A while back I was hanging out in the office of the Communications Officer for the UT Library. I like to go in there both because Travis is hilarious and also because he often let's me take promo items like pens and whatnot. Anyway, I was hanging out and Travis asked if I'd be interested in participating in their usual feature for the official newsletter for the UT Library where they ask a librarian to talk about some books they like.
Well, I'm not a librarian, but it's not like I can't read, and lord knows I'm not going to not give my opinion if asked. "Can you walk about comics?" asked Travis.
"How many thousand words?" I asked.
Apparently they keep asking librarians this question, and they tend to get a lot of the same sorts of columns. The Hail mary desperation play: ask the guy with the Superman poster what he thinks folks could be reading.
So, this quarter it's yours truly on Page 10 of the UT Library Newsletter. "Ryan Steans Recommends".
I tried to mix it up a bit by mentioning different kinds of comics: biography, memoir, sci-fi, superhero... We'll see how I did.
And, yes, Longhorns, that's me in the stacks of the PCL where I work everyday.
Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
Showing posts with label recommendations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recommendations. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Signal Watch goes all Teen Angsty with "Rebel Without a Cause"!
Just FYI: I DVR'd this a while back and finally watched it Friday night. It's playing again Saturday on TCM as part of their Natalie Wood-a-thon if you're looking for a night in.
Rebel Without a Cause (1955) is one of those movies I suspect a lot of people know from the iconography of the poster and can probably tell you it stars James Dean and Natalie Wood, but I don't think most folks around my age have bothered to ever watch.
When I was in middle school a friend's dad who had been of age when the movie came out insisted we get sat down and watch the thing. At the time I didn't find much of the movie terribly relatable, and I recall we kept having to stop the movie to basically explain the 1950's to us kids in a context that didn't involve Olivia Newton John and John Travolta.
I watched it again in high school, and it felt far more relevant at least in its depiction of the gulf between the world of parents and what's going on with their kids, but that was about 20 years ago.
Rewatching the film highlighted some of the excellent work by director Nicholas Ray, and to see the relationships between the characters through the eyes of an adult (physically, perhaps not emotionally) was most certainly interesting after all this time. I don't think I really noticed how intensely compressed the timeline of the main action actually is during the film (the last two thirds occurs over basically one day, I believe). I was far more acutely aware of the cues from Sal Mineo toward James Dean's Jim and that was some pretty bold stuff for a 1955 film. And, most definitely the relationship between Jim and his parents feels less staged as a plotpoint and more as a condemnation of conflicting parenting styles. Of course in 2012 a character enjoying having three adults in their household is probably considered excellent parenting above criticism, so, you know... different times.
Some smaller details stuck out. I realized that not only do you not really see smokers on the big screen anymore, you never see teenagers smoking, which was a staple of films when I was a kid and goes utterly unmentioned when Natalie Wood and Jimmy Dean light up (to mention it would be uncool, anyway).
Despite being the film he might be most associated with (I guess Giant is the other contender), the movie was released posthumously for Dean. The fatal car wreck that took his life occurred just a month before the film's premier. Still, Giant wouldn't hit the screen til after Rebel, and perhaps that's fitting, as the performance and film have greater scope, but it's tragic that Dean would never see the reaction to either.
Dean's performance is of the school that you can recognize from Brando and Newman and other contemporaries who had stepped away from the traditions of the stage actor and played to the intimacy of the camera. In the mumbling world of the teenaged male, it seemed only too appropriate for the seeming prisoner within his own skin to need a camera snooping closeby when nobody is watching to see what's going on with Jim Stark.
I'm not sure sure that this is the first movie that moved beyond depicting teens as spunky, can-do mini-adults, but the film's impact and potency still resonate in even the goofier teen sex comedies as kids struggle to communicate with their folks and to gain their acceptance/ legitimize whatever the heck it is they're going through (see: The Breakfast Club).
Because of the age of the characters, it's also a bit easier to understand the decisions made by the protagonists and antagonists in the film, their motives and stakes are worn on their sleeve.
One bit I always liked in the movie, that goes undiscussed, is that the guy who seemed ready to kill Jim early in the film extends a hand of friendship, adding to the tragedy that drives the rest of the movie. Of course, it says nothing great about Natalie Wood's Judy that she seems to bounce from Buzz to Jim mostly because Buzz is no longer with us, but high school girls... they're screwy.
Anyway, if you've not seen Dean's defining role and you'd like to see an extremely young Dennis Hopper playing a fellow named "Goon", this is your chance.
 |
| this is the part where I admit I cuffed my jeans in high school because I thought James Dean made it cool. |
Rebel Without a Cause (1955) is one of those movies I suspect a lot of people know from the iconography of the poster and can probably tell you it stars James Dean and Natalie Wood, but I don't think most folks around my age have bothered to ever watch.
When I was in middle school a friend's dad who had been of age when the movie came out insisted we get sat down and watch the thing. At the time I didn't find much of the movie terribly relatable, and I recall we kept having to stop the movie to basically explain the 1950's to us kids in a context that didn't involve Olivia Newton John and John Travolta.
I watched it again in high school, and it felt far more relevant at least in its depiction of the gulf between the world of parents and what's going on with their kids, but that was about 20 years ago.
Rewatching the film highlighted some of the excellent work by director Nicholas Ray, and to see the relationships between the characters through the eyes of an adult (physically, perhaps not emotionally) was most certainly interesting after all this time. I don't think I really noticed how intensely compressed the timeline of the main action actually is during the film (the last two thirds occurs over basically one day, I believe). I was far more acutely aware of the cues from Sal Mineo toward James Dean's Jim and that was some pretty bold stuff for a 1955 film. And, most definitely the relationship between Jim and his parents feels less staged as a plotpoint and more as a condemnation of conflicting parenting styles. Of course in 2012 a character enjoying having three adults in their household is probably considered excellent parenting above criticism, so, you know... different times.
Some smaller details stuck out. I realized that not only do you not really see smokers on the big screen anymore, you never see teenagers smoking, which was a staple of films when I was a kid and goes utterly unmentioned when Natalie Wood and Jimmy Dean light up (to mention it would be uncool, anyway).
Despite being the film he might be most associated with (I guess Giant is the other contender), the movie was released posthumously for Dean. The fatal car wreck that took his life occurred just a month before the film's premier. Still, Giant wouldn't hit the screen til after Rebel, and perhaps that's fitting, as the performance and film have greater scope, but it's tragic that Dean would never see the reaction to either.
Dean's performance is of the school that you can recognize from Brando and Newman and other contemporaries who had stepped away from the traditions of the stage actor and played to the intimacy of the camera. In the mumbling world of the teenaged male, it seemed only too appropriate for the seeming prisoner within his own skin to need a camera snooping closeby when nobody is watching to see what's going on with Jim Stark.
I'm not sure sure that this is the first movie that moved beyond depicting teens as spunky, can-do mini-adults, but the film's impact and potency still resonate in even the goofier teen sex comedies as kids struggle to communicate with their folks and to gain their acceptance/ legitimize whatever the heck it is they're going through (see: The Breakfast Club).
Because of the age of the characters, it's also a bit easier to understand the decisions made by the protagonists and antagonists in the film, their motives and stakes are worn on their sleeve.
