I had an interesting conversation with a good friend of mine today after the Oscar nominations were announced. He and I share a taste for quite a few movies, not the least of which is a borderline-unhealthy obsession with Michael Mann's Heat.
However, we part ways on quite a few films. The Social Network is one such picture. Like millions of other people today, we debated the merits of today's nominees, the curious and the ridiculous oversights (How was Daft Punk not tabbed for its Tron: Legacy soundtrack?)
Anyway, my friend liked TSN, but it seems the relentless hype surrounding the film and its Oscar possibilities - which has been discussed since before it was even released - has kind of soured him on the movie. I really liked TSN too, but I don't think it's the best film of the year, either. Animal Kingdom is my choice for top film of 2010, FWIW.
As we debated the merits of David Fincher's movie, we did what we normally do and take a detour down another argumentative path. Somehow we wound up arguing over whether Jerry Maguire is overrated. My friend thinks so; he said TSN is the most overrated picture since JM, a statement I found utterly preposterous. Then he crossed the line by saying Almost Famous isn't all its cracked up to be, either.
That drove me nuts, because that happens to be one of my most prized films, an all-time Top 10 for me. I've written about my love for Almost Famousbefore; to these eyes, it's the best coming-of-age picture ever. William Miller is a teen avatar for every Geek out there who became immersed in their passion. When I asked my buddy why he didn't think the movie was all that I felt it was, he said it was good, but not earth-shattering. For him, a great movie needs amazing performances, outstanding editing and/or cinematography to rise above the level of just solid entertainment. A good story isn't enough for him.
I found this an interesting answer. One, because to me, a compelling story told effectively is often enough to elevate a movie from good to great. But also because it made me wonder what specific criteria we all have for determining a 'great' film.
Is it the story?
Is it the cinematography?
Is it the acting?
Is it the ambition and scope of the picture?
Do any of the above carry more weight than another? Or is it a combination that help us make up our mind about a movie?
For me, it begins and ends with the story. If I'm not invested in the journey, then the film has failed. Then again, if I do get invested, then that means the actors have done their job too, and no doubt, the director.
How do you decide what's a great movie? I'd like to know...
BTW, I thought The Town was jobbed by the Academy out of a Best Picture slot. That will start another argument with my buddy.
I realize admitting you're a Leno fan this week is about as popular as Lane Kiffin is in Knoxville right now. But I have enjoyed Leno's monologue for years. At the end of a long day, I like easy laughs with telegraphed punch lines. Jaywalking and Headlines crack me up, too. Why? Because stupid people who think Las Vegas is the nation's capital and silly typos on menus and newspaper ads make me laugh. Yep, I embrace the lowest common denominator of comedy. Sue me.
I'm also a big Conan fan. I don't mean to come across like one of those guys who says he cheers for the both the Yankees and the Mets. But I enjoy Conan's wry humor and his clever skits as much as I do Leno's silly schtick. That's the beauty of comedy. It's subjective and often dependent on expectation and frame of mind, so you can find all sorts of stuff to laugh at, whether it be Fred Willard or a Gaseous Weiner.
What I'm having trouble with during this entire brouhaha is how Conan has become history's first gazillionaire martryr. I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Not that Conan and his supporters don't have a right to be furious over the shabby way their late-night idol has been treated. He has been humiliated and undermined during this fiasco, due in large part to the bumbling machinations of one of the most inept corporate leadership teams in the history of broadcasting (full disclosure: I worked for NBC at 30 Rock for 6+ years. I had a front-row seat to the ineptness). The real villains here are the NBC executives who showed little patience and even less foresight with the late-night embroglio.
But what Team Conan fails to or refuses to see is that their fearless leader isn't some poor, unwitting victim in all this. He brought it on himself.
O'Brien was the one who set this entire bizarre sequence of events in motion when, back in 2004, he gave NBC the ultimatum that if he doesn't get "The Tonight Show" by a specific date, he would walk. That spurred Jeff Zucker to make O'Brien the 'host in waiting,' and put a countdown clock on Leno, a workaholic who had no desire to step down when the time came.
Leno is being shredded in the court of public opinion as the puppet master orchestrating this entire embarrassing mess. Fair enough. This isn't his first rodeo and he knows how the game is played.
My question is, where was all the moral outrage five years ago, calling Conan out for strong-arming his way into "The Tonight Show?" Is that move really that much different than what Leno is being accused of doing to Conan right now?
It's not like Leno has been hiding his displeasure over how he was uprooted from his old job. When asked by 'Broadcasting & Cable' back in November whether he would be interested in doing "The Tonight Show" again, Leno replied, "If it were offered to me, would I take it? If that's what they wanted to do, sure."
Tactful? No. Classy? Not really. But it was honest. And if you're Jay Leno, why should you give a rat's ass about what happens to the guy who openly campaigned for, and ultimately got, your job? Still, those villifying him for some Norman Osborn-esque plot to retake "The Tonight Show" throne is a reach. Because all he really had to do was just sit back and let things play out.
It seems fairly obvious by now that "The Jay Leno Show" was not just Team Zucker's way of keeping Leno from bolting to ABC, but an insurance policy that kept Jay around the network in case Conan didn't work out as host of "The Tonight Show."
The warning signs were there for quite some time.
During his stretch run on "Late Night," he was having trouble fending off Craig Ferguson. Yes, "The Jay Leno Show" decimated NBC's 11pm local news ratings, which in turn greatly impacted "The Tonight Show." And no, seven months was not a fair or reasonable amount of time to give the show time to find its way.
You know what? It's called Show Business, not Show Fairness.
It's the kind of enterprise where a guy can dominate his time period, make his bosses gobs of money, and still be forced out the door. And it's NBC, a company that has shown absolutely no signs of making sensible or honorable decisions where its programming is concerned. Ask Aaron Sorkin or John Wells about that.
Then there's the one not-so-tiny fact being overlooked in nearly all the 'Woe is Conan' stories, and that's that his "Tonight Show" wasn't very good. Whether it was the studio, the West Coast setting or the subtle changes to the show's formula, Conan didn't look or feel comfortable at 11:35, and the show suffered for it. He suffered massive ratings declines to Letterman and until he went rogue this week against his own network, showed few signs of bouncing back.
Ultimately, Conan orchestrated his own undoing simply by putting his faith in the same people who had shafted Leno in the first place. The same executives who alienated Hollywood's creative community by cutting back on prime-time dramas and pilots so they could 'manage for margins.' It's a knee-jerk regime that slaps band aids on wounds that need surgery and long-term treatment.
