Nerds With Kids

Operation Hulk!

2008-03-20T05:58:00.000-07:00

Being old school and stubbornly set in my ways I prefer the original Operation game that features the escaped nazi war criminals operating on the fat drunkard. But I can still appreciate the recent updates where kids can operate on Shrek and Homer. It's a creative way to keep the game fresh.

Now there's a Hulk version being released just in time to tie in with the new movie. Although I'm not sure if it's a direct tie-in. It uses Marvel's toddler friendly character designs, not the harsher film character design. So this is suitable for all ages even if it looks like Hulk is the victim of an alien chest-burster and wait oh god what's that teddy bear doing to Hulk's leg?

Visit Hasbro's site HERE to see the full array of new Hulk toys including the exciting board game Don't Wake The Hulk!

The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T

2008-03-17T07:00:00.000-07:00

Now that your kids have seen Horton Hears A Who (two thumbs up from my daughters, btw) it's time to start building their indie cred by showing them the first Dr. Suess film. Long before Jim Carrey and Mike Myers created nightmare fuel for an entire generation, long before Grinch and Cat In The Hat were even written, Theodore Geisel wrote the script and songs for an original children's film. It's a bizarre little number, of course. So bizarre that the studio dumped it in 1953 with very little fanfare. I didn't even know it existed until a few weeks ago.

The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T is about a little boy who daydreams of being trapped in an enchanted castle run by his oppressive piano teacher Dr. Terwilliker. His mother is there, held in a hypnotic trance by the villainous Dr.T. There's no father in this boys life, so the paternal figure is a plumber named August Zabladowski who's been laying some pipe for his mom in out in the real waking world. In this boy's dream world he tries to set his mom up with the plumber because he's desperate for a father figure. So desperate he takes to calling the plumber Pa. But I'm getting ahead of myself. This sounds like a Spielberg movie when in fact it resembles what might happen if Salvador Dali adapted Roald Dahl.

The story follows the boy as he attempts to stop Dr. T's evil plan of wiping out every instrument from the planet, except the piano. This way he can impose his draconian piano lessons on the entire world. You see? The plumber is there to install sinks so the make-believe evil castle populated with dungeons, traps, and assorted mindless henchmen can pass a building code inspection. Got that? Basically the plot exists to take the boy from one strange scenario to the next. The sets and costumes are right out of Geisel's imagination. The place is full of large sharp angles, odd contraptions, and staircases that lead nowhere but "UP" as a big signpost says.

But what keeps things moving from scene to scene is radio veteran Hans Conried as the wicked Dr.T. Conried plays his character as the most cartoonishly evil foe ever filmed. If he had a long moustache he'd be twirling that thing like a motherfucker. Distorting his face into absurd expressions, shamelessly rolling his tongue over every syllable he utters- Dr.T is what you would get if Lost In Space's Dr. Smith and a post-stroke Kirk Douglas stepped into Seth Brundle's teleportation pod together.* We're talking some modern pop culture kabuki shit here.

For my money the film's show stopping number is the "whammy fight" between Dr. T and The Plumber. It's a fight that's half pantomime, half interpretive dance (and ALL fabulous!). The two circle each other as they swing and kick through the air, each reeling from the other's attack, but never making physical contact. This happens early on and unfortunately nothing that comes after matches it's sense of audacious silliness. A baritone singing elevator operator wearing an executioners mask and covered in black body paint comes close, though.

There's another genuinely charming moment when the plumber and the kid bond with some make believe fishing. Peter Lind Hayes, as Pa Plumber Zabladowski, lends this scene some sincerity and charm. As far as the bland-leading-man-a-son-tries-to-hook-up-with-their-single-mom type goes, Hayes is pretty good. He's got a few snarky lines (uncommon for the 50's) that he delivers with pitch perfect timing. Too bad the boy is so wooden I can't even remember his character's name. He brings with him the charisma of a grade school talent show.**

You can find Dr. T on DVD. I think Netflix might even have it in their streaming library. But will these jaded kids today like it? I suggest a primer course in more traditional old school kids movies first. If they like Mary Poppins and The Wizard of Oz, they should be ready to dig on this. Dr.T doesn't have the same budget as those classics, but it's got plenty of moxie. And it's 83% less likely than today's live action Suess movies to cause night terrors.

*For the horror fans- I also thought he bore an uncanny resemblance to Bob from Fulci's Gates Of Hell.

** I hate busting on kid actors because you know they got pushed into show business by their parents. But he's an adult now, so the gloves are off.

The Incredible Ed Norton! An Ed Norton Production of an Ed Norton Film

2008-03-13T05:40:00.000-07:00

The first trailer for The Incredible Hulk finally hit the net. Click it HERE to smash.

There are a lot of rumors going around that star Ed Norton is clashing with the producers over the final cut. Ed's got a history of fighting for creative control of his movies. Director Tony Kaye famously removed his own name from American History X after Norton recut it in post production. Last year Norton took the Bruce Banner role on the condition that he be allowed to rework the script. Now the word is he's unhappy with the amount of control he has over the finished film.
That sure doesn't look to be a problem with the trailer. Ed Norton's all over the damn thing- posturing, emoting, even providing the voice over narrative as he solemnly falls from a helicopter as if he were Jesus sent back to earth to fight The Abomination. Oh and the Hulk shows up at the end. Yay!

This would have been a good trailer a year ago. It plays out as if we don't know what to expect, as if the appearance of the Hulk is a big HOLY SHIT reveal. Too late. Maybe it'll surprise folks in the fly over states. But this is 2008 and (sadly enough) when a movie is less than three months from release the hardcore nerds have already seen it's ass coming down the pike for a year. Worse yet, we are so accustomed to having stills and trailers thrown at us early we get suspicious when a film takes it's sweet time to promote itself.

But kids don't give a shit about that stuff (yet). As soon as they see Hulk smash the big ol' Roth Monster on TV they'll want to see the movie right away. I'm hoping The Incredible Hulk will be this Summer's Rise of The Silver Surfer. A good superhero movie that enters without a lot of fanfare, entertains the kids and leaves. Unless Norton fucks it up.

Monsters Vs Aliens in ULTIMATE 3D!