One bit I always liked in the movie, that goes undiscussed, is that the guy who seemed ready to kill Jim early in the film extends a hand of friendship, adding to the tragedy that drives the rest of the movie. Of course, it says nothing great about Natalie Wood's Judy that she seems to bounce from Buzz to Jim mostly because Buzz is no longer with us, but high school girls... they're screwy.
Anyway, if you've not seen Dean's defining role and you'd like to see an extremely young Dennis Hopper playing a fellow named "Goon", this is your chance.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Jimmy Stewart Double Bill: "Anatomy of a Murder" and "Harvey"
Not very long ago at all I posted about my reverence for actor Jimmy Stewart. This week the Paramount Summer Series featured a pair of classic Stewart films, Anatomy of a Murder (1959) and Harvey (1950).
You really couldn't hope to find two more different films, and that's what Paramount Summer Series programmer Jesse Trussell was attempting to highlight. Stewart's affability is most certainly present in both films, but Harvey provides Stewart with a fantasy role in the sort of polite small town atmosphere of mid-century Broadway shows, where old ladies are silly hens and polite misunderstandings are the thing of great screwball comedy. Meanwhile, Anatomy of a Murder is a fictionalized account of small town murder and the attorney who takes on the case despite some terribly gray areas and open questions (ie: what I believe most defense attorneys are doing when they take on a case).
You really couldn't hope to find two more different films, and that's what Paramount Summer Series programmer Jesse Trussell was attempting to highlight. Stewart's affability is most certainly present in both films, but Harvey provides Stewart with a fantasy role in the sort of polite small town atmosphere of mid-century Broadway shows, where old ladies are silly hens and polite misunderstandings are the thing of great screwball comedy. Meanwhile, Anatomy of a Murder is a fictionalized account of small town murder and the attorney who takes on the case despite some terribly gray areas and open questions (ie: what I believe most defense attorneys are doing when they take on a case).
Sunday, June 17, 2012
A Chronologically Amiss Discussion of Mark Waid's "Irredeemable" and "Incorruptible"
Hey, have I mentioned my enthusiasm for Mark Waid's Irredeemable and Incorruptible? I have? Ad nauseum?
Oh, well.
Both series have drawn to a close in the monthly installment format, but that's not how I've read either comic. Sure, I started with monthlies on Irredeemable, but Boom! met me where I lived and began releasing trades immediately after the conclusion of arcs, something DC and Marvel grew keen to about the same time, but it seemed part of the Boom! DNA from the start of the series.
However, as the series have each drawn to a close, I am still behind. I finally was able to catch up on the narratively driven Irredeemable/ Incorruptible cross-over I saw appearing on the stands for a couple of months, and which I've finally been able to enjoy for myself.
And I do mean "enjoy". The series manage to do something which seems to obvious from even a quick glance, and that's allow Waid's voice to be the only voice guiding the single world shared by both books, and plot out the two books as counter-measures to one another, with one book following a Superman-like hero gone not so much comic book evil as omnicidal, and a stone cold, amoral villain gone so straight he's now the alien walking the earth.
It says much that the world seems more confused by the transformation of villain Max Damage to hero than the impotent inevitability of humanity's destruction at the hands of a hero who turned.
Waid could have told the story of just the Plutonian and that would have been more than enough, but the addition of the story of Max Damage, unbending hero from just a god-awful, horrendous villain (a guy bad enough that his sidekick was an underage girl he flaunted by naming her "Jailbait". I mean, yikes), gives both stories resonance, not just about the lead characters - which it does - but about how we really feel about someone trying to do good, and our expectations of those people. And, frankly, how alien a concept it is to see someone perform acts of selflessness.
Even the power set granted Max Damage (super strength and invulnerability that becomes stronger the longer he stays awake) has a heroic bent to it that just seemed like a minor liability as a criminal. Max has to intentionally remain sleep-deprived for days to operate on a serious scale, staggering around with the power of a god at his fingertips, but almost out of his mind, just looking for a place to lay down, and all the craziness any of us get when we haven't gotten our forty winks. Brilliant stuff.
There's one more collection left for each series. I'll miss it, but I'm glad Waid has had an opportunity to tell a story with a beginning, middle and end that commented and meta-commented, and in the tradition of novelistic storytelling, it's fine if we don't get a second installment or more of the same. I wouldn't say no to more (from Waid), but if we don't return to these characters... thanks for the series.
Oh, well.
Both series have drawn to a close in the monthly installment format, but that's not how I've read either comic. Sure, I started with monthlies on Irredeemable, but Boom! met me where I lived and began releasing trades immediately after the conclusion of arcs, something DC and Marvel grew keen to about the same time, but it seemed part of the Boom! DNA from the start of the series.
However, as the series have each drawn to a close, I am still behind. I finally was able to catch up on the narratively driven Irredeemable/ Incorruptible cross-over I saw appearing on the stands for a couple of months, and which I've finally been able to enjoy for myself.
And I do mean "enjoy". The series manage to do something which seems to obvious from even a quick glance, and that's allow Waid's voice to be the only voice guiding the single world shared by both books, and plot out the two books as counter-measures to one another, with one book following a Superman-like hero gone not so much comic book evil as omnicidal, and a stone cold, amoral villain gone so straight he's now the alien walking the earth.
It says much that the world seems more confused by the transformation of villain Max Damage to hero than the impotent inevitability of humanity's destruction at the hands of a hero who turned.
Waid could have told the story of just the Plutonian and that would have been more than enough, but the addition of the story of Max Damage, unbending hero from just a god-awful, horrendous villain (a guy bad enough that his sidekick was an underage girl he flaunted by naming her "Jailbait". I mean, yikes), gives both stories resonance, not just about the lead characters - which it does - but about how we really feel about someone trying to do good, and our expectations of those people. And, frankly, how alien a concept it is to see someone perform acts of selflessness.
Even the power set granted Max Damage (super strength and invulnerability that becomes stronger the longer he stays awake) has a heroic bent to it that just seemed like a minor liability as a criminal. Max has to intentionally remain sleep-deprived for days to operate on a serious scale, staggering around with the power of a god at his fingertips, but almost out of his mind, just looking for a place to lay down, and all the craziness any of us get when we haven't gotten our forty winks. Brilliant stuff.
There's one more collection left for each series. I'll miss it, but I'm glad Waid has had an opportunity to tell a story with a beginning, middle and end that commented and meta-commented, and in the tradition of novelistic storytelling, it's fine if we don't get a second installment or more of the same. I wouldn't say no to more (from Waid), but if we don't return to these characters... thanks for the series.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Signal Watch Watches: Best Worst Movie (2009)
After a steady diet of terrible flicks over the past two decades, something I had somehow come to enjoy in my teen years, seeking out bad movies is something I'm now limiting in my intake as I realized a man can only watch R.O.T.O.R. so many times, and there's actually stuff you can enjoy because its actually worth watching. But for a long, long time I felt like I was fairly well in tune with what we all considered the worst of the worst.
And yet, somehow, I'd missed the phenomenon of Troll 2.
Of course, I was also living in Phoenix when The Alamo figured out how to turn genre-film and midnight screening material into part of their bread and butter, getting people excited about movies that they had never seen, or getting them to pay good money to see movies they'd seen for a far more modest cost on late-night HBO a decade before.
