Monthly Archive for August, 2008

John Williams

John Williams is the Beatles of film composers. I don’t feel at all skittish about making that comparison. If you’ve been to the movies in the last thirty years, you know his music. In fact, I firmly believe that I could hum to you the first few notes of one of his themes and you could finish it for me. The music is that embedded into our culture.

Well, I saw the Beatles perform at the Hollywood Bowl last night. John Williams and the Los Angeles Philharmonic playing all the hits. Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters, Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., all the hits. I don’t mind telling you that it was a transcendent experience for a film nut like me. Even a moment of sheer geeky abandon — thousands of illuminated plastic lightsabers going up when the opening notes of the Star Wars theme rang out — had me shaking my head and laughing. I can’t imagine a better time.

I should mention too that this was my first trip to the Hollywood Bowl, and it deserves its status as a Los Angeles landmark. There we were tucked into a little hollow in the mountains with the night sky above, all 18, 000 of us in a surprsingly intimate setting. It’s truly a great place to see a show — especially a show involving a full orchestra.

A fine time was had by all.

The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company

The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company

This is, quite simply, an outstanding book.

As the title implies, The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company is one part “corporate biography” and one part business book. It succeeds remarkably well on both fronts thanks to the impeccable research and deft writing skills of its author David A. Price. “Touch” is a better book in nearly every regard than last year’s To Infinity and Beyond. The fact that it is smaller and not as profusely illustrated is the only way in which I would say that it is inferior — but then it is not the book’s mission to be either an art portfolio or a love letter. One of the ways Price’s book differs from its predecessor is in its depiction of Steve Jobs. Since “Infinity” was largely written in-house at Pixar, the problem of Jobs’ irascible nature is side-stepped. Not so in “Touch”. Throughout much of the book’s length, the Apple Chairman and owner of Pixar comes off as not at all nice. I found this refreshing in a way since it’s consistent with much of what I’ve heard about Jobs in the past — apparently Steve can be a bit of a handful when he wants to be. Even with its warts-and-all portrayal of Pixar’s history, “Touch” never comes off as being mean-spirited or agenda-laden. It is, by all appearances, a straightforward history of Pixar and was very enjoyable on that level.

If you’re a fan of Pixar Animation Studios and what they’ve accomplished over the last thriteen or so years, pick up “The Pixar Touch”. It’s really terrific.

The Force (almost) Unleashed

Is there some good Star Wars on the way?

The Clone Wars was an unmitigated disaster, but The Force Unleashed looks like it has the potential to be the best story set in that universe in quite some time — and it isn’t even a movie, it’s a video game.

“Unleashed” takes place between episodes three and four and tells the story of Darth Vader’s Secret Apprentice — a powerful force wielder Vader discovers as a young child, raises, trains, and sets on a trajectory to unseat Emperor Palpatine. The Apprentice — the character the player plays within the game — must at all times remain off of the Emperor’s radar. That means that he must kill Imperials and non-Imperials alike as he goes about the missions designed for him by Lord Vader. Since the game is set during the time when the Rebellion against the Empire was first gaining in strength, the Apprentice quickly learns that the universe may not be as morally black-and-white a place as his Master has led him to believe. It’s been strongly implied by Lucasarts that the main character in the game will be forced to make strong moral choices and that what he does has a significant impact on the events which follow (the events of episodes 4, 5 and 6, in other words).

I downloaded the demo for the game the other day and played through it a couple of times. Not surprisingly, you don’t get a strong sense of the story in that brief taste, but I did enjoy the action. Between the game play and the epic narrative that Lucasarts is promising, The Force Unleashed has the potential of wiping the bad taste of The Clone Wars out of my mouth once and for all.

I guess we’ll find out on September 16th.