It's like the mistress having an affair with a married man, giving the guy the ultimatum. It's either me or your older, fatter wife. It's a lose-lose for the mistress, because even if the guy chooses her, how can she ever trust him to not cheat on her with another woman? After seeing how Leno was treated, a guy who was rewarded for years of top-rated service by being forced out and then placated with a 'managing for margins' show guaranteed to fail, how could Conan and his people think this couldn't happen to them?
Conan obviously didn't pay close attention to the pile of award season screeners Hollywood sent out last month, or he would have seen all this coming. The Universal movie "It's Complicated" co-stars "30 Rock's" Alec Baldwin as a guy who cheats on the mistress he married...with the wife he had cheated on (Meryl Streep) with the mistress. Shockingly, it doesn't end well.
The same goes for NBC's late-night mess. The network
Leno's ' Average Joe' public image is enduring potentially permanent damage as this all plays out. The rival talk shows are lambasting him without mercy. How that impacts the ratings of his next stint hosting "The Tonight Show" is anyone's guess.
Conan's most loyal followers will rage and tweet with righteous anger once he's finally off the air (presumably next week), as their hero takes a multi-million dollar buyout and plots his next move.
Perhaps the most aggravating aspect of all this for Team Conan - and perhaps to O'Brien himself -- is that the Harvard-educated comedy wunderkind was ultimately out-smarted by the blue-collar, unhip, dinosaur.
It's been a rather eventful summer for me. Besides the usual summer movie coverage craziness - which includes writing about the BEST film of the summer, "District 9" [read my review HERE], I also found myself out of work.
After four successful years, NBC cancelled the show I produced, REEL TALK. No more debating with Jeffrey and Alison which movies or guests should/would make the show, or explaining the difference between Mar-Vell Comics and Marvel Comics (the former is a superhero, the other is the publisher,..). No more uncomfortable moments ordering a turkey & cheese wrap from Johnny the Sandwich Guy at the NBC Commissary, and hoping he doesn't sabotage it. After six years working for NBC at 30 Rock, I was becoming one of the Dept. of Labor's key statistics.
Er...that sucked pterodactyl 'nads, to be perfectly honest.
It still does, but that's OK. As many dear friends of mine reminded, one door opens, another blah, blah, blah...
I wouldn't exactly describe myself at the proverbial crossroads. I'm certainly not looking to switch careers, go back to school (God knows I don't want to do that) or anything so drastic. I've been fortunate to have enjoyed a decent amount of success in my TV career, with REEL TALK being the highlight thus far. I lost my job because my show was cancelled. Stinks, and I may not like it, but I understand. That's what shows do. They get cancelled. I'm not very worried about landing something else.
Positive thinking? Absolutely. Confident? Without a doubt. Delusional? Perhaps. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
No, when I got the heave-ho, I decided to approach my 'summer hiatus' as a chance to recharge my creative batteries. Because while i loved working on RT, the truth is, after four years I could do the show in my sleep. And as budgets were slashed and opportunities to do various specials, on-location shows and other outside-the-box programming were slowly phased out, it was occasionally monotonous. Nature of the beast for any job, in any profession, I suppose.
Anyway, I told myself I would try some new things, would sharpen certain skills - such as writing - that have atrophied during the last eight years, most of which I've spent formulating grammatically incorrect copy.
[Not my fault. It's what we do in TV. We fracture sentences and phrases like Steven Seagal smashed Jamaican gang member bones in "Marked for Death" - with impunity and with no regard for lasting damage.]
I've been doing a lot of writing for the website Newsarama, a very popular pop culture site that specializes in comic book news and anything else that touches that particular genre. Generally I cover movies, an obvious choice. But I hope to do more in the TV and animation field and whatever else they'll let me get away with. With any luck, the message board haters will light me up with their fanboy brio (thanks Marc).
Aside from that, I've made myself a promise to accomplish 3 specific things before the end of this year. Because if there's one thing I do well, it's procrastinate. So here goes:
1) Finish one of the large handfuls of screenplays I've started and tossed aside over the past decade. No, I haven't actually tossed them aside, because that implies that I'm printing pages. That's not very eco-friendly. i mean, tossed aside virtually, in some folder on my iBook. Don't know if there's even a good idea in any of those incomplete ideas, but I'm considering it just an exercise in completionism. Why, I do believe I've made up a word!
2) Complete a script for a comic book proposal, and pitch it to someone, anyone. I'm a geek, have been since before I could take myself to the bathroom. For someone whose first memorized words were likely "Stan Lee Presents," cracking the comics business is the ultimate goal. First things first. Realize idea, commit idea. Execute idea.
3) Get a job. C'mon, my wife reads this blog (at least i hope she does).
Now that I've blogified my Fall resolutions, I have no choice but to actually follow through. Keep me honest.
[and in case you didn't notice, blogified makes 2 new words coined in 1 post. Eat my vocabulary, punks!]
Next time, I think I'll discuss the fun I had getting my ass kicked by a bull while taping a reality show in France.
Years ago, before it became 'the Ryan Seacrest and his stable of crappy reality shows channel,' E! used to air a fun show hosted by Todd Newton, called "Coming Attractions." His tag line was that it spotlighted 'the best part about going to the movies - the trailers!' He had a point, back then. Getting an early look at what's coming down the pike used to be one of the big treats to a day or night at the cinema.
Not anymore.
Movie trailers have become infuriatingly spoiler-laden, cinematic killjoys that give away key plot points and basically sap much of the need to actually see the movie it's supposed to be encouraging people to see. It's gotten so bad I find myself trying to time my arrival to the theater so that I miss everything but the fake crying baby sound that tells the moron in the 6th row aisle seat to turn off his Blackberry.
This has been bothering me for years. In fact, I can pinpoint it to a specific trailer, 1998's "The Negotiator." I remember seeing the spot for the first time in Miami, at the AMC at Mall of the Americas. I vividly recall thinking, as the trailer unspooled, how cool this movie looked. Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey butting heads in an action thriller, with guns ablazing, corrupt cops, and in a high-rise? I'm there Opening Day! How often do you see A-list stars oppose each other in a big-budget film, I thought?
And then, the trailer gave away the big twist, that these two wind up on the same side. See for yourself.
