male characters. None of them were me, but all of them were. I always wanted to be as self assured as Ferris Bueller, but felt like a working class version of Cameron.

But it wasn't just the teen films of Hughes that touched my heart. On the contrary, his films seemed to grow with me -- though some like Mr. Mom would be films my life would have to catch up to. In 1987 and 1988, Hughes wrote three films that have shaped the way I look at life and family.

Plains, Trains, and Automobiles is THE classic Thanksgiving film and Hughes keeps you laughing until the end...when you weep love for John Candy's character.

She's Having a Baby wonderfully captures the worry and stress of the soon to be father. When Jody and I were making our "family plans," I was constantly having flashbacks to the many times that she and I had watched the film. I didn't experience many of the anxieties that Kevin Bacon's character goes through. But when Clio was rushed off to NICU because she wasn't clearing the fluid out of her lungs and I had to simultaneously comfort my wife, accompany my other daughter Nora to her first bath, and run off to NICU to check up on my second twin, in a strange way it was Hughes' film that prepared me for the possible combination of joy, fear, sadness, and elation that accompanied the birth of Jody and my twins.

And then there's Uncle Buck. Who doesn't love Uncle Buck?

One could go on and on about how entertaining most of John Hughes' films were. One does wonder what happened after Home Alone that so many of Hughes' films became slapstick comedies about young children, though I imagine that might be an bi-product of being a grandfather. Besides, I kinda liked Drillbit Taylor -- which was his idea, if not screenplay.

Yes, I am saddened by the death of John Hughes, but I did find one thing that made me feel hopeful when I read the Hollywood Reporter obit. It included the clause, "He is survived by his wife of 39 years." It is nice to read that someone who wrote so well about family was married to the same woman for almost 4 decades. It's particularly nice when we live in times when we see so many public and messy divorces.

Thanks for the stories. Now...where to begin with the Hughes marathon. I think Vacation is a perfect place to start.

Gail Gygax and Family Want a Gary Gygax Memorial in Lake Geneva, WI

Reporting out of Janesville, WI, Kayla Bunge has a nice public interest story about Gail Gygax's desire to have a memorial built in Lake Geneva in memory the founder of much of modern gaming.

According to the article, Mrs. Gygax desires the statue be built in Library Park on the shore of Lake Geneva. I can write, based on personal experience, that Library Park would be a perfect location. The one time I visited Lake Geneva, I drove by the Gygax residence (I should have stopped by, but didn't) and spent some time on the shore of lovely Lake Geneva. It was a wonderful trip and is a beautiful location.

THE HURT LOCKER: Anne Thompson Interviews Kathryn Bigelow

Film news analyst/reporter, and sometime critic, Anne Thompson has migrated her insightful film industry column away from industry dinosaur Variety over to the IndieWire blog network. The column keeps its "Thompson on Hollywood" title and Thompson continues to provide high value content.

In a recent post, Thompson opines on the Oscar worthiness of Kathryn Bigelow's latest film THE HURT LOCKER which is an early dark horse candidate. Embedded below is the 8 minute interview Thompson recorded with Bigelow at the Toronto Film Festival.



Thompson's move to Indie Wire would seem to be a good match for the analyst. Historically, Thompson seems to favor "independent films" -- by which she typically means "art film" rather than movies like Evil Dead, though there are exceptions -- and it was always a slightly awkward fit at the industry oriented magazines like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter where she formerly hosted her columns. Her move from Variety comes after her print column had been canceled by the magazine and her duties had been completely shifted over to Variety's digital portal. She had been a Deputy Editor for the magazine before they made her a full-time blogger, a shift that no doubt included a substantial reduction in pay and benefits. Variety, like The Hollywood Reporter, doesn't quite seem to know how best to use the internet -- or print -- in its business model.

The move away from Variety appears, on the surface, to be less contentious than her move away from The Hollywood Reporter. When she left The Hollywood Reporter for Variety, The Hollywood Reporter made her leave her column masthead Risky Business behind. It didn't matter to THR that Thompson had been writing a column of that title since her days as an analyst at LA Weekly, they wanted to benefit from the reputation that Thompson had built up while working at THR. Risky Business has tried hard to live up to Thompson's legacy, but has continually fallen short.

This blogger's respect for Thompson's columns shouldn't be read as blind worship, Thompson has significant blind spots in her analysis. Her vision of Hollywood's past, with regard to quality and originality, is sheer fantasy. Her love of independent film often leads her to overlook excellent blockbuster fare. Not to mention that her obsession with "independent film," has as its foundation a fairly narrow definition of what constitutes independent. She also, as seems so often today among film analysts and reviewers in the post-internet era, seems to find it difficult to avoid being a political blogger from time to time. She is far from perfect, but she is very much worth reading if you want a more sophisticated view of the industry than you'll get from the "hype mags."

Hulu Recommendation Friday #2 -- She-Ra: Princess of Power

For those who grew up as "latchkey kids" in the 1980s, there were an amazing array of weekday cartoons to keep us entertained as we put off doing homework and waited for one of our parents to come home from work. The kings of the weekday afternoon set were GI JOE, TRANSFORMERS, and HE-MAN, but I always had fond place in my heart for SHE-RA: PRINCESS OF POWER. Yes it was beat for beat HE-MAN with a female protagonist, but that just meant I got to watch another half an our of HE-MAN style action and that was cool with me.

