#GunnControl

Every time I want to do my "Social Media Whining" article, five new things come up that I should probably discuss.

For example....

James Gunn was fired from Guardians of the Galaxy 3 last week after someone pointed out his "jokes" that were fairly ... pedophilic in nature. Gunn would be caught deleting over 10,000 tweets going back years.

Normally, I would say "Eh. We don't have any evidence of him going near kids".... except, let's go back to those TEN THOUSAND TWEETS. And given that the news out of Hollywood West these days is all sexual deviancy all the time (between the rapist Harvey Weinstein, the sex cult of Allison Mack, Kevin Spacey as child molestor), even the whiff of scandal makes me suspicious that we're barely seeing the tip of the iceberg, and Hollywood looks like the Titanic.

Is it possible Gunn isn't a pedo of some sort? It's not impossible. After all, his sense of humor does skew to the squicky, even in his movies ... though I'm not sure that's evidence in his favor.

However, I do note that Chris Pratt is on Gunn's side, and Pratt has made a name for himself as a genuinely good guy.

... Which doesn't matter if the scumbag in question is good at manipulating people.

Though at the end of the day? Frankly, Gunn was the guy who said that Roseanne Barr -- whose entire schtick is that she's offensive -- should be fired for telling an offensive joke. Gunn tells dozens -- probably tens of thousands -- of "jokes," and the same people who wanted to lynch Roseanne are defending Gunn.

Welcome to Hollywood. your defense is based solely on who you are, if you belong to the right clubs, and who you're f***ing.

So, screw Gunn. He wants to lead a lynch mob over one joke, he shouldn't be surprised when the committee of public safety can't protect his ass in the end.

Why do I bring it up?

Because Rian Johnson, the director of the travesty that was The Last Jedi, has just deleted TWENTY THOUSAND TWEETS.

Hmm, gee whiz, the guy who wanted to interject nihilism, moral relativity, and sexual deviancy into Star Wars (seriously, tell me Holdo didn't give you a Dolores Umbrage vibe), is purging his Twitter page like their's no tomorrow. I wonder if he figures Disney will throw him under the bus as well. And Johnson is the dick (pun intended) who has been fighting the fans, telling them they're all scum for not "properly appreciating his masterpiece."

There is a policy in certain circles of business where everyone is fired, and then "reinterviewed" before being taken back into the company. It's a way to screen out trouble makers, people they don't like, that sort of thing.

I think it's time to take Hollywood out, fire them all, and screen all of them for crimes and misdemeanors. Granted, that would probably take the form of an FBI investigation, if we had an FBI worth a damn. Maybe if started by arresting everyone in Hollywood, doing a thorough background check, then letting them go. We can file it under RICO, where guilt by association is allowed. I'm sure the innocent (all five of them) would happily act as informants, and wear wires.

Then we take all of the beautiful people, guilty of sex trafficking (like Mack) or rape, or molesting children, and then we throw them into general population for ten years. When they come out, maybe they aren't so pretty any more.

And, since, under RICO, we can confiscate proceeds from criminal activity, the Hollyweirdoes would pay for their own incarceration. Maybe they can even afford extra protection by the prison guards from their fellow inmates.

Sound harsh? Maybe. But I've known too many victims of child molestation and rape to find anything that Gunn said funny, even if he meant them as a joke. I've known too many occasions where rapists like Weinstein get away Scott free. My personal belief is that all of these people are caught, tried, and be set on fire, or buried alive in lye.

Non Illegitimi Carborundum.

Honor at Stake & Demons are Forever

Live and Let Bite

Hollywood Screw Ups

When Hollywood adapts a novel to a film, the average is to bet on the adaptation SUCKING. Lord of the Rings is an outlier, and Harry Potter was mostly faithful because they didn't want to get torn apart by a legion of angry ten year olds.

But mostly, you're better off just running. The Relic, Shooter (the film), The Bourne Identity (the films were so two dimensional) and the list goes on.

Now what fresh hell has been unleashed on us?

I give you.... Disney.

There's Cars 3 .... because everyone loved one and two so much (hint: It's the only Pixar film I can't find anyone to say a nice word about)

Because they're bringing back the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Really? The abomination of the second and third films weren't enough for you? And no, you couldn't drag me to see any of the films after that. You would literally have to pay me to review that drek. I mean literally. If I can get an offer, I'll start a kickstarter. I'll do a review.  And, apparently, Orlando Bloom's career sucks so badly right now, he's been dragged back into this film. Either that, or the franchise has been going downhill so badly that they had to back up the dump truck filled with money to pay his salary.

Next, they're doing a live action Mulan....

Yes. Because every review of Beauty and the Beast I've seen from people I trust has been less than positive -- or, at best, showed me that, yes, this was a totally unnecessary remake. They even made it with A LEAD ACTRESS WHO CAN'T SING. So now we're going to have yet another unnecessary remake.

Yay.

And then we're going to have a sequel .... to Mary Poppins. Yes, you heard, Mary, flipping, Poppins. The genius title? Mary Poppins Returns.  Really? It took fifty years to think up this title?

And who do you get to replace Julie Andrews?

The film stars Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins,

Yeah. This is Emily Blunt

I suspect that her choice was based on the type of drugs the casting guy was on.

And the plot? Oh, you're going to love this one. Remember Mary Poppins right? A distant father hires a nanny to deal with his troublesome kids. Hilarity ensues.