The Clone Wars

Just how bad is The Clone Wars? Well, really, really bad. I don’t know that it’s quite so bad as the critics would have you believe though — 18% on Rotten Tomatoes seems a little extreme even for a stinker like this. I’d probably be willing to rate it somewhere in the forties, but that still ain’t good, obviously. The script is bad, the new characters are atrocious and the musical score really calls attention to its own unrelenting mediocrity. I wish I could give you a good reason as to why I went to see this movie when I knew going in that it wasn’t going to be good. Somewhere deep inside me, the kid that loves lightsabers and dogfights in space refuses to die — despite Lucas’ best efforts to smother him. “Clone Wars” proves yet again that the gap between George’s tastes and the tastes of his audience is growing wider year by year. There’s stuff in this movie that’s quite literally beyond belief. Was the world really waiting for a gay Hutt? I could be wrong, but I think the answer is “no”.

Booky Goodness

A few days ago I rejoined the Science Fiction Book Club. I say “rejoined” because I’ve been a member at least half a dozen times since 1977. That was the year I got my first real introduction to the genre with the double-whammy of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and Frank Herbert’s Dune. Of course, Star Wars came out in ‘77 too so I guess you could say that  was the year that cemented my love of the fantastic. Last week, I suddenly realized there were two books coming out soon in hardcover that I really wanted to read. Well, money’s a little tight right now so I said to myself ‘Self, why pay full price for those books when you can get them as part of your introductory package with the good ol’ SFBC?’. Since I find myself to be preternaturally insightful, I decided to take my own advice.

Anyway, both of those books (plus five others) are winging their way to me as we speak…

  • Terry Brooks’ The Gypsy Morph. This is part three in a three-parter tying our modern world to the far-future-but-still-high-fantasy-setting of “Shannara”. The Sword of Shannara was another book I read back in ‘77 or ‘78 and, although I realized even then it was fairly derivative of the esteemed Prof. Tolkien’s work, I still got quite a kick out it. Despite the familiar tropes and Brooks’ somewhat “blue collar” writing style, that first entry in the series is a rollicking adventure with a little dash here and there of Dumas to go along with your dwarves and elves. Anyway, I’m looking forward to seeing how Brooks wraps up his current opus.
  • Neal Stephenson’s Anathem. Back in the early 90s, I read (and loved) Mr. Stephenson’s other books Snow Crash and The Diamond Age. Since then, he’s gone in some directions I didn’t care to follow, but this new book sounds interesting. It’s about cloistered scientists living a monk-like existence while the world outside their monastery gluts itself on consumerism and fundamentalist religion. Those outside the abbey are also openly hostile to the Reason the scientists represent. It sounds to me like Neal’s got a thing or two to say about our modern America via this, um, fanciful tale.

The Gypsy Morph (The Genesis of Shannara, Book 3)

Anathem

pseudo-intellectual.com

A good friend of mine (Aram by name) recently lept into the blogging arena with both feet. His site’s only a few days old, but pseudo-intellectual.com’s already shaping up nicely. Aram is one of the better writers I know and he’s generally got some pretty sharp insights. Notice how I say “generally” ? A fair amount of the time, it’s impossible to apply either logic or even simple coherence to his insane ramblings. But, hell, that should be a draw, shouldn’t it?

Seriously though, drop on over; leave a comment or two. Tell ‘em Crababpple Cove sent ya.

Roger Ebert

I enjoy me some Roger Ebert. Always have. I grew up with the movie review program he co-hosted with the late, lamented Gene Siskell. Watching them argue — often heatedly — was a real highlight of my weekend. Other than the genuine entertainment value of seeing the two men bicker, something else really shined through: their love for and vast knowledge of the cinematic artform. They bickered because they cared. Not about each other, of course, but about movies. You know: the important things in life.

As I’m sure you know, Ebert’s been sick for quite a while now. Salivary cancer, if I’m not mistaken. That illness has sidelined him from his television show, but thankfully, it hasn’t stopped him from writing. Speaking of which, here’s something you may not be aware of: Roger Ebert is the only film critic ever to win the Pulitzer Prize. That’s right, the heavy-set, cranky man from the TV can write like a sumbitch. If you haven’t already, I’d encourage you to pick up any one of Roger’s numerous books of essays. They’re a good deal of fun to read,  but then it’s always nice to be in the hands of someone who knows their way around the written word. That whole making-sense-in-your-mother-tongue thing is a dying art, isn’t it?  Anyway, when I was a kid, someone gave me a copy of Ebert’s book A Kiss is Still a Kiss. This isn’t a book of essays but a collection of interviews with Hollywood giants like Groucho Marx, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. Even in the Q & A format, I was impressed with Ebert’s light touch and articulateness. The book is pure gold. A fine read from start to finish and an important chunk of movie history.