I think that fact that Larry DiTillio, who wrote a movie column for the role playing game magazine Different Worlds and also wrote a classic adventure (Isle of Darksmoke) for the Tunnels and Trolls Roleplaying game, wrote the pilot episode probably didn't hurt my enjoyment of the show. Larry will be running a Tunnels and Trolls adventure at this year's Trollcon. We haven't interviewed Larry on Geekerati yet, but we did interview another 80s cartoon writer -- who worked on GI JOE and SPIDER-MAN AND HIS AMAZING FRIENDS -- Christy Marx.

As usual, click play and then click the full screen button and enjoy.

It's Training is Now Complete. "Star Wars" Can Now Be Seen "In Concert"

I can feel a disturbance in the Force. It is as if all of the money from thousands of Star Wars fans was removed from their bank accounts in one swift moment.



Having betrayed loyal fans with mediocre sequels, for which we fanatical Star Wars fans have waited in lines over night in sleeping bags just to buy tickets, George Lucas has found a new way to empty the wallets of Generation X fans who have loved the franchise since they were between the ages of 4 and 10. Lucas knows that regardless of how disappointed fans may be with the narrative of any particular film, those first few measures from the Star Wars theme still sends chills up the spines of Gen X inner children everywhere.

Now fans can wait in digital queues for untold hours in the hopes of getting a chance to fork out $35.00 - $85.00 per seat, in order to avoid paying upwards of $300 per seat to a "ticket agent" to watch Star Wars in Concert. Fans can now go to see a full orchestra play the songs of Star Wars to various High Definition movie clips projected on a big screen in a kind of multimedia "high art" extravaganza where the conductor will pause between sections of the show to describe things like "Leitmotif" (which is pronounced lite-motif not leet-motif -- a leet-motif is that chortle you hear every time you get owned by a 13 year old sniper in Call of Duty) to an audience who would actually be better served attending a performance of Das Rheingold.

Crap. As cynical as I am trying to be, I am finding it very hard not to be one of those Gen X-ers waiting in a virtual queue. There really is something magnificent about John Williams' score -- even in the lesser films.

Diana Jones Awards Committee Announces the 2009 Shortlist

Among the awards given out in the gaming universe, none is as enigmatic as the Diana Jones Award. Since 2001, the award has been handed out to a worthy winner selected by the anonymous Diana Jones Award Committee, which is made up of "games-industry alumni and illuminati". The award is dedicated to rewarding "the person, product, company, event or any other thing that has, in the opinion of its mostly anonymous committee of games industry luminaries, best demonstrated the quality of “excellence” in the world of hobby-gaming in the previous year."

The award bucks the continuing trend of "people's choice" awards that dominate the hobby today, from the Ennies to the more democratic than ever Origin Awards. The Diana Jones Award isn't about popularity, it is about "excellence." What excellence is as a variable is known only to the secret cabal who votes for the Diana Jones Award, but in past years the winners have come from very different corners of the gaming hobby.

Last year the award was given out to two recipients (there was a tie):

1. Grey Ranks -- an independant rpg where players take on the role of youths during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. In this case excellence referred to the way the game used simulation as a powerful presentation of history and for pushing the art of narrative storytelling to a new level.
2. Open Design -- Wolfgang Baur's efforts at creating a game design community supported by patrons involved in the creation process was awarded for its contribution to the hobby.

In 2006, the award went not to a game but to a Convention Charity Auction. Excellence can be defined in many ways, but certainly promoting your hobby through good works certainly qualifies.

This year's short list includes one real surprise and others that fit within what many would view as a "standard" view of gaming excellence, which is to say the list includes some very fun games. The other nominee is "Jeepform," a style of role playing that would make the "role playing is an artform" advocates of the early days of the hobby very proud.

This year's list is as follows:

• Dominion, a card game by Donald X. Vaccarino (published by Rio Grande Games)
• Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, a role-playing game by Rob Heinsoo, Mike Mearls, and James Wyatt (published by Wizards of the Coast)
• Jeepform, a game-style from Scandinavia (fostered by the Vi åker jeep collective)
• Mouse Guard, a role-playing game by Luke Crane (published by Archaia Studios Press)
• Sweet Agatha, a mystery game by Kevin Allen Jr (self-published)

The winner of the 2009 Award will be announced on Wednesday 12th August, at the annual Diana Jones Award and Freelancer Party in Indianapolis, the unofficial start of the Gen Con Indy convention.

About the Award
The Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming was founded and first awarded in 2001. It is presented annually to the person, product, company, event or any other thing that has, in the opinion of its mostly anonymous committee of games industry luminaries, best demonstrated the quality of “excellence” in the world of hobby-gaming in the previous year. The winner of the Award receives the Diana Jones trophy.

The short-list and eventual winner are chosen by the Diana Jones Committee, a mostly anonymous group of games-industry alumni and illuminati.

Past winners include Peter Adkison, Jordan Weisman, the role-playing games Nobilis, Sorcerer, and My Life with Master, and the board-game Ticket to Ride. This is the ninth year of the Award.