This one?

Set 25 years after the original film, and taking inspiration from later books in the Mary Poppins series, the film will see Mary Poppins revisiting the Banks family after they suffer a family tragedy.

The film opens Christmas Day 2018.

Family tragedy! A surefire Christmas film.

"Oh, but it's based off of later books!"

If you'll turn your attention to this corner, you will see a brief synopsis of each book in the series. You will note that there is nothing that even remotely resembles a tragedy.

So, shut up, Disney.


Finally, worst of all, they are making (read: they will screw up) A Wrinkle in Time. 

A Wrinkle ... in Time.

A WRINKLE IN TIME!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

SCREW YOU DISNEY! MAY YOUR PARKS BE SWALLOWED UP AND FALL INTO THE NINTH LEVEL OF HELL.

Why do I say that? Because the author, Madeleine L'Engle basically wrote a YA novel that is essentially Christian...

Remember the last time they did one of those? Oh yeah, Narnia.

This is going to suck.

Seriously. Go to Hell, Disney. Straight to Hell.

Here, have some books that are more cinematic than most Hollywood films lately.

And they're cheaper than a movie ticket.

The Love at First Bite series. 

    

The Magnificent Seven Disaster

Come on, really?

There's a remake for The Magnificent Seven on the way, and it's coming out in September.

Hold on a second, let's look over that sentence again.

1) They're remaking The Magnificent Seven, possibly the greatest western of all time, using all the classic themes of literature going back to Seven Against Thebes. It is a remake of the excellent Japanese film Seven Samurai, only the director of THAT film said that the western remake was even BETTER than his own work.

2) It's coming out IN SEPTEMBER. In a Hollywood that releases its "hits" in either the summer or winter. This tells me a great many things about the quality of this film, and its predicted box office intake.

Let's, for a moment, have a discussion about the original.

If you recall, the original western, The Magnificent Seven was about a small Mexican village being regularly raided by Mexican marauders. The village doesn't have a lot of money, but they have a solution -- find gunfighters who will work for food, or at least work for cheap. The men they find are largely broken. One is a get-rick-quick schemer who thinks that his friends are really there for goal near the village (because why else would mercenaries be doing this?). One is an old hand who has completely lost his nerve and is trying to find it again (Robert Vaughn). One is half Irish and half Mexican, and is essentially an outcast by both ends of society (Charles Bronson). One is brand new to the profession, and at first, just wants in on the action, but might be finding love in all the right places.

At the end of the day, the moral of the story was about teaching the villagers themselves to stand up on their own two feet and drive off the invading army. There was a lot about redemption, a little bit about racism, a little bit about the power of bravery and defending your home, and that sometimes the real heroes are the people who have no weapons except what's to hand.

That's the short version.

Let's take a look at the trailer for a moment, shall we?

Yes, yes, if we must. Sigh

So, who else sees it? Who else is looking at this thinking that this may not be quite what the original film had in mind?

If you don't see it, let me show you.

To start with, we've got the standard God-fearing folk with the really thick Southernish accent. The marauders I can see look an awful lot like the townsfolk. In fact, the bad guys here are extremely well-dressed white folk. Hell, they look like Pinkerton's -- vests, ties, jackets, good hats, shiny guns. Why, if I didn't know better, I would swear that they were -- gasp -- evil big businessmen.

No, seriously, why are well-dressed rich white urbanites terrorizing a small rural village? Did they decide to make the "gold" thing real this time? Maybe they're after oil ... no, wait, wasn't gas a bad thing back then. It blew up while digging tunnels and there weren't cars to make gasoline for? Is there a good reason for this?

This is the money shot of the bad guys, if the trailer is any indication.

And, hold on a sec. we have a random member of the tribes thrown in? What? Why? What is he? Odd Job? You know, the random Bond villain sidekick that fits in not at all with everyone else?

And for the record, after going through the IMDB page for this new version, and clicking on character names, I discovered that it's a nice cheat sheet. The villain is played by Peter Sarsgaard, an actor who's whiter than I am. I think that's him, second from the left.

Because I guess no Mexican characters can be portrayed as villainous? I don't know, I didn't write this script.

Geez. Okay, let's continue. Because ... oh dear. What? What are you doing, Hollywood? You put one of The Magnificent Seven into traditional Indian warpaint, and gave him a bow and arrow. In a gunfighting movie? Wow, that's just ... really?

Martin Sensmeier

Yes, in the original film, Charles Bronson was cast as "Bernardo O'Reilly" (probably a take on the Chilean hero Bernardo O'Higgins). If a Pole playing an Irish-Mexican is head scratching to you, keep in mind that this was 1960s Hollywood, Bronson had played EVERY ethnicity except for his own during his career, and this film also had Eil Wallach playing the Mexican bandit leader.

The man with the bow and arrow in the trailer is Martin Sensmeier, playing "Red Harvest." On the one hand, he is of the tribes of Alaska, as well as half Irish. On the other hand, "Red Harvest"? Really? In the original, Bronson's heritage was in his name. He couldn't escape it, nor would he on a dare -- he was proud of both, and screw you if you don't like it.  With this? I'm going to take a wild, crazy shot in the dark that there isn't going to be an awful lot of "trapped between two cultures."

Why do I say that? Because they gave him a bow and arrow and war paint in the middle of a gunfighter film. And because the bad guys have an obligatory Indian, therefore, it must be one against the other. Because stupid Hollywood tropes.