2008-03-11T12:59:00.000-07:00

Here's the latest ULTIMATE pic from Dreamworks' 2009 release Monsters Vs Aliens. And the film is in ULTIMATE 3D. That's right, they're seriously calling it ULTIMATE 3D. Jeff Katzenberg told USA Today, "This isn't our father's 3-D." Which is ironic since USA Today happens to be my grandfather's favorite newspaper. He can't get enough of those weather maps. Now there are a few more 3D animated flicks slated for next year and beyond (A Christmas Carol, Ice Age 3, Toy Story 3), but no word yet on whether or not they are ULTIMATE 3D projects. Also no word on which project will be the first to call itself "Part 3D".

BTW- Those monster designs don't quite live up to the awesomeness of this movie's title. Except that big Marty Feldman looking dude. He's pretty cool. The other guys? Yawwwwwn.

Gary Gygax's Legacy

2008-03-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

I was never much for Dungeons & Dragons or any RPG's. I played D&D a few times with some friends who were more zealous than I and that was it. Didn't even have a character or own a single die (Okay, I liked the Saturday morning cartoon- that redhead with the invisibility cloak had some smokin' hot boots). So when D&D creator Gary Gygax died last week I really had nothing to say on the matter. But since D&D is such an integral part of nerd culture and has lead directly to the online gaming these crazy kids love so much today, I'm compelled to mark Mr. Gygax's passing somehow.

In that spirit, I present a Point/Counterpoint of sorts. First up is a Slate.com article that dares to launch the inevitable D&D backlash. A week of respectful mourning is actually pretty good in today's media culture. From Erik Sofge's article, Orc Holocaust-

Here's the narrative arithmetic that Gygax came up with: You come across a family of sleeping orcs, huddled around their overflowing chest of gold coins and magical weapons. Why do orcs and other monsters horde gold when they can't buy anything from the local "shoppes," or share a jug of mead in the tavern, or do anything but gnash their teeth in the darkness and wait for someone to show up and fight them? Who knows, but there they are, and you now have a choice. You can let sleeping orcs lie and get on with the task at hand—saving a damsel, recovering some ancient scepter, whatever. Or you can start slitting throats—after all, mercy doesn't have an experience point value in D&D. It's the kind of atrocity that commits itself.

For decades, gamers have argued that since D&D came first, its lame, morally repulsive experience system can be forgiven. But the damage is still being done: New generations of players are introduced to RPGs as little more than a collective fantasy of massacre and greed. If the multiplayer online game World of Warcraft is the direct descendant of D&D, then what, exactly, has Gygax bequeathed to us unwashed, nerdy masses? The notion that emotionally complex story lines are window dressing for an endless series of hack-and-slash encounters? There's a reason so many players are turned off after a brush with D&D. It promises something great—a lively (if dorky) bit of performance art—but delivers a small-minded and ignorant fantasy of rage, distilled to a bunch of arcane charts and die rolls. Dungeons & Dragons strips the "role-playing" out of RPGs; it's a videogame without the graphics, and a pretty boring one, at that.

All salient points, to be sure. But as the aforementioned counterpoint, I present this bit of video. The simple joy of D&D- the way it can bridge any social gap- as envisioned by Judd Apatow-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJAGxAeV7YU

Celebrity Voice Talent- The Scourge of Animation?

2008-03-04T10:05:00.000-08:00

Dreamworks Animation has always stood in the shadow of Pixar. Oh sure, they've had quite a few successes over the years. But their overall quality is second best. Not to mention the fact that their earliest efforts were clearly derivative. If Pixar is Nirvana, Dreamworks is Hole.

But even if Dreamworks has yet to raise the animation bar creatively, they can take the credit for another modern innovation. Their formula for voice talent was a marketing masterstroke that quickly became an industry standard.

Their first feature, Antz, was a poorly written, shoddily animated rip-off of Pixar's A Bug's Life. But it managed to open big thanks to the celebrity cache of Woody Allen, Sharon Stone and Sylvester Stallone (were the 90's really that long ago?). By marketing to the parents rather than the kids Dreamworks was able to bankroll it's animation studios. They later tweaked this formula to perfection with Shrek. Of course this has now led to folks like Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis headlining major animated releases. Because those guys are famous for their golden pipes, right? The stable of old school voice actors who now see their prospects drying up are, naturally, pissed. Billy West, from an Onion AV Club interview-

The minute they mention a CGI film, they're already looking to see what Renée Zellweger is doing. They're already looking to see what Billy Crystal is doing. This doesn't make sense, to do what they do—spend zillions on visuals, and then have this totally fucking flat-lining voice track. You know, "Hey, I'm Will Smith, I'm a clam! I'm Will Smith, I'm a kangaroo!" All you bring to the performance is your own ego. They're just being themselves. Let's put it this way: Cameron Diaz is the highest paid voice actress in history: $20 million for Shrek. Why? Because she has a 9-foot mouth? That works somewhere else, but not on tape.

Stimpy makes an excellent point there. But the fact is Cameron Diaz can get on The Tonight Show and promote Shrek 4: Welcome To The Suck. Whereas outside of Nerdville the name Billy West just doesn't put asses in the seats. But last year Dreamworks learned that name recognition is not always enough. Bee Movie is hitting the shelves next week following a lackluster theatrical run. Jerry Seinfeld pimped the shit out of this thing. Live action trailers, talk show appearances every day of the week, billboards and posters in every outlet. They even hung gigantic fucking bees from buildings in the major cities. Jerry's name was everywhere you looked. But guess what? It turns out kids could give a rat's ass for Jerry Seinfeld. Wow, who could have seen that coming? According to CHUD.com's own box office expert Andre Dellamorte, Bee Movie pulled a profit but failed to live up to investor expectations (who surely had visions of Shrek receipts dancing in their heads)-

It was considered a successful disappointment, if that makes sense. It will be profitable through ancillaries because parents will buy the DVD, but it's theatrical run was not out of the park.

Dreamworks used it's A-list talent to sell to the adults and ended up losing out on a big demographic. It looks as though the studio is cutting it's losses by serving it up as a nice gift to drop in the kids' Easter basket this year. According to Andre the DVD will be able to rake in the dough without much additional marketing-

The film made over 100 at the box office, so Best Buy and Target and Wallmart (etc.) will do the full order, have the display box announcing who's in it and they'll probably move a lot of discs. Just as Madagascar and Shark's Tale did as well, though I'm sure those titles have dust on them in most collections. Would nerds with kids buy it? Probably not, cause I'm guessing better kids films (Miyazaki, Brad Bird, etc.) are watched only slightly more by the kids than the parents. But for an audience that treats a movie like a babysitter, hotcakes.