My personal hope is that 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons (4e) will win the day, but I wouldn't place any money on it. I believe that 4e has done something that has become rare in role playing games today. It has attempted to create a rules set that appeals to new gamers, it is an active attempt to bring new people into the hobby with an elegant system that remains exciting throughout long term campaign play. To do this the game incorporated elements from the Burning Wheel system (the skill challenge system is very similar to the resolution system for BW), the Savage Worlds game system (4e was designed to be played with minimal preparation, helping those who have less time to play still have an opportunity for deep play), Feng Shui (the inclusion of minion rules for those pests who should be easily dispatched), and Trading Card Games (the inclusion of a unified tag system which are coherent and consistent). The game is a marvel to play and is very much on the cutting edge of game design and community promotion, don't even get me into how the Organized Play elements of 4e help small store to promote the hobby. 4e is a unified effort to promote role playing as a hobby.

All the others are good games that push gaming innovations in different ways and deserve consideration.

Hulu Recommendation Friday: Robotech -- The Shadow Chronicles

Hulu's selection keeps getting better and better. Spend a little time in front of the CRT (or flatscreen) and watch the recent update of the Robotech Saga.

What will be the fate of the Earth? Just click play and toggle the Full Screen button.

Warner Considers "300" Sequel: Is There Glory to Be Found After Thermopylae?

In 480 BC, 300 Spartans with the aid of some 400 Thebens and 700 or so hoplites from Thespiae stood at the pass of Thermopylae in the hopes of delaying the massive Persian army of Emperor Xerxes. The force failed to provide any significant delay to the march of the Persian army and not long after the defeat of the Spartans the Persian army captured Athens -- the battle at Thermopylae had provided sufficient time for the Athenians to flee their city to bide their time for a better time and place to face Xerxes' army. But the death of the 300 did fuel the fires that enabled the Greeks to defeat Xerxes' army. In dying, the 300 had proven that Spartans were willing to die in defense of Greece and provided a wonderful morale boosting tale for later battles. The death of the 300 made it so that Xerxes would have to face a unified Greece and not individual city states that could be defeated one by one.

In 2007, Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures released a summer blockbuster film based on a Frank Miller graphic novel adaptation of the sacrifice of the 300 at Thermopylae. The film was a huge financial success and stirred up some political controversy as well.

Now it appears that Warner and Legendary are inching toward putting together a sequel to the successful epic.

But what would such a sequel look like? What story would one adapt as a sequel to 300? Hollywood loves to build on the success of a winner, all businesses do, but what story could serve as a worthy successor to one of the most inspirational battles in recorded history?

One might think that the ultimate defeat of Xerxes' navy and army at the battles of Salamis and Plataea would be a good place to start. I wouldn't agree. Primarily because the narrative framing device of 300 is that of a warrior telling the tale of the sacrifice of the 300 to a mass of troops gathered at Plataea just before they charge against the Persian army. In a way, 300 is already the story of Plataea. So that's not really a good place to start.

How about a representation of the Peloponnesian War where the Spartans "came to the defense" of Boeotia and Corinth? Given that one would have to portray Sparta's subjection of the Messenian Helots and the fact that Sparta, after defeating Athens and preventing Athens from becoming "imperial", is itself defeated by Epiminondas of Boeotia when Sparta attempts to become "imperial" in its own right. The Boeotian's of Thebes are the people who most easily translate into the champions of freedom during the Peloponnesian War. In what may be a legacy of the Peloponnesian war, or at least the Boeotian War that immediately followed it, it is often argued that the 400 Thebans who fought at Thermopylae were hostages taken by Leonidas.

Unless you're willing to paint the heroes of the previous films as the anti-heroes (or even villains) of the second film, it's better to avoid using the Peloponnesian War as a "sequel" to 300. A kick ass movie about Epiminondas would be a real treat, and it would be nice for people to witness the darker side of Sparta's "helot policy," but it doesn't make for a natural sequel.

This really leaves only two choices.


The first choice would be a portrayal of the Greek victory against Darius at Marathon. The battle, and the way that the message of victory was delivered, still echo in modern athletics. We once more have a story about "democracy" vs. "empire," but we would also be watching the story of the Athenians whose participation was minimized in 300. In 300, the Athenian naval victory over the Persians is portrayed merely as a storm brought by Zeus to crush the Persian navy. Barely a mention of Athens is made in 300. Gerard Butler, as Leonidas, tells us perfectly which city state 300 is about when he proclaims, "Madness?! THIS IS SPARTA!" 300 is about Sparta, and highlighting its virtues while overlooking its vices, and not about some "intellectual" city state to the north. Once more we are left with a subject which would make a great film, the Battle of Marathon, but one which doesn't translate well into a sequel to 300.

This leaves us with our second, and probably best, remaining choice. The tale of the 10,000 and their journey home after the death of Cyrus the Younger. During the Peloponnesian War, Darius II sent money and his young son Cyrus to aid the Spartans in their war against Athens. Cyrus used the opportunity to gain allies among the Spartans as he desired the throne that his older brother Artaxerxes II would inherit when their father died. He eventually brought some 11,000 mercenary Greeks -- including a goodly number of Spartans -- to aid him in his attempt to take the throne. He was wise to bring the Greeks as they were able to win a large battle at Cunaxa, but he wasn't lucky and was killed during the battle. This left 10,000 Greeks trapped in enemy territory seeking a way home. The leaders of the 10,000, including Clearchus of Sparta, were slain while trying to negotiate safe passage home. The 10,000 had to fight their way home. The tale of the 10,000 -- while it still has some Peloponnesian war baggage -- is one of the great tales of Ancient Greece.

The story of the 10,000 was also the inspiration for one of the great "cult" films of the late 70's -- The Warriors.