So, what’s brought on this sudden bought of Ebert love? I was just tooling through the guy’s new blog and there’s some great stuff to be had there. His essays on the evils of 3D cinema and the overuse of CGI in modern movies were particular stand-outs.

Let’s bring this man-crush love-in to a close with a couple of quotes from the blog:

I’m suggesting that we need to rein in promiscuous CGI. We need more attention to effect, less trust in effects. We don’t need to hammer the audience with visuals that are too quick and facile to care about. Have a look at the 1940 “Thief of Bagdad.” Then go back and see the 1924 film, which Fairbanks Junior told me was his father’s best and favorite. Do you feel anything lacking in the special effects? I never do. The filmmakers are working with their hands and their imaginations, not with their computers.

Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in “Raiders of the Lost Ark?” Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.

Buy these books. They’re terrific. Seriously.

The Great Movies

The Great Movies II

Congrats, Dark Knight (Well, Sort of…)

By the time you read this, The Dark Knight will have passed Star Wars as the number two highest grossing film of all time — an amazing achievement by any reckoning. I always find this top grossers chart to be a little misleading, however, since it’s not adjusted for inflation. When you make that little alteration, “Dark Knight” isn’t even in the top ten. Or the top twenty-five. Hell, it’s barely in the top fifty (right now, it’s sitting at the considerably-lower-than-second-but-still-respectable #43).

I don’t know about you, but I find the list I’m about to pass along to you to be absolutely fascinating. These are the top twenty-five movies of all time with grosses adjusted for 2008 dollars. Bear in mind that several of these movies achieved their numbers via multiple releases (this certainly applies to the Disney flicks in particular). The first number you see is the movie’s take in modern coinage. The second number is the unadjusted figure…

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,430,476,000 $198,676,459 1939

2 Star Wars Fox $1,261,086,700 $460,998,007 1977

3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,008,300,900 $158,671,368 1965

4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,004,328,700 $435,110,554 1982

5 The Ten Commandments Par. $927,480,000 $65,500,000 1956

6 Titanic Par. $908,688,900 $600,788,188 1997

7 Jaws Uni. $906,798,000 $260,000,000 1975

8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $878,879,000 $111,721,910 1965

9 The Exorcist WB $782,826,200 $232,671,011 1973

10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $771,720,000 $184,925,486 1937

11 101 Dalmatians Dis. $707,414,100 $144,880,014 1961

12 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $695,118,900 $290,475,067 1980

13 Ben-Hur MGM $693,840,000 $74,000,000 1959

14 Return of the Jedi Fox $665,940,600 $309,306,177 1983

15 The Sting Uni. $631,131,400 $156,000,000 1973

16 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. $624,044,300 $242,374,454 1981

17 Jurassic Park Uni. $610,337,400 $357,067,947 1993

18 The Graduate AVCO $605,845,500 $104,901,839 1967

19 Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace Fox $600,566,700 $431,088,301 1999

20 Fantasia Dis. $587,947,800 $76,408,097 1941

21 The Godfather Par. $558,771,800 $134,966,411 1972

22 Forrest Gump Par. $556,102,900 $329,694,499 1994

23 Mary Poppins Dis. $553,527,300 $102,272,727 1964

24 The Lion King BV $546,801,100 $328,541,776 1994

25 Grease Par. $544,606,000 $188,389,888 1978

[Source: boxofficemojo.com.]

How crazy is it that, with only one exception, all of those films are at least ten years old (with most being considerably older)? We have yet to produce a legitimate adjusted-for-inflation blockbuster in the twenty-first century, people. So, don’t get too giddy, all you “Dark Knight” fans.