How annoyed must I have been at the Spoiler-ish nature of that trailer that I still remember, more than 10 years later, how much it ticked me off...yet I have not the foggiest idea which film it preceded?
Two especially egregious examples of bad trailering have occurred this summer, involving the same studio. Warner Bros.' decision to include a MAJOR plot twist from "Terminator Salvation" in a trailer is one of the dumbest Hollywood decisions this year (although a clear second to Universal's decision to greenlight "Land of the Lost"). Whichever schmendrake at the studio said, "let's reveal that Sam Worthington is part machine in the trailer" should be forced to work the craft services table on the set of the "Hotel for Dogs" sequel.
[It's hinted strongly around 1:00 into the trailer, then flat-out Spoiled around the 2:20 mark. And don't bother getting mad at me for Spoiling it for you. You lose the right to complain about that stuff when the film's been out for a few week.]
Why does the fact that studios can't seem to help themselves from Spoiling the surprise twist get me so upset?
Because seeing the Next Big Thing, or at least 2:30 of it, gets the juices going for movie fans unlike any other. I'm sure I'm not the only one who starts nervously tapping his fingers on the armrest when a familiar logo, such as Lucasfilm, pops up suddenly onscreen, heralding a preview for an eagerly awaited epic. Remember the Geek-bumps you felt when you saw the trailer for "The Phantom Menace" for the very first time? The first time you viewed the teaser for "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?"
So what if both movies turned out to be crap? We didn't know that when we glimpsed the advance reels. Our interest was piqued. Anticipation built. Lines formed outside theaters. Unrealistic expectations were formed. Many not-so collectible collector's items were sold and stacked unopened in parents' basements.
What I'm saying is, those trailers DID THEIR JOBS.
Trailers are teasers, appetizers meant to water your cinema taste buds and expand your belly in advance of a film feast.
Which gets me to my other example of Bad Trailering by the WB, involving this year's breakout hit, "The Hangover."
I saw "The Hangover" back in April, two months before it hit theaters on its way to nearly $170 million box office to date (as of this writing). I hadn't seen a single ad for it. About all I knew about the film was that early online buzz was strong and the annoying guy from "Alias" and "Wedding Crashers" was part of the cast.
So after seeing it - and LMAO during just about the entire movie - I started recommending it to everyone who asked me about it. Jeffrey Lyons and Alison Bailes did the same during their review on my sadly-cancelled movie show REEL TALK.
You know what else I was telling everyone? DON'T WATCH THE TRAILERS! Change the channel the moment one of the ads (and there were LOTS of TV spots) came on, because the spots include just about every wild twist in the movie. Don't believe me? Watch it below.
Now some may argue this is an example of why reveal-heavy trailers work. After all, "The Hangover" is on its way to becoming the biggest-grossing comedy of the past decade, with a sequel already in the works. But for those in the audience who saw the trailers, who know Mike Tyson is going to be singing Phil Collins and punching someone out and know there's a Tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet and a naked Asian guy in the trunk, they missed out on the NO IDEA LAUGH. What's that?
The laugh that comes when something comes so thoroughly out of left field you nearly pop a button in your 501s guffawing. I was lucky enough to experience that with "The Hangover." I wonder how many people were able to do the same.
I can't stand watching movie trailers anymore. Why? Because less is more when it comes to teasers, and because I still enjoy surprises, especially at the theater. Modern movie trailers seem designed to eliminate that element of the moviegoing experience. For the life of me, I can't fathom why.
Incidentally, I have never bothered to see "The Negotiator." Don't need to. I saw the stinkin' trailer.
This classic late 80s pop-metal gem from David Lee Roth has been a mainstay on my Nano since I saw the Broadway show "Rock of Ages." I literally hadn't heard it for nearly 20 years. When the band at RoA started playing that wailing guitar solo at the start of the show, it didn't register at first. Once I heard the chorus ... I instantly was back in the days of Edwin jeans, 3/4 sleeve rock jerseys and highly intoxicated concerts at venues like the long-gone Hollywood Sportatorium.
Big Hair metal bands don't get much more respect now than they did back in the brief heyday but there is no doubt those groups could crank out some catchy tunes. My jogging playlists always have a few metal bands in the rotation. Besides DLR, right now I have Rush, original Van Halen and Bon Jovi to keep me moving. Something about the standard verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus template that just lends itself to a good run.
BTW, I saw David Lee and his band perform "Just Like Paradise" at the Sportatorium in 1988. Wouldn't you know it, some wily bootlegger snuck in a camcorder to the cheap seats. Nice security...anyway, enjoy!
Reason No. 451 Why Life Isn't Fair: When injuries cripple your fantasy baseball team. I have so many hurt players right now I've run out of spots on the disabled list. Jabroni Nation (that's my team name) currently resides in 7th place in my 10-team ESPN league.
If you don't do fantasy sports then you've no doubt stopped reading this.
If you have signed up at one point for the office baseball league as a morale-building exercise, then you know how frustrating it can be to build what you think is a quality team through the draft and free agent pickups, only to see your chances of success get cut off at the knees by a rash of injuries. It happens to every fantasy guy at some point -- happens all the time during football season, actually -- but this is the first year I've endured so many damn injuries.
I know I sound like I'm a whiny, complaining little schmendrake. So what if I am? Is it too much to ask of your big league multi-millionaires to stay somewhat healthy for at least 3/4 of the season. Hey Grady Sizemore, would a little extra stretching before games kill you? Because your being on the DL is certainly KILLING ME NOW.
If Brandon Webb were a super villain, he would be known as the Man of Porcelain. Good grief dude, why is it every time I draft your health collapses like a house of cards??
I've been doing fantasy sports for nearly 20 years. I know when you're in a deep league, if you lose one of two of your starting lineup at the same time for an extended period of time, you're up the proverbial creek sans paddle. Part of the game. But I've got a half dozen starters riding pine right now. For the sake of Pete's luv, Fantasy Gods, SHOW SOME MERCY!!
The only upside to my team resembling an outline for a very special episode of "Greys Anatomy" is that all my guys were hurt early. Nady, Sizemore, Webb and Kyle Lohse. Hopefully they'll come back fresh and ready to give me a big boost in stats after the All-Star break.
It will be especially nice to see Nady and Webb back on the active roster. Both of those dudes have been on a fantasy milk carton since the season began.
Guys, feel free to contribute to the Jabroni cause as soon as possible. It's the least you could do.