The first time I ever heard the words "Troll 2" was, curiously, at an improv show performance where one of the actresses mistakenly believed that repeatedly making callbacks to a movie few people have not seen nor remember was comedic gold. I swear she dropped the movie's name four times, hoping for a laugh. She was greeted with stony silence, but the fact that she kept going back to the well made me realize "oh, this is one of those things today's hipster kids are into. I get it. But, seriously, naming something funny when you aren't doesn't draw a laugh. STOP IT NOW.".
Best Worst Movie (2009) tracks the circa 2006 fad (I'll go ahead and call it that) of being really into Troll 2 from the perspective of the folks who participated in the creation of the movie, including the stars, writer, director, extras and, of course, some of the folks making midnight screenings happen.
The film's former wanna-be child star, Michael Stephenson, actually does an amazing job directing the documentary, collecting all the folks from the film together, getting them to talk honestly both about the film, where they are now, and how they related to the film then and now. A lot of the questions I had left over at the end of Rock-afire Explosion are nowhere to be found in this film. I mean, sure, you can still have some questions, but those might be of a nature that you can sort out for yourself. Basically, the film doesn't raise more questions than it answers, and its pretty honest about what's going on.
And yet, somehow, I'd missed the phenomenon of Troll 2.
Of course, I was also living in Phoenix when The Alamo figured out how to turn genre-film and midnight screening material into part of their bread and butter, getting people excited about movies that they had never seen, or getting them to pay good money to see movies they'd seen for a far more modest cost on late-night HBO a decade before.
The first time I ever heard the words "Troll 2" was, curiously, at an improv show performance where one of the actresses mistakenly believed that repeatedly making callbacks to a movie few people have not seen nor remember was comedic gold. I swear she dropped the movie's name four times, hoping for a laugh. She was greeted with stony silence, but the fact that she kept going back to the well made me realize "oh, this is one of those things today's hipster kids are into. I get it. But, seriously, naming something funny when you aren't doesn't draw a laugh. STOP IT NOW.".
Best Worst Movie (2009) tracks the circa 2006 fad (I'll go ahead and call it that) of being really into Troll 2 from the perspective of the folks who participated in the creation of the movie, including the stars, writer, director, extras and, of course, some of the folks making midnight screenings happen.
The film's former wanna-be child star, Michael Stephenson, actually does an amazing job directing the documentary, collecting all the folks from the film together, getting them to talk honestly both about the film, where they are now, and how they related to the film then and now. A lot of the questions I had left over at the end of Rock-afire Explosion are nowhere to be found in this film. I mean, sure, you can still have some questions, but those might be of a nature that you can sort out for yourself. Basically, the film doesn't raise more questions than it answers, and its pretty honest about what's going on.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Signal Watch Double Bill: Shock Corridor (1963) & The Naked Kiss (1964)
Holy hell, y'all.
I'm not familiar with the work of writer/ director/ producer Samuel Fuller, but he has one of those names you always hear. And, I haven't had opportunity yet to visit the Paramount yet this summer for the summer series, nor had I ever been in the State Theater on Congress, side by side with the Paramount. Wednesday night provided a great opportunity to knock some items off my list, and so I caught both Shock Corridor (1963) and The Naked Kiss (1964), two movies that earned their bonafides.
Of the two films, Shock Corridor may have dated more poorly, even if it still holds up very well from a narrative standpoint. It follows a newspaper journalist who knows he can earn a Pulitzer by going undercover into an mental hospital to solve a murder the police have been unable to crack as the only three witnesses were hopelessly mentally ill. He recruits his stripper girlfriend, played by the lovely Constance Towers, into posing as his sister who files charges of attempted sexual assault. With training from a psychologist, Johnny Barrett sneaks in undetected.
And then learns that a mental hospital run under the common practices of mid-20th Century medicine was no picnic.
I'm not familiar with the work of writer/ director/ producer Samuel Fuller, but he has one of those names you always hear. And, I haven't had opportunity yet to visit the Paramount yet this summer for the summer series, nor had I ever been in the State Theater on Congress, side by side with the Paramount. Wednesday night provided a great opportunity to knock some items off my list, and so I caught both Shock Corridor (1963) and The Naked Kiss (1964), two movies that earned their bonafides.
Of the two films, Shock Corridor may have dated more poorly, even if it still holds up very well from a narrative standpoint. It follows a newspaper journalist who knows he can earn a Pulitzer by going undercover into an mental hospital to solve a murder the police have been unable to crack as the only three witnesses were hopelessly mentally ill. He recruits his stripper girlfriend, played by the lovely Constance Towers, into posing as his sister who files charges of attempted sexual assault. With training from a psychologist, Johnny Barrett sneaks in undetected.
And then learns that a mental hospital run under the common practices of mid-20th Century medicine was no picnic.
 |
| When they make my bio-pic, tell them this is exactly what I want the poster to look like, but with Jamie dancing in the corner. |
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Signal Watch Reads: Superman Family Adventures #1
I know some of you, especially those of you with kids, have been reading Tiny Titans for a while. And if you haven't been reading the series, go out and find the collections. They're absolute gold when it comes to funny comics, especially if you follow DC Comics.
Possibly due to the reboot of the DCU, sadly, Tiny Titans has now wound down.
Not to fret, Art Baltazar and Franco's work lives on! Not only is Art Baltazar illustrating the superlative line of fun kid's books under the Super Pets banner published by Capstone (catch up with Krypto, Streaky, Ace the Bathound and others!), Franco and Baltazar have moved their efforts over to a new kid's book: Superman Family Adventures.
The first issue arrived on Wednesday, and we gave it a read Wednesday night.
Yup, its a "New 52" inspired Superman operating in a Silver Age milieu, right alongside Super Pets, his young pals, Lois, Jimmy and The Chief. And, of course, Lex Luthor and his rampaging robots. The book is a first issue, and so its perhaps not the well oiled machine we came to expect of Tiny Titans, but its already got the peppy voice of the Tiny Titans book, but with longer-form content.
Unlike Tiny Titans, this comic isn't a "gag" comic, but takes the length of the issue to tell the story. It's a change in format, but the spirit seems mostly the same. And if you liked running jokes in Tiny Titans, one nice bit about the Amazing World of Superman is that there are already plenty of running jokes for Franco and Baltazar to draw upon (Jimmy's role as "coffee fetcher" for Perry White, Clark's winkiness when it comes to his secret identity, etc...).
In a lot of ways, DC has serious ground to make up when it comes to restoring Superman to the good graces of the public. A ponderous 2006 movie, the drudgery of ten (10!) seasons of Smallville, and doing absolutely nothing to react to 20 years of press, comics and otherwise, rambling about the irrelevancy of Superman. And, of course, DC's own staff seeming to want to do everything in their powers to avoid owning the big, crazy world of Superman so they could pretend that comics are for serious adults (or, at least, 18 year olds trying to identify with a broody Batman).
So maybe reminding people why this world works once you take yourself out of the context of competing for Punisher readers - aiming at the kids may be exactly the right tack. In many ways, its two completely different milieus that just happen to co-mingle in the wild world of superhero comics. But as The Punisher was meant to reflect a Bronson-type character in the Marvel U, it may be a wise move to find ways to use various characters to reach different audiences. Or exploit how that audience feels about different characters to cover various bases.