Update 08.19.08:

It was just pointed out to me that this post wasn’t working in Internet Explorer. I believe I’ve fixed this problem, but I do think all of you IE users should follow this link. :)

Hellboy (Volumes 1 through 8)

Hellboy, Vol. 1: Seed of Destruction

Rereading Watchmen reawakened my love of comics. The truth is, I would love to always have a stack of good comics by my bedside, but I’m particular and comics as a medium never really seems to live up to its full potential. There’re some positively phenomenal artists out there, but the writing is where things often fall short for me. At their best (as in Watchmen, for instance) comics can stand toe-to-toe with any other form of popular art. That being said, either I don’t get out enough or there are just too many comics that are problematic in the way that they meld their visuals and their narratives.

Which brings me to Hellboy. Talk about problematic. I know I’ve sung the comics’ praises in the past, but I just took a spin through all eight of the trade paperbacks currently available and the experience left me scratching my head. I acquired two of those books recently and it really is in the latter volumes than things start to break down. When I closed volume eight I had to give some real thought to what I’d just read. The lore has become so labyrinthine that I was hard-pressed to suss out the continuity. And the problems don’t just lie with the overarching narrative. There were times when I wasn’t sure what was going on from panel-to-panel because the drawings were too sketchy or the “shot flow” was ill-conceived. All in all, this was a pretty disappointing return trip to the world of Hellboy. Although I still admire creator Mike Mignola’s obvious love for folklore and mythology, I think that his passion is obscuring his judgment. By the end of volume eight, the folkloric references were flying fast and furious and we were hip-deep in special guest stars from world mythology. The net result is positively arcane and lacking in logic.

I’ll still pick up new volumes as they appear, but Hellboy’s on probation with yours truly. I want to start seeing some cohesion and I want to start seeing it soon.

Character Animation Crash Course

Character Animation Crash Course!

Just to give you laypeople a little background, the new book Character Animation Crash Course was written by Eric Goldberg, a giant in the field of character animation. He’s probably best known for his inspired and madcap animation of the genie in Aladdin. Given his esteemed reputation, I was looking forward to the book quite a lot and I was ultimately disappointed by it. Well, to be more precise, I was both disappointed by it and not. Let me explain. There’s nothing wrong with the book as it stands — it has some genuinely terrific information in it — but like nearly every other book on animation to date, it’s not so much a systematic how-to as it is a collection of formulae. I own quite a number of books on the subject and I’ve often thought that I could use an index of all of them so that I knew which “magic recipe” was in which book. As it is, I often forget that I have perfectly good information on a particular aspect of the craft just because that information is spread out across numerous sources. It’s occurred to me on several occasions that we as animators don’t really have a “Unified Field Theory” of animation. The closest we come is the great Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. That book, as terrific as it is, is just as much about the Disney Studio’s proprietary methods and history as it is about the craft of animation. I’ve wondered from time to time how it is animation is taught in schools. Sadly, my own animation education was scattershot and lacked a cohesive curriculum. How do they teach this stuff in some of the finer schools? What’s the A to Z? Certainly, it can’t involve bopping from old school formula to old school formula. Teaching directly from the books which are currently available would result in an education which I feel would be, well, scattershot.

Anyway, pardon my digressive musings. Perhaps it was unfair of me to graft my expectations and my wants onto Goldberg’s perfectly fine book. It’s just that we’re still lacking that Unified Field Theory.

Siggraph 2008

I spent the better part of the day today at Siggraph (which stands for “Special Interest Group on Graphics”) — basically we’re talking a giant trade show for people into computer graphics and animation. So what did I learn? I learned that I don’t much care for trade shows. Or, rather, I was reminded of that fact. Siggraph and E3 (the Electronic Entertainment Expo — the equivalent trade show for video games) are very similar in the regard that they’re big and loud and I always feel like I’m missing something even though I’m probably not. I remember attending Siggraph in years past and seeing footage from Disney and Pixar films which were years down the road. But not this year. No, this year, the show felt even more like technobabble wrapped in an amalgamated sales pitch — with no glimpses behind the curtain whatsoever. Computer graphics software changes rapidly and it’s all about who has the latest bells and whistles. Even I don’t understand all the jargon that was thrown at me and I’ve been in the trade on and off for more than ten years. Maybe I’m just getting older, but I’m finding I care less and less about the tools and more about getting better at the actual work. If someone can show me a tool which will allow me to do better work then I want to see it, but I don’t want to muddle through a sea of bright lights and geeky bodies to get there.