So here's to hoping that 300 is followed by 10,000. The audiences should have a good time with a rip roaring tale, and the critics will have a field day with puns a plenty.

Blizzard Finds Method to Create Profitable Commercial: Sam Raimi to Direct "World of Warcraft" Film

A couple of years ago movie going audiences started seeing advertisements for Blizzard Entertainment designed video games. First came the advertisements for Warcraft III, then came the advertisements for World of Warcraft. The advertisements were exciting, entertaining, and conveyed an accurate depiction of what consumers could expect from the video game products.

The advertisements also worked. Warcraft III sold 1 million copies in its first month of release. Given that Blizzard shipped 4.4 million copies upon release in order to meet demand and that Warcraft III related products are still on top 20 sales lists for PC games, we can guess that Warcraft III has sold in excess of 4 million copies. Better yet, as of the end of the first quarter of 2009 World of Warcraft had subscription revenues of $314 million for the first quarter of 2009. With the World of Warcraft MMORPG, Activision-Blizzard essentially has a blockbuster movie a month in revenue with a cost of goods sold of less than $20 million per $100 million. Not a bad revenue stream.

Marketing is one effective way to increase a revenue stream, but Activision-Blizzard do an ample amount of marketing and marketing isn't free...or is it? What if Activision-Blizzard made a movie for $100 million, with an established genre director, and the movie turned a profit? What if people who watched the movie, but hadn't played World of Warcraft the game yet, became subscribers to the game? Wouldn't that be an advertisement that not only paid for itself in new subscribers, but literally paid for itself because people paid admission to watch the advertisement?

BRILLIANT!

This is exactly what Activision-Blizzard announced today. In 2006, we mentioned that Legendary Pictures was interested in making a World of Warcraft movie, now Blizzard Entertainment and Legendary Pictures have signed Sam Raimi to direct a World of Warcraft motion picture. As a director and producer Sam Raimi has been involved in several successful "geek" genre ventures. From his successful Spider-Man comic book adaptations to Army of Darkness,, Hercules, Xena, and Legend of the Seeker, Raimi has demonstrated that he approaches these ventures with a "fan's eye." One can easily see how Raimi's ability to combine humor and darker elements will be a virtue for the World of Warcraft movie. According to Variety, Raimi will pick up the reins after he completes his work on Spider-Man 4.

Geek reaction to Raimi's involvement is certain to be mixed. Some fans will yawn, others will grown, still others will cheer.

Put us among those that will cheer, but with a slight tapering worry based sigh at the end of the cheer. Raimi can make a great World of Warcraft film, but only if he concentrates on making a great fantasy movie that takes place in the World of Warcraft and avoids trying to simulate playing sessions as film.

James Lowder Adding Another Must Buy Gaming Book to Book Shelves Everywhere

In the summer of 2007 Green Ronin released the most important book in the gaming hobby since David Parlett's The Oxford History of Board Games. The book, entitled Hobby Games: The 100 Best, was edited by industry luminary James Lowder and contained essays about 100 of the best -- and most important -- hobby games that had ever been released on the market.



Some of the games in the book have been out of print for some time. Avalon Hill's Gettysburg -- which was the first themed commercial wargame and following in the footsteps of Avalon Hill's Tactics and Tactics II created the modern commercial wargaming industry -- gets a brilliant write up by one of the founding fathers of the modern gaming industry Lou Zocchi. It is a game that is particularly difficult for collectors who like to play games as well as own them. Gettysburg went through numerous editions, each with major changes to the rules of the game. The original game featured a square grid overlaying the map used during play, the second edition replaced the square grid with hexagons, the third edition brought back the squares and added new rules, the fourth edition...you get the point. Adding to the dilemma is the fact that, while different, many of the editions are fun for their very differences.

Other games, which like Gettysburg were games that spawned genres of game play, are still in print -- though usually in a new edition that is often very different from the original game. Richard Garfield praises Dungeons and Dragons, the game that created the role playing game hobby. Jordan Weisman praises Magic the Gathering, the game that spawned the Collectible Card Game industry and paved the way for the Pokemon craze.

Even when the games aren't responsible for creating a new genre, they are still great games. Ogre, reviewed by the late Erick Wujcik, wasn't the first tactical wargame featuring tanks. But it is, to date, one of the most accessible tactical wargames and highlights the struggle of humanity against a murderous machine that echoes the "Butlerian Jihad" and predates the Terminator franchise. It is a shame that Steve Jackson Games doesn't continue to keep this game in print...even as a pdf download. It's the game that launched the company, and it is a wonderful introduction to "map, counter, and CRT" wargaming.

All 100 of the games written about are worth playing, and all 100 entries of the book are worth reading. Whether you want a glimpse in to the variety of experience the hobby offers, a look into the history of the hobby, or a peak to see if anything in the hobby is "for you," Hobby Games: The 100 Best is a must have for any book shelf.

Given the high praise above, you can imagine how much I am looking forward to the release of James Lowder's second collection Family Games: The 100 Best. The book will be released in late August, sadly not in time for Gen Con, and once again has an awe inspiring list of designers who contribute their thoughts on some of the best family games from the past 100 years.