Also, he's the guy on the far right.

Speaking of stupid Hollywood tropes, Yul Brenner, who played "Chris" in the original, has been replaced by Denzel Washington. I will grant them that cowboys in the old west were at least 50% black, if not mostly black. It was a job, they did it, collected a paycheck, have a nice day. I've got very little problem with him being black ... I think I have a problem with him being Denzel Washington. While I have not seen his Equalizer, I have seen his Man on Fire. I do not like him as an action hero.

And did they have to change his name to "Sam Chisolm?" No, really, I must ask, is there something wrong with the name Chris? Did I miss a memo? Is "Chris" now a racist name?

Now, if you look at the trailer, you might suspect that Washington's second in command would be played by Chris Pratt. In the original, the second gunfighter we meet is played by handsome leading man Steve McQueen. So, obviously, that must be who Chris Pratt is playing, right?

EEEEE, WRONG!  Chris Pratt is playing the young ingenue of the roster. In the original that was "Chico," the son of a farmer who might have just enough inborn talent to not die during the fracas. In the original, he's the pain in the ass who won't go away, and has to prove himself just to get on board this suicide mission. And yes, he was a little Hispanic. Just a bit.

But nope, apparently, one Hispanic was enough for this collection of seven. And obviously, in the trailer, Pratt is being recruited. So, huh, that's odd.

In this one, the Steve McQueen part is being played by ... Vincent D'Onofrio.

Huh?

While I believe in the power of D'Onofrio's acting, there is no power on Earth to make me imagine him as Steve McQueen.

In the original film, Robert Vaughn played "Lee," a slightly older gunfighter, a burnout trying to get his mojo back. He will be replaced by Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (on the right), playing "Vasquez." (As you can tell, the original wasn't big on first and last names.)

A show of hands, please -- does anyone think that Vasquez will be a burnout, and possibly a coward? I mean, look at this guy? Does he look old enough to be a burnout to you? He's thirty five.

Sigh ... moving right along.

Number six is being played by Ethan Hawke who ... wait, I'm sorry, does he even have a career anymore? Last time I saw him was in that painfully slow Taking Lives, and the just plain laughable The Purge. Why is he allowed on stage? Anyway, in the original, his character was a bit of a shyster con man, looking for the nearest buck. I'm terribly ambivalent about this role, since I've already started profusely bleeding from the head wound caused by banging my head against the wall.

And then, number seven, is the character played by the late great James Coburn, the character described as the "best with knife or gun." He is the best, fastest man of them all.

He's being played by Byung-hun Lee. Best known for being in two GI Joe films, and Terminator: Genisys.

Yes ...

Indeed....

So, wait a second, let me just get this straight. Tilda Swinton must play the old wise Chinese man because "old wise Chinese man" is a racist stereotype (or something), and Iron Fist is played by an actor who's "too white," but Byung-hun Lee must be brought in to play the martial artist, because all Asian men are martial artists?

Someone should show me on a chart where Hollywood gets its idea of racism from, because I'm just confused.

And, by the way, look at Lee in the trailer. He doesn't have a knife on him. He has an entire belt that is nothing but knives. And these aren't throwing knives, they look more like Bowie knives. Hello, Legolas called, he wants his short swords back. Last time I saw a character carry that many blades on him, it was a Robert Rodriquez film (Desperado, I loved that film, it was so over the top). Can't do something subtle, now can we? Nah. We have to have him bristling with swords. Ugh. Wonderful.

Now that we're done with the cast ... oh my dearest Lord in Heaven, how I hate, I just HATE this music.  I'm actually a fan of the House of the Rising Sun, and I don't even object to this version, but for the love of ...

You heard the soundtrack in the trailer.

This is the original soundtrack. Listen for one minute.

Solid opening. Steady buildup, and then BOOM.

What the Hell is wrong with these people that they swapped out Elmer Bernstein for House of the Rising Sun? Unless this is New Orleans -- and damn, is it obviously not -- there is no way on God's green Earth that this is even appropriate for the trailer.

The sad thing is? The music for the new version is done by the late James Horner, who brought you the amazing soundtrack to Wrath of Khan. More on that later.

So far, I have concerns. Why? Well, on the one hand, they could do something as strange as just making a mindless action flick, where they're doing canon and Gatling guns. Which would be nice, but do you really remake something like this just to make a simple popcorn flick? Or do you do it to send a message?

My worry for this film is that they've decided "Hey, it wasn't enough that their profession and their personal vices made them outcasts, let's make half of them racial outcasts, too. Because. And hell, we might make them 8 just to include a woman. And let's make it about white rich people beating up on poor white people, because that's every other western in the universe, including Blazing Saddles, and Shane was this awesome film about class warfare, so shouldn't we do the same?"

Does anyone want to place bets that it has none of the redemption elements of the original, except for white Christian townspeople to be redeemed by celebrating diversity?

Also, given the trailer, I can't imagine the moral of the story to be "7 men teach peasants the power of standing up and fighting for your livelihood."

However, on the other hand, I hold on to just one bare silver of hope.

The director of this one is Antoine Fuqua, who was being the awesome action films Olympus has Fallen. Also, James Horner, in fact, had persuaded Fuqua to to the film. So this may not suck. On the other hand, he was also being Tears of the Sun, that terrible King Arthur film with Jude Law and Keira Knightly, and screwed up the Stephen Hunter novel Point of Impact when he made the film Shooter.