Down Memory Lane with the Masters of Hell

Diablo Battle Chest

Blizzard Entertainment finally announced Diablo 3 a few weeks ago, some eight years after the last installment. For all of my readers who are not gamers, the Diablo series is one of the high water marks in the field. Not only were the games critical and commercial successes, they continue to sell well even today — which is unheard of in the realm of electronic entertainment. Particularly on the PC platform, technology changes quickly and the mega-hits of days past are the long-since forgotten titles of today.

When Diablo 2 came out in 2000, I was in a transitional phase, moving from Atlanta to Los Angeles. Via the game (and the burgeoning internet) I stayed in touch with a few of my buddies in semi-regular multi-player action. That was a lot of fun and so was the single player storyline — a sprawling epic wherein the main character (you) travels across the world destroying demons before they can bring about Hell on Earth. But these things run their course — my buddies and I stopped playing online and I became too distracted with other things to finish the solo campaign. Nevertheless, I have fond memories of the experience. So much so that I was excited to hear there’d be a new installment in the series. Well, that excitement led to nostalgia and that nostalgia led to curiosity. I pulled Diablo 2 down off of the shelf and installed it. Would it hold up after eight years of sitting in a box collecting dust? I knew that a die hard contingent of players still played the game and you can still walk into any Target and buy it. So I decided to satiate my desire for Diablo 3 with a little Diablo 2 and I’m really glad I did. The game’s often referred to as a classic and with good reason. The play mechanic is insanely simple (basically you point and click your way to hero-hood), but also insanely addictive. Over the course of two or three weeks of here-and-there play time, I did what I could not do in 2000 — I completed not only Diablo 2 but its expansion pack “Lord of Destruction” — and it was a total blast.

I think in a naive way I was expecting to rip through the older game and then I’d segue right into part three. But Blizzard’s long-standing response to “when’s it coming out?” has always been “when it’s finished”. And they mean it. They’ve never released an unpolished game and they’ve reaped untold rewards because of this. They truly are the “Tiffany’s” of PC gaming. God, wouldn’t it be amazing if more entertainment companies took this approach? Can you imagine what movies would be like if they were not held to immovable release dates and were only set free into the world when they had been as carefully crafted as Blizzard’s games? There just might be fewer Mummy 3s and considerably more Dark Knights. Nah, who’m I kidding? Most movies would still suck. All the time in the world isn’t going to turn Rob Cohen into Christopher Nolan.

Anyway, Blizzard, how about hurrying up with that Diablo 3?

The Darjeeling Limited

The Darjeeling Limited

I guess the best way to describe The Darjeeling Limited would be “spare”. Not much happens, there isn’t a lot of dialogue and the movie floats along with its own weird rhythm. I would almost call it a trifle if something really tragic didn’t happen right at the mid-point. Despite that shocking and sad moment, “Limited” doesn’t have quite the emotional resonance of some of Wes Anderson’s other films (I’m thinking of The Royal Tenebaums in particular), but I did like it. This story of three incredibly quirky brothers trying to reconnect during a trip across India is definitely “of a piece” with Anderson’s other work. No one else has the director’s flair for depicting broken people finding their way. Yeah, it’s not as good as Rushmore or “Tenenbaums”, but is decidedly better than The Life Aquatic. In fact, I found it to be a return to form in a lot of ways. The movie’s worth your time, but I’d recommend you know and like Wes Anderson’s earlier work so you at least know what you’re getting yourself into.