Here's the interview THC did with Jeffrey Lyons for this weekend's episode of REEL TALK. A few minutes in, he mentions his likely next role, in the John Carter film.
Earlier today Thomas Haden Church, hands down one of the funniest guys you will ever have the pleasure of crossing paths with, dropped by REEL TALK's 30 Rock studio to chat up Jeffrey Lyons about his role opposite Eddie Murphy in the kid-friendly "Imagine That." In the middle of an interview that was all over the place -- it tends to happen with Jeffrey & THC, who go wayyy back -- Church mentioned that his next project will 'probably' be a big science fiction film for Disney.
That movie? "John Carter of Mars."
I wasn't in the studio at the time but when I heard it in playback I was taken aback. Now, unfortunately, it appears he's in the film in a supporting role, not the lead role, which I think he would be perfect for. He's got the rugged look that fits and he's a dude's dude. He can pull off all the macho crap you could want or ask for in an action part ... and John Carter's all about action. Still, any Thomas Haden Church is better than no Thomas Haden Church.
He's probably doubly excited since the production would be a home game for him. According to johncartermovie.com, the movie is planning to shoot in Texas, Church's home state and the place he still calls home.
It's good to see him involved in another high-profile project. He was fantastic as Sandman in "Spider-Man 3" and I have zero doubt he'll be a big asset here.
Of course, with a film as laden with roadblocks as this one, He may never get a chance to show his stuff. This film is really taking the long way around the development stage, and it may need a brand new GPS to make its way to production. Too bad, because as unproduced properties go, this one's off the charts in terms of potential.
That Edgar Rice Burroughs guy kinda knew his stuff, know what I'm sayin'?
Looks like Martin Scorsese is going spookier than he's ever gone before with his next film. "Shutter Island" reunites the now Oscar-winning director with his muse Leonardo DiCaprio for the latest Dennis Lehane movie adaptation. The first trailer for the film is downright creepy. It will be interesting to see if Scorsese can still bring the spook and scare, since it has been 18 years since "Cape Fear" (that scene between De Niro and a young Juliette Lewis is still so, SO WRONG!!).
And is there anything that can cause the hairs on the back of your neck to stand up faster, than a mental hospital on a remote island? Methinks not.
Another frightening thought: Leo actually looks believable as what appears to be a grizzed federal marshal. When that guy starts looking the part of a 'grizzled' anything, then I know I'm getting old. "Shutter Island" debuts in October.
One of the MANY great threads running through Duncan Jones' tremendous new film "Moon" is the complicated relationship between Sam Rockwell's lunar miner and the only other entity he is able to communicate with on the Dark Side of the Moon, GERTY (Kevin Spacey, you have one creepy voice).
At first, it's almost like the relationship between a master and his pet. Only it becomes clear very quickly that who you think is in those roles, is not really the case. Then the tension between the two increases, until...well, you'll just have to see the film to find out.
I've been talking this movie up for more than two months now. I just hope now that it's finally opening (NY/LA this weekend) it will find the audience it deserves.
One of the many things "Moon" has made me think about is how humans and highly-evolved machines get along in the movies. While often it's an adversarial relationship - Machines rebel against their creators, go A.I. and tell puny humans to know their role -- there are just as many examples of light-hearted bromances, like Buck Rogers and the 25th century sidekick Twiggy, and of course that 80s Dynamic Duo, Michael Knight and K.I.T.T.
There are so many other examples... two that come to mind is Dr. David Bowman butting wireheads with HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey", and of course, the two droids who showed Luke Skywalker there was more to life than moisture vaporators on Tattoine. Go ahead and take your bow, Threepio, R2.
When done well, this dynamic delivers strong commentary on everything from our growing dependence on modern technology to the dangers of artificially intellectualizing (is that even a word?) the devices and gadgets we build, because we're too lazy to do things on our own. They can also be great comic relief. And who doesn't get a kick from a cute, bumbling robot now and again?
I know I'm missing several other notable examples. Care to enlighten me? LMK your memorable Man (or Woman) & Machine movie relationships. Post 'em in the comments.
A day after getting an unexpected behind-the-scenes look at the in-progress musical "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark," today I received an email from Marvel regarding ticket information. If you use a special code (1MARVL), American Express cardholders can buy advance tix to the musical now through June 23rd. After that, ALL AMEX users can buy them. The advance code works either on ticketmaster.com or via phone, 877-250-2929.
All the information is on the show's official website.
You can also find video interviews with director Julie Taymor, as well as Bono and The Edge.
Preview performances for "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" begin January, with the official opening set for Feb. 18, 2010.
First, I'd like to apologize to my three or four regular readers for being so slack with the updates recently. Been slammed dealing with the fallout from the unfortunate cancellation of the syndicated movie show I produce, "REEL TALK." We'll hopefully have some good news regarding the next incarnation of the show with Jeffrey Lyons and Alison Bailes. Until then, I promise I'll stay on top of this blog much more than I have, sharing whatever news and opinions I stumble, bumble and fumble across.
To show you I mean business, I have some very interesting news to report today, regarding the upcoming Broadway musical, "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark." There has been NOTHING about this show, outside of the recent casting call and the news that Julie Taymor will direct from a score by U2's Bono and The Edge. So imagine my surprise this morning when I snagged a peek at some very early footage of the show.
It was completely by accident, and not due to any clever journalism on my part. I happened to be attending the Tony Awards rehearsal at Radio City Music Hall with my wife. It's sort of an annual tradition for Cindi and I, since we're both big theatre fans. They run through the entire show, full cast performances, announcing the nominees, congratulating fake 'winners'...even the host , Neil Patrick Harris, ran through his quips.
So during the down time in what will be the commercial breaks, they run various video clips. Some are old TV spots for long-forgotten Broadway shows like "Timbuktu." Others are promos for upcoming shows. Imagine my fanboy surprise when an image of Spider-Man showed up on the massive Radio City screens.
Then they played a montage reel that showed Bono, Edge and Taymor discussing the show and what they plan/hope it will be. They had video of actors in harnesses flying through the air on wires, along with some special effects that looked to be in the early stages. There was also a shot of a drawing of Spidey's Rogue's Gallery, featuring familiar faces such as Electro, Carnage and Sandman.
I couldn't make out the others because I was busy taking pictures with my wife's iPhone. Apologies for the distant pix but i was sitting in the rear mezzanine.