The single most useless comment I read online about this book basically boiled down to "I like everything about it, but I'm a Batman fan, so I would have preferred a Batman family book". That sort of navel-gazing doesn't really get you anywhere. It's a bit like watching Star Trek and criticizing it for not being Star Wars or wishing you had the beef sandwich instead of the ham. But I wonder. Its not that I think that can't work, but DC has spent so much time rebranding Batman into The Dark Knight, they pulled the superlative Brave and the Bold from television to make room for a cartoon more in line with the grim avenger model. Certainly they don't want to miss an opportunity for profit? Maybe we'll get a sister Batman book out of all this.
Really, I have nothing but positive things to say about the comic. They start off without bothering to discuss Superman's origin, rockets from Krypton, etc... and they leap right into the action with Superman joyfully saving Metropolis from collision with a meteor(ite?), running into the Planet offices as Clark, and hitting the streets when Lex unleashes three robots to wreak havoc.
The art is energetic and extremely kid friendly (see the cover above). I'm always impressed with the range of character and expression Baltazar pulls off as a cartoonist given the simple forms he's working with, but that's what makes him so favored as a cartoonist by fans, I suppose.
Anyway, its a very promising start and a missing component in DC's line of books. And that missing component has been anything resembling "fun" or "joy", which, if you go back over Superman's long and storied history, has been where he's shone as often as when he's battled the forces of evil with a set jaw and narrowed eyes.
I saw that Comics Alliance had posted a preview. I think you should check it out.
Possibly due to the reboot of the DCU, sadly, Tiny Titans has now wound down.
Not to fret, Art Baltazar and Franco's work lives on! Not only is Art Baltazar illustrating the superlative line of fun kid's books under the Super Pets banner published by Capstone (catch up with Krypto, Streaky, Ace the Bathound and others!), Franco and Baltazar have moved their efforts over to a new kid's book: Superman Family Adventures.
The first issue arrived on Wednesday, and we gave it a read Wednesday night.
Yup, its a "New 52" inspired Superman operating in a Silver Age milieu, right alongside Super Pets, his young pals, Lois, Jimmy and The Chief. And, of course, Lex Luthor and his rampaging robots. The book is a first issue, and so its perhaps not the well oiled machine we came to expect of Tiny Titans, but its already got the peppy voice of the Tiny Titans book, but with longer-form content.
Unlike Tiny Titans, this comic isn't a "gag" comic, but takes the length of the issue to tell the story. It's a change in format, but the spirit seems mostly the same. And if you liked running jokes in Tiny Titans, one nice bit about the Amazing World of Superman is that there are already plenty of running jokes for Franco and Baltazar to draw upon (Jimmy's role as "coffee fetcher" for Perry White, Clark's winkiness when it comes to his secret identity, etc...).
In a lot of ways, DC has serious ground to make up when it comes to restoring Superman to the good graces of the public. A ponderous 2006 movie, the drudgery of ten (10!) seasons of Smallville, and doing absolutely nothing to react to 20 years of press, comics and otherwise, rambling about the irrelevancy of Superman. And, of course, DC's own staff seeming to want to do everything in their powers to avoid owning the big, crazy world of Superman so they could pretend that comics are for serious adults (or, at least, 18 year olds trying to identify with a broody Batman).
So maybe reminding people why this world works once you take yourself out of the context of competing for Punisher readers - aiming at the kids may be exactly the right tack. In many ways, its two completely different milieus that just happen to co-mingle in the wild world of superhero comics. But as The Punisher was meant to reflect a Bronson-type character in the Marvel U, it may be a wise move to find ways to use various characters to reach different audiences. Or exploit how that audience feels about different characters to cover various bases.
The single most useless comment I read online about this book basically boiled down to "I like everything about it, but I'm a Batman fan, so I would have preferred a Batman family book". That sort of navel-gazing doesn't really get you anywhere. It's a bit like watching Star Trek and criticizing it for not being Star Wars or wishing you had the beef sandwich instead of the ham. But I wonder. Its not that I think that can't work, but DC has spent so much time rebranding Batman into The Dark Knight, they pulled the superlative Brave and the Bold from television to make room for a cartoon more in line with the grim avenger model. Certainly they don't want to miss an opportunity for profit? Maybe we'll get a sister Batman book out of all this.
Really, I have nothing but positive things to say about the comic. They start off without bothering to discuss Superman's origin, rockets from Krypton, etc... and they leap right into the action with Superman joyfully saving Metropolis from collision with a meteor(ite?), running into the Planet offices as Clark, and hitting the streets when Lex unleashes three robots to wreak havoc.
The art is energetic and extremely kid friendly (see the cover above). I'm always impressed with the range of character and expression Baltazar pulls off as a cartoonist given the simple forms he's working with, but that's what makes him so favored as a cartoonist by fans, I suppose.
Anyway, its a very promising start and a missing component in DC's line of books. And that missing component has been anything resembling "fun" or "joy", which, if you go back over Superman's long and storied history, has been where he's shone as often as when he's battled the forces of evil with a set jaw and narrowed eyes.
I saw that Comics Alliance had posted a preview. I think you should check it out.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Signal Watch Watches: Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
It'd been a good long while since I'd seen Bonnie and Clyde (1967), the Warren Beatty & Faye Dunaway starring film loosely retelling the story of the very real life depression-era gang that cut a path through the central united states, from Texas to Iowa.
It's a great piece of filmmaking and one of those movies that both said quite a bit about the time of its release and manages to act one of the points of demarcation between filmmaking that had preceded it and what was to come as the 70's roared into cinemas.
I've talked before about how much I love Gun Crazy (1950),* and its not hard to see a bit of mashing of the facts around the Bonnie & Clyde case and the spirit and plotting of Gun Crazy in this movie. But, of course, unlike the 1950 film, Bonnie and Clyde is one of the earlier adopters of obvious violence on screen, not shying away from putting bullets in the faces of bankers or showing Faye Dunaway getting riddled with bullets (I'd say spoiler, but if you don't know what happens to Bonnie and Clyde, you guys need to seriously start watching more TV). It's also beautifully shot, well edited and the audio of the film presages a lot of what I think you'll hear in films to come as the mix attempts for naturalism, blending in the wind of the plains, a score that's semi-regional and period.
It's a great piece of filmmaking and one of those movies that both said quite a bit about the time of its release and manages to act one of the points of demarcation between filmmaking that had preceded it and what was to come as the 70's roared into cinemas.
I've talked before about how much I love Gun Crazy (1950),* and its not hard to see a bit of mashing of the facts around the Bonnie & Clyde case and the spirit and plotting of Gun Crazy in this movie. But, of course, unlike the 1950 film, Bonnie and Clyde is one of the earlier adopters of obvious violence on screen, not shying away from putting bullets in the faces of bankers or showing Faye Dunaway getting riddled with bullets (I'd say spoiler, but if you don't know what happens to Bonnie and Clyde, you guys need to seriously start watching more TV). It's also beautifully shot, well edited and the audio of the film presages a lot of what I think you'll hear in films to come as the mix attempts for naturalism, blending in the wind of the plains, a score that's semi-regional and period.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Signal Watch reads: Mark Waid's "Insufferable"
You guys know I'm in the bag for everything Mark Waid has done for the last... I dunno. Ever?
Somehow I completely misunderstood that his new online comic, Insufferable, was completely free online.
No, I have no idea what model Mark Waid is using to turn a profit on this, or if there is a profit to be turned. But at the moment that's not my issue, nor should it be yours, because more great Mark Waid comics are online, and they're free at his new site, Thrillbent.
