Deja Viewing

Truly this is the age when everything old is new again.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Hollywood remakes, revisionings, prequels, too long overdue sequels and so on. It's been my experience that these types of projects just fail to capture the creativity and spirit of the originals. Being "original" is what made things so great in the first place: they were new, unique, fresh, not pale imitations or wannabes. Sometimes remakes just miss the point completely and end up a bungled mess (looking at you here, "The Avengers" movie!) Often, part of what made classics so great were an "x factor" that really can't be recaptured: their success was driven by the personality or performance of a particular actor/actress, or it was "of an era" where the series came around at exactly the right time & just successfully captured the cultural zeitgeist of its day.

This year in particular seems to be the year when Hollywood is revisiting a lot of the staples of my pop culture diet, trying to cash-in on the series I have enjoyed the most from the past. Part of me gives the entertainment industry the benefit of the doubt & thinks they are just tapping into our collective sense of nostalgia & trying to rekindle the old flames. Still, I can't help but wonder if they're just completely bankrupt of ideas and have to rehash what's already been done. After all, using a premise that's already written & is already familiar to the viewing public seems like a quick and easy way to work.

Just this year there have been several "remakes" of my favourite tv series or books that have been released or announced:

Watchmen live action movie (2 thumbs way down from me on that one! I highly recommend watching the "motion comic" instead.)

Star Trek original series "elseworlds" movie (Which we've already seen & I discussed here previously.)

V a new mini-series on ABC

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

The Prisoner a new mini-series from AMC starring Sir Ian McKellan & Jim Caviezel

http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/

The Lone Ranger a movie from Disney starring Johnny Depp as Tonto

http://www.lonerangerfanclub.com/newlonerangermovie.html

Jonah Hex a live action movie starring Josh Brolin

http://movies.ign.com/articles/807/807581p1.html

All I can say is best of luck... I mean, can you really picture anyone else but Clayton Moore as the Lone Ranger? Or The Village without Patrick McGoohan as Number 6, who also masterminded the entire series? Those actors are synonymous with those roles and the success of the series hinged on their creative input. Also, now that the Cold War is over and done, do audiences really have the appetite for the grand resistance story that was "V"? It certainly didn't work for the Watchmen movie. And as much as I love a good western, are frontier stories as relevant now as in the heyday of the space race?

Admittedly, I realize that my tastes are not always compatible with the majority of the viewing public (for example: I love classic Dr. Who but despise the wildly popular new series!) so naturally take my opinion with a grain of salt.

(Lest we forget... as much as we'd like to!)

The great purge of '09

"Have you noticed that their stuff is 'shit' and your shit is 'stuff'? God! And you say, 'Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!'"
- George Carlin

I'd like to think that I'm not a particularly materialistic person but I suppose like everyone I seem to own my fair share of "stuff". Well, ok, a lot of it is actually "shit". I like to harangue my husband for being a pack rat but I guess I must share some of the blame for the current state of our messy nest.

Honestly, I really hate the idea of owning things. I prefer to keep my assets "liquid" (I'm a notorious tightwad!) Physically, I need free, open space. My parents often like to say that "things tie you down" and it is true in many ways. The very ownership of "stuff" requires a certain amount of responsibility (ie, paying for it, maintaining it, protecting it, etc) which can be a bit onerous (...pardon the pun!). For better or for worse, having possessions also keeps you grounded in one place (like George Carlin says, "A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it.") making it much more difficult to just pick up and move freely whenever or wherever you choose. And of course, "stuff" can easily turn into clutter... and that's probably my biggest problem with it. What starts out as harmless purchases here and there can quickly turn into "Jenga"-like precariously stacked piles... the ugly mass of over consumption. Stuff can be a cancer that just spreads over your life if you let it. And inevitably the morbid side of my personality can't help but wonder what's the good of owning all these things -- in the end where will it get me and anyway who wants to sift through all this crap when I'm gone? I really feel that material possessions can be a huge burden on my life.

Every now and then I've just got to purge.

My biggest fetish seems to be paper. Books, comics, stationary, art supplies, photographs... these are probably my greatest sources of clutter. These are things I constantly buy and even by "consuming" them doesn't make them go away: sketches & writings are kept for posterity; books that I've read I'll hang onto for reference; photos have obvious sentimental and historical value. It's really hard to get rid of these things! Usually I don't have any problem divesting myself of material things. I am happy to free up the space in my life and happier still if I can give the items to charity or to someone who could use them. Still, paper seems to be my clutter drug of choice.

This week I have launched a crusade against clutter. We've tackled the bookshelves and our old trading card games, weeding out the collection of excess or unwanted items. I think we could have dug deeper and gotten rid of more than we have -- husband fought me on a few things -- but it's a start anyway.

They say you've got to choose the hill you want to die on... I just hope mine is not a pile of clutter!

Star Trek

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I'm an "old school" Trekkie.

No, I don't just mean that I've been a fan for a long time. I mean I like the original series.

I realize that I'm probably in the minority but I never really cared much for any of the spin off series. When ST:TNG first premiered I was at the height of my Trekkiness, so I watched Picard & all for about 2 seasons then my interest trailed off.