Now, very little is actually known about the show's storyline. In fact, other than the fact it will involve the 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility' angle, NOTHING is known. We don't even know who's going to be playing Peter Parker (although Evan Rachel Wood has done some public campaigning for the role of Mary Jane Watson).
But there are a few kernels of info we can glean from the video shown at the Tony rehearsal. For one, it looks to have visual effects unlike anything Broadway's ever seen (makes sense, with the estimated $40 million price tag). There were two shots shown (one of which I caught in a pic) that featured these effects.
More important, I glimpsed one guy flying around with some kind of wingspan, not in any way resembling how Spidey would look web-swinging around town. My first instinct was this was a look at one of the villains in the show.
The Vulture, maybe? Morbius?? The Green Goblin perhaps, although it did not look like someone sitting on any type of Glider.
Obviously this is all speculation, but I can certainly picture a story that includes several familiar foes tackling Webhead on stage. Regardless, this is one of the more fascinating events to appear on the pop culture radar in some time, because of the sheer risk involved. I can easily see this being either a tremendous success or a humongous flop. Julie Taymor is a visionary director. Forget her brilliant work with "Across the Universe." if you've ever seen "The Lion King" on Broadway, you know she's capable of incredible stage reinterpretation of iconic movies. She has some heavy duty help with half of U2 in charge of the songs. Will that be enough to make a memorable musical out of our beloved Web-Spinner?
"Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark" opens in February, 2010.
Mystique, take note. Bonnie Tyler would have been a way better choice for the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants pre-cog than Destiny.
If there were any doubt about the importance of comic book heroes to the movie business, just go stand around the watercooler or Keurig coffeemaker at work. The deafening silence you hear is proof that without our beloved capes, Hollywood's money-making time of year is missing that all-important ingredient: BUZZ.
Pardon me for bursting the bubble of "Star Trek" fans everywhere. That film has been the big hit so far -- deservedly so, it's a fantastic overhaul of Gene Roddenberry's universe -- but it hasn't sparked the zeitgeist like last year's early breakout star "Iron Man" did, or how the late-season phenom "The Dark Knight" did.
Some could argue "Sex and the City: The Movie" had more people talking than "Trek." Look, when you've made $230M+ at the box office in less than a month, you have nothing to apologize for. J.J. Abrams and his team did their job. But six weeks in, the Summer of 2009 is well on its way to falling short of the Summer of '08 not just in terms of overall dollars earned, but pop culture immersion. In fact, this summer movieseason is actually kind of boring.
It just feels like we're going through the motions. Obviously, people are still going to the movies. "Up" and "The Hangover" were neck-and-neck for the box office crown this weekend, so there's proof right there. However, people just aren't talking about the movies as much as in years past.
"Did you see the new Pixar movie? Yes, it was great! So sad...cute dog...old people rock!"
"Up" was an incredible moviegoing experience, and perhaps the best movie of the year up to this point. But it hasn't captured the imagination of a large section of the country. Partly because no Pixar movie ever does anymore, because each year, when we think this is the movie that will finally be a letdown -- a chef rat? A robot movie with no dialogue for 30 minutes? An old guy in a balloon-lifted house?!? -- Pixar proves us wrong. But it's almost as if we expect them to do it. So it doesn't catch us off-guard like Robert Downey Jr. suddenly reinventing himself as an action hero did.
Part of the problem is unavoidable because it has to do with timing. After all, you can slot in monster-budgeted event films all summer long but phenoms can't be predicted or programmed. They just happen.
Everyone knew TDK was going to be big, but NO ONE could have predicted it would have been 'second highest-grossing film of all time' big. No one knew "Sex and the City" would prove that a chick flick could do blockbuster biz. And we were waiting nearly 20 years for a new Indiana Jones film, so forgive us if our excitement to see Harrison Ford don the fedora again clouded our judgement on THAT film.
Contrast last year's crop with this summer, when we've had up to now a new Trek, a Terminator sequel that made T3 look cool, another top-notch Pixar movie, "Night at the Museum 2" and..."Land of the Lost."
No wonder people aren't talking movies as much.
Yes, I know "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" - a 100% comic book movie -- kicked off the season, but doesn't that film seem like it opened a million years ago? Hugh Jackman's film is the only comic adaptation opening this summer, and that's precisely my point. Without these caped crusaders, men of steel or friendly neighborhood multiplexers, the movies just don't seem be very much on people's minds, during the 'fun' time to be a movie fan.
The comic book movie is the dominant Hollywood species right now, the type of movie that get people excited about rushing out, opening night, to see it. In the 40s it was war movies; the 50s were the era of the sword and sandal epics; the Bond movies became must-see movies in the 1960s; the 70s saw the high-concept blockbusters rise to glory; the 80s were all about the action movie.
The first decade of the 21st century? All about the comic book adaptations, baby. These movies stir Hollywood's drink, butter its bread, shine its shoes.
In other words, super heroes are the home run hitters. Comedies are the spray hitters who hit for a high average but who rarely hit one out of the park. Nothing wrong with that. You need good tablesetters to have a successful team (just ask Warners, which looks to have a big comedy hit with "The Hangover" that could ease the sting of "Terminator Salvation's disappointing performance). But without your power guys, you're likely not going to win, at baseball or movie profiteering.
Chicks dig the long ball, and so do studio execs.
Without any more comic book films in the wings, the boys of summer, circa 2009, have become singles hitters.
Last summer, admittedly an aberration, two comic-based films earned over $300M, "Iron Man" and "TDK." Unless "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" or "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" do it, there will be no summer movie to cross that threshold.
It's important to note that making $200 million at the box office remains a spectacular measure of success, by any type of accounting (even Hollywood's notoriously shady calculations). But when a film hits $300 mil, then it becomes a true blue, rub-your-eyes and say-what? phenomenon.
That figure is far from exclusive to comic book movies. The LOTR and Star Wars prequels all reached it, as did the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. But in this day and age of reboots, remakes and franchise continuations, movies based on super heroes offer studios the best chance to soar to such heights.
The expectations are so high for comic book-based films that a movie which makes nearly $400 million can be considered such a disappointment, it sends the entire franchise back to the drawing board.
Do you know how many studios would rape, pillage and torture to have the box office receipts "Superman Returns" brought in? Only problem is, when you're talking about the World's Most Famous Super Hero, anything less than $600-700 mil worldwide is out of the question.