Crabapple Cove @ Four

I noticed this morning that today marks the fourth anniversary of ye olde Crabapple Cove dot com. That’s four years of virtually uninterrupted inanity and narcissism. God, I rock!

To celebrate this esteemed occasion, I’ve updated my visual theme. Not sure if I love it yet, but it is yet another of the many trailblazing innovations I’ve introduced here over the last four years.

Did I mention that I rock?

Update 08.10.08:

The people have spoken (well, a person has spoken anyway). As you can see from the comments to this post, my change of visual theme wasn’t accepted with the universal acclaim I was hoping for. There was one thing in particular I agreed with — the comments need to be at the top of the post as opposed to the bottom. I had some trepidation about this when I first made the change and it turns out I should have followed my instincts.

Unfortunately, my search for a new theme this morning wasn’t as painless as I had hoped. Of course there’s a subjective element and a lot depends on the sort of functionality you’re looking for (like comments at the top), but I really didn’t care for a lot of what I browsed through. Couple that with the fact that the last theme I used consistently (”K2″ it was called) seems to be getting progressively more broken with each new iteration. So, here we are two days later with a shiny new theme. There’re still some tweaks to be made I’m sure (with the colors, the header, etc.), but this one should do me for a while I think.

Update 08.11.08:

Here now is my third visual theme in as many days. Why am being such a picky little bitch, you may be asking. Well, I noticed something about yesterday’s theme: it didn’t include the year in the post information — it just had the month and the day. Given that I have something like four years of content here, I found that little oversight… irksome. So, here ya go… A new theme with comments at the top and the year included in the date.

If anybody finds anything wrong with this new template, do me a favor and keep it to yourself.

08.16.08:

Okay, so I’m like the chick that can’t decide where she wants the guys to put the couch. I’ve made yet another theme switch — right back to where I started. I’m back to using “K2″. So, what prompted the change this time? Something very simple. My last theme didn’t include an “edit” button for each post even when I was logged in. This may sound like a small thing, but I got tired of having to sign in every time I wanted to make even a small alteration. This is something which was, of course, invisible to those of you who just read the blog, but it was annoying as hell to me, the author of the blog. So, yeah, old K2 has its problems, but it still has the most bang for the buck.

And that’s it for the changes for a while.

I think.

Watchmen

Watchmen

No big mystery here: I saw the trailer for Zack Snyder’s Watchmen feature film before The Dark Knight and decided then and there I needed to revisit the graphic novel. Originally serialized in twelve issues back in 1986 and collected in book form in 1987, Watchmen is writer Alan Moore’s masterwork. The book is subtle and nuanced and, a little over twenty years later, it’s still the closest comics have come to conventional literature. If you’re a comics fan and you’ve never read this book, shame on you — do it now. If you don’t know from comics at all, go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Watchmen. It will cause you to look at comics in a whole new light. The plot is extremely satisfying and fits together like an extremely elaborate jigsaw puzzle. To get any more specific than that would be doing those of you who haven’t read it a disservice. If you do find yourself intrigued and you buy the book, do yourself a favor and don’t flip through it. Read it from beginning to end without jumping ahead and let the full impact of Moore’s carefully crafted ending wash over you. It really doesn’t get any better than this, people.

Which leads me to raise a small concern. Alan Moore is a well-documented eccentric with a dim view of his works being adapted for the cinema. In fact, he’s so adamantly opposed to the idea that he forgoes any monies earned, bequeathing his share to the respective artists. He reportedly did this on both the adaptation for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which, in my opinion, was butchered in the translation) and for V for Vendetta. He’s said publicly (and I’m paraphrasing, of course) that adapting Watchmen into a movie is a fool’s errand — that it is uniquely of its medium and won’t properly translate. After revisiting the work as I just did, I’m tempted to say that he might be right. Watchmen is a peculiar little creation, cleverly designed to be what it is. I’m afraid that any attempts to transmute it into something else may result in something which is neither fish nor fowl. But I’m getting ahead of myself… No one wants Zack Snyder to succeed in his adaptation as much as me. I wish him all the luck in the world. He’s going to need it.