Here is the list of confirmed authors, according to the Green Ronin website:

FAMILY GAMES: THE 100 BEST

Mike Gray: Foreword
James Lowder: Introduction
Wil Wheaton: Afterword
David Millians: Appendix (Games and Education)

ESSAYISTS:
Andrea Angiolino
Keith Baker
Wolfgang Baur
Carrie Bebris
Uli Blennemann
Bill Bodden
Mike Breault
Richard Breese
Todd Breitenstein
Alessio Cavatore
Leo Colovini
William W. Connors
David “Zeb” Cook
Monte Cook
Luke Crane
Dominic Crapuchettes
Elaine Cunningham
Richard Dansky
Karl Deckard
Dale Donovan
James Ernest
Matt Forbeck
Anthony J. Gallela
Richard Garfield
Marc Gascoigne
Stephen Glenn
Eric Goldberg
Andrew Greenberg
Ed Greenwood
Jeff Grubb
Scott Haring
Bruce Harlick
Jess Hartley
Fred Hicks
Will Hindmarch
Kenneth Hite
Joshua Howard
Steve Jackson (GW)
Steve Jackson (SJG)
Paul Jaquays
Seth Johnson
Matthew Kirby
Corey Konieczka
John Kovalic
Robin D. Laws
Matt Leacock
Jess Lebow
Jon Leitheusser
Ken Levine
Nicole Lindroos
Ian Livingstone
Michelle Lyons
Hal Mangold
Jason Matthews
Erik Mona
Alan R. Moon
Colin Moulder-McComb
Bruce Nesmith
Kevin Nunn
Peter Olotka
Phil Orbanes
Andrew Parks
David Parlett
Sébastien Pauchon
jim pinto
Mike Pondsmith
Chris Pramas
Lewis Pulsipher
John D. Rateliff
Sheri Graner Ray
Philip Reed
Thomas M. Reid
Susan McKinley Ross
Charles Ryan
Steven Schend
Robert J. Schwalb
Emiliano Sciarra
Jesse Scoble
Mike Selinker
Bruce Shelley
John Smedley
Lester Smith
Jared Sorensen
Warren Spector
Stan!
Gav Thorpe
Dan Tibbles
Jeff Tidball
John Scott Tynes
Monica Valentinelli
James Wallis
James M. Ward
Darren Watts
Tom Wham
Bruce Whitehill
John Wick
Kevin Wilson
Ray Winninger
Teeuwynn Woodruff
John Yianni

Like the list of authors in Hobby Games, this is a list of some of the best and brightest game designers working today from a variety of gaming genres. The inclusion of some of the leading game historians (the aforementioned David Parlett and the as yet unmentioned Phil Orbanes) speaks to James Lowder's knowledge of the field and his desire to create a product that is important to hobbyists and useful to those outside the hobby. The designers selected range from the old guard to the exciting young turks.

Sadly, some of the designers who had articles in the prior book in the series are no longer with us. One would give a lot to read Gary Gygax's or Erick Wujcik's thoughts on the subject. I am also disappointed to see that Ken St. Andre and Rick Loomis, both featured in the prior book, are absent from the list of contributors. But an editor's job is no easy and this is a wonderful list indeed.

I am particularly interested in seeing what longtime Cinerati friend Matt Forbeck wrote in his entry as well as what relative newcomer in the industry Jess Hartley chooses for her entry. Forbeck has worked on a number of the classics of the hobby and Jess' work on the excellent Scion by White Wolf (as well as numerous World of Darkness titles by the same publisher) makes hers a voice I'd like to hear from.

Of all the names on the list, I would only remove one -- Wil Wheaton. His removal would have provided less geek celebrity appeal, but would have allowed Lowder to invite me to write the afterword.

Gaming Paper: Selling Game Products with Online Infomercials

Erik Bauer, the inventor and chief salesman of Gaming Paper, has a difficult road ahead of him. Erik is trying to sell what might be viewed by many as an "old" product as a new innovation. Erik is trying to get the modern roleplaying gamer to buy his specially designed paper to replace the gaming tiles and expensive gaming mats on which gamers are currently spending lots of money. He wants us to buy...paper, and to make his case he is becoming that most wonderful of things and internet Pitchman.

It's hard to be a Pitchman, a carnival barker, a huckster if you will. Most people think you're kind of shady and untrustworthy, but I've always admired these dicey individuals. I love a good huckster. It doesn't matter whether the huckster is running a game of three card monte, working at a carnival, promoting a movie, or selling me stuff on television. There's just something entertaining about the patter and technique that entertains me, not that I'm going to buy from them mind you. This is one of the reasons I am going to deeply miss Billy Mays, and lament the fact that I never got to see William Castle in action.

At the carnival, the job of the barker might be to convince the rube that the $2.00 stuffed animal is worth 10 attempts at a carnival game...each game costing $3.00. The job of the carnival barker is to create a higher demand for an item than the item might otherwise command. After all, if the $2.00 stuffed animal isn't a $2.00 stuffed animal but a "test of one's manliness" then it is certainly worth $30.00. Right?

On television, you watch masters of the art (like the aforementioned Billy Mays) gleefully attempt to convince viewers that they absolutely must buy OxiClean for their cleaning needs or Green Now to fix up their lawn.

The internet is the perfect environment for these ne'er do wells. In fact, the internet is home to one of the best hucksters of all time, Tom Dickson, with his stream of "Will it Blend?" internet ads. I absolutely love the "diamonds" ad that Blend-Tec did a while ago.