Waid has re-teamed with Irredeemable artist Peter Krause to tell the story in Insufferable, his second work in his new format, one that uses the native landscape (16x9ish) format we've become familiar with as computer users, and the fact that he can set pacing to some extent with a mouseclick to manage the storytelling. Its far less intrusive than the limited animation of prior webbish comics experiments I've seen, and manages to use the page pretty well, I think.
But I'd rather talk up the actual comic than the experiment, because at the end of the day, its about the content.
Waid turns to the urban vigilante brand of superhero after sort of blowing up the heat-vision-bearing version of superheroes in Irredeemable and Incorruptible, and in just four week's worth of the online book, he's done an astounding job of bringing a story to life that works right out of the gate.
Its a broken up version of Batman and Robin with their own issues that surpass those of Bruce and Dick (or Jason or Tim or Stephanie or Damian or Carrie), and its the kind of thing that I think sort of sucks you in from that last panel of the first installment and makes you click "Next".
And, of course, Krause's illustrative-style of art works terrifically well with the world he and Waid are creating, giving a believable view to the character-driven story and capturing the beats and expressions exceedingly well.
Anyhow, give it a shot and be there as it unfolds!
Somehow I completely misunderstood that his new online comic, Insufferable, was completely free online.
No, I have no idea what model Mark Waid is using to turn a profit on this, or if there is a profit to be turned. But at the moment that's not my issue, nor should it be yours, because more great Mark Waid comics are online, and they're free at his new site, Thrillbent.
Waid has re-teamed with Irredeemable artist Peter Krause to tell the story in Insufferable, his second work in his new format, one that uses the native landscape (16x9ish) format we've become familiar with as computer users, and the fact that he can set pacing to some extent with a mouseclick to manage the storytelling. Its far less intrusive than the limited animation of prior webbish comics experiments I've seen, and manages to use the page pretty well, I think.
But I'd rather talk up the actual comic than the experiment, because at the end of the day, its about the content.
Waid turns to the urban vigilante brand of superhero after sort of blowing up the heat-vision-bearing version of superheroes in Irredeemable and Incorruptible, and in just four week's worth of the online book, he's done an astounding job of bringing a story to life that works right out of the gate.
Its a broken up version of Batman and Robin with their own issues that surpass those of Bruce and Dick (or Jason or Tim or Stephanie or Damian or Carrie), and its the kind of thing that I think sort of sucks you in from that last panel of the first installment and makes you click "Next".
And, of course, Krause's illustrative-style of art works terrifically well with the world he and Waid are creating, giving a believable view to the character-driven story and capturing the beats and expressions exceedingly well.
Anyhow, give it a shot and be there as it unfolds!
Friday, May 25, 2012
Signal Watch Reads - Further: Beyond the Threshold
Exploration.
I don't read a tremendous number of science-fiction novels, and I never have. I know what that looks like, and I appreciate the fandom, but its never been me. Sure, I went through my Bradbury phase and I glanced off the Robot Novels of Asimov, but even in middle-school I'd pick up paperbacks, read the product description on the back, and only rarely walk out the door with one I felt was worth the while.
I also don't read book series. Its not that I haven't read, say, books by William Kennedy that share a set of characters and circumstances, but its not episodic in quite the same nature. When I think about a series of books that numbers more than four, I can't get my head around it.
As you may have heard, I've been enjoying the writing stylings of Chris Roberson for a bit now, so when I heard he had a book coming out, I pulled some strings (asked politely) and got a copy.*
I just finished Further: Beyond the Threshold, a book I assume is intended to start a new series.
This is no-@#$%ing-around science fiction, and I quite enjoyed it.
Captain RJ Stone awakens from hypersleep which he entered aboard a star-faring vessel in the 23rd Century. He finds himself alive and deeply aged 12,000 years later in a world which has changed over the millenia. The era of seeking new planets has been conquered and mankind has spread itself out far over the cosmos. With so much time passed, some of those civilizations have been lost, and the challenges of passing from one world to the next have been solved by way of instantaneous transportation via "thresholds".
I don't read a tremendous number of science-fiction novels, and I never have. I know what that looks like, and I appreciate the fandom, but its never been me. Sure, I went through my Bradbury phase and I glanced off the Robot Novels of Asimov, but even in middle-school I'd pick up paperbacks, read the product description on the back, and only rarely walk out the door with one I felt was worth the while.
I also don't read book series. Its not that I haven't read, say, books by William Kennedy that share a set of characters and circumstances, but its not episodic in quite the same nature. When I think about a series of books that numbers more than four, I can't get my head around it.
As you may have heard, I've been enjoying the writing stylings of Chris Roberson for a bit now, so when I heard he had a book coming out, I pulled some strings (asked politely) and got a copy.*
I just finished Further: Beyond the Threshold, a book I assume is intended to start a new series.
This is no-@#$%ing-around science fiction, and I quite enjoyed it.
Captain RJ Stone awakens from hypersleep which he entered aboard a star-faring vessel in the 23rd Century. He finds himself alive and deeply aged 12,000 years later in a world which has changed over the millenia. The era of seeking new planets has been conquered and mankind has spread itself out far over the cosmos. With so much time passed, some of those civilizations have been lost, and the challenges of passing from one world to the next have been solved by way of instantaneous transportation via "thresholds".
Monday, April 30, 2012
Avengers Assemble! Saluting Jack Kirby and dealing with the complications as a fan
 |
| Your Pal, Jack "King" Kirby! |
It's hard to underestimate the cultural impact of comics creator Jack Kirby. He may not carry the cultural cache of a JD Salinger, but he's probably as widely read, and inspired an army of imitators and worshippers. And, hey, you can't find action figures nor bedsheets of Holden Caulfield.
 |
| still a little peeved the movie will have neither Giant Man nor Wasp (nor Subby) |
Kirby didn't create Superman or Batman, but he was part of the creation of (an incomplete list to be sure):
- The Incredible Hulk
- Captain America
- The Mighty Thor
- The Avengers
- The X-Men
- The Fantastic Four
- The Silver Surfer
- Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos
- The Black Panther
- Devil Dinosaur and Moonboy
- Mr. Miracle & Big Barda andthe pantheon of The New Gods
- The Newsboy Legion
- Kamandi
- The Demon
- OMAC
- Challengers of the Unknown
- Silver Star
- Captain Victory
 |
| No matter what you think, you are not ready for this comic |
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Avengers Assemble! Captain America - The First Avenger (2011)
Yup. I was going to wait and give Jamie some pacing when it came to watching Captain America (2011), but I got the BluRay of this movie a couple weeks back, and I am an impatient fellow.
I was a bit curious as to how well I'd like Captain America as the last time I saw it, there were extenuating circumstances. Namely: Mark Waid was there and was a hell of a nice guy. Also, Austin Books was there shooting t-shirts out of a gun, and the place was full of friendly comic nerds. Also, I'd had a margarita right before the movie.
If you read my review last August, you may recall I sort of freaked out and gushed about the movie.
You know what? I still find this a very satisfying movie, superhero or otherwise. I mean, its not exactly Citizen Kane, and it doesn't have either the grandeur or myth-making of Superman: The Movie, nor the "geez, I can relate" feel of the Young American Hard Luck Case that comes part and parcel with Spider-Man. But its a celebration of what is best about why we fight, and what it means to be the good guy in the old school, unironic way, nor by becoming the anti-hero.