In short, I am not holding my breath.

The Attack of Fall Television

This season of television isn't even over yet (gee, thanks, CW) and I already need to do a post on the upcoming Fall season. Yikes.

If you haven't heard, Fox has already dropped some of their upcoming shows, and the list of the season in general.

Let's see some of the highlights.

THE RETURNING

Lucifer will be back in the spring. If you don't know this show already, it's really quite inoffensive ... okay, Lucifer is an arrogant hedonistic egomaniac with a chip on his shoulder the size of Plymouth Rock, and always does the right thing when he realizes that even he benefits from it, but it's like working a redemption story with the unredeemable. Next year will probably be fighting more supernatural threats -- when Lucifer refers to "mom" escaping, I presume he means Lilith, because that's the only thing that makes sense, really. At least he's more likable than House.

And that's ... the only show on Fox I care about, really. You'd have to pay me to watch Gotham.

THE NEW ... ISH

The Exorcist (Friday Nights, Fall)

Yes. Really. What the hell? No pun intended. I'm not sure what's stranger: That this is actually a series, or that Geena Davis is in it.  Yes, the mother is Geena Davis. I don't recall the film that much -- was the mother such a big role that they got movie-quality star power for it?  Or is Geena Davis not doing that well in this point of her career?

They want to make this a psychological thriller, following two priests tackling one case of demonic possession. There's Father new priest of Chicago, all shiny and new and "progressive," and probably screwed. The other is ... sigh ... "a modern-day Templar Knight, an orphan raised since childhood by the Vatican to wage war against its enemies. Father Marcus is everything Father Tomas is not: relentless, abrasive and utterly consumed by his sacred mission." While I have no problem with that, there are so many ways to spin that as a negative that I'm almost certain they're going to make him look like an utter nutcase by the end of the day.

And "it's the house"? Yeah. Sure. Thanks. I think I heard this movie was called The Amityville Horror. The original incident of The Exorcist (yes, based on a true story) had a little boy playing with occult crap that ended up playing with him.

Pros? If William Peter Blatty -- author of the original book -- is involved, this should be awesome. We should be seeing the entire process of what it takes to get an exorcism performed in this day and age. MRIs, psychologists, every expert scientist in every field should come on the show, run tests, and come up with alternate solutions for what's wrong with ... whoever this child is, I guess.

Cons: If they make this another stupid horror show like The Following or Sleepy Hollow, I'll throw rocks at the screen.

Lethal Weapon (Weds night, Fall, 2017)

All right, hold on. When I wrote that post "The Return of everything," I didn't think that I would be that predictive. Stop it already. First Rush Hour, then The Exorcist, now this?

No, seriously, was this inspired by the Rush Hour TV show? You know, "If CBS can make this crappy movie into an ok TV show, we can do it with better original material?"

While I grew up with the Lethal Weapon films, has anyone watched them recently? Sure, they almost started the genre of "opposite personality syndrome" in cops shows (I don't recall it in DragNet, The FBI Story, The Untouchables, The Naked City, or Hill Street Blues), but wow, those films do not hold up as well. Far too shallow, and far, far too superseded by movies that came after them and did it better.

But now it's Damon Wayans? Remind me, is he trying to get a career as a serious actor? Because "insane cop / bad comedian cop" doesn't sound like a show I want to see.

I'll give it a try.

This time they want to make Riggs a former Navy SEAL, and they want Murtaugh to have recently had a heart attack.

Pros: There's a lot of room for improvement on the originals.

Cons: There's also a lot they can do terribly, terribly wrong.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show.... 

Do I even need to say any more about this?

Didn't think so.

Let's move on.

Prison Break

I guess Wentwood Miller and Dominic Purcell made an impression on The Flash.

24: Legacy

I am so conflicted about this one. On the one  hand: YES, MORE 24, BWAHAHAHAHA

On the other hand ... WHERE'S MY JACK BAUER. I WANT BAUER BACK NOW DAMNIT! THERE'S NO TIME!

Anyway, again, another terrorist attack is coming to United States soil. After killing an Osama knockoff, the Rangers from the mission have been targeted by not-Osama's followers. With the help of Eowyn (Miranda Otto, “Lord of the Rings”), he's going to strike back. Here, Eowyn is "a brilliant and ambitious intelligence officer who has stepped down from her post as National Director of CTU to support her husband (Jimmy Smits) in his campaign for President of the United States."

Dear Hollyweird, while I appreciate you bringing back one of my favorite shows, could you please read a book or something and make a tv show out of that? And not for premium cable?

Cons: Our lead looks like a kid. He could be the brother of Jax from Berlanti's Arrow-verse. He's supposed to be an officer, with a wife and family? What happened to the veteran?  Oh yes, and least I forget, WHERE'S JACK BAUER? ... oh, wait, he's producing.

Pros: It's more 24, with several solid actors, even some bit players.

THE NEW: YES, REALLY

APB (Spring, 2017)

So, Tony Stark took over a police department, and he's now on his way to taking over the police department of the entire city.

Do you want to create RoboCop? Because this is how you get RoboCop.

Seriously, this feels like someone saw the 90s show The District, and just threw in Tony Stark.

However....

The executive producer is the same one from Lucifer, and the creator of Burn Notice, Matt Nix.