It looks like they're returning to the proven game plan. Kung Fu Panda, their summer release, follows the same formula of putting celebrities behind the mic*. But the film's star, Jack Black, is definitely a lot more kid friendly. They're also making sure his visage gets out there to the under twelve demographic by putting it on shows kids, not their parents, watch. A very important distinction in the wake of Seinfeld's late night talk show campaign. He's hosting this year's Kids Choice Awards. The commercials running 24/7 on Nick are selling him more than the show itself. And I'm sure it'll help that Kung Fu Panda is chock full of slapstick humor, as opposed to Bee Movie's hilarious plot involving a lawsuit.

Like Antz before it, Bee Movie was basically a movie for adults that also tried to appeal to kids. And like Antz, it ultimately disappointed on both counts. Maybe Dreamworks should just take a creative leap and fully commit to an animated film for adults. Beowulf has already shown American audiences it can be done (European and Asian audiences have known it for years). Or at the very least, just stay the hell away from talking bug movies.

*To the point of absurdity. Jackie Chan?! The guy's name is synonymous with kung fu because he built a career on stunt work, not emoting. His most successful films, the Rush Hour trilogy, were based on the premise that his wacky American partner can't "understand a word comin' outta his mouth!"

Indiana Jones Digs Up Some Ancient Marketing Ploys

2008-03-03T10:07:00.000-08:00

There's an Associated Press fluff piece out today about what a sensation the new Indiana Jones trailer is. Sensation? That's news to me. I guess the title- New 'Indiana Jones' Trailer Is Smash Hit- has a grain of truth in it. For 24 hours it was the talk of Nerdville. But then, as it is known to do, the internet moved on to other things (like that superwickedawesome Iron Man trailer). "Smash hit" certainly implies a bigger buzz than that. So I read through the whole article (That's right, the whole thing. Who says my generation has a short attention span?!) looking for evidence to the contrary. But all I found was empty generalizations and a quote from hyperbolic fanboy Harry Knowles.

Then I read this bit and had to choke back my righteous indignation-

"Older audiences certainly remember Indy, but that's not the prime ticket-buying demographic. Thus the aggressive online campaign, which included what Paramount says is a record 4.1 million views on the Yahoo movie site in the first week and 2.6 million on the official IndianaJones.com site, the most ever for the studio. "

Sure, those stats sound great for Paramount, but in a world where videos of talking cats pull in the same numbers... well let's just say there's more to enduring quality than can be measured in raw data. I also take issue with the AP's definition of an aggressive online campaign. A few stills and one trailer is aggressive? Bullshit. That's par for the course. The viral campaigns of Cloverfield and Dark Knight, utilizing multiple websites and real world scavenger hunts to encourage an online whisper campaign, that's aggressive. I get the feeling this article was written for all the old ladies and squares who aren't savvy to the kind of media blitzkrieg the internet is capable of. The writer assumes that online trailers are some revolutionary new form of promotion and Lucasfilm is spearheading the movement.

The fact is this article is just an example of the old, tired form of viral marketing. It's nothing more than advertising thinly veiled as news. Let's hope the movie itself has some new tricks up it's sleeve because it's campaign sure doesn't.

Put A Little Hot-Rod Red Into Your Day

2008-02-29T05:58:00.000-08:00

The latest Iron Man trailer is up. You can find it at IGN.com by clicking HERE.

These trailers keep piling on the wicked-awesome. This not only looks to be the best flick of the Summer, but it might just rival Spider-Man as Bestest Superhero Movie Since Ever. And so I must now impose a personal media black-out of all things Iron Man. I'm avoiding all further trailers, articles and other spoilerish internet shenanigans. I've seen enough to know I'll be there opening night. I don't want to know anything else before experiencing it properly- in a dark room full of nerd-stench.

Conversely, I'd love to see more about this Summer's other Marvel movie- The Incredible Hulk. All we've seen so far is a few stills. And they make me worry. Ed Norton showing off his sculpted pecks and GQ haircut doesn't exactly convey Bruce Banner's meek scientist. Otherwise the cast sounds great and I like that they're going all HULK SMASH actiony with this flick. But why have we not seen a trailer yet? Maybe they're just not marketing to the geeks this time. After all, we'll be there regardless. Maybe they're just waiting to launch a campaign aimed at 'tweens and teens. Maybe they're just not willing to gamble a lot on marketing after Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk shit the bed.

And then there's the Batman. That Jokercentric campaign for The Dark Knight slammed it's breaks after Heath Ledger's sudden demise. Looks like WB is waiting a month or two before resuming it's rollout of gruesome Ledger footage. Regardless, this one is surely a safe box office bet.

Summer 2008 is going to be a great time to be a 12 year old. Excelsior!

A Public Service Message

2008-02-28T10:52:00.000-08:00

I don't write enough about infant care. So here are some helpful tips I found online (you can click the image to biggify it):

I love the chess one. That kid is so angry, you just know his dad isn't letting him win.

Brendan Fraser, Unsung Hero

2008-02-26T10:27:00.000-08:00

The trailer for the digital 3-D flick Journey To The Center Of The Earth is available.

Click it HERE to watch Brendan Fraser spit in your face.

The first thing I thought was, "That was really horrible."

The second thing I thought was, "My ten year old self would have loved this shit!"

The effects look crappy. I mean 80's styled blue screen crappy. Darkman crappy. But it's got all sorts of cool monsters and you can't go wrong with Mr. Verne's premise of discovering a fantastic world right beneath our feet. It looks like it will take full advantage of the 3-D gimmick by throwing everything from books to toothy fish in your face (I hope there's a Friday The 13th styled eyeball pop, too!). And it's also got one of the most underrated assets in Hollywood- Mr. Brendan Fraser.

Fraser broke out with the dopey teen-oriented comedies Encino Man and Airheads. He elevated these flicks from forgettable to good with a natural charisma and some excellent comic timing. Ever since then he's been straddling the line between adult drama and brand name blockbusters for the kids. His role as director James Wale's boy toy in Gods & Monsters is probably his best work to date. But when it comes to the goofy kids stuff, this guy is the most dependable star since Mickey Rooney.

He's carried a lot of movies with that aforementioned charisma and wit-

George of The Jungle- This is the rare live-action adaptation that betters it's source material. It's got plenty of slapstick gags to keep things moving. It repeatedly breaks the fourth wall and talks directly to the audience, often to acknowledge it's own absurdity. And frankly, there's barely a plot to speak of. But Fraser holds it all together by managing to be simultaneously moronic and heroic.

The Mummy- Before Stephen Sommers destroyed Carl Laemelle's entire legacy with Van Helsing, he was a promising director. Kind of a poor man's Robert Zemekis. The Mummy was a summer popcorn flick that managed to bombard audiences with outrageous visual setpieces and still retain a sense of legitimate fun. With Fraser in the lead, it was like Raiders of The Lost Ark starring Jack Burton. Geeks have clamored for a sequel to Big Trouble In Little China for years. I say this is it.

The Mummy Returns- Sorry. Not even Fraser could could carry this fetid sack of CGI donkey shit.

Looney Tunes: Back In Action- Another underrated gem. It's absolutely fucking criminal that Space Jam raked in the receipts, while this funny ode to Chuck Jones barely registered a fart on Box Office Mojo. By the time Fraser filmed this one he should have been a legitimate star. A Bruce Campbell for the kid set!

Even with a solid portfolio of films it's hard for this guy to get the respect he deserves, especially from geeks. His name was thrown around for Superman a few years back and it got less fan support than Putty from Seinfeld. But hey, I'm not gonna cry for the guy. He's also starring in The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor this August, a Mummy sequel that promises to be marginally better than The Scorpion King! It's hard to feel bad for an actor headlining two summer adventure flicks (even if both of them are as faithful to their source material as The Lawnmower Man).

But maybe he would like to do more. Maybe he would like to take on complex adult characters. Maybe he would like to explore the murky realm of human behavior in all of it's ugliness and glory. Whatever. That's what the theater stage is for.

Keep making mor kiddy advendchur moovys, plz, K? Thnx!

The Academy Gets It Right For ONCE

2008-02-25T06:09:00.000-08:00

The Academy Award for Best Song is traditionally a horrid little ditty that reveals the voting members to be bigger squares than your mom and dad. This year looked like no exception as three (for chrissakes, three) empty pop confections from Enchanted went up against a splendid little number from Once. It wasn't surprising to see Enchanted's That's How You Know get a nod. That's one of those show stopping numbers that weasels it's way into your brain and pulls up a permanent seat next to Under The Sea and that doe a deer song from The Sound of Music. But seeing two more examples of forgettable treacle from that movie ooze onto the nominee list left my gast thoroughly flabbered. Especially when you consider that EVERY song from the Once soundtrack is far more deserving. But hey, this is the same academy that gave an Oscar to Mary Poppins' Chim Chim Chi Ree while A Hard Days Night couldn't score a single nomination. With three nominations it looked like the Enchanted fix was in.

That's why it was so goddamn wonderful to see the little-film-that-could trounce all over Disney.* How genuinely moving was that live performance by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova? And how classy was that when Jon Stewart brought Marketa back out to give her acceptance speech after the dunderheads in the band cut her off? And maybe I'm just projecting, but didn't it seem like the audience knew full well that this song deserved the win more than any other?

Anyway what I'm saying is go rent and/or buy Once. For yourself, that is. Your kids will be bored silly and hate you forever if you try to make them watch a love story about actual adults who don't talk to squirrels or fight sassy New York bus drivers. Once is the best kind of musical- one that blends songs seamlessly into the story and uses music to explore characters. This is coming from a guy who traditionally hates musicals. It totally deserved the win last night. I guess next year we'll see talent vacuum Randy Newman get a statue in order to balance the cosmic scales.

Oh yeah, and huzzah for Best Animated Picture Ratatouille! Too bad you wuz robbed for the Best Original Score.

*But really, Enchanted is a movie not without it's charms. The songs are fine if you're an 8 year old girl (which I've been accused of more than once). But they're hardly Oscar worthy.

Wild Things Movie Might Be Too Good For Kids

2008-02-20T11:33:00.000-08:00

I try to stay away from speculation and rumor whenever I run a newsy type entry. But since I've been posting a lot about Wild Things lately and because CHUD.com's Devin Faraci is a reliable source, I'll break my rule.
There's now talk going around that the movie will go through a massive reshoot because it's just too offbeat. From Faraci's article-

Yet I'm hearing that just such a massive reshoot is what is on the table right now. And it's not because of technical issues, unless you want to consider the lead kid actor and the script technical issues. Sources tell me that the suits at Legendary and Warner Bros are not happy with Max Records, the actor playing Max, the mischievous boy who is crowned King of the Wild Things. Worse than that, they don't like the film's tone and want to go back to the script drawing board, possibly losing the Spike Jonze/Dave Eggers script when they do it.

Where The Wild Things Are screened for a test audience in Pasadena late last year; my friend BC, who watches a horror movie a day, caught the screening and liked what he saw, but I've also been told that the movie is 'subversive,' which is just the sort of thing that drives studio suits up the wall. The film, I keep hearing, is pretty great at this early stage of post-production, but it could very possibly not be a commercial movie. You can imagine the panic at Warner Bros when they realized they'd made a reportedly 75 million dollar kiddie art house film.

You can read the full CHUD.com article HERE.

Let's hope the good guys win and we get to see an unmolested version in theaters next year. The thought of an adaptation with poop jokes and a Hannah Montana cover of the Troggs' Wild Thing (complete with end credits dance number) makes me throw up in my lap.

Where The Wild Clip Is Now

2008-02-20T06:25:00.000-08:00

That test footage and a new pic from Where The Wild Things Are have turned up at Collider.com.

They're also running this explanation from director Spike Jonze:
"...that was a very early test with the sole purpose of just getting some footage to Ben our vfx (visual effects) supervisor to see if our vfx plan for the faces would work. The clip doesn’t look or feel anything like the movie, the Wild Thing suit is a very early cringy prototype, and the boy is a friend of ours Griffin who we had used in a Yeah Yeah Yeahs video we shot a few weeks before. We love him, but he is not in the actually film...Oh and that is not a wolf suit, its a lamb suit we bought on the internet. Talk to you later..."

So, yeah. Yesterday I was praising the movie based on a clip that doesn't "look or feel anything like the movie". Oh well. Just keep that gentle sunset and I'll be happy!

Where The Sullen Depressives Are

2008-02-19T10:10:00.000-08:00

Click it HERE to watch a snippet of Spike Jonze's Where The Wild Things Are.

UPDATE- The clip has been pulled from AICN. Such is life on the internet. You can probably find it somewhere else, but you'll have to Google that for yourself.

Now let's discuss.

I have high hopes for this adaptation. The writer/director combo of Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze was enough to sell me. Then came that excellent still. Now this little piece of unfinished film. AICN says this is pretty much what we can expect the final product to look like, but that soundtrack definitely sounds like it will go through some tweaking. There is a pleasing feel to this (even if that monster sounds like he could use some Prozac). It's in the way the kid acts like a real kid. It's in the cinematography that reminds me of the filmed segments on Sesame Street circa 1976.

The recent Dr. Seuss debacles have demonstrated how difficult it is to turn a scant childrens book into a feature length film. Those flicks were padded out with obnoxious filler that undermined the source material. Where The Wild Things Are poses an even greater challenge. We're talking about a book ten sentences long. Dave Eggers has a lot of room to fill between pages. But so far he seems up to the task. His writing style is even similar to that of the book. Maurice Sendak's sentences flow for pages before finding themselves at a period.

Of course it's too early to start rolling out the accolades. But I can tell you this much- I'd choose that clip over Horton Hears A Who every time.

That pic courtesy of www.IWatchStuff.com

Some of The Best Star Wars Merchandise That Never Was

2008-02-15T10:08:00.000-08:00

What I wouldn't give for a Jabba The Hutt beanbag chair.

Toy blog Action Figure Insider has a fun look at rejected Star Wars merchandising concepts. Not a hoax. Not a Mad Magazine article. These are real ideas thought up by paid professionals to pitch to LucasFilm.

Indeed, some of these ideas are visionary. Things like the Darth Vader gumball machine that dispenses Death Star gumballs or the Taun Taun suit are truly inspired. But whoever designed the Galactic Game Trophies really needs to explore another line of work.

Click it HERE to see them all.

First Indiana Jones Trailer Hits The Net

2008-02-14T10:32:00.000-08:00

Click here for the exclusive Yahoo trailer.

The first trailer for Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull is the talk of the town today. That town, of course, being Nerdsville. But while us old heads are dissecting quips, plot spoilers and that mysterious bulge in Ray Winstone's pants there's an entire generation of kids out there who could care less. These are the kids who will make or break Indy at the box office. Paramount knows this, which is why the trailer is making it's premiere in front of The Spiderwick Chronicles and not Diary of The Dead.

The opening text and accompanying glimpses of iconic imagery do a nice job of simultaneously introducing Indiana Jones to kids and heralding his return to nerds. Then the moneyshots roll out. As far as movies about old men swinging from whips are concerned, this looks alright. There's lots of crash-bang-boom and that kid from Transformers. I just wonder how well it will play to folks who aren't already driven to pavlovian fits of spastic joy at the mere sound of the famous theme. Does this old fashioned rough and tumble flick have anything to offer the Matrix generation? Can it hope to compete with the ass-kickery of Iron Man this summer? Well, Spielberg's no slouch when it comes to action/adventure, so chances are it can.

I wonder if Paramount's marketing crew can get those tweens 'n teens into the theater to find this out.

BTW- I still think Iron Man looks better.

Cry For Ferd'nand

2008-02-12T12:55:00.000-08:00

Such a maudlin little tale. The first three panels portray one mankind's oldest jokes. And a merry jest it is. But that last panel- the prestige, if you will- takes us into the darkness of self awareness.

Ferd'Nand regards his visage in the mirror, recognizing for the first time that yes- he truly is a monster. Does he long for redemption? Or is it a look of quiet resignation? Perhaps the answer lies within our own hearts.

Black Garfield

2008-02-11T10:22:00.000-08:00

In the 70's Marvel and DC were eager to capitalize on the civil rights movement by introducing a few black superheroes. Of course these characters were most notable not for their powers, but for their blackness. Black Lightning and Black Goliath were basically generic copies of established heroes. Much like Supergirl or BatGirl, they were absurdly obvious attempts to attract another demographic. Comic books aren't known for their subtlety.

Slate.com recently launched what might be called Black Slate (as a matter of fact, it has been called that). TheRoot.com isn't exactly subtle in it's invocation of Alex Haley's famous epic, but the name is hardly Black Racer either. It's pretty good if, like me, you're already a fan of Slate's format. It's obvious they still have more space than content right now, but with this being Black History Month and Obama rising up the charts I guess now is the best time to launch.

So what does this have to do with nerds and/or kids anyway?

A recent article drew my attention to a kind of comic strip act of solidarity that occured yesterday. From the Root article Funny Business On The Funny Pages:

Feb. 4, 2008--Comic strips inked by black cartoonists are about more than just being black. Yet their reach is limited. National syndicates, comics page and newspaper editors rarely allow more than two "black" strips on a funny page at a time.
The situation is so maddening to black cartoonists that ten of them have banded together to stage a "draw-in" of sorts on Feb. 10. Each cartoonist will draw their individual strips with an identical plot.

So, "Candorville"—a strip about culture clashes in the inner city and "Watch Your Head"—a strip about college students—will have different characters, but the same exact storyline.
But will anyone notice? Will anyone care?

"It's probably going to fly over a lot of heads," said "Watch Your Head" creator Cory Thomas, who organized the draw-in. Stephen Bentley, creator of "Herb and Jamaal," said, "Frankly I don't think very much is going to happen the next day, but what I envision is at least the conversation will be there."

In the late 80s familiar strips like "Curtis," created by Ray Billingsely, "Jump Start," by Robb Armstrong and Bentley's "Herb and Jamaal" successfully broke into national syndication. Although they faced the unspoken two-strip maxim then too, there were only a handful of black cartoonists competing on the national stage, so the situation was less obvious.

Then came the boon of "Boondocks," Aaron McGruder's wildy popular strip about two inner-city kids relocated to the suburbs, and with it a new wave of young artists looking to be the next McGruder. The problem now, according to many black cartoonists, is that industry hasn't caught up.

Now, as Stephen Bentley predicted above, I missed this entirely. I'm not quite sure what this was supposed to illuminate. That there aren't enough comic strips with black characters? That seems pretty silly to me when most of the minority characters out there are just as original as Black Lightning. The strips I'm familiar with that have predominately black characters (Herb & Jamal, Jumpstart, Curtis, Wee Pals) are otherwise indistinguishable from Funky Winkerbean or Hi & Lois. That is to say, they all suck. Now if the bulk of "black" comics being produced were innovative like indie favorite The "K" Chronicles or the now defunct The Boondocks*, I could see the point of raising awareness. But the running theme of this organized storyline seemed to be "Our comics are just as good as Beetle Bailey".
Is that something you should be bragging about?

See more about the Cartoonists of Color Draw-In HERE.

*Full disclosure- I never cared much for Boondocks either. While I admired its attempt to try something new, McGruder's execution was static and witless. It worked much better as an animated cartoon.

Wall-E International Trailer

2008-02-11T09:51:00.000-08:00

I should just change the name of this place to Pimpin' For Pixar. But if they wouldn't keep making awesome movies I wouldn't have to keep writing about them. Here's a link to the latest trailer for Wall-E:
http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=758&item=6
It's the kind of leisurely paced coming attraction reel theaters used to run before we were born. God bless Pixar for recognizing a child's ability to pay attention to one image for more than 2.7 seconds. I guess it also helps that they provide compositions worth looking at for more than 2.7 seconds. So what words can I apply to this trailer that I haven't already used to describe Pixar lately? Sophisticated? Innovative? Scrumdeliumptious? Hmmm. I'm gonna need a bigger thesaurus.*

*That joke dedicated to the late great Roy Scheider.

Pertaining To Muppets and Giant Frogs

2008-02-05T10:09:00.000-08:00

A Jim Henson biopic?
Muppet News Flash reports that Empire Films has a script, a $30 million budget, and a 2009 release date. Fan casting has already commenced. But I'd like to see a more avant garde approach to this. Why not make this a true Henson homage and employ a cast of muppets instead of people? For a real twist, humans can portray the muppet creations. Steve Buscemi would make an excellent Kermit and get that fat kid from Superbad for Fozzie.

In case you missed them Sunday night-
The Iron Man site has that trailer they premiered during the Super Bowl. Even with dodgy tank effects, it still looks like the one to beat this summer. Dig it HERE.
You can find the Prince Caspian trailer at the official site HERE. Is it just me or does nobody give a crap about another Narnia flick? I mean, not to be a jerk or nothin', but there seems to be no buzz around this one.

I have no idea if the Spiderwick Chronicles books are any good. They kind of hover in my periphery along with Lemony Snicket and every other Harry Potteresque series. The commercials for the film adaptation (opening next Thursday) look average at best. I mean, who doesn't like giant evil frogs? And it should be noted that acclaimed indie director John Sayles is a co-writer. And it should also be noted that it's being released with the first trailer for Indiana Jones And The Temple of The Quest of The Legion of The Crystal Skull of Doom attached. So if that's an added incentive to any parents out there, take the kids and report back to me. I know I won't be seeing it anytime soon because my daughter says it looks "stupid". Perhaps she and I will watch Sayles' Lone Star this weekend instead.

Won't Somebody Think Of The Children?!

2008-02-01T10:32:00.000-08:00

On last night's Democratic debate Obama was asked his thoughts on the FCC's post-nipplegate crackdown on "indecent" television. This is such a bullshit issue. Many politicians rally around FCC censorship because you can pick up easy votes by "thinking of the children".
Obama had the right answer. He said it was the parents' job to monitor the media for content. He also supported advancements in home technology that allows parents to police television and the internet themselves. Then he went and said what I've been ranting about for awhile now. He suggested that the media take a look at the way they market themselves. Like, perhaps, not running advertisements for gruesome horror films during kids programming. He's right. Commercials for Law & Order- Fist Raping Unit shouldn't run during the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving Special. I especially liked the way he maintained that this was something advertisers could regulate themselves, not something he would encourage the FCC to enforce.
I 'd love to see a president dismantle the FCC since it's nothing but a den of corruption and graft, but I doubt that's high on Obama's list. Still, it's nice to know he's not a politician who endorses censorship in the name of family values.
It's nice to know he trusts us to protect our own children.

Guess How Much Better I Am Than You

2008-01-30T10:32:00.000-08:00

I've been asleep at the wheel for two months, but I've finally gotten back to business here. My first NWK post was an evisceration of the beloved children's book, The Rainbow Fish. So why not begin my return to blogdom with a critique of another classic?

Guess How Much I Love You (read it HERE) is the seemingly innocent tale about the love shared between a father rabbit and his son. In all actuality it's a searing portrait of a an oedipal struggle for power.

The premise is simple. Every time Little Nutbrown Hare tries to demonstrate how much he loves his father, his father must belittle him.

"I love you as far as I can reach!" says Little Nutbrown Hare.

Big Nutbrown Hare, taller than Little Nutbrown Hare, responds to this beautiful expression of love as if it were a challenge to his manhood. "Oh yeah? I love you up to HERE!" he says, reaching his adult arm far higher than his child could ever hope to reach himself.

"Well," responds Little Nutbrown Hare "I love you as high as I can jump!"

"Big deal. I love you as high as I can jump. Can you jump this high, you little shit? I didn't think so. Let's not forget who the alpha rabbit is around here."

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but you get the idea.

Finally, exhausted from his futile efforts to please his father and prove his own worth, Little Nutbrown Hair collapses. "I love you all the way up to the moon..." he mutters as he drifts off to sleep.

Big Nutbrown Hair, looking down at this inferior copy of himself, can't resist twisting the knife one last time and whispers, most sinisterly, "I love you all the way up to the moon. And BACK."

Nobody but Big Nutbrown Hare himself hears his last assertion of dominance. But that's just as well, because nobody else but he cares.

Pixar's Latest Innovation- PEN & INK!

2008-01-30T10:10:00.000-08:00

The latest upcoming Pixar movie, Up, appears to go where no other Hollywood animated film dares... back to the ink well. From Pixar Planet-

Up is Pixar’s tenth animated film scheduled for theatrical release June 12, 2009. In an earlier issue of TIME, director Pete Docter described Up as a "coming-of-old-age story" about a seventy-something guy who lives in a house that "looks like your grandparents’ house smelled." He befriends a clueless young Wilderness Ranger and gets into lots of altercations. Says Pixar: "Our hero travels the globe, fights beasts and villains and eats dinner at 3:30 in the afternoon."

So let me get this straight. These fools are making a 2D animated film about a 70 year old man.

Okay.

By now you could tell me they were making a film about shopping for socks and I would still be like, "Sure. They can totally make that work."

Nietzsche For Kids!

2007-11-05T06:04:00.000-08:00

Brad Bird is arguably the greatest talent in animation today. The man brought us The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille. To celebrate Ratatouille's DVD release, I'm presenting an online conversation about a common theme running through Bird's oeuvre . It's pulled from a movie message board I frequent. Usually our conversations are about how fucking cool Crank was and OMG, they're making Crank 2: Crankenstein!, but one day while my back was turned they had a thoughtful debate about The Incredibles, fascism, and Olivia Newton John. I've been trying to get Dan, who defends his position with the tenacity of a rabid wolverine, to write an article about this for NWK. But what spontaneously unfolded here is even better:

Dan- This (Ratatouille) finally opened in the UK, and I'm pleased to say its renewed my faith in Brad Bird and Pixar. It's a complex moral story told in a deceptively simple way. My son really loved it - more for the slapstick and funny rat, but I think maybe some of the message sank in. He was certainly a lot less fidgety during the numerous and lengthy talking bits than he has been with any other movie.
It's made me even more confused by The Incredibles though. Ratatouille has the same basic theme as The Iron Giant - that it doesn't matter what your background is, or what people tell you you're supposed to do, everyone has the choice to overcome that and be different - and that's a great idea to implant in young minds. The Iron Giant is a weapon that chooses non-violence. Remy is a rat who chooses to aim higher than mediocrity.
The Incredibles, on the other hand, seems to endorse the complete opposite - that only a select few are special and that those ordinary folk who try to achieve the same are doomed to failure and crippling jealousy.
But, hey. Ratatouille is sublime and wonderful. The visualization of the discovery of taste is sheer genius, while the critic's last act revelation was beautifully handled. I'm a little unsure as to what Bird is trying to say with that final speech - it's not like he's been beaten down by critics ever - and the tone comes across as dangerously close to anti-intellectualism, which is bizarre given the rest of the film, but - yay - it's great.

Brad- I do think The Incredibles has a muddled message, but I still don't think that message is as sinister as you make it out to be.

Dan- I don't think the message is sinister necessarily, but because it's so muddled I think it can come across that way. At the risk of sounding like a pretentious fucker, any time you're tangling with Nietzschean themes in a kids film you'd better be damn sure you know what the fuck you're trying to say.
I get the impression Bird was trying to say something about "being special", and about how we shouldn't be ashamed of the things we're good at but because The Incredibles defines this specialness in physical terms, and with characters that are born with these traits and a human villain whose gift is intellect, it puts the movie on very shaky philosophical ground. What could have been a plea for people to embrace their passions/gifts, whatever they may be, it comes off as an endorsement of the "might is right" mindset.
Ratatouille makes the same point, but does so in a far clearer way because Remy's gift is something he strives to attain, and because it doesn't involve beating the shit out of things. In the Incredibles universe, Remy would be closer to Syndrome in spirit and intent than the alleged heroes, and that's fucked up.
I still think The Incredibles is a great superhero movie, but I also think it's a pretty lousy kids movie.

Luca- Fearful of a verbal beatdown, with you being The Dan Mega and all, I daresay Buddy/Syndrome was special. He just chose to squander his gifts on a petty grudge. He pretty much could have been Iron Man with all the shit he had. Shit he created himself, I might add. I mean, rocket boots alone would pretty much put you in the top field of human somethingorother, right? But instead of realizing his own potential for advancing mankind -- and I mean really advancing it, not the selling of super technology to the highest bidder -- he just uses his every gift to take down or humiliate Mr. Incredible. Buddy is an asshole who chooses to be an asshole and employs every gift or ability he has, inborn or acquired. But hey, it was a pretty cool villainous plot.

Dan- Yeah, but it still makes for a queasy comparison because he's a normal human whose attempts to be "special" (as defined by the film) are doomed to failure because he's only gifted intellectually. Physically, he's weak. The conflict in the film is between heroes who are born special, and whose abilities are physical, and a villain who strives to be special, but whose ability is mental. The implied message is one of "know your place" rather than "be all you can be", and of physical force over intellectual advancement.
After seeing Ratatouille I really don't think that's what Bird intended, but it's still a very dangerous thing to even imply in a kids film, accidentally or not.
Put it this way, as much as I enjoy The Incredibles on a geek level, it's not a movie I plan on showing to my son until he's older. The ethical muddle sours whatever entertainment it might offer. Same reason my daughter won't be watching Grease. All the catchy songs in the world can't make up for the "become a slut to win back the local meathead" storyline.

Tim- That muddled message would have been eliminated with one superhero whose power was intellect.

Dan- Or have the superheroes gain their powers, rather than be born with them. Even then, I think the problem is always going to be there if you're trying to put across this message using superheroes, since issues of power and entitlement kind of come with the territory.

Tim- It doesn't bother me though, because I think it's obviously unintentional, and because I don't think a kid's going to pick out the "bad" message from The Incredibles, anyway. Grease, though, I'll agree with.

Dan- I think that's what makes it dangerous. The fact that all of this is implied in the story, in a less than coherent way, makes it entirely possible for a kid to get completely the wrong message.

Luca- Haha I thought that shit in Grease was shady even as a kid.

Brad- I really, really don't think this movie is dangerous.

Dan- Not dangerous like a cannon full of rusty razor blades, but dangerous in the sense that it sends a confusing message about who gets to be "special", and that has a dubious definition of what "special" means, to a young and very impressionable audience? Yeah, I think that's dangerous. In a parenty kinda way.

Brad- I don't know, I feel like this discussion is ascribing a lot more critical thought to this than the eight-and-under crowd is going to bring to it, which is fine, but I really do think you're painting this one to be a lot more sinister than it really is.

Dan- That's my point. The kid audience isn't going to consider all this stuff
They'll just soak up a story in which "special" people are sad because they aren't given free reign to do what they want, and in which the normal person who wants to be "special" is the villain. Maybe they'll take some of that on board, maybe they won't. If you're the puny brainy kid in class, there's not a whole lot of comfort in The Incredibles and that's really weird, considering the people behind it and the messages they've conveyed in their other work.
I'm not saying the movie is sinister, but that by using the utterly Nietzschean concept of superheroes to explore the theme of what it means to be "special" it offers up a reading that can be misconstrued as endorsing a rather fascistic worldview and, as the parent of a quiet and not particularly athletic boy, it's not a message I want him to be exposed to just yet.
Like I said, I think it's a great superhero movie. And I think that superheroes are a valuable "good vs evil" allegory for children. But when you try and use inherited superpowers as allegory for "being special" it's problematic.

Brad- The way I always looked at Syndrome is that he turned out as he did not because he was jealous, per say, but because his own particular gifts weren't encouraged when he was young. I think it's more of a case that Syndrome was unable to see that he WAS special, and that festered into his psychosis.
Granted, I think the movie is more supposed to be about family and trust than any of this, and most of the ubermensch subtext is accidental. I mean, it's not like we're talking about 300 here.

Dan - From what I can remember, that's not exactly supported by the text of the film. Syndrome's upbringing isn't a plot point. His jealousy of the "supers" is. Your point would also have more merit if the movie had a counterpoint character to show that it is possible to be special without being super powered. As it is, Syndrome is the only major character without superpowers in a film where super powers equals special, and his bad guy status stems directly from this.

Brad- His upbringing at home isn't, but his viewing Mr. Incredible as an idol and father-figure certainly is.

Carlton- Not one bit of this subtext came into my mind while watching The Incredibles. I always thought it was a strange observation, because most people, children or otherwise, aren't going to pick up on it. Probably not even on accident. I didn't even think about this concept until I read CHUD.com one day and there like five pages about it.
I can see it in there after someone mentions it or explains it to me, but I don't think Bird orchestrated the subtext to be this strong fascist glorification.

Dan- Neither do I. It just struck me as even stranger after Ratatouille did the "be proud of what you're good at" subtext in a much more graceful way. I just think superheroes are completely the wrong way to tackle that theme, because they are - by nature - slightly fascist power fantasies anyway.

Bill- I think Bird is a very smart guy who plays with his themes on a conspicuous level. The Incredibles was his chance to aim the entertainment directly at his adult audience for a change, and along with the more serious content went the complex themes you are discussing above. If I try to think in kid terms, I don't consider the movie to be fun so much as it is exciting. Bird knows that his adult viewers will recognize that the villain in most superhero movies is born out of jealousy, revenge and the lust for power, but kids only know that a superhero movie needs a villain of some kind. In other words, I'm not sure kids care why Syndrome exists. Thinking positively, maybe Bird wasn't saying that you have to be supernatural to be a good guy. He could be saying that jealousy and revenge are villainous emotional states, and should be avoided.

Werbal- The muddling in The Incredibles doesn't come so much from the fact that they're superheroes, but rather than they're all apparently born with their powers. The movie tries to bring the message of "people should be recognized for their talents" but it turns into more of "certain people are just better" by the fact that the Supers don't have to do shit to be the way they are.
I think a "power versus heroism" theme would have been more apt. But as it stands, the movie sorta equates power and heroism, which is sorta not good.

Dan- Exactly!

Brad- It's still awesome though, so fuck you.

Dan- Exactly!

A Spider-Man's Got To Know His Limitations

2007-10-30T07:07:00.000-07:00

Spider-Man 3 hits the shelves today. The movie that broke box office records on opening day is arriving to DVD with all the fanfare of a wet fart. Sadly, S3 just didn't live up to it's predecessors. Worse yet, it didn't appeal to the kids as much as the others. Granted it would be hard to top the magic of the first two, but part 3 didn't have to go the way it did. It's worst mistake was falling victim to the Batman Sequel Syndrome. Raimi crammed too many characters and too many storylines into one script. It was like he had two more movies to make, but opted instead to roll them into one Godfather sized epic. None of the characters or storylines got the time they needed to gel and the result was a three hour trailer for a couple of cool looking Spider-Man movies. We're left with a lot of faux pathos and very little fun for such a long movie about a man who swings around in red and blue tights. It was an ambitious attempt to craft an epic conclusion, but ultimately it failed.

Two other superhero flicks came out in the shadow of Spidey and worked much better within their respective parameters. Of course I'm talking about Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer and Underdog. Here we have a couple of comparatively modest superhero flicks that didn't try to get too big for their britches. FF2 got a lot of fanboy hate, but that's because 30 year olds who still read comic books often forget that sometimes, just sometimes, it's okay to make a silly movie for kids. We get hit with so much sturm und drang in our superheroes these days, we forget how much fun this dopey shit is supposed to be. A movie about a guy who can stretch like a rubber band battling a naked silver man on a surfboard doesn't need tragedy. It doesn't need cynical violence. And it sure as hell doesn't need three hours to tell it's ridiculous story. FF2 delivers a couple of one liners, some cool special effects, and then says goodbye. Just like the comic books of old. Now it's not a perfect film, of course. Doctor Doom was as threatening as your office's Financial Controller and the ending needed a little more dramatic punch. But hey, Flash Gordon wasn't a perfect film either and yet it holds a place in every geeks heart right now. I would bet my 401k that if Flash were released today it would garner a Kardashian buttload of righteous nerd hate.

Underdog aimed for a crowd that had never heard of the cartoon. This is just as well because it bore as much similarity to it's source material as The Lawnmower Man. There's the flying dog with the cape and the midget scientist and at least three different rock/hip-hop remakes of the theme song and that's it. The rest is feel good adventure movie that's 49% Spielberg circa 1982, 49% Superman 1&2, and 2% gastrointestinal jokes. That's pretty much a perfect recipe right there. Add a dash of Jim Belushi and you've got a fun movie about a talking dog who fights crime. I must also add that as a square parent I was happy to see how Underdog resolved a fight with three other dogs. Instead of a having a mindless CGI canine fight our hero talks the bad guys out of their evil allegiance to the villainous mad scientist. Yay pacifism!

It would be great to see more of this silliness injected into other mopey failures. Imagine how much better Daredevil would have been if they hadn't tried to make it so gritty and real. X-men 3 could have been a spectacularly fun 90 minutes if everyone wasn't so goddamn miserable. I realize misery is part of X-Men lore, but when the plot is "Twenty million mutants meet for an ultmate smackdown" it's best to just run with the silliness (especially when you've just brought in a hack director with no understanding of true drama). Of course not every superhero flick needs to jettison the pathos or mature subtext. When that stuff is properly mixed with escapist fantasy you get something excellent like... the first two Spider-Man movies. It's deceptively hard to perfect, however. I guess we can consider it some kind of miracle that Sam was even able to do it twice. Next Summer is bringing more superhero flicks aimed at the coveted surly teenager to thirtysomething demographic. Iron Man looks like a rockin' ball buster of a movie, The Incredible Hulk promises plenty of mindless violence, and The Dark Knight looks like an unofficial sequel to Seven. It's still a glorious time to be a nerd at the multiplex. But I sure hope there are one or two fantasy adventures released without a PG-13 rating. It would be a shame to exclude little kids from the superhero genre.

UPDATE- Obviously the fat cats at Sony Pictures are reading my blog. It's been announced today that a script for the inevitable Spider-Man 4 has just been commissioned. Reportedly they are heeding my criticism and scaling back on the cavalcade of characters we saw in part 3. Read all about it at Chud.com.