So how does Erik measure up to the great Pitchmen like Billy Mays and Tom Dickson? By the video below, you can see that he gets the concept of pitching and seems to be trying to fuse the Dickson and Mays models. It does come off as a little clumsy and low, but it's still entertaining. I particularly admire the comment about ink bleed, "it doesn't go through...unless you went really thick." I actually recommend watching all 5 videos they have up, there are some pretty silly moments that are pretty entertaining. In fact, in support of Erik I'll probably buy a few rolls of his "high quality paper." $4.00 a roll doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Flames Rising Interviews Award Winning Author Kenneth Hite

The excellent game industry blog Flames Rising has an interview with Game Designer and Author Kenneth Hite on their website. Earlier this month, we mentioned one of Kenneth's award winning books "The Tour de Lovecraft." We believe this award winning book is an essential entry into any horror literature fan's library. We also argued that his excellent "Trail of Cthulhu" was the best Lovecraft inspired rpg to date.

What we didn't mention, but is mentioned in the excellent interview at Flames, is that Hite has also written two Lovecraft inspired children's books. The excellent "Where the Deep Ones Are" is already available and is a wonderful tribute to a classic children's book. Coming soon is "The Antarctic Express," his tribute to a more modern children's book...with a glimpse "At the Mountains of Madness." The 3D animation of the film "The Polar Express" nearly drove me insane, maybe this is just the last piece I need in order to drift into blissful madness.

Geekerati Discusses the Ins and Outs of San Diego Comic Con

Last Sunday, the Geeks at Geekerati hosted this year's first episode of their annual Comic Con episode series. The Geeks are all experienced attendees of the San Diego Comic Con and have witnessed it grow from a well attended comic book convention to the monolithic pop culture extravaganza that the event is today.

In last Sunday's episode, the geeks provided answers to some of the Frequently Asked Questions about the convention. The discussion used Shawna Benson's excellent Shouting at the Wind "REAL Guide to the San Diego Comic Con" as the outline for the conversation. Benson has been a member of the Geekerati crew for over two years and provides wonderful insight into the television and film aspects of the convention.

This Sunday, the Geeks will be discussing the lesser known aspects of SDCC. In addition to Comic Book and films about Comic Books, the SDCC has events and panels that span all pop culture interests. Whether you love SF/Fantasy literature, old horror movies, Pulp Fiction like HP Lovecraft and Robert E Howard, or have a deep affection for video games and table top gaming, the SDCC has events geared toward your interests. Stop by this Sunday night at 6pm Pacific at www.blogtalkradio.com/geekerati to offer your insights are to ask questions of our expert panel.

Joining the Geeks in their discussion this Sunday will be Dominic Crapuchettes, the game designer responsible for the award winning Wits and Wagers and Say Anything! party games.

Past guests on the show have included:

Film and Television writer John Rogers discussing the writer strike, LEVERAGE, and comic books.

Dave Goetsch (Co-Executive Producer on Big Bang Theory)

Television writer/producer Tim Minear (Angel/Firefly) discussing the writer strike.

Television writer/producer Rob Long(Cheers) discussing the writer strike.

Variety editors David S. Cohen and Peter Debruge discussing film animation and this year's crop of films, including the remarkable 3D animation on BEOWULF.

Game Designer and Author Matt Forbeck.

Science Fiction author Susan Palwick who discussed her excellent novel "Shelter"

Comic Writer/Reporter Marc Bernardin discussing his Highwaymen comic book.

Film Critics Luke Y. Thompson (The OC Weekly) and David Chute (The LA Weekly and Premiere.com)

Wold Newton Historian Win Eckert discussing pulps and the Wold Newton Universe.

Comic Book editor and author Jeff Mariotte

Game Designer James Lowder.

Many others, including Shelly Mazzanoble (Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress)

Are Movies Worse Today? 1967 vs. 1987

As mentioned in a prior post, Anne Thompson commented recently, in a post about changes in the number of films the Academy will review for Best Picture, that "bottom line though, the Academy had more quality films to choose from then than they do now." We're putting this claim to the test.

A respected commenter added a clarifying note regarding the "Are Classic Movies Better" post. Professor Nokes reminded Cinerati of the importance of specificity when using language, by pointing out that by definition Classic movies are better. Classic movies, by definition, being old movies that have withstood the test of time -- the canon of film if you will. Since our contention is not that Classic movies are no better than Modern films, rather that films made in prior decades are not on average better than Modern films, this is a useful correction.

I would have been better served to use the post-structuralist "Classic," rather than the literal Classic, as that use has the implied irony I was attempting to bring to the front. That a film was made in some bygone era doesn't automatically mean the film is a genuine Classic, at least that is the assertion of this series. Though I would love to use the ironic post-structural word in the future, I won't use it. In order to remain clear, I will now call films made during prior decades Older films rather than Classic films. Certainly, some of the films are Classics (but so are some Modern films), but all of them are Older.

Now that I have clarified the purpose of this series, let's move on to the first comparison.


Below is the list of the 1967 nominees for best picture with the addition of Anne Thompson's film historian friend's +5. This list will be followed by some Cinerati commentary, the list of the 1987 nominees plus my +5, and some closing commentary.