The reasons why expectations are so high for such films are probably well known to most of you: Sequel potential, merchandising opportunities, multi-media expansion, etc, etc.
They also offer the greatest potential for the most powerful form of marketing known to man: Word of Mouth. I can't tell you how many non-comic fans waited until after the first week to see "Iron Man." Once they started hearing from me or other friends how good it was, they rushed out to get in line.
We geeks, we're an excited bunch. When there's a film we like, we'll talk it up through any means available to us. Be it Facebook, Twitter or our own blogs (look Ma, no servers!), we'll spread the word.
But while I LOVED "The Hangover", after a few Tweets saying how LOL funny it was, I kinda run out of things to say about it. Now, "Hellboy II" or "Watchmen" or "TDK", you can break those movies down on a variety of levels. How it compared to the original comics, the actors, the special effects, the tone ... the Easter Eggs hidden inside the movies. The texture to these films lend themselves to being overanalyzed, unlike comedies or romances and many dramas.
How many message boards devoted to "The Departed" have you lurked on? Registered on any "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" fan sites recently?
A word of warning however, to my four-color friends. Better enjoy this ride while it lasts, because if history is any indication, it won't.
As studios mine comics for any and all possible franchise starters, the law of diminishing returns comes into play. The Spider-Man and X-Men franchises exist as proof, and the "Wolverine" prequel offers more confirmation. Just as science fiction movies fell out of a favor in the early 80s, and action films in the early 90s, you can bet your CGC 9.8 copy of Marvel Two-in-One #51 that the same thing will happen with comic book movies. It is inevitable.
How many more Spidey movies can Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire make? How many X-prequels can Fox squeeze out before they wind up being direct-to-DVD fodder? Marvel's already rebooted two big-name heroes - Punisher and Hulk - within 5 years. All that does is dilute the core property.
Besides, what fresh faces are left to prop Hollywood on it's broad, spandexed shoulders? Green Lantern seems, at least to me, to be the best hope for breakout success. It has the type of character and mythology that if done right, could be something spectacular. Flash too. Some would say Wonder Woman, but they're all DC characters and that company seems to have a problem getting corporate sibling Warner Bros. to do right by any of its heroes who aren't Batman.
As for Marvel, Captain America is the obvious choice for their Next Big Thing. But considering his most identifiable move is throwing his mighty shield, I'm a bit concerned on how he will translate to the screen properly. I have similar concerns for Thor and the Avengers movie Marvel's film studio is laying all this groundwork for.
I'm personally hoping each company has an 'Iron Man' or 2 still left in them. By that, I mean an adaptation that catches people off-guard with its fresh ideas and inventive reinterpretation. I don't know if it's Luke Cage or Booster Gold, or even Invincible (Image guy I know), but watching a B-level hero break out onto the A-list would be just as, if not more than, much fun as seeing "Spider-Man 4" break box office records in 2011.
There is something to be said for being surprised, after all.
Interesting little rumor by SlashFilm about the possible setting for "Terminator 5." What really caught my eye was not the information it had -- that T5 could possibly be set in 2011 post-war London -- but that it discussed a fifth Terminator movie as if it had a remote chance of happening.
Because we'll hear Glenn Close announce Steven Seagal as the Best Actor winner at the Oscars before we see another Terminator film. The franchise is dead. Not Marcus Wright dead. Not Jean Grey dead. Uncle Ben dead. (my apologies to those of you not up on your comic book history but a quick Google search will enlighten you.)
As of today, Saturday June 6, "Terminator Salvation" hasn't even cleared $100M domestically. That's half of its $200 million budget and the way the picture is hemorrhaging audience share and theaters, it will be lucky to hit $125M in the U.S.
Now we know the way to finally unplug Skynet: Send in McG!
Couple that with the recent cancellation of TV's "The Sarah Connor Chronicles", the signs are clear: The Terminator franchise is just about out of gas.
The kiss of death for a fanboy-targeted film like this is bad word of mouth. Because if the diehards aren't behind your movie, it doesn't have a chance. Go ahead and scour some genre sites and read what's been posted about T4. Just make sure the little ones aren't reading over your shoulder. Some of it is downright harsh.
Most critics agreed (although REEL TALK did give it a positive review. Hit the clip to see it). T4 is currently at 34% at Rotten Tomatoes. That's worse than "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" ("Star Trek" BTW, is at 95%).
What went wrong? We could point the finger at McG- everyone else has - and yes, as director he deserves much of the blame. Aside from cool action scenes -- notice I said cool, not groundbreaking -- the unfortunately-named helmer didn't do anything to disprove the haters who said he didn't have the filmmaking depth to follow in James Cameron's footsteps. When you have Christian Bale in your lead role, you need to make sure he isn't overshadowed by an unknown actor who can't disguise his Aussie accent.
You also need to make sure you don't start shooting with a one-dimensional script that gives the cast so little to work with. But it's not all McG's fault. After all, he did deliver on the hardware worship he'd been promising for the past year, with the Moto-Terminator cycles setting a new standard for post-apocalyptic cool. The sheer look and sound of the movie was superb. Unfortunately, the film was all style, no substance.
And an equally large chunk of the blame needs to fall directly at the feet of McG's handpicked star. Now understand before you read the following: I am a HUGE Christian Bale fan. Not only do I consider him one of the most talented actors working today, I think he is as good as any star at picking good scripts. Look at the projects he's been involved in.
"American Psycho." "Rescue Dawn." "Equilibrium." "3:10 to Yuma." "I'm Not There." "The Prestige." "The Machinist." "Velvet Goldmine." I didn't even mention the two Batman movies. Something else you notice as you peruse Bale's all-over-the-place resume is how it's the material, not the actual role, that seems to pull him in.
He's made a career of being second fiddle to other actors, whether it be Ewan McGregor, Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, and most famously, Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight." He plays the straight man again in T4, to Sam Worthington's Marcus Wright.
That decision, however, to sidekick John Connor is one of the key reasons why "Terminator Salvation" doesn't work. He's the prophesized leader of the resistance. How do you NOT make your movie about Connor? HE'S THE KEY TO THE ENTIRE MYTHOLOGY!! (didn't anyone bother to re-watch T1 and T2 before shooting began?)
Bale has said repeatedly in interviews that he didn't sign on until T4's script was to his liking. How could he possibly have been happy with this screenplay? None of the roles were fleshed out, while some were downright wastes of talent (I hope the woefully-underused Bryce Dallas Howard at least got to enjoy the craft services on the set).