All very strange because I'm not much of a fan of director Joe Johnston, shy of his work on The Rocketeer.
I suppose part of my attraction is still the pacing of the film, and that even more than Iron Man, I feel like we get a complete story that takes place over an extended period of time. And, Cap's evil opposite makes a lot of sense in the context of this film, at least in my crazy head.
Sure, it would have been nice to have Mark Waid stop by and enjoy the movie with me (you're welcome anytime, Mr. Waid), but even without his presence or any comic geeks who are not my wife or my black lab, its still a decent flick and a solid entry in the superhero genre.
Of course, its a mix of the original tales as told my Jack Kirby and Joe Simon (I am aware that Kirby did leave to go serve in WWII after Cap debuted, but am unaware if Simon did the same). Of course it harkens to the Avengers work done around 63'-64' when Cap returned to comics thanks to Smilin' Stan and Jack Kirby. But it also is an interesting mix of both The Ultimates take on things, leaning heavily on the recent work of Ed Brubaker and Steve Epting on Captain America (which is highly readable in collected editions).
Special bonus: I had a moment of clarity not too long ago when some stray neurons fired and I remember trying to impress a girl when I was a freshman in high school by showing her the Captain America poster I'd recently acquired and hung above my dresser. Yeesh.
I found a picture of that poster online.
She did still go out with me a couple of times. That's the power of Cap, I guess.
Dang, man. What happened to that poster? Also, my picture of Earth? And my Michael Jordan poster...
I was a bit curious as to how well I'd like Captain America as the last time I saw it, there were extenuating circumstances. Namely: Mark Waid was there and was a hell of a nice guy. Also, Austin Books was there shooting t-shirts out of a gun, and the place was full of friendly comic nerds. Also, I'd had a margarita right before the movie.
If you read my review last August, you may recall I sort of freaked out and gushed about the movie.
 |
| like a boss... |
You know what? I still find this a very satisfying movie, superhero or otherwise. I mean, its not exactly Citizen Kane, and it doesn't have either the grandeur or myth-making of Superman: The Movie, nor the "geez, I can relate" feel of the Young American Hard Luck Case that comes part and parcel with Spider-Man. But its a celebration of what is best about why we fight, and what it means to be the good guy in the old school, unironic way, nor by becoming the anti-hero.
All very strange because I'm not much of a fan of director Joe Johnston, shy of his work on The Rocketeer.
I suppose part of my attraction is still the pacing of the film, and that even more than Iron Man, I feel like we get a complete story that takes place over an extended period of time. And, Cap's evil opposite makes a lot of sense in the context of this film, at least in my crazy head.
Sure, it would have been nice to have Mark Waid stop by and enjoy the movie with me (you're welcome anytime, Mr. Waid), but even without his presence or any comic geeks who are not my wife or my black lab, its still a decent flick and a solid entry in the superhero genre.
Of course, its a mix of the original tales as told my Jack Kirby and Joe Simon (I am aware that Kirby did leave to go serve in WWII after Cap debuted, but am unaware if Simon did the same). Of course it harkens to the Avengers work done around 63'-64' when Cap returned to comics thanks to Smilin' Stan and Jack Kirby. But it also is an interesting mix of both The Ultimates take on things, leaning heavily on the recent work of Ed Brubaker and Steve Epting on Captain America (which is highly readable in collected editions).
Special bonus: I had a moment of clarity not too long ago when some stray neurons fired and I remember trying to impress a girl when I was a freshman in high school by showing her the Captain America poster I'd recently acquired and hung above my dresser. Yeesh.
I found a picture of that poster online.
 |
| also... like a boss |
She did still go out with me a couple of times. That's the power of Cap, I guess.
Dang, man. What happened to that poster? Also, my picture of Earth? And my Michael Jordan poster...
Monday, April 9, 2012
Signal Watch Reads: Green River Killer - A True Detective Story
The name Jeff Jensen didn't immediately ring any bells as a comics writer when I looked at who penned this book, but as a writer for Entertainment Weekly I know the name, indeed, thanks to the fact that I cannot remember a time when Jamie wasn't a subscriber to Entertainment Weekly.
Jensen's own father, Tom Jensen, was a detective in the King County Sheriff's Department who was on the Green River Task Force from the early 1980's until the unit was dissolved in 1990. He continued work on the case right up through the Green River Killer's conviction around 2003.
Like a lot of morbid kids seeking a cheap thrill, back in high school I checked out books on serial killers from the local library. In addition to names like Son of Sam and Zodiac, The Green River Killer was always named as one of the greatest hits of serial killers. He was called out in part thanks to the sheer number of those he was suspected to have killed and in part because he'd never been caught. Of course doing a little reading quickly dismisses the whole "brilliant mastermind" scenario of the Hannibal Lecter books. The reality is that it's hard to catch people who kill mostly strangers and with motives that don't stem from personal grudges, and the stories of both victims and killers are often bleak and tragic.
Jensen's own father, Tom Jensen, was a detective in the King County Sheriff's Department who was on the Green River Task Force from the early 1980's until the unit was dissolved in 1990. He continued work on the case right up through the Green River Killer's conviction around 2003.
Like a lot of morbid kids seeking a cheap thrill, back in high school I checked out books on serial killers from the local library. In addition to names like Son of Sam and Zodiac, The Green River Killer was always named as one of the greatest hits of serial killers. He was called out in part thanks to the sheer number of those he was suspected to have killed and in part because he'd never been caught. Of course doing a little reading quickly dismisses the whole "brilliant mastermind" scenario of the Hannibal Lecter books. The reality is that it's hard to catch people who kill mostly strangers and with motives that don't stem from personal grudges, and the stories of both victims and killers are often bleak and tragic.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Panem et Circenses: Signal Watch sees "The Hunger Games" (2012)
When Survivor launched in 2001, I don't think Jamie understood my revulsion to the concept.* But I'd grown up watching Arnie's 1987 blockbuster, The Running Man, based on a Steven King short story, and had internalized a bit of what the somewhat clunky (yet awesome) story had to say about us.
The idea of "bread and circuses" isn't anything new, and clearly The Hunger Games author Suzanne Collins (no I did not read the books) was aware of this as she penned her book, naming her nation "Panem". And, Signal Corps, do not take offense when I say I'm not sure that The Hunger Games (2012) brings anything new to the screen. I don't think originality is where the film succeeds (and it does succeed), but in its excellent and unflinching execution (pun not intended) as well as the performances of young and mostly unknown talent.
In many ways, the movie carries the same story as everything from Gladiator to bits of John Carter, but in many ways it reminded me most of the unnoticed, entirely forgotten American Dreamz (2006). American Dreamz played on the insane popularity of American Idol, a flailing leadership, the ties between celebrity and leadership and the machinations behind legitimate government, popularity and the madness of crowds and those who stand to benefit from managing all of it.
The idea of "bread and circuses" isn't anything new, and clearly The Hunger Games author Suzanne Collins (no I did not read the books) was aware of this as she penned her book, naming her nation "Panem". And, Signal Corps, do not take offense when I say I'm not sure that The Hunger Games (2012) brings anything new to the screen. I don't think originality is where the film succeeds (and it does succeed), but in its excellent and unflinching execution (pun not intended) as well as the performances of young and mostly unknown talent.