All right, they have my attention.

"Inspired by true events" ... huh. Okay.

Pros: This looks like insane fun. With the guys from Lucifer, Burn Notice, and Ernie Hudson.

Cons: Too many possibilities to take this into Mary Sue territory ... which they may have deflated in the last scene of the trailer, so who knows, there may be hope for this.

Hollywood Racists

Last week, we saw the biggest collection of racists in Hollywood since The Birth of a Nation, where the Klu Klux Klan rode to the rescue (reviewed by President Woodrow Wilson as "History written with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true" -- partially explaining why I hate Wilson).

The week started with the second round of bitching about Iron Fist.
For those of you who don't know who and / or what Iron Fist is, it's another Marvel property. The premise is that Danny Rand, billionaire, has the power of the Iron Fist -- the ability to focus his chi so that his body is like iron.

Obviously, someone at Marvel really likes that element. That and mercury (quicksilver).

Anyway, the entire premise is watching him deal with racism. Yes, really. He learned martial arts as a child, growing up in Asia. He was actually adopted by a Chinese leader in a Shangri La knockoff, raised to be as much of one of their own as possible. He was the outcast, the minority. He had to overcome the same obstacles of every child, compounded and made concentrated even more by being the wrong race. Handled well, it is a powerful, moving thing.

Then you have the "in" crowd bitching that it sucks that Iron Fist is white.  No, no, not that he's too white. But that he's white at all.

Yes, really.

The key paragraph?

Yes, it’s true that the comics character Iron Fist is white, and thus it is indeed technically accurate for a white guy to play the role on TV. But technical accuracy does not equate “the right thing,” for lack of a better term. Because as with so many superheroes, there is nothing about the character of Iron Fist that requires him to be played by a white person. Nothing. It is fundamental to no aspect of his personality, his origin, his powers.

I think we call that completely missing the point. In fact, not only is that missing the point, I think that's someone who googled Iron Fist, skimmed the Wiki page, and discovered nothing that said the word "race" or "racism" and decided that meant that they could go forward.

And, wait a second -- The character of Iron Fist was a nod to the Hong Kong, Wire-Fu exploitation movies of the 70s, and would pair him up with Luke Cage as a pairing with Blacksploitation films of the same period.  These schmucks would demand that the character be rewritten so that ... surprise, they can put Chinese people back in their place as martial artist characters.

Strange, I thought that making him white would remove stereotyping the character, but apparently, the good leftists would rather the stereotypes be put back into place.

However, that was completely overshadowed in the mainstream community by Nina,  It's a biopic about black singer Nina Simone. The complaint? The actress isn't black enough to play the part!

The actress?  Zoe Saldana.

So, let me get this straight: A character who is an outcast because of being white shouldn't be played by a white guy because "it has nothing to do with the character," but Saldana isn't black enough.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen this level of racial purity regulations since the Klan.

But then again, what do we expect from the party of both President Wilson and the KKK?

Hollywood Nazis

When Spotlight won the Academy Award for best picture this week, my first response was "What the hell is Spotlight?"

Once I was told that it was about last century's child abuse scandal, my first thought was "Really? Is there nothing new to make films about? It's almost as bad as the 90-year-old Nazis in films!"

And which point all I could think was: Can we please stop with the Nazis?

Not sure if you've noticed, but there are still films trying to harp on World War II and Nazis.

But keep in mind, I grew up in the 90s, where there was a deluge of 100-year-old Nazis. Bulletproof Monk, for example, literally had a Nazi in a wheelchair, who had to have been at least 100 years old. And, sorry, if I want old, wheelchair-bound Nazis, I'm going to stick with Doctor Strangelove.

If you think that this premise is gone, nope. Hate to break it to you. But you've still got The Lady in Gold, a film with Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds released just last year. Yes, 2015 had a film about hunting down art stolen by Nazis. And that premise has been the plot of at least one episode of every other television show in the last ten years.

But don't worry.  As the film Three Kings turned the hunt for Nazi gold into the hunt for Iraq gold, I'm certain that there will be films in a few years that boil down to hunting down pieces from the Iraqi museum (most of which, by the way, was actually hidden by the caretakers of the museum, but it'll work because few people actually know that).

So, part of the question becomes ... why? No, really. Why? Do we not have enough bad guys in the nearly 80 years since World War II? You know, that whole Cold War thing? War with al-Qaeda?Terrorists?

First of all, we have to recognize that this isn't new. That's been part of my problem for a while with films in general. Hollyweird likes to ignore the elephant in the room -- or the actual threat in the crosshairs. Hollyweird has lousy target recognition.

During the Cold War, how many films had bad guys who were Soviets and good guys who didn't look as douchey as the bad guys?  Hell, the closest you get to even having Soviets as bad guys were in films based off of John le Carre novels, and even then, those plots shoe-horned in enough moral ambiguity that you wondered if le Carre could figure out who the good guys were if there weren't a literal map telling him where the bad guys resided.

Don't even try to talk to me about The Hunt for Red October. It was made in 1990, when the Cold War was like five minutes away from ending, and they could get away with it after 8 years of Reagan kicking ass and taking names (seriously, half the news articles of the time were about how Reagan was going to destroy the world by pissing off the Soviets; "Hmm, the Soviets didn't nuke us. Maybe we can make one film....").