I know many people will say the reported $8 million + profit participation salary was the reason Bale signed on, but I don't buy it.
He already has a cash cow, and its name is Batman. He's also one of the first 3 or 4 guys the studios think of for any potential franchise, new or reboot. The rumors of him doing "John Carter Man of Mars" keep gaining steam (Drew McWeeney over @ HitFix.com had a detailed writeup about it recently). Also, Bale doesn't live the 'Entourage' celebrity lifestyle that demands taking certain roles just for the amount of zeros on the paycheck. Just a guess, but I think the family Bale is not wanting for anything right now, outside of some privacy. So while money is always part of any Hollywood equation, I don't believe that was the primary motivation here.
So while Bale's rep for picking good projects will take a hit, he'll be fine in the long run. Advance word on "Public Enemies" is good and besides, he's already showed Dennis Rodman-like rebounding ability in the wake of his on-set tantrum.
This is likely the last hurrah for the Terminator property, however.
There was an alarming lack of buzz surrounding the pic in the months leading up to its release. Summer movie talk seemed to center on Wolverine, Harry Potter 6 and the current cyber-cinema du jour, Transformers 2.
The fact is, "Terminator 2" came out 18 years ago! Yes, there was a 14-year break between Star Wars films, but as popular as the first two Terminator movies are, they have never come close to approaching the popularity and mainstream reach of Lucas' universe. It also didn't have all the ancillary parts of the Jedi empire - the books, comics and toys - keeping the property in the public eye. It had a few comic book series, but none with any staying power. And when a sequel finally did arrive, "Rise of the Machines" in 2003 sapped whatever excitement remained for the mythology. The small-screen TSCC didn't do much to boost interest either. What I'm trying to say is, there haven't been a lot of online petitions demanding a Terminator revival.
Despite all signs pointing downward, the disappointing third chapter, the face of the franchise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, too busy Governing California, producers decided to go ahead and revive it anyway.
The deck was already stacked against T4. And the film failed to live up to the challenge.
Instead, "Salvation" mirrored another notorious fourth film - "The Phantom Menace" - in driving a stake through the heart of fanboys. The now-grown kids who had been teased by those frightening visions of the future war between man and machine had waited patiently for the payoff, and just like the Clone Wars, one of the Star Wars universe's most fabled events, it turned out to be a colossal disappointment.
Not only was John Connor a remarkably uninteresting character, but he also had a terrible memory. Why didn't Connor remember the T-800 he sent back in time to protect his younger self? Or the fact that Terminators have been sent back in time twice to save his life. What happened, the screenwriters used up all their expository dialogue on Helena Bonham Carter's role?
Talk about missed opportunities. There were so many with this movie. Not just with the John Connor role but with the technology and the advantage of the time period it was set in. How did we not see an all-out assault on Skynet by the resistance, taking on an army of Terminators? Where was the 'Oh S@#t' moment of the movie that EVERY Terminator film needs, demands.
'Salvation' didn't have that, though I did enjoy the truck chase scene with the Moto-Terminators. But not only did that scene not overwhelm you, it wasn't even the best chase scene involving a truck in the series. In fact, it was only third best. T2 and the much-maligned T3 both had more jaw-dropping road rage moments.
In the middle of all the salt-rubbing I'm doing in "Terminator Salvation's" wounds, I should point out that maybe the best part of the whole film was the look of it. Much of that credit goes to cinematographer Shane Hurlbut, who was on the receiving end of Bale's now-legendary rant. You go keeping double-checking those lights, Shane. Because this movie proved you know what the hell you're doing.
Bale and McG both talked about having clear visions of what they wanted to see unfold during their Terminator trilogy. I would suggest to both that they compare notes, hire a great artist and collaborate on a graphic novel to finish up their story. I know I'd buy it. why wouldn't I? It would be the last, best chance I have to see the Terminator saga played out to the very end.
Because I have a better chance of breaking 80 at the Black Course at Bethpage next weekend than they do of getting the green light to do a fifth Terminator movie. And I'm a really bad golfer. And this is tough to write, because I have loved this franchise since I was 13 years old.
Looks like Ron Howard read most of the scathing reviews for "The DaVinci Code." After that film was crucified by the press - not for the blasphemy the Catholic Church accused it of but for committed the cinematic sin of being boring. I just caught a screening of "Angels and Demons" today and it was a thrilling, if preposterous, movie. Tom Hanks was his reliable self, and Ewan McGregor finally woke up from the three-year slumber sleepwalking through the three Star Wars prequels induced in him. Here's the trailer, if you haven't seen it:
Haven't seen this in years, but Shatner's 'Get A Life' rant on SNL from '86 is still funny as hell, and perfectly appropriate to share right about now, as a new wave of Trek-mania builds, thanks to the boffo box office of "Star Trek." Enjoy --
My apologies to the 2 or 3 readers of my infinitely entertaining blog (thanks Mom, thanks Cin!) for the lack of posts this week. Been genuinely busy working on REEL TALK and screening a bunch of movies. and preparing for some cool guests coming to the show: Ewan McGregor, Sam Worthington, maybe Christian Bale...
Also been busy on a few articles due this week, including a piece on the Best & Worst Hollywood reboots. Or Reimaginings. Or revamps. Whichever silly term you prefer to use to describe the remakes the movie industry loves to throw $$ at these days.
Its up on the popular geek site Newsarama, Click Here to read my Top 5 Best facelifts. Feel free to post your comments/thoughts/snarky barbs here or on the article page.
The Top 5 Worst article goes up later today. That one was MUCH easier to write, since Hollywood usually gets these things wrong. VERY WRONG.
Speaking of reboots, go see "Star Trek" this weekend. It's tons o' fun in outer space.
Today is Free Comic Book Day. What does that mean?
Well, if you're not a fan of the four-color, 22-page pamphlets of spandex goodness that are comic books, then you've stopped reading this post as soon as you saw the headline and gone back to reading your friends' Facebook updates.
However, if you're like me and you know With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, then you've probably dropped by your LCS (Local Comics Shop) and picked up a few freebies today. Because you know, as I do, that our beloved hobby depends on it.
I picked up five books @ Jim Hanley's Universe (33rd & 5th Ave, by the Empire St. Bldg) today. here are images of three of them:
The Free Comic Book Day tradition began in 2002 after Josh Fields, owner of Flying Color Comics in Concord, CA, came up with the idea as a way to publicize the industry. The first one took place a day after the first "Spider-Man" opened to record-breaking box office.
In a nutshell, FCBD is the industry's way of keeping itself alive. How well that's worked is up for debate.
It's no secret comics long ago stopped being a mainstream form of entertainment, with dwindling readership numbers. It's now a specialized medium existing mainly in imposing comic shops that seem to scream at casual passerby, "NO NEWBIES! WE DON'T SERVE YOUR KIND HERE!"
I've never seen a comics shop that actually discourages new customers, but that's the vibe they give off, intentionally or not. Walk into a comic shop - any comic book store - and notice how they're set up like Medieval castles. The rows of longboxes packed with bagged & boarded back issues and character statues & action figures act as the front line of defense against intruders looking to penetrate the Fortress of Nerditude.
I noticed it today even, on a day that's supposed to be all about accommodating and welcoming newcomers. When I walked into Jim Hanley's today with my wife, she looked like I had just dropped her off at the corner of Murder & Mayhem in South Central LA, wearing Crips colors. As soon as you walked in all you saw was row after row of comics & TPBs, with no clear signage as to what was where, and vice versa.
How about sections clearly marked for new readers? Or for female readers? Comic shop owners should also consider assigning employees with finding TPBs from various titles (Avengers, X-Men, Spidey, Batman, Noble Causes ... whatever) that are particularly New Reader-Friendly and put those front & center. In other words, court the customer. Make it easy for someone to try something fresh & exciting.
I'm just throwing around ideas here. I'd love to hear other suggestions, because frankly, while FCBD is a great idea, I don't know how effective it's been at luring new eyeballs to comics. Which is a shame, because there are INCREDIBLE comic books being published today. Stories of all types for all kinds of readers. Too bad the number of people who actually read & buy comics keeps shrinking faster than Ant-Man.
I get tons of promotional SWAG sent to my office @ 30 Rock. Comes with the REEL TALK gig. Kinda nice because it allows me to decorate my office in my favorite style - Geek Chic.
I also get some really useless crap. The picture at the top shows a dvd (I must get 15-20 dvds per week) of "The Best of Star Trek: The Original Series" that just arrived today. And yes, that's a mini-Tribble you see next to the dvd.
As a guy who has a talking Yoda doll, a missile-firing Iron Man action figure, a Jack Bauer kicking down a door action figure and a mini-bust of Bug from The Micronauts taking up space in his cubicle, I'm not going to knock anyone wanting a toy Tribble.
I just don't want one. I mean, who the hell's going to know what it is anyway? It looks like some weird, homeless Troll. Maybe i'll take it home and let my dog Bernice play with it.
I give it 2 days before this Tribble's toast.
The summer movie season's always good for lots of SWAG. I'll keep you posted on other stuff I get.
Season 3 of "Heroes" wrapped up last night. Don't worry, this is a spoiler-free post. Mainly because I have no idea what's going on in that show, because I haven't seen a single frame since I saw the Season 3 premiere @ Comic Con last summer. Which really says something about the decline of the show.
When an uber-geek like me isn't watching a show about people with extraordinary powers (airing on NBC, the network that signs my checks, BTW), a show that owes a HUGE debt to one of my favorite comic series, The Uncanny X-Men, then something's wrong.
Zach Quinto, who plays the main baddie on the show, Sylar, is dropping by the REEL TALK studios today to talk up "Star Trek." In case you've been locked up at ShadyBrook the past few weeks, he plays Spock in the reboot, which is FANTASTIC.
But Trek is a post for another day. Today is about "Heroes" and whether it should return next season. I'm looking forward to hearing what Zach thinks should happen with the show.
It will return, FYI. NBC is planning on bringing it back for 18-20 episodes, slightly fewer than this season. From what I hear, the show does great on DVD and overseas, so financially it's still a winner for the Peacock (yippee for us!).
But creatively, the show just has never been able to follow up the incredible promise it showed in its first season. Part of that is unavoidable. How do you follow up "Save the cheerleader, Save the world?"
It's the same problem "24" had in season 6, when they nuked LA in hour 4. How the hell do you build on that and not come up short? Serial dramas, especially those like "Heroes" that are based in the sci-fi/fantasy genres, with alternate realities, time travel, superpowers, tend to lose steam after awhile because you simply run out of ways to keep the audience interested.
The mythology gets too convoluted, characters get stale, plots get recycled....any of this sound familiar to you "Heroes" fans out there?
The creative team behind "Lost" recognized this problem, and took steps to fix their ailing show when it went off the rails with Season 2. What did they do? Well, besides burying Paolo and Nikki alive, they decided to end their show. They announced season 6 would be the end of it.
Ask anyone who watches "Lost" and they will tell you that ever since an end-date was set, the show has been firing on all cylinders. It's as if the writers, seeing the finish line, have been freed to do anything & everything to make the last few miles of this mystifying, occassionally maddening marathon of a show as fascinating as possible.
The argument has been made recently that high-concept shows like "Lost", "Heroes" and the unfairly short-lived "Life on Mars" would be better served to run as limited run series. Perhaps a single season, or 2 or 3 seasons at most.
Not only would it give the writers a chance to map out a clear journey for the storyline and its characters, but it would also improve the chances of drawing top- caliber actors to projects, because they wouldn't have to worry about committing long-term to TV work, which, due to the long seasons, tend to be much more grueling than film work (I know, poor little actors, having to spend all day in luxury trailers).
Would "Heroes" be better served by announcing that next season would be its last? I think so. Then we could FINALLY see the show's creative staff stop holding back and let these characters realize their true potential. As it is, I think the show's ultimate legacy is that of disappointment. "Heroes" is like the cant-miss college football prospect taken #1 overall in the NFL Draft, who, while not a complete Ryan Leaf-like bust, falls far short of a Hall of Fame career. A journeyman QB, who once he retires, leaves no lasting accomplishments.
Considering how good "Heroes" was at the beginning, that would be a shame. Unfortunately, unless the PTBs make some dramatic changes, that's exactly where it's headed: The Hall of OK TV.
Since no one at work or home ever listens to me, I figured I could have a captive audience on the WWW for all the crap cluttering my brain that needs to be screamed, shouted, and spilled out into the atmosphere.
Besides, there just aren't enough Blogs out there :)