In many ways, the movie carries the same story as everything from Gladiator to bits of John Carter, but in many ways it reminded me most of the unnoticed, entirely forgotten American Dreamz (2006). American Dreamz played on the insane popularity of American Idol, a flailing leadership, the ties between celebrity and leadership and the machinations behind legitimate government, popularity and the madness of crowds and those who stand to benefit from managing all of it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Noir Watch: The Killers (1946)
Back in January in San Francisco I watched 1960's version of The Killers starring the lovely Angie Dickinson.
It had been a long time since I'd seen the 1946 version of The Killers, and maybe even longer since I read (and re-read and re-re-read) the Hemingway short story upon which both films are ostensibly based.
I bought the DVD of the film probably around 2004, and I've seen it a couple of times. I still think large parts of it are phenomenal, even if watching it now, I realize how many amazing coincidences occur to help along Edmond O'Brien's good-natured insurance company gumshoe, Riordan, as he tries to find out what happened to Ole "Swede" Andreson (played by Burt Lancaster).
It had been a long time since I'd seen the 1946 version of The Killers, and maybe even longer since I read (and re-read and re-re-read) the Hemingway short story upon which both films are ostensibly based.
I bought the DVD of the film probably around 2004, and I've seen it a couple of times. I still think large parts of it are phenomenal, even if watching it now, I realize how many amazing coincidences occur to help along Edmond O'Brien's good-natured insurance company gumshoe, Riordan, as he tries to find out what happened to Ole "Swede" Andreson (played by Burt Lancaster).
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Signal Watch Watches: Transcendent Man (2009)
I really wish I had seen this movie when it came out, but it was just recommended to me by Co-Worker Ladd this morning.
As much as I like a good, Thunderdomish Dystopian look at the future, from a technology and academic standpoint, I fall much more in the camp of pointing at the shinier spacecraft and rocket pack visions of the future. Prepping for a time of Robot Shock Troopers tends to make you start stocking ammunition and buying property in Queen Creek, Arizona, and I'm just not ready to cut the sleeves off all my camo jackets yet, and I look terrible in a crazy-man beard.
In fact, I like my job partially because its all about the future where we get flying cars and can download dissertations directly into our noggins. Digital libraries! Hoorary!
It seems that technologist and futurist Ray Kurzweil showed up as SXSWi 2012, and Co-Worker Ladd (yes, his name is Ladd) managed to see him speak. Kurzweil is one of those names I've heard on and off for two decades, not quite the way you hear of Tim Berners-Lee, but he pops up on BoingBoing and is a name that technology hipsters tend to throw around.
Frankly, I should pay a lot more attention to these sorts of figures, because Kurzweil's personal innovations are incredible, even if that's not really the topic of the documentary, Transcendent Man (2009). Instead, the doc follows Kurzweil as he moves around the planet as a bit of a Conference Personality, but as he also meets with figures from Colin Powell to William Shatner to an arena full of Church of Christ Conference attendees discussing the concept of The Singularity.*
As we all know, technology is advancing from all angles in ways predicted clumsily by Moore's Law. What Kurzweil is looking at and discussing is that its not just processing power, but other technologies, falling into three areas of interest: Genetics (bioinformatics), Nantotechnology and Robotics (or AI). The Singularity is a point at which those things hit a point on the graph where the nature of humanity will be forced to change by the technologies so profoundly that it will rewrite our definitions of everything from technology to humanity to consciousness.
Basically, we're in a mad race to see if we create a race of super artificial intelligences, if we can rewrite our DNA to beat disease and aging while recreating the human body, or if nanotechnology will be merging us into machines while it has the ability to connect us to the super robot brains while rewriting our bodies into all looking like Fabio in 1994. Or will we upload our consciousness to Facebook?
Here's the thing: I think I know just enough about technology and SCIENCE to know I don't know anything, but I also tend to think that Kurzweil, while maybe jumping the gun on the timing, is probably right.
I intended to watch part of the show this evening and then return to it, but instead I watched the entire thing, slack jawed and in awe. The movie manages to find genius after genius, players at the tops of their fields who all have different reasons to agree or disagree with Kurzweil in whole or in part, and its an absolutely gripping 80 minutes or so. Especially as the director humanizes and builds a portrait of Kurzweil (a seemingly approachable gentleman, certainly) and digs into the basis for his quest and to see what drives him.
There are a tremendous number of questions occurring in the film, the sorts of things that have the longterm effects of global change, all without the pressure cooker or drive of a Manhattan Project. Its happening now, and the minds pushing toward the future seem aware of the pitfalls and risks of the world they're creating, and seem to be sure that somebody else is going to deny the dinosaurs their Lysine. Its absolutely riveting stuff. And, again, this is a documentary.
The crowd that drifts into this blog is pretty smart and tech savvy, and I'd love to see what you guys have to say, if you've seen it or you get a chance to stream it from Netflix.
Highly, highly recommended.
*see my hilariously uninformed argument with my brother about the concept at his blog post from about a year ago.
As much as I like a good, Thunderdomish Dystopian look at the future, from a technology and academic standpoint, I fall much more in the camp of pointing at the shinier spacecraft and rocket pack visions of the future. Prepping for a time of Robot Shock Troopers tends to make you start stocking ammunition and buying property in Queen Creek, Arizona, and I'm just not ready to cut the sleeves off all my camo jackets yet, and I look terrible in a crazy-man beard.
In fact, I like my job partially because its all about the future where we get flying cars and can download dissertations directly into our noggins. Digital libraries! Hoorary!
It seems that technologist and futurist Ray Kurzweil showed up as SXSWi 2012, and Co-Worker Ladd (yes, his name is Ladd) managed to see him speak. Kurzweil is one of those names I've heard on and off for two decades, not quite the way you hear of Tim Berners-Lee, but he pops up on BoingBoing and is a name that technology hipsters tend to throw around.
Frankly, I should pay a lot more attention to these sorts of figures, because Kurzweil's personal innovations are incredible, even if that's not really the topic of the documentary, Transcendent Man (2009). Instead, the doc follows Kurzweil as he moves around the planet as a bit of a Conference Personality, but as he also meets with figures from Colin Powell to William Shatner to an arena full of Church of Christ Conference attendees discussing the concept of The Singularity.*
As we all know, technology is advancing from all angles in ways predicted clumsily by Moore's Law. What Kurzweil is looking at and discussing is that its not just processing power, but other technologies, falling into three areas of interest: Genetics (bioinformatics), Nantotechnology and Robotics (or AI). The Singularity is a point at which those things hit a point on the graph where the nature of humanity will be forced to change by the technologies so profoundly that it will rewrite our definitions of everything from technology to humanity to consciousness.
Basically, we're in a mad race to see if we create a race of super artificial intelligences, if we can rewrite our DNA to beat disease and aging while recreating the human body, or if nanotechnology will be merging us into machines while it has the ability to connect us to the super robot brains while rewriting our bodies into all looking like Fabio in 1994. Or will we upload our consciousness to Facebook?
Here's the thing: I think I know just enough about technology and SCIENCE to know I don't know anything, but I also tend to think that Kurzweil, while maybe jumping the gun on the timing, is probably right.
I intended to watch part of the show this evening and then return to it, but instead I watched the entire thing, slack jawed and in awe. The movie manages to find genius after genius, players at the tops of their fields who all have different reasons to agree or disagree with Kurzweil in whole or in part, and its an absolutely gripping 80 minutes or so. Especially as the director humanizes and builds a portrait of Kurzweil (a seemingly approachable gentleman, certainly) and digs into the basis for his quest and to see what drives him.