My reasons are simple: For me, Trek is all about the dynamic of the "big 3": Kirk/Spock/McCoy -- and McCoy was always my favourite. (DeForest Kelley had an uncanny way of stealing every scene!) Also, I like action and a straightforward story. Sure, I like a bit of science, a bit of a morality tale and something to think about... but the joy of Trek is watching iconic, archetypal characters playing out in a big space opera. Basically Trek is a Western set in the future: an epic story of wagon trains to the frontier & "cowboys versus Indians". The spin off series seemed so stiff & bland by comparison: everything seemed too cozy & polished and too touchy-feely for my taste. (And, of course I'm a sucker for anything retro so it seems most of my favourite tv series were made in the 60s anyway!)

Needless to say I was a bit leery of the idea of a Trek "prequel". My fear was that the cozy, polished blandness would rub off on my Trek of choice.

So, no spoilers here... All I will say is:

1.) Go see it.
2.) It doesn't taint the "canon" of the original series in any way.
3.) It delivers exactly what you'd expect from the original series: action, straightforward story, and the casting stays true to the original characters.
4.) Karl Urban does a surprisingly decent Dr. McCoy. One step removed from an "imitation" but still manages to be reminiscent -- yet respectful -- of DeForest Kelley.

In short: yes, I liked it. (And I rarely like anything these days!) ;)

Worst. Cliche. Ever.

Here's a hugely over used cliche these days:

"Best. _______. Ever."

This phrase is completely meaningless and it is everywhere lately. It seems to be used mostly in conjunction with something kitschy (e.g., "Best. Shark attack. Ever.") or some tired worn-out internet meme, going hand in hand with Chuck Norris jokes, ninjas and pirates or poking fun of 80s hair band videos. And the people who say it tend to say it all the time... about everything.

Presumably this is just the thing to say when you absolutely must chime-in on a message board but have nothing of value to say and apparently no actual opinion whatsoever. I've noticed it crossing over into "mainstream" media such as magazines lately too (eg., "Lost: Best TV Show Ever"). Maybe they think hyperbole is a way to create a hip, attention getting headline. In reality this is as cliche as "Not!" was in the 90s. This is lazy, slack-assed sarcasm that passes for wit on Twitter or Facebook and it's hard to believe someone in the "legitimate" media would deem it fit to print. It's meaningless. To quote "Napoleon Dynamite":

Napoleon: "This is pretty much the worst video ever made."
Kip: "Napoleon, like anyone could even know that."

Which leads me to the second part of this rant: Another thing I've noticed in magazines (and even on tv) more and more is "lists". This is another completely lazy piece of filler that should be saved for the internet not for anything that is for sale. "The 50 Most Beautiful People in Hollywood"; "Top Ten Greatest Science Fiction Movies of All Time"; "One Hundred Books You Must Read Before You Die". According to whom?

All opinion is completely subjective -- that's its very definition. So, should I really care that some nameless staff writer prefers product A over product B? Furthermore is that worth shelling out the cover price to read it? Opinion and editorial have their place in the media -- of course! -- but these "best of" lists are the type of thing that should be saved for a blog. Even so: this is my blog, but would you really care to see me randomly itemize things I like into numerical order of preference? Unless you have some personal interest in the author, it makes for a very boring read! And again, it's all just opinion: there's rarely any "justification" in these lists. What's the criteria of "best"? Does "best" equal most popular? Most publicized? Earned the most money? Is the actress who is in the current top grossing movie somehow more beautiful than one who is not? Is something "better" if it is part of the current pop culture zeitgeist than something older or overlooked?

What's the standard? Whose standard? Why should we care? Do we really need someone to tell us what we should like? It's all personal preference and it's just that; personal. Or, do these lists exist just to justify our preferences and flatter our egos: I am right to like what I like because a magazine says it is good. Are we that unsure of ourselves that we need "best of" lists to reassure us that our tastes are somehow superior?

That's probably the Worst. Idea. Ever.

"Toads" by Philip Larkin

I often think of this poem...

"Toads" by Philip Larkin

Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life?
Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off?

Six days of the week it soils
With its sickening poison -
Just for paying a few bills!
That's out of proportion.

Lots of folk live on their wits:
Lecturers, lispers,
Losels, loblolly-men, louts-
They don't end as paupers;

Lots of folk live up lanes
With fires in a bucket,
Eat windfalls and tinned sardines-
they seem to like it.

Their nippers have got bare feet,
Their unspeakable wives
Are skinny as whippets - and yet
No one actually starves.

Ah, were I courageous enough
To shout Stuff your pension!
But I know, all too well, that's the stuff
That dreams are made on:

For something sufficiently toad-like
Squats in me, too;
Its hunkers are heavy as hard luck,
And cold as snow,

And will never allow me to blarney
My way of getting
The fame and the girl and the money
All at one sitting.

I don't say, one bodies the other
One's spiritual truth;
But I do say it's hard to lose either,
When you have both.

"It keeps playing out -- in my mind"

A: Have you seen that movie? The one with J-Lo in it?
B: What?
A: That movie with J-Lo in it. And what's her name...? She's always in good movies.... Jane Fonda!
B: Uh..."Monster In-Law"?
A: Yeah, that's it! It was on tv last night. Did you see it?
B: Hmm. Yeah, a while ago.
A: It was SO funny!
B: Hmm.

(brief silence)

A: I keep thinking about it. It keeps playing out in my mind...

(silence)