Once upon a time, Tim Burton did what he does very well and gave us the movie Edward Scissorhands. The hero of this movie was, as you can guess, Edward Scissorhands, a man created by an eccentric inventor (Vincent Price) who died before being able to give him regular hands. Edward is taken in by the Boggs family, and he falls in love with their teenage daughter, Kim (Winona Ryder). However, due to mistrust from neighbors and many unfortunate situations, Edward’s character is called into question and he is eventually forced to go live alone again, but not before Kim lets him know that she loves him back.
In the world of film and television, there’s a lot of BS going on in regards to female characters, and usually the term BS implies that you’re dealing with people you’d rather avoid if at all possible. Take one BS-er for example: Bella Swan. Many girls adore her story, torn between the affections of a shirtless stalker like dog boy and the glorious sparkly immortal who broods all day because he is just to deep for words – but those of us with more developed brains tend to hate her lack of gumption. There’s one BS-er though, who has consistently earned our attention and admiration, and that is one Ms. Buffy Summers. Resident of southern California, high school cheerleader, and slayer of vampires – among other things the go bump in the night. The character of Buffy was invented by God’s gift to Hollywood, Joss Whedon. She first appeared in a 1992 movie called Buffy the Vampire Slayer starring Kristy Swanson; it was a comedic action film that didn’t really do Buffy the dark justice that Whedon had originally intended for her.
Alfred Hitchcock may no longer be walking this earth, but his cinematic influence has yet to disappear entirely. Directors of horror films will still say they are going for that Hitchcock-like sense of terror and tension, and other directors simply decide to remake his stories entirely. We’ve seen several well-known remakes already, including Mission: Impossible II in 2000, Flightplan in 2005, and Disturbia in 2007. Now it’s time for Hitchcock’s Psycho, possibly his most famous title, to get some new attention.
A&E recently announced their plan to produce a series called Bates Motel, a prequel to Hitchcock’s Psycho. Coming from executive producers Carlton Cuse (Lost) and Kerry Ehrin (Friday Night Lights), the series will chronicle the relationship between Norman Bates, the famous serial killer, and his mother Norma. It will reveal how he became the murderer we know him as today. Cuse said: “We are incredibly excited to start production on Bates Motel. We think our take on the Bates family will both be surprising and subvert expectations. We can’t wait for people to check in” [The Hollywood Reporter].
Your son is gonna grow up crazy, woman.
Though the series will not debut until next year, plenty of decisions have already been made. A&E announced fairy early on, for example, that Vera Farmiga (The Departed) will be playing the role of Norma Bates. TV Guide also announced two weeks ago that child star Freddie Highmore snagged the role of young Norman. You may remember Highmore as the wide-eyed, innocent-looking chap from Finding Neverland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Bates Motel will also star Max Thieriot as Dylan, “Norma’s oldest son and the big brother to Norman who is described as a petulant and rebellious James Dean-type” [The Hollywood Reporter].
As a Hitchcock fan, I am ashamed to admit I have not had the opportunity or made the time to see Psycho yet. I have adored Rear Window for years, marveled at the three-shot-only The Rope, flinched at the heights of Vertigo, and mentally pictured Hitchcock filming North by Northwest when I visited Mount Rushmore my sophomore year of college. And yet after all of this, I have not seen Psycho. It’s also a degradation considering I’ve been at two of its filming locations – the old Jefferson Hotel building in Phoenix, Arizona, and the I-99 between Fresno and Bakersfield, California.
There are several reasons I’m determined to see Hitchcock’s classic and then watch the A&E prequel. First of all, because I’m one of those people who generally wants to see or read the first version of a story before I watch another interpretation of it, