Brian Hodge's review of MEG has always made me chuckle: [www.brianhodge.net]
How did this lame, simplistic chat script win anything? Are scientists really that 'hard up' for publicity? Suzette doesn't "divert" anything--you immediately know you're talking to a 6th grade science project. Hell, a Choose Your Own Adventure book from the 1980s is more Turing-compliant than this thing.
Can't agree more. Without the innate arm strength, physical conditioning, 'muscle memory', etc. nothing is going to make you Peyton Manning or Drew Brees over night .... even if you are a genius.
@Blair Mitchelmore: GRRM is what you might call a "cinematic" writer. Something good ol' John Gardner might have called a writer for whom the "vivid and continuous dream" of the narrative is a very real thing. A lot of fantasy writers--especially older writers--tend to get lost in abstraction. GRRM doesn't tell you about Westeros and Winterfell and the people who inhabit the places; instead, he "gives" them to you, letting you see them for yourself, so you can experience the drama first-hand and draw your own conclusions.
This is why his books are so large, and why plotting them requires a longer--and more involved--process. He's looking at the discrete, point-to-point, scene-by-scene interplay that describes and composes the entire drama--not just the high-level, Tokien-esque narrative that's bound up with the abstract history, mythology and endless genealogy of the people.
This is why his books are so large, and why plotting them requires a longer--and more involved--process. He's looking at the discrete, point-to-point, scene-by-scene interplay that describes and composes the entire drama--not just the high-level, Tokien-esque narrative that's bound up with the abstract history, mythology and endless genealogy of the people.
@johnson.franka: I like your positive attitude, but really ... if a 'pro' writer can't plot a narrative--even an epic narrative like this one, with a multitude of sub-plots--and not see such a huge and obvious flaw before he started writing ... then maybe he should just quit--or, at the very least, admit defeat on this front and leave the epic fantasy writing to others.
The bottom line is that GRRM is a fan of medieval history ... and he wanted to try his hand at writing a huge, medieval epic ... but he just doesn't have the writing 'chops' to do it.
A Feast for Crows was a huge letdown ... in that it went nowhere, circled a drain of uninteresting sub-plots and characters, and didn't really advance the story in any appreciable way that actually justified his splitting of the book into two, separate entities. Time 'gaps' and flaws in the plotting aside, the guy is quite simply 'out of his depth'.
The bottom line is that GRRM is a fan of medieval history ... and he wanted to try his hand at writing a huge, medieval epic ... but he just doesn't have the writing 'chops' to do it.
A Feast for Crows was a huge letdown ... in that it went nowhere, circled a drain of uninteresting sub-plots and characters, and didn't really advance the story in any appreciable way that actually justified his splitting of the book into two, separate entities. Time 'gaps' and flaws in the plotting aside, the guy is quite simply 'out of his depth'.
@Adam Whitehead: AFFC also had to be re-structured and (at least in part) re-written to accommodate the pacing and structure of ADWD (and the new, overarching structure of the lame, two-books-as-one format).
The "problem" is that he freakin' re-wrote and re-structured A Feast for Crows and then had to scrap and re-write and re-structure the first iteration of A Dance With Dragons ... all thanks to using his stupidly-contrived, two-books-occurring-at-once narrative structure that does nothing but make the drama stretch out in ostensibly undramatic ways (not least of which is due to the fact that ADWD still hasn't been released).
I have been a long time reader of GRRM, but honestly, he's a victim of his own conceit at this point. He has painted himself into a corner--partly due to sloppy plotting, partly due to his re-structuring of a traditional narrative structure (so he could play around with an 'better' experimental structure)--and he, clearly, has no "solution" to this mess he has created. At least, no solution he's wholly supportive of; the book would have been out already if he did.
I have been a long time reader of GRRM, but honestly, he's a victim of his own conceit at this point. He has painted himself into a corner--partly due to sloppy plotting, partly due to his re-structuring of a traditional narrative structure (so he could play around with an 'better' experimental structure)--and he, clearly, has no "solution" to this mess he has created. At least, no solution he's wholly supportive of; the book would have been out already if he did.
Not a half bad ending, actually. Definitely better than the teddie-bear luau. I knew there was another reason to hate Lucas. There's always another reason ...
Lost stopped being "fun" midway through the 2nd season. I'm sorry, but when a show's writers so obviously don't give a damn about continuity--and are just making crap up as they go along--you really have to be 'drinking their special kind of Kool-Aid to really find any kind of enjoyment, or "fun", in the steaming pile of garbage the show quickly became. At best, it was a ridiculous, over-the-top fantasy/sci-fi show for people who normally watch television that demands a lower register of intelligence ... and, at worst, it was just an ongoing insult to science fiction and fantasy that lasted way too frigging long.
Don't get me wrong: Lost started out as an excellent show, with fantastic characterizations and an intriguing narrative. But it quickly--and I mean quickly with a capital "Q"--outgrew its pathetic gimmicks and became nothing but an exercise in "group think" and/or viral marketing. I can only imagine how many lab-rats--I mean, viewers--actually continued to watch and 'participate' with this pathetic excuse for television. When a maundering, aimless, haphazard show like Lost can be raised to such a high level of acclaim (that it becomes a new standard), you really have to start worrying.
Seriously, how many more Lost-knockoffs to we need ... especially when Lost itself is a shining example of how some of the worst writing in the history of mankind can be used to influence the masses. It's frightening--not least because so many people actually loved this insipid show.
Don't get me wrong: Lost started out as an excellent show, with fantastic characterizations and an intriguing narrative. But it quickly--and I mean quickly with a capital "Q"--outgrew its pathetic gimmicks and became nothing but an exercise in "group think" and/or viral marketing. I can only imagine how many lab-rats--I mean, viewers--actually continued to watch and 'participate' with this pathetic excuse for television. When a maundering, aimless, haphazard show like Lost can be raised to such a high level of acclaim (that it becomes a new standard), you really have to start worrying.
Seriously, how many more Lost-knockoffs to we need ... especially when Lost itself is a shining example of how some of the worst writing in the history of mankind can be used to influence the masses. It's frightening--not least because so many people actually loved this insipid show.
@lightninglouie: "Bottom line: If you think Gaiman is "derivative," you need to read more."
~
Funny, this. It's precisely because I have "read more" that I find Gaiman hopelessly derivative--or, even worse, simply boring.
From the mawkish, overreaching style of Sandman, to the meandering, I-have-no-idea-how-to-write-a-novel plot of Neverwhere, to the Hugo-bait of American Gods, to the post-J.K. Rowling I-can-do-children-books-too 'romp' of Coraline, to even the complete and utter (but totally sanctioned) inferior rewrite of Ellison's "One life, furnished in ... " (which also draws heavily from a boyhood fascination with Michael Moorcock, as if this were something remarkable ... again, /yawn), to the rest of his silly little stories and books ... I can honestly say, with total conviction, that the guy has always been incredibly derivative and utterly underwhelming. He writes like a thirteen year old trying to emulate Garcia Marquez, or Kafka, or (laughably) even Michael Moorcock himself--and, like Orson Scott Card, everything has the same, predictability to it, the same special pleading for 'morality play' and the same tawdry "but I'm a writer too--look!" mastery of the obvious.
And yet 'nerd culture' continues to hang on his every word. Now people are throwing up their hands, cheering, when he stomps on a has-been comic book artist from the 90s like a mean-spirited little kid burning ants with a magnifying glass. Wow .... /golfclap.
Sure, McFarlane hasn't been perfect. But, the real question at this point should be: Who really cares about Gaiman, either? Both of them are only relevant to the fringes of pop culture at this point--which is why I find the publicity of this whole legal "thing" so absurd; why is it even in the public consciousness? How is it even news-worthy? Why can't they just settle this thing in court, quietly, like everyone else? Who the hell cares?!?
Oh, I know! It's because it's Neil Gaiman! And ... and ... and, well, we just have to write something about it!! It's Neil!!
Seriously, it's enough to make a porn star gag.
~
Funny, this. It's precisely because I have "read more" that I find Gaiman hopelessly derivative--or, even worse, simply boring.
From the mawkish, overreaching style of Sandman, to the meandering, I-have-no-idea-how-to-write-a-novel plot of Neverwhere, to the Hugo-bait of American Gods, to the post-J.K. Rowling I-can-do-children-books-too 'romp' of Coraline, to even the complete and utter (but totally sanctioned) inferior rewrite of Ellison's "One life, furnished in ... " (which also draws heavily from a boyhood fascination with Michael Moorcock, as if this were something remarkable ... again, /yawn), to the rest of his silly little stories and books ... I can honestly say, with total conviction, that the guy has always been incredibly derivative and utterly underwhelming. He writes like a thirteen year old trying to emulate Garcia Marquez, or Kafka, or (laughably) even Michael Moorcock himself--and, like Orson Scott Card, everything has the same, predictability to it, the same special pleading for 'morality play' and the same tawdry "but I'm a writer too--look!" mastery of the obvious.
And yet 'nerd culture' continues to hang on his every word. Now people are throwing up their hands, cheering, when he stomps on a has-been comic book artist from the 90s like a mean-spirited little kid burning ants with a magnifying glass. Wow .... /golfclap.
Sure, McFarlane hasn't been perfect. But, the real question at this point should be: Who really cares about Gaiman, either? Both of them are only relevant to the fringes of pop culture at this point--which is why I find the publicity of this whole legal "thing" so absurd; why is it even in the public consciousness? How is it even news-worthy? Why can't they just settle this thing in court, quietly, like everyone else? Who the hell cares?!?
Oh, I know! It's because it's Neil Gaiman! And ... and ... and, well, we just have to write something about it!! It's Neil!!
Seriously, it's enough to make a porn star gag.
Gaiman is absurdly derivative (and ridiculously overrated) ... something of an Orson Scott Card for the dark fantasy sub-genre. Why he (and others like him) garner such high praise from so-called 'important' critics is nothing less than 'predictable' ... considering it's one big 'old boys club' whose job seems to be to routinely blurb each others work and puff up each others 'writer's cred' for the general public.
It is funny, though, how these writers are always on a friggin' warpath to sue others for 'stealing their work'--when their own work is so hopelessly stolen that their arguments seem almost ludicrous. But, as long as you're "good friends" with the person you're stealing from, I guess it's OK ... as evidenced by Gaiman's own work, which reads like a thieves catalog of stolen goods from other, better writers ... who he just happens to have befriended before robbing them blind and somehow putting together a self-sustaining career.
And now he's beating on McFarlane, gnashing away at another exponent of the ailing comic book industry? Wow.
They guy must need to make a house payment or something. (Giving the money away to charity? Yeah, right. Someone doesn't hold onto something like this for that long and then give the money away.)
It is funny, though, how these writers are always on a friggin' warpath to sue others for 'stealing their work'--when their own work is so hopelessly stolen that their arguments seem almost ludicrous. But, as long as you're "good friends" with the person you're stealing from, I guess it's OK ... as evidenced by Gaiman's own work, which reads like a thieves catalog of stolen goods from other, better writers ... who he just happens to have befriended before robbing them blind and somehow putting together a self-sustaining career.
And now he's beating on McFarlane, gnashing away at another exponent of the ailing comic book industry? Wow.
They guy must need to make a house payment or something. (Giving the money away to charity? Yeah, right. Someone doesn't hold onto something like this for that long and then give the money away.)
Nolan is a fool to equate the "sharing of a universe" to "mixing two heroes so much that they lose their individuality". Batman and Superman can easily co-exist in the same universe--and can share screen time--if the script is written with the right perspective. Look at the cross-overs that have already been done: the focus was always on the DIFFERENCES between these two heroes (loner vs. everyman, madman vs. boyscout, etc.)--not some Super Special Team-Up 'thing'.
Seriously, people who back Nolan's lukewarm attempt at explaining why his own imagination is crap need a history lesson.
Seriously, people who back Nolan's lukewarm attempt at explaining why his own imagination is crap need a history lesson.
Sorry, Charlie--but I'll take Star Trek: Enterprise any day over the cheese-ball lameness of TNG or Voyager. Despite it's flaws, Enterprise was a better show (at least at it's end), and never resorted to having to whore itself out of the holodeck (or Q) for sustained doses of banality. Seriously, Picard in a Robin Hood outfit was just dumb. And, really, who the hell wanted to see another Caption Proton episode of Voyager?
At least the Vulcans depicted in ST: Enterprise were supposed to be conflicted ... instead of the the lukewarm stage props they always ended up being in TNG. Hell, even the original series did a better job at making Vulcans seem truly aloof and otherworldly and dedicated to their cultural traditions; in TNG Vulcan behavior always seemed so forced and artificial--like those lame episodes where Spock meets Data and we (the viewers) are supposed to see how mysterious and 'cool' the old pointy eared dude still is. /yawn Puh-lease.
I'll take a drug-deprived, half-crazed T'Pol any day--at least there's something else there besides the frippery.
At least the Vulcans depicted in ST: Enterprise were supposed to be conflicted ... instead of the the lukewarm stage props they always ended up being in TNG. Hell, even the original series did a better job at making Vulcans seem truly aloof and otherworldly and dedicated to their cultural traditions; in TNG Vulcan behavior always seemed so forced and artificial--like those lame episodes where Spock meets Data and we (the viewers) are supposed to see how mysterious and 'cool' the old pointy eared dude still is. /yawn Puh-lease.
I'll take a drug-deprived, half-crazed T'Pol any day--at least there's something else there besides the frippery.
Whedon? Really?
Color me underwhelmed. /yawn
What an overwhelming letdown. I'm sorry, but this guy just can't fill the suit adequately. He's a scrawny, 'weed in tights', at best. If the film-makers think this guy can pull of the commanding presence required to make Cap believable, they must be smoking something.
Johnny Storm? ... sure. Captain America? /lol ... don't make me friggin' laugh myself to death.
This guy is way too scrawny to play Cap ... which is the biggest problem I see with the casting (in general). Where do you find a 'built' and powerfully looking physical specimen who can also act? I mean, let's be serious here: Cap, as drawn by the best artists, is a strong-looking guy. Not a 'roid monster', but definitely at the peak of human physical perfection. Guys like Chris Evans are just too ... well, small. No way I would buy it ...
@Rtrain: It's not the actors that ruin The Mutan Chronicels--it's the idiotic, slipshod writing that takes over the second half of the movie. I've seen some stupid movies in my time, but this one always sits out in my memory, if only because the first half shows promise. You can actually see the movie skid off the rails and flop into crap the moment the doorway to hell (or whatever it is) is opened.
The actors were likely just responding to the abysmal second half of the narrative.
Looks like a Thermasilk commercial from a few years ago. /yawn #futurism
I think it's funny that people criticizing the supposed 'stereotyping' of women in this show are saying this guy has thin skin. What hyprocritical B.S..
Seriously, if you can't watch a show without it being scrubbed clean of every politically incorrect thing, then you're not watching anything but fiction that borders on propaganda. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and sometimes real life is all too stereotypical.
Why does there have to be a "strong" woman (or man, for that matter) in every show? Why can't we have a show that is a little closer to reality? A reality where most people exist in some realm of 'grey', where there are no absolutes, and "strong" or "weak" characters are rare?
You know ... kind of like reality. Seriously, all of this criticism of the female characters in this show just goes to show how politically charged and "I want it the way I want it" people have become. #stargateuniverse
Oh, look--Hollywood is remaking another movie. #judgedredd