And yes, there was Red Dawn. But at the end of the day, for every Cold War film that was actually ABOUT the Cold War, there were a dozen films about evil militias or evil generals. For every Hunt for Red October, or Red Dawn, there's at least one Seven Days in May, about the United States military taking over the government. Even Missing in Action or Rambo films were less about Vietnam and more about how the United States has mistreated veterans (yes, before the VA scandals of Obama. Surprise), or how all veterans are deranged psychopaths (First Blood was just ... ugh).

No, no.  The "real" enemy wasn't the Soviet Union. It was people who really wanted to defeat the Soviet Union. They were the problem. Communists (who were already working towards their ultimate casualty list of 100 million dead -- yes, Communism killed 100,000,000 people last century, look it up) were not the enemy.  Anti-communists were the enemy! And thus the phrase was born that "I am not pro-communist or Anti-Communist, I am anti-Anti-Communist."

Yes, anti-anti-communist.  It was a thing. Really. Look it up.

As much as I liked the mid-90s films The Rock and The Long Kiss Goodnight, both of them wonderfully mindless action flicks, look at who the enemy was in each film. The Rock had a collection of US marines taking US citizens hostages, and the latter had a black ops US government agency creating a fake terrorist attack to increase their funding.   And yes, if you've heard that second plot before, it's only been duplicated about a dozen times since then, perhaps more.

Keep in mind -- both of these films came out within five years after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993.

(For those of you who want to feel old? This year's college freshmen weren't even alive when it was bombed the first time).

Luckily for Hollywood, one lone atheist militia member blew up an FBI building in Oklahoma City, and the 90s became the decade of the evil militia. Every. Five. Freaking. Minutes.  A cliche that continues to this day, even though it has been superseded by events. And history was rewritten so that bomber Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian." So, double-bonus point for the PC jackpot.

Then there was The Siege, where a campaign of terror is ongoing in New York City, and martial law is declared, and the Muslim community is thrown into internment camps. Funny enough, even though the man in charge of the military occupation of New York (played by Bruce Willis) started the film by saying "Martial law is a very bad idea, you do not want to do this," at the end of the film, he is the "real" enemy, and is arrested for torturing a terrorist to death. He is yet another crazy general. Because that's never happened in cinema...oh, wait, it's a recurring cliche.

After 9-11, when "the world had changed" ... the Tom Clancy novel The Sum of All Fears, where jihadis nuke the Superbowl and try to kick-start World War III, was turned into a film about Neo-Nazis.

Yes, that's right.  At the height of awareness about Islamofascist psychos, they made a film about Neo-Nazis.

See? Hollywood loves them some Nazis to kill. Even when they're almost entirely irrelevant in the real world.

And since 9-11, what films have actually dealt with Islamic terrorism? Aside from historically-based films? Not a lot. American Sniper was a biography. I'm told The Hurt Locker might as well have been a documentary. Zero Dark Thirty? A history. SOrt of.

And then there is Valley of Elah, or Syriana, which are anti-war agitprop, and one film called The Kingdom, the punchline of which is "this is a never-ending, vicious cycle."

Oh yay.

You know how bad it is when Hollywood has finally decided to make Cold War films. Currently. Heck, I'm certain that Hollywood loves Russia right now, and the new Cold War we have going for us, because Hollywood would rather fight Russia than talk about Jihadis. It's the only way I can explain the last Jack Ryan film even existing. Hollywood would rather perform icky sex acts upon Vladimir Putin than do a film where Jihadis are the bad guys. And EVEN THEN, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit made certain that the antagonist was a little sympathetic, and not part of the Russian government, but a billionaire.

How does one explain all of this?

To some extent, Hollywood was firmly in the pocket of the Soviet Union. If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union had cut them some checks, especially to penetrate the Screen Actors Guild. And you don't offend the guys sending you cash.

But there is of course, always one constant -- Hollywood's initial reflex is always, "America is evil, and we don't want it's enemies to be angry with us and kill us." During the Cold War, it started as "There are no enemies on the left -- Soviets are our friends," and there was an actual public stance where they stated "We don't want the Soviets to be angry with us and nuke us."

Oh look -- Islamofascists go insane over political cartoons and comic strips of "Hagar the Horrible." Mustn't offend them, lest they cut heads off of some Hollywood execs. Or Allahu Akbar a movie studio with a suicide vest.

Hollywood always needs an enemy for the movies. When they can't come up with the standard religious nut / crazy General / White Supremicist Militia / big business (what they see as Conservatives, basically), they seem obligated to utilize some variation of Nazis.

"But Declan," I hear you say, "what about books made into films?"

What about them? They come with their own villains. As most of them are sci-fi / fantasy, there is little connection to the real world.

But if you wantto think about them in a political fashion?

The Hunger Games? Fascist dictatorship.

Harry Potter? Villains stressing racial purity, and idiots looking like Neville Chamberlain.

Lord of the Rings? Evil armies trying to take over the world, based off of Tolkien in World War I, published after WW2.

Marvel films? Hail Hydra.

I'm sure if it ever comes up, there's someone around to say, "Hey! Nazis did this!"

But, on the question of fighting Jihadis? Sure, there are always some ways around this.  300, for example, could be seen as allegorical for going against the villains of the Middle East in the Persian Empire.  Though you're never going to get away with having James Bond go after Osama bin Laden. Or anyone who even looks like Osama.

As John Ringo once wrote in his book Live Free or Die, as someone tries to explain to an alien why reporters hate his guts...

"I'm what her culture, her tribe, has long seen as the bad guy. Wealthy, self-made, conservative. White. Male. I'm a more comprehensible evil—and it is viewed as evil—than the Horvath. ... The difference is, I try to understand them. They don't even try to understand me. They see my motivations as being theirs. I'm rich because I'm greedy. I have power so I must be ambitious for domination.”

Also, he continues, at the end of the day, this conservative (okay, really a libertarian) concludes that the good liberal reporters know that the conservative and the Christians behind him, aren't really going to kill them. The aliens? They will.

Conservatives and Christians are not going to cut off the heads of Hollywood people who hurl names at them, nor will we start shouting Gloria in excelsis Deo before detonating a suicide vest.

So at the end of the day, the endless use of the Nazi is the endless, desperate search for any villain that won't get them killed. It is the search for the "correct" enemy, so the film has the "right" message. It is a search for a cartoon character villain who seems somewhat real. Because Nazis don't need depth. They don't need motivation. They're Nazis, they're evil.  And most importantly, Nazis are completely irrelevant in regards to any major world event, or any real contemporary evil.

After all, not all villains can be evil conservative religious billionaires. Though you'd know they'd try to get away with it if they could.

Guest Post: Casting Honor at Stake, book 2

Declan again. Still alive. Dawn's back, with a post I probably will get around to doing for book 1. No, I haven't done this one yet. And I should. It's been a hard couple of weeks.

Casting Murphy’s Law of VampiresHello...it’s Dawn Witzke, Declan’s beautiful, charming and talented sidekick. I’m back again. You might remember that I asked Declan Finn very nicely to let me read his sequel to Honor At Stake back in September. Okay...so it wasn’t so nicely, but he let me read it anyway. I am now finishing up reading the final version (Or almost final version. There may still be some changes after the editor gets ahold of it.)

Sorry, I’m not going to get into the details of the book. I’ll let Declan do that when he decides it’s time. Instead, I’ll just say that you’ll definitely want to read it when it comes out. There is a lot of action and new twists to the Marco/Amanda romance plot. I had to force myself to put it down.

Anyways...I figure I’d take a crack at casting this one.. This was so much harder than I thought it would be. Guess I need to watch TV and movies without falling asleep. (I only made it through  the first 5 or 10 minutes of Iron Man...sorry Declan. Better luck next time educating me on Marvel.)

Here are my picks to play the characters with prominent roles in this book.

Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll)

Deborah Ann Woll played a vampire in First Blood, she also played Karen Page in Daredevil. She comes off as reserved and unassuming. I think she could pull off Amanda.

Marco (Cam Gigandet back in his Never Back Down days circa 2008)

I chose Cam because he always has a that little smile and he’s got the body. He’s a bit older than Marco, so I used my time machine and plucked him from 2008 when he played in Never Back Down. Declan would probably disqualify him simply on the fact he also played a vampire in Twilight.

Merle (Tim Kang)

Tim Kang, from the Mentalist, came to mind the minute that Merle showed up in the picture. He’s laid back and doesn’t get too excited about anything.

Merle’s ex wife Kristen (Molly Sims)

Neither Tiffany nor George says a whole lot in book 2, so I picked actors that I thought might look the part. Apparently, they can act fairly well too.



Tiffany (Laura Vanderoort)

Laura has had lots of bit parts in shows that I have seen, such as Haven and CSI:NY.

George (Drew Gallagher)

Not familiar with his acting, but he looks good and considering the number of lines he has in the book, that’s all that matters.

Yana (Riley Voelkel)

Riley is also from the Originals. She is short and cute and played a cheerleader. I think she can pull of Yana.

Bosley (Claire Holt)
From the Originals. She’s an Australian actress. I can see her more as someone in charge than Billie Piper. Billie seems more the type you’d want to get drunk with, not put in charge of keeping hords of vamps from killing each other. More formal and pulls off dangerous and bitchy very well.

Mr. Day (Jonathan Rhys Meyers)

If you need someone dark and dangerous (and hot...damn) Meyers is my first choice. I remember him from King Henry VIII, City of Bones and Dracula. Okay, so in the book he’s not a nice guy, but I figure if you’re going to have someone dark and dangerous after you, he should at least be good to look at. (I would volunteer to be his personal assistant during the filming...because, damn.)

The Return of Everything

One, yes, I'm back. My guest has left for parts unknown (Iowa is greatly unknown to me) and I am now free and clear to right blogs again. The first thing I did was go over to the Catholic Geeks and pump out some articles, because I like to fulfill my obligations.

And, after finishing those news articles, I have to ask ... What is wrong with everyone lately?  Why is everyone and everything dedicated to reboots?

Okay, in some cases, I understand it. If it's a comic book something, fine, yay.  But why are people bothering bringing back crap that no one liked in the first place?

For example, Star Trek.  I understand bringing back Star Trek, because it's a force to be reckoned with, a franchise that's on the rebound.  So I understand having the return of Star Trek to the small screen.  Granted, in this case, it's smaller than usual, because it's "coming back" to computer streaming services, not to network or cable television. And, since the films are doing so well, it only stands to reason that Star Trek would take another stab at TV.

Star Trek has a fan base. It has some really die hard fans. These fans will cut you if you point out how DS9 ripped off Babylon 5. Star Trek is a franchise monster that's on the rebound.

THAT I understand.

But Van Helsing?  Remember that terrible Hugh Jackman film in 2004?  It's coming back, only to the Syfy channel and gender-swapped. And apparently with nothing to do with the original movie. None of the original people behind the film seem to be working on it, none of the cast are released, and it's being brought to us by the channel behind Sharknado.

Who thought this was a good idea? No one liked the original film, it died a horrible death at the box office, and it's so old, no one currently going to college probably even remembers it.  Honestly, it was 2004.  Do you remember that year very well?  It was the year after Lord of the Rings had finished, leaving Harry Potter to continue on inertia. Van Helsing was just a bad film.  And even worse, they've made it Vanessa Helsing -- unless it's Vanessa van Helsing, that means even THE NAME OF THE SHOW IS WRONG.  And if they make her nickname "Van," I'm going to throw rocks at the tv screen. That's such a stupid nickname, no one would swallow it.

Yes, I'm only pissed at the gender-swapping because they've managed to screw up the name in that route.

Cast this -- Codename: Winterborn

So, I've done multiple posts on how I would cast my novel, A Pius Man: A Holy Thriller if it were made into a film. If you want to take a look, there's a 2011, 2012 and 2013 edition.

However, there's been an oversight, and I have never looked at casting the novel Codename: Winterborn, which I co-wrote with Allan Yoskowitz.

Remember this one?

Yes, I know I don't talk about this one much, but, blast it, I've been busy.

From a casting perspective, this is actually going to be easier than the Pius universe. Why? Because I've got about nine major characters in the entire story -- both heroes and villains -- that would make it to the big screen and a few minor ones: let's face it, if you've read the book, you can see how some Hollywood people would cut out the first few chapters, so we'd lose .... some of the more colorful characters in the opening.

What would the casting look like? Well, let's look at it below the break.

Yet ANOTHER interview, and the FAQ: On Hollywood.

Codename: Winterborn seems to be taking off.  A lot, really.  Okay, we've sold 12 Kindle books, which isn't bad for something I've barely pushed at all. 

Now, you can find yet another interview on Winterborn over at CatholicMom.com.

Also, I've been getting some kick ass reviews. Sweet, huh?

Anyway, I had made a yearly event out of playing a game.  The game around my house is "Cast this book / old movie / tv show with modern actors."

I've done this in years past, as you can see in 2010 and 2011.  2012 was an odd year for me.

Contestants in this game include Adam Baldwin, Alan Tudyk, Sean Maher, Robin Tunney, Stana Katic, Seamus Deaver, and more.

Now, if only I could fit Nathan Fillion in there somehow, I think the whole cast list would be complete.

Come, listen, and see if you have any suggestions.  If you prefer reading the list, the bulk of it is in the previous posts.

Enjoy.

Jack Reacher, Lee Child, and Why I hate Hollywood.

A while ago, I mentioned how I thought that Hollywood was improving in the adaptations of novels to films.

I'm certain I've mentioned author Lee Child a few times on the blog.  His main hero is Jack Reacher, a former Military Policeman who specialized in arresting special forces operators who committed crimes, also a homicide detective.  And, considering that this is the army, Jack Reacher is built like  amiddle-weight wrestler ... if a middle weight could be 6'5" and 280.

Now retired from the army, after a live of rules, regulations, and fitting into a rigorous bureaucracy, Reacher has become a drifter. He lives off of his army pension and his savings, hitching rides, taking buses, wandering through middle America, with the occasional trip to New York. He's done the math, and figures that buying cheap and disposable clothes and living on the road is cheaper than living in a house with a washing machine, et al.

And Reacher thinks.  Good God, does he think. A fight scene that takes about ten seconds requires two pages to describe, because he thinks out every, last, move. His deductive abilities rely on heavy analysis, and quiet, thoughtful diligence.  If he were less conspicuous, he would be the quiet man in the corner who solves the crime by quietly moving around in the background, just listening.

Now, Hollywood is considering looking at making a Jack Reacher novel, One Shot, into a movie. Even though it's book number nine in the series. Probably because they have a Gulf War sniper veteran accused of being a killer.  Right now, I'll be happy if they keep the ending to the book, as opposed to going for the Hollywood's popular "crazy veteran" plot device.

So, who would you cast for the massive, silent, thinking man's detective?

I like Adam Baldwin .... he's tall, built like a brick wall, and has played military men for practically his entire career.  I can see Adam Baldwin playing a man who has put in his twenty years, and who just wants to be left alone.  I've seen him do more with a glare than some people who speak only in rants. He's not 6'5", but he'll do.

And Adam Baldwin is a thinker. At least in real life. He maintains his own political blog, and every argument is well reasoned, and thoroughly thought out.

So, he'll do.

And, Hollywood being Hollywood, they took Jack Reacher, and they cast ....

Wait for it ....

Casting Call: A Pius Man, the Movie, 2011 Edition

After I started making a video for Scott Murphy (see below), where I used myself as a model, I was asked about starring in any particular film based off of the novel ....

To start with, that would be a great big no.

No. No.  And Hell No.

Which, of course, leads to the question: who would one get for the film, should it ever make it past the book production stage?

I tried to answer this question last year.  Since then, other people have come to my attention that might be better suited for some of these parts....

Assuming, of course, I don't make it into a video game.

However, as I said last time .... I guess the first question would be who could be cut from the film first.