1967 original nominees

• In the Heat of the Night [winner]
• Bonnie and Clyde
• Doctor Dolittle
• The Graduate
• Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

PLUS

• Camelot
• Cool Hand Luke
• In Cold Blood
• The Dirty Dozen
• Two for the Road

There are two things that become clear from looking at the list of films above. First, 1967 was a pretty good year for movies. Quite a few of my favorite films are in that nominees+5 list. I am particularly enamored of Doctor Dolittle due to memories from my childhood of watching the film on VHS with my grandfather. Second, one can quickly see just from the films that 1967 was a year where the USA was undergoing some cultural shifts. The massive violence of Bonnie and Clyde was shocking to some audiences, two of the films deal heavily with race issues, the role of sexual liberation in Camelot's portrayal of Guenevere, are all indicative of the changes the society was facing at the time.

I would argue though that two of these films would be laughed at by modern critics, if viewed without the rose colored glasses of nostalgia. I love Doctor Dolittle and think it is a great film. But if it had come out in 2009 rather than 1967 (as exactly the same picture), the film would be derided as frivolous childhood fare not worthy of artistic consideration. If this weren't true, we would see films like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone nominated for Best Picture. Potter received three Oscar nominations, had a stellar cast of brilliant British actors, but was not nominated for Best Picture. My guess is because as children's fare it is taken less seriously, this is further evinced by the fact that the BAFTAs nominated it for Best Children's Feature. Surely, one can argue that I am overstating things, but based on my discussions with current film critics I don't believe it to be the case. The older critics seem too "sophisticated" and the younger critics are often too "gothtentious" to consider a film like Dolittle for an Oscar nod -- particularly over a film like Cool Hand Luke.

I could make a similar argument for why modern critics would overlook Camelot, not for its childishness. In this case, Camelot would be overlooked for being "over done." It's a very good film. I find its representation of Guenevere to be extremely unsympathetic, and think it flawed in that regard, but the acting, singing, and narrative are extremely compelling.

I can take or leave The Graduate. For me it is a film too deeply rooted in its era to inspire or challenge me. It's well shot, well acted, entertaining, but in the end uninspiring. I'll watch Cool Hand Luke over The Graduate any day of the week.

All in all, 1967 was a still a very good year for movies. How does 1987 compare?

1987 original nominees

• The Last Emperor [winner]
• Broadcast News
• Fatal Attraction
• Hope and Glory
• Moonstruck

PLUS

• Empire of the Sun
• Raising Arizona
• Full Metal Jacket
• Good Morning, Vietnam
• Cry Freedom

Looking at the list above, one might believe that I stacked the deck against Anne by choosing 1987. I should also note that the +5 part of the list comes not from my own opinions, but from Tim Dirks of Filmsite. When I saw his discussion of overlooked films, I found I agreed with him and thus used those rather than create my own +5 which would have looked pretty much the same. With the exception of the over-rated at the time Fatal Attraction, 1987 is a very good year for films receiving Academy consideration -- and would be with the +5 rule as well.

Like 1967, one can see the social issues of the day reflected in the important films of the year. Broadcast News was an entertaining look at news media that demonstrated how society was beginning to see that what was presented to us as "news" was in many ways mere show business. One thinks that James L. Brooks wouldn't find something like TMZ suprising, upsetting maybe but not surprising. The Last Emperor is a touching tale brought to the big screen in the final years of the Cold War. It is a touching film that looks at humanity and the transition of a culture from Empire to Revolution to Stability -- a culture that is still undergoing the process depicted in the film.

Hope and Glory is ostensibly about a child living in England throughout WWII, but one can easily see reflections of Cold War sentiments underlying the tensions of the film. While most Gen X-ers hadn't undergone drills showing them what to do in case of a nuclear attack, as Boomers had experienced, but they still lived with an underlying dread rooted in the potential of nuclear war. Hope and Glory in depicting life in a London suburb during WWII, demonstrated that while war is a time of constant upheaval it is also a time that can be endured.

Two of the films in the +5 are narratives that take place during the Vietnam War, a conflict from which America was very much in need of healing in the 1980s (and still today). The movies come at the conflict from different narrative perspectives -- one is a drama and one is a dramedy -- but they each have power.

Cry Freedom is as politically important a film as one can imagine. Denzel Washington's performance as Steven Biko makes one wish this was more a film about Biko and less a film about a heroic journalist (played by Kevin Kline) who will tell his tale.

If you don't recognize Raising Arizona as one of the all-time great comedies, you lack a sense of humor. In the film, the Coen brothers put their ability to tell epic stories about mundane characters on high display.

Looking at the Academy films (and +5s) from 1967 and 1987, I don't think the Academy had remarkably better films to judge in the earlier year. Both years are very strong. One can make an argument that 1967 is stronger, but I think one could equally make an argument that 1987 is stronger.

I'd also like to go a little deeper into the respective years. The quality of the film industry shouldn't merely be measured by the "Academy worthy" films of a given year. Many genuine Classics are films I would never argue should win an Oscar. One doesn't immediately think "Best Picture" when one is watching Bringing Up Baby, but one does certainly think it is a Classic. It is simply one of the most entertaining films ever made. How do 1967 and 1987 stack up when it comes to the entertaining films offered?