There are a tremendous number of questions occurring in the film, the sorts of things that have the longterm effects of global change, all without the pressure cooker or drive of a Manhattan Project. Its happening now, and the minds pushing toward the future seem aware of the pitfalls and risks of the world they're creating, and seem to be sure that somebody else is going to deny the dinosaurs their Lysine. Its absolutely riveting stuff. And, again, this is a documentary.
The crowd that drifts into this blog is pretty smart and tech savvy, and I'd love to see what you guys have to say, if you've seen it or you get a chance to stream it from Netflix.
Highly, highly recommended.
*see my hilariously uninformed argument with my brother about the concept at his blog post from about a year ago.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Signal Watch Watches: John Carter (of Mars)
Disney won't call the movie by a decent title, so I will. Let us call it John Carter of Mars, shall we?
As pointed out recently by The Alamo Drafthouse, the Summer of 1982 was an absolutely stunning summer for movies and culturally defining watershed for Gen X. To celebrate this fact, Summer of 2012, they're having a Summer of 1982 celebration showing a movie per week from that year.
Not all of the movies were a smash at the time (see the final show of the summer, Blade Runner), but this was also the generation of the VCR and HBO. I didn't see Blade Runner until 1988 or so, but I know when it was released (and you can bet I'll be fighting tooth and nail to be at the screening at the Alamo this summer).
So I'm going to start using Summer of 1982 as a sort of yardmarker for a movie I think could hold a certain distinction.
1. The movie isn't being loved by critics who are failing to understand it at the time
2. It likely won't be understood by the mainstream audience at the time
3. The movie tries to be something grand, really swings for the fences
4. The movie has the potential to endure in a way that surpasses just the nichey fans you can find anywhere on the internet, but becomes part of the sci-fi geek zeitgeist
Straight up, I @#$%ing loved John Carter (2012). I believe that it is Summer of 1982 worthy.
The movie is based not just upon the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, A Princess of Mars (1917), but on what I'd guess are a few of the Barsoom/ John Carter novels sort of pulped into a single volume. That the movie was not just the first book is all right. The story works well enough and moves at a better pace for the kids that were packed in all around us in the audience at the Alamo.
The movie of John Carter follows Carter (played more than ably by Friday Night Lights alum Taylor Kitsch) as a Virginia gentleman who, more than a decade after the Civil War, makes a hasty call for his nephew, Edgar Rice Burroughs, to come to him. By the time Burrows arrives, Carter is dead, sealed in a tomb which can only be opened... from the inside.
As pointed out recently by The Alamo Drafthouse, the Summer of 1982 was an absolutely stunning summer for movies and culturally defining watershed for Gen X. To celebrate this fact, Summer of 2012, they're having a Summer of 1982 celebration showing a movie per week from that year.
Not all of the movies were a smash at the time (see the final show of the summer, Blade Runner), but this was also the generation of the VCR and HBO. I didn't see Blade Runner until 1988 or so, but I know when it was released (and you can bet I'll be fighting tooth and nail to be at the screening at the Alamo this summer).
So I'm going to start using Summer of 1982 as a sort of yardmarker for a movie I think could hold a certain distinction.
1. The movie isn't being loved by critics who are failing to understand it at the time
2. It likely won't be understood by the mainstream audience at the time
3. The movie tries to be something grand, really swings for the fences
4. The movie has the potential to endure in a way that surpasses just the nichey fans you can find anywhere on the internet, but becomes part of the sci-fi geek zeitgeist
Straight up, I @#$%ing loved John Carter (2012). I believe that it is Summer of 1982 worthy.
 |
| You know, this is kind of a terrible poster |
The movie is based not just upon the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, A Princess of Mars (1917), but on what I'd guess are a few of the Barsoom/ John Carter novels sort of pulped into a single volume. That the movie was not just the first book is all right. The story works well enough and moves at a better pace for the kids that were packed in all around us in the audience at the Alamo.
The movie of John Carter follows Carter (played more than ably by Friday Night Lights alum Taylor Kitsch) as a Virginia gentleman who, more than a decade after the Civil War, makes a hasty call for his nephew, Edgar Rice Burroughs, to come to him. By the time Burrows arrives, Carter is dead, sealed in a tomb which can only be opened... from the inside.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Signal Watch Reads - "Donald Duck - Lost in the Andes"
Wow. You can tell a lot of love went into this book just by picking it up, looking at the binding, the reprint quality, the paper stock and the supplementary material.
I finally finished Walt Disney's Donald Duck: Lost in the Andes from Fantagraphics Books over the weekend, and I am busting. Not just about the actual comics, which were thoroughly enjoyable, but the whole package of the volume.
As I'm learning, you may be a fan of your favorite comic characters, but few American comics characters draw the kind of devotion that you see from Disney Duck fans, especially when it comes to the works of Carl Barks and Don Rosa. And its not just been here in North America that you see that kind of enthusiasm. The Ducks are a global phenomena, and I've come to really enjoy some of the work you see originating from Scandanavia as well.
The collection isn't a chronological reprinting of Carl Barks' work, but a sort of greatest hits package from the period with feature length stories such as "The Golden Christmas Tree" and a lot of shorts as well as one page gags, all circa 1948 or so.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
I still love "The Fantastic Voyage"
On Saturday morning Simon, his ladyfriend Leta and I will made our way down to the Alamo South Lamar for a screening of The Fantastic Voyage (1966). The Alamo South hosts Kids' Club, about once a month, and I've seen some classics like War of the Worlds as part of the series. Frankly, its a testament to both the laziness of Austinites and the lack of interest in anything not involving beer that a free screening (FREE) starting at 11:00 AM of one of the sci-fi all-time classics wasn't better attended.
Their loss.
Their loss.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Signal Watch Watches: Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Before turning it on, I knew literally nothing about the film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948). I didn't even know it was literally about hunting treasure in the Sierra Madres, just that it featured Humphrey Bogart, and it was not High Sierra.
By the time this movie got made by director John Huston, Bogart was a huge name and draw, and I think you see a bit of Bogart you don't normally get. Sure, I've seen a desperate Bogart in Dark Passage and the end of High Sierra, but his character here never starts as the cool, collected sort he normally plays. He's down on his luck from the start, and seems to spiral as the movie goes on. It's an interesting turn.
Bogart plays Dobbs, an American unemployed in Tampico in 1925. After a bad experience with what he'd believed to be honest work, Dobbs and fellow bum Curtin (Tim Holt) are sinking low when Dobbs gets his hands on some money through luck and teams up with fellow Americans Howard (Walter Huston), an aging prospector looking to strike it rich.
By the time this movie got made by director John Huston, Bogart was a huge name and draw, and I think you see a bit of Bogart you don't normally get. Sure, I've seen a desperate Bogart in Dark Passage and the end of High Sierra, but his character here never starts as the cool, collected sort he normally plays. He's down on his luck from the start, and seems to spiral as the movie goes on. It's an interesting turn.
Bogart plays Dobbs, an American unemployed in Tampico in 1925. After a bad experience with what he'd believed to be honest work, Dobbs and fellow bum Curtin (Tim Holt) are sinking low when Dobbs gets his hands on some money through luck and teams up with fellow Americans Howard (Walter Huston), an aging prospector looking to strike it rich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)