The Tour de France would have been much more interesting if Cadel Evans had marked Carlos Sastre up the Alpe d'Huez.
He didn't, and I believe it cost him the Tour. That's a shame because I rooted for Evans. Sastre is a great rider though. He had a lot of high finishes in previous Tours that prepared him for his moment in the sun. His win is certainly deserved. He ran up the race's hardest climb the fastest, taking the stage win and the maillot jaune. What else can be asked of him?
Could the world see a repeat from Sastre? Barring wreck or injury, Sastre seems to have the fitness to pull it off. He raced in all three Grand Tour events this year, proving he has the legs to go as long as any other rider.
Monday, July 28, 2008
A Good 20 Minutes
For me, a good 20 minutes is sitting in a Starbucks with an iPhone. I have Abba in my ear and I'm using the Wi-Fi to look at the latest Nikes on Hypebeast.com. My drink? It's an iced white mocha. Perfect for these hot summer months!
-------------------
Now about Abba ...
Yes, I listen to Abba. That ain't right. Whatever. It's better than Dashboard Confessional or Clay Aiken. I could have said a Mac Davis record. The point is, there is worse than Abba. Much worse than Abba. There ain't much that's better.
The Beatles' song catalog is stronger than Abba's, but only because it's larger and more varied. Madonna's song catalog is stronger, but only because it's larger and more varied. It's hard to top Abba. The group recorded a lot of brilliant songs.
-------------------
Now about Abba ...
Yes, I listen to Abba. That ain't right. Whatever. It's better than Dashboard Confessional or Clay Aiken. I could have said a Mac Davis record. The point is, there is worse than Abba. Much worse than Abba. There ain't much that's better.
The Beatles' song catalog is stronger than Abba's, but only because it's larger and more varied. Madonna's song catalog is stronger, but only because it's larger and more varied. It's hard to top Abba. The group recorded a lot of brilliant songs.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
That Ain't Right (And So What?)
Nike has stirred up another controversy with its advertising. Critics call the sneaker giant's ad campaign for its Hyperdunk basketball shoe homophobic.
Six print ads show six slightly different images of basketball players getting dunked on. The version creating the firestorm shows a hapless defender getting his face caught in his opponent's crotch mid-dunk. The phrase "That ain't right" is superimposed over the image.
The controversial ad campaign comes from the legendary ad firm Wieden+Kennedy. W+F has worked with Nike for years. The firm is responsible for some of Nike's most famous ads across several mediums besides print.
The phrases for the other five ads are as follows:
So what's the editorial opinion of this publication? Well, on one level, the ads are extremely obnoxious. Are they homophobic? Not necessarily. Even if they were, they clearly weren't created to appeal to homosexuals. The ads were created to appeal to guys with game who enjoy dominating the weak on the basketball court. That's the demo Nike went for. How many homosexuals plan to buy Hyperdunks? The answer is probably zero. It's not like Nike is marketing flowers and get-well cards.
You want a Hallmark moment? Buy a Hallmark card.
You want to dunk on people? Buy some Hyperdunks!
And let me take this moment to explain that dunking on people is a pretty nasty business anyway. What's to expect here? Ads for a shoe dubbed the Hyperdunk are probably going to be edgy. They might rub some folks the wrong way. I imagine getting dunked on might rub me the wrong way. I don't know for sure because no one's ever managed such a feat, but I imagine it would rub me the wrong way. It takes some real aggression to pull it off right, I assume. Anger probably helps, too. So now you know!
"That ain't right" is pretty amusing on some levels. I suppose the ad could be interpreted as homophobic, but it can be interpreted in another light, too. Did Nike do the right thing in the long run by pulling the ad? Probably.
Oh well. It's back to the drawing board for Nike. I'm afraid if the shoe giant softens its edge too much, we'll be left with the same kind of nebulous, nondescript products that New Balance puts out. People complain about Abba being offensive for being so non-offensive, yet nobody complains about New Balance, Brooks, Saucony and the like for committing the same "sin." This amazes me.
Six print ads show six slightly different images of basketball players getting dunked on. The version creating the firestorm shows a hapless defender getting his face caught in his opponent's crotch mid-dunk. The phrase "That ain't right" is superimposed over the image.
The controversial ad campaign comes from the legendary ad firm Wieden+Kennedy. W+F has worked with Nike for years. The firm is responsible for some of Nike's most famous ads across several mediums besides print.
The phrases for the other five ads are as follows:
"Say hello."
"Isn't that cute."
"Now you know."
"Punks jump up."
"Fly."
So what's the editorial opinion of this publication? Well, on one level, the ads are extremely obnoxious. Are they homophobic? Not necessarily. Even if they were, they clearly weren't created to appeal to homosexuals. The ads were created to appeal to guys with game who enjoy dominating the weak on the basketball court. That's the demo Nike went for. How many homosexuals plan to buy Hyperdunks? The answer is probably zero. It's not like Nike is marketing flowers and get-well cards.
You want a Hallmark moment? Buy a Hallmark card.
You want to dunk on people? Buy some Hyperdunks!
And let me take this moment to explain that dunking on people is a pretty nasty business anyway. What's to expect here? Ads for a shoe dubbed the Hyperdunk are probably going to be edgy. They might rub some folks the wrong way. I imagine getting dunked on might rub me the wrong way. I don't know for sure because no one's ever managed such a feat, but I imagine it would rub me the wrong way. It takes some real aggression to pull it off right, I assume. Anger probably helps, too. So now you know!
"That ain't right" is pretty amusing on some levels. I suppose the ad could be interpreted as homophobic, but it can be interpreted in another light, too. Did Nike do the right thing in the long run by pulling the ad? Probably.
Oh well. It's back to the drawing board for Nike. I'm afraid if the shoe giant softens its edge too much, we'll be left with the same kind of nebulous, nondescript products that New Balance puts out. People complain about Abba being offensive for being so non-offensive, yet nobody complains about New Balance, Brooks, Saucony and the like for committing the same "sin." This amazes me.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
"The Dark Knight" Reviewed
In some ways, The Dark Knight is a good movie and a bad movie. And to be clear, it's not a good bad movie. It's pretty good. I'm just saying flaws exist.
As far as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, um, I didn't think it was necessarily darker than Jack Nicholson's rendition. After all, Nicholson did play the Joker as a murderous psychopath. That's the character. Can things get any darker than murderous psychopath? I don't think they can.
Ledger simply supplied what his screenplay called for, which was more violence than what the 1989 screenplay called for. The Dark Knight is definitely more violent, which allowed audiences to see more aggression and depravity out of the Joker. It's hard to imagine Jack Nicholson's Joker failing to match Ledger's Joker in terms of violent, sadistic behavior. It was all there in 1989. It was there. It was alluded to. We just didn't see it on the screen.
No, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker wasn't darker. Audiences just happened to see the darker behavior due to the rawer nature of The Dark Knight screenplay. I believe the public is confusing "darker" with "more violent." We saw a lot more violence and sadism from Ledger's Joker than from Nicholson's. Moreoever, Ledger owes a lot to the way The Dark Knight was shot and edited. His voice was clearly enhanced in some scenes by way of some very clever post-production trickery. Cameramen shook the lens once, maybe twice or thrice or more, to lend dramatic flair to Ledger's performance. They darkened the lighting on him at key moments to make him appear more sinister and more ... well ... darker. Ledger owes a lot to good cinematography.
Despite these tricks however, I do find Ledger's performance absolutely delightful in the overall scheme of things. Was he better than Nicholson? No. He was different. Nicholson's Joker, Ledger's Joker, they're apples and oranges to me. Neither one is better than the other. Both have their merits. Nicholson had more memorable lines to say. Ledger had more opportunities to act out and kill.
As far as Ledger's costume goes, I only wish that his hair were greener because in this day and age you need to distinguish yourself. That's harder to do now with all of the new media around us, vying for our attention. Without greener hair, Ledger reminded this writer of Robert Smith from The Cure. Granted, Smith keeps his hair jet black, but if Ledger's hair were greener, he would have appeared more distinctive and more recognizable as the one and only Joker. When reinterpreting pop culture icons, I want to see imagery that appears unmistakable.
I understand that colored hair isn't exactly in right now, and modern movies need to look modern, but in the case of the Joker, his hair really needs to be straight up green as opposed to sort of green and oily.
As far as the Batman goes, why the need to talk like a crank caller before the advent of caller ID? I understand that if Batman existed in real life that everyone would recognize Batman's normal voice and link him to Bruce Wayne, so he would need to disguise his voice, but this is a movie. You can take artistic license and say no one could make the comparison. I really don't want to hear Christian Bale contorting his voice. It's distracting, and it doesn't lend to elegant movie making. Other silver screen Batmen have contorted their voices, too. I'm tired of it now. Contorted Voice Batman is so passe. It's like one of those bad Kenner action figures. Slalom Racer Batman has to be one of the worst!
Back on point now. I say do things the way Adam West did it. When portraying Batman on camera, don't do anything with your voice. Just talk like a normal person. Who cares if someone in real life would notice and draw a bead to the alter ego? We're not talking about real life. We're talking about the DC Universe. It's make believe.
Another problem with The Dark Knight involves the editing. Everyone in Hollywood is inspired by the The Bourne Ultimatum, as they should be. But let's leave that type of shooting and editing to Paul Greengrass, who directed Ultimatum, and Christopher Rouse, who edited. They're the only guys who can execute that look properly. And they understand that that kind of production works best without a lot of dialogue. The Dark Knight's dialogue was too complex for the slick, quick Bourne-like editing.
I found the mid-conversation shot-jumping from speaker to speaker confusing and disjointed. The changes in perspective occurred too quickly. There was also a lot of movement on two-shots. This distracted me. The movement was paced way too fast. Here the characters are standing atop a building, and the skyline is just zooming past, and I'm trying to listen to their very important conversation, but they skyline won't slow down! OMG! Stop! I don't need a 360-degree perspective of a two-way conversation. Sets and camera pans shouldn't grab my attention when focus belongs to dialogue.
I also didn't like the mobsters' demeanor toward the Joker. They called him names like "freak." They showed little respect for him. They showed contempt as opposed to respect. They didn't fear him as they should have. I found this ridiculous.
I want to see a Joker movie where every criminal in Gotham knows of and fears the Joker. I don't care for all of this proving oneself junk. Let's cut to the chase. Give me an established Joker, widely regarded as the most dangerous man in the city. When the Joker talks, the criminals should listen.
The portrayal of the Joker as an unproven unknown was a disappointment. I don't care to see something like that again ever.
Furthermore, the Joker traditionally doesn't use guns. The character's use of machine guns and RPGs was over the top. It made for great action scenes in a movie, but in the end, the gunplay was a factual inaccuracy. The Dark Knight fails to depict the real Joker.
I felt The Dark Knight was too violent. I left the theater feeling stressed and edgy rather than relaxed. It went on way too long. The motivations of some of the characters didn't make sense to me. The story's outlook was dreary and downcast. Not one upbeat thought prevailed. I found this unnecessary.
The project lacks a legitimate Batcave and a legitimate Batmobile. That tank is no Batmobile. What it is is a factually inaccurate anomaly. There was no Robin. There was no Batgirl, no Batwoman.
On the upside though, all of the performances were solid. Maggie Gyllenhall did a solid job replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. I don't watch a ton of movies anymore, so I had not seen her perform until now. Eric Roberts, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Aaron Eckhart were all excellent as well. Christian Bale was good in spite of the voice thing. I'll always give West the nod as "Best Batman Ever" with Michael Keaton a close second, but I think Bale has carved out his own niche as a very good Batman in his own right.
As far as the Oscar hype for Ledger, I believe he deserves the award because his portrayal created so much buzz. The buzz would have been there even if he hadn't died of an accidental prescription drug overdose. His performance is likely the most memorable of the year. He probably deserves the trophy. Plus, he was surprisingly funny. Nobody had commented about how funny he was. I had to discover this for myself.
As far as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, um, I didn't think it was necessarily darker than Jack Nicholson's rendition. After all, Nicholson did play the Joker as a murderous psychopath. That's the character. Can things get any darker than murderous psychopath? I don't think they can.
Ledger simply supplied what his screenplay called for, which was more violence than what the 1989 screenplay called for. The Dark Knight is definitely more violent, which allowed audiences to see more aggression and depravity out of the Joker. It's hard to imagine Jack Nicholson's Joker failing to match Ledger's Joker in terms of violent, sadistic behavior. It was all there in 1989. It was there. It was alluded to. We just didn't see it on the screen.
No, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker wasn't darker. Audiences just happened to see the darker behavior due to the rawer nature of The Dark Knight screenplay. I believe the public is confusing "darker" with "more violent." We saw a lot more violence and sadism from Ledger's Joker than from Nicholson's. Moreoever, Ledger owes a lot to the way The Dark Knight was shot and edited. His voice was clearly enhanced in some scenes by way of some very clever post-production trickery. Cameramen shook the lens once, maybe twice or thrice or more, to lend dramatic flair to Ledger's performance. They darkened the lighting on him at key moments to make him appear more sinister and more ... well ... darker. Ledger owes a lot to good cinematography.
Despite these tricks however, I do find Ledger's performance absolutely delightful in the overall scheme of things. Was he better than Nicholson? No. He was different. Nicholson's Joker, Ledger's Joker, they're apples and oranges to me. Neither one is better than the other. Both have their merits. Nicholson had more memorable lines to say. Ledger had more opportunities to act out and kill.
As far as Ledger's costume goes, I only wish that his hair were greener because in this day and age you need to distinguish yourself. That's harder to do now with all of the new media around us, vying for our attention. Without greener hair, Ledger reminded this writer of Robert Smith from The Cure. Granted, Smith keeps his hair jet black, but if Ledger's hair were greener, he would have appeared more distinctive and more recognizable as the one and only Joker. When reinterpreting pop culture icons, I want to see imagery that appears unmistakable.
I understand that colored hair isn't exactly in right now, and modern movies need to look modern, but in the case of the Joker, his hair really needs to be straight up green as opposed to sort of green and oily.
As far as the Batman goes, why the need to talk like a crank caller before the advent of caller ID? I understand that if Batman existed in real life that everyone would recognize Batman's normal voice and link him to Bruce Wayne, so he would need to disguise his voice, but this is a movie. You can take artistic license and say no one could make the comparison. I really don't want to hear Christian Bale contorting his voice. It's distracting, and it doesn't lend to elegant movie making. Other silver screen Batmen have contorted their voices, too. I'm tired of it now. Contorted Voice Batman is so passe. It's like one of those bad Kenner action figures. Slalom Racer Batman has to be one of the worst!
Back on point now. I say do things the way Adam West did it. When portraying Batman on camera, don't do anything with your voice. Just talk like a normal person. Who cares if someone in real life would notice and draw a bead to the alter ego? We're not talking about real life. We're talking about the DC Universe. It's make believe.
Another problem with The Dark Knight involves the editing. Everyone in Hollywood is inspired by the The Bourne Ultimatum, as they should be. But let's leave that type of shooting and editing to Paul Greengrass, who directed Ultimatum, and Christopher Rouse, who edited. They're the only guys who can execute that look properly. And they understand that that kind of production works best without a lot of dialogue. The Dark Knight's dialogue was too complex for the slick, quick Bourne-like editing.
I found the mid-conversation shot-jumping from speaker to speaker confusing and disjointed. The changes in perspective occurred too quickly. There was also a lot of movement on two-shots. This distracted me. The movement was paced way too fast. Here the characters are standing atop a building, and the skyline is just zooming past, and I'm trying to listen to their very important conversation, but they skyline won't slow down! OMG! Stop! I don't need a 360-degree perspective of a two-way conversation. Sets and camera pans shouldn't grab my attention when focus belongs to dialogue.
I also didn't like the mobsters' demeanor toward the Joker. They called him names like "freak." They showed little respect for him. They showed contempt as opposed to respect. They didn't fear him as they should have. I found this ridiculous.
I want to see a Joker movie where every criminal in Gotham knows of and fears the Joker. I don't care for all of this proving oneself junk. Let's cut to the chase. Give me an established Joker, widely regarded as the most dangerous man in the city. When the Joker talks, the criminals should listen.
The portrayal of the Joker as an unproven unknown was a disappointment. I don't care to see something like that again ever.
Furthermore, the Joker traditionally doesn't use guns. The character's use of machine guns and RPGs was over the top. It made for great action scenes in a movie, but in the end, the gunplay was a factual inaccuracy. The Dark Knight fails to depict the real Joker.
I felt The Dark Knight was too violent. I left the theater feeling stressed and edgy rather than relaxed. It went on way too long. The motivations of some of the characters didn't make sense to me. The story's outlook was dreary and downcast. Not one upbeat thought prevailed. I found this unnecessary.
The project lacks a legitimate Batcave and a legitimate Batmobile. That tank is no Batmobile. What it is is a factually inaccurate anomaly. There was no Robin. There was no Batgirl, no Batwoman.
On the upside though, all of the performances were solid. Maggie Gyllenhall did a solid job replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. I don't watch a ton of movies anymore, so I had not seen her perform until now. Eric Roberts, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Aaron Eckhart were all excellent as well. Christian Bale was good in spite of the voice thing. I'll always give West the nod as "Best Batman Ever" with Michael Keaton a close second, but I think Bale has carved out his own niche as a very good Batman in his own right.
As far as the Oscar hype for Ledger, I believe he deserves the award because his portrayal created so much buzz. The buzz would have been there even if he hadn't died of an accidental prescription drug overdose. His performance is likely the most memorable of the year. He probably deserves the trophy. Plus, he was surprisingly funny. Nobody had commented about how funny he was. I had to discover this for myself.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Newest Star of the Tour de France
Can anyone outsprint Mark Cavendish?
Cavendish, right now, is easily the fastest bicycle sprinter in the world. He just won Stage 13 of the TdF, giving him four stage wins overall.
What does this mean for Robbie McEwen? Can he return to his old form?
The world can only hope. A faster McEwen holds potential to be the most riveting sprinter to watch. Right now though, the sprint finishes of France belong to Cavendish.
Cavendish, right now, is easily the fastest bicycle sprinter in the world. He just won Stage 13 of the TdF, giving him four stage wins overall.
What does this mean for Robbie McEwen? Can he return to his old form?
The world can only hope. A faster McEwen holds potential to be the most riveting sprinter to watch. Right now though, the sprint finishes of France belong to Cavendish.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Cause for Delay
Publisher Comments on Distractions, Elements From One Fulfilling Summer
Wow. When I quit something, I quit. I stopped blogging because it was really dominating my time. I got annoyed with myself and decided a change was needed. I took The Blogadier General down for a while. Breaks are healthy, I figure. I've enjoyed one healthy break. That break will continue for now. Alas, fifty-post months might not happen for the rest of the year, if ever.
That is a shame, because I like to look back on things I have accomplished. Blogs are great because they record all of one's writing on one site. Writers can look back and see just how much production they injected into the blogosphere, even if they didn't get paid for it!
Since I quit blogging daily, I've focused on running, taking on my first 5K on the advice of a co-worker. I didn't expect much, but I am happy to report that I finished Little Rock's Fourth of July Firecracker Fast 5K in 23:12:55. I did not expect to run that fast! I run nine minute miles on a treadmill at my gym where the weather is air-conditioned and the terrain is smooth rubber without any hills.
My goal for the Firecracker was to run harder than normal from front to back. That's exactly what I did, and I never expected to finish so quickly. My body felt sore for three days, but I got over it.
Now I have to refocus on my writing. Running has distracted me from my real business. I'm doing a novel set in the television industry, and I hope to have a mistake-free manuscript by the end of the year. If I write 2,000 words a day for 50 days (yeah, right) I can have 100,000 words. That's plenty long enough to publish as a novel.
However, writing isn't so easy without direction. Like all writers, I have experienced issues with plot, character development and what not. Such issues are pretty serious distractions. I have had to stop and map out the rest of my story, and I still haven't figured out how to arrive at an ending. I have a lot of work to do, and that is a massive understatement!
So far though, the first 20,000 words look solid. They will need rewrites, but I am optimistic that the changes will stay minimal.
Viva le Tour!
I am also enjoying the Tour de France this summer. I can't wait for the mountains. Bring on the Pyrenees and the Alps! I am ready for the bedlam, the unpredictability. I want to know which of the top GC riders fall off pace and which ones do not.
On Film
As for movies, I haven't seen one since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I really need to get out more. Honestly though, except for the X-Files, I don't see anything out there that I feel is a must-see event. Not even Batman captures my imagination. It is my opinion that whatever Heath Ledger has done with the Joker, it will not surpass Cesar Romero's portrayal nor Jack Nicholson's. As far as Jack Nicholson goes, he's Jack Nicholson. Ledger certainly won't top him. Arguments end there. Call me biased, but that's how I feel.
And furthermore, this darker, grittier Batman concept is so stale. I've seen it ever since Frank Miller's Dark Knight graphic novel series, which was truly groundbreaking, truly historic. It is definitive in it's own way. But that dropped in 1986. So, for 22 years, people have been fascinated by a darker, edgier Batman.
In fact, the 1989 movie was supposed to be darker and edgier. It was when compared to the original television series, which was made in the 1960s. In the television series' defense, it was made for small children. It was supposed to be campy.
I wish someone in Hollywood had the temerity to do a Batman movie in broad daylight and camp it up like things used to be in the old days. That might prove more interesting than yet another Batman movie where all of the good stuff happens on a dark overcast night. Like we haven't seen this four or five times already. I should probably watch this new one, but when?
Bright Shiny Morning, Stephenie Meyer
I am also happy to report that I finished reading Bright Shiny Morning by James Frey. Frey is a fabulous writer with many hits in his future. That's a fairly safe prediction, right? I'm also in the middle of another John Grisham novel. The Chamber deals with the death penalty. So far, so good, I say.
I also discovered Stephenie Meyer this past week. Barnes & Noble is holding a book release party for her new novel. Breaking Dawn is the fourth installment of Meyer's Twilight series. The Twilight series is targeted to female teens, but Meyer has also written and published The Host, which is intended for adult readers. The Host is about a soul, or consciousness, that is inserted into the body of a young girl. The concept is similar to the trill characters from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
The first ten pages of The Host prove that Meyer is quite a writer and a really good storyteller. Anyone wishing to experience a fresh new writer should check out Meyer's work.
Wow. When I quit something, I quit. I stopped blogging because it was really dominating my time. I got annoyed with myself and decided a change was needed. I took The Blogadier General down for a while. Breaks are healthy, I figure. I've enjoyed one healthy break. That break will continue for now. Alas, fifty-post months might not happen for the rest of the year, if ever.
That is a shame, because I like to look back on things I have accomplished. Blogs are great because they record all of one's writing on one site. Writers can look back and see just how much production they injected into the blogosphere, even if they didn't get paid for it!
Since I quit blogging daily, I've focused on running, taking on my first 5K on the advice of a co-worker. I didn't expect much, but I am happy to report that I finished Little Rock's Fourth of July Firecracker Fast 5K in 23:12:55. I did not expect to run that fast! I run nine minute miles on a treadmill at my gym where the weather is air-conditioned and the terrain is smooth rubber without any hills.
My goal for the Firecracker was to run harder than normal from front to back. That's exactly what I did, and I never expected to finish so quickly. My body felt sore for three days, but I got over it.
Now I have to refocus on my writing. Running has distracted me from my real business. I'm doing a novel set in the television industry, and I hope to have a mistake-free manuscript by the end of the year. If I write 2,000 words a day for 50 days (yeah, right) I can have 100,000 words. That's plenty long enough to publish as a novel.
However, writing isn't so easy without direction. Like all writers, I have experienced issues with plot, character development and what not. Such issues are pretty serious distractions. I have had to stop and map out the rest of my story, and I still haven't figured out how to arrive at an ending. I have a lot of work to do, and that is a massive understatement!
So far though, the first 20,000 words look solid. They will need rewrites, but I am optimistic that the changes will stay minimal.
Viva le Tour!
I am also enjoying the Tour de France this summer. I can't wait for the mountains. Bring on the Pyrenees and the Alps! I am ready for the bedlam, the unpredictability. I want to know which of the top GC riders fall off pace and which ones do not.
On Film
As for movies, I haven't seen one since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I really need to get out more. Honestly though, except for the X-Files, I don't see anything out there that I feel is a must-see event. Not even Batman captures my imagination. It is my opinion that whatever Heath Ledger has done with the Joker, it will not surpass Cesar Romero's portrayal nor Jack Nicholson's. As far as Jack Nicholson goes, he's Jack Nicholson. Ledger certainly won't top him. Arguments end there. Call me biased, but that's how I feel.
And furthermore, this darker, grittier Batman concept is so stale. I've seen it ever since Frank Miller's Dark Knight graphic novel series, which was truly groundbreaking, truly historic. It is definitive in it's own way. But that dropped in 1986. So, for 22 years, people have been fascinated by a darker, edgier Batman.
In fact, the 1989 movie was supposed to be darker and edgier. It was when compared to the original television series, which was made in the 1960s. In the television series' defense, it was made for small children. It was supposed to be campy.
I wish someone in Hollywood had the temerity to do a Batman movie in broad daylight and camp it up like things used to be in the old days. That might prove more interesting than yet another Batman movie where all of the good stuff happens on a dark overcast night. Like we haven't seen this four or five times already. I should probably watch this new one, but when?
Bright Shiny Morning, Stephenie Meyer
I am also happy to report that I finished reading Bright Shiny Morning by James Frey. Frey is a fabulous writer with many hits in his future. That's a fairly safe prediction, right? I'm also in the middle of another John Grisham novel. The Chamber deals with the death penalty. So far, so good, I say.
I also discovered Stephenie Meyer this past week. Barnes & Noble is holding a book release party for her new novel. Breaking Dawn is the fourth installment of Meyer's Twilight series. The Twilight series is targeted to female teens, but Meyer has also written and published The Host, which is intended for adult readers. The Host is about a soul, or consciousness, that is inserted into the body of a young girl. The concept is similar to the trill characters from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
The first ten pages of The Host prove that Meyer is quite a writer and a really good storyteller. Anyone wishing to experience a fresh new writer should check out Meyer's work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