Cinerati's 10 Best Non-Oscar "Entertainment" Films of 1967 in No Particular Order

• A Fistful of Dollars
• Valley of the Dolls
• Bedazzled
• The Jungle Book
• Point Blank
• To Sir With Love
• You Only Live Twice
• In Like Flint
• The Good the Bad and the Ugly

That's a pretty good list of entertaining films. I am particularly fond of the Moore/Cook comedy Bedazzled. Most of these films are films that people still watch and most are considered classics. It should be noted that Barefoot in the Park and For a Few Dollars More were also released in 1967. You Only Live Twice is arguably the first use of Ninja in a "Western" film. Point Blank has a darkness that the more recent Mel Gibson version of the story Payback lacks. Unarguably, 1967 was a good year for movies in general and not just Award worthy films. But it is also the year one of my least favorite films was made. The lame and contrived Casino Royale comedy was released that year, a film to metacognitive for its own good.

What about 1987?

Cinerati's 10 Best Non-Oscar "Entertainment" Films of 1987 in No Particular Order

• Lethal Weapon
• Evil Dead II
• Predator
• The Untouchables
• The Princess Bride
• 3 Men and a Baby
• Overboard
• Near Dark
• Dirty Dancing

1987 also saw the release of La Bamba, Robocop, The Secret of My Succe$s, River's Edge, Inner Space, Baby Boom, No Way Out, and The Monster Squad. It's hard to compete with the Spaghetti Western trilogy of Clint Eastwood, so 1967 wins for being bad ass. But it should be noted that much of the entertaining fare of 1987 is very entertaining. The Princess Bride is a wonderfully enchanting tale that people will be watching for generations to come. Overboard is a romantic comedy that ranks up in my enjoyment factor with Bringing Up Baby -- as are Baby Boom and 3 Men and a Baby for that matter.

Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark is one of my favorite vampire films and is must see for any fans of the HBO True Blood series. The vampires in Bigelow's film are a refreshing alternative from the sexy and alluring vampires typically presented, these are stone cold killers on a rampage. It's also an important film because Bigelow demonstrated, as she continues to demonstrate, that women directors can very ably direct things other than "women's films."

1967 wins because of the Spaghetti Western trilogy, but 1987 is one heck of a fun year for movie fans.

Are Modern Films Really Worse than Classic Films? A Blog Series Introduction

On the 24th of June, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that Academy members would vote for Best Picture from a selection of 10 films rather than the 5 that had become standard. They assert that this is a return to an older Academy tradition and are pitching the change by doing a bi-coastal screening of the 10 films nominated in 1939 -- an amazing year for movies.

In response to the announcement, Anne Thompson shared the contents of an email a film historian sent her which listed an "imaginary" additional five nominees for the years 1967 through 1979 as a demonstration of films that had been overlooked by the Academy in years past. It's a fun read, filled with some pretty keen analysis.

In her introduction to the email, Thompson asserts, "Bottom line though, the Academy had more quality films to choose from then than they do now."

Such a statement immediately begs the question, "Really?! The Academy had more quality films to choose from then than they do now?" I find the statement to be on the face incredible -- traditional definition -- and a bit knee-jerk in the certitude of the statement. Certainly, my own reaction to the statement is knee-jerk as well. My assumption is that Thompson is wrong, but is she? The only way to find out is to do a year to year comparison continuing from a date after 1979 and comparing it to past years. One could easily write a book on the subject if one wanted to do an in depth analysis, one could probably write a book merely on what the best methodology to use for comparison.

I have neither the will, nor the luxury of time to do that. So I offer the following. I will create my own "nominee+5" lists for each year starting in 1987 and compare that year to the year twenty years prior. Thus 1987 will be compared to 1967. Each list will be done in a single blog post. After I have completed the first set, I will begin again in 1997 and compare to a year 30 years prior. The +5 "best of year x" list will be one of my own choosing, and thus will hopefully spark conversation as you may believe that some other films deserve to be in the +5. The merit of a given year won't merely rest on my own +5, but include those anyone else can think of as well. After all, we are measuring whether the "now" holds a candle to the "then." That, and not whether my specific choices are the best, is the question that should be discussed.

Stay tuned to this blog for 1987 vs. 1967, the first in a series of posts.

I Can Stop Pretending to Like Dollhouse

According to Variety, Tim Minear will be working on an updated version of the science fiction classic Alien Nation for Fox 21. The show is being developed for release on the Sci Fi network in what Fox 21 hopes will be another successful "franchise revival" from the Sci Fi network.

As was mentioned earlier on this blog, I am a fan of Tim Minear's. I'm so much of a fan that I have been lying about how much I like Dollhouse. I watched every episode, out of love for the creators, but I often found myself asking the television, "Really?!" Dollhouse just never seemed to figure out what its core conflict was and never really convinced me why I should sympathize with the corporation behind the Dollhouse.

I firmly believe that Minear is the right creator for an update of Alien Nation. In the Variety article Minear states, "Twenty years (after 'Alien Nation'), TV as a whole has evolved, and you can explore issues and go deeper with subject matter than you ever could before. On cable, you can play with ambiguity. This is a place I want to be."

If I were one who believed in omens, I would certainly say that cable -- in particular Sci Fi -- is a place that Minear belongs. Minear's shows have a long history of being aired on Friday nights where they wither and die under the curse of the Friday Night Death Slot. Unlike other networks, most of Sci Fi's most successful shows air on Friday nights and this may well include Minear's reinterpretation of Alien Nation.

Sci Fi may be crazy for attempting to change their name to Syfy, but between hiring John Scalzi to work on the next Stargate show and having a show for their network being developed by Minear, the network is well on its way to once more becoming a Sci Fi network instead of a "Ghost Hunters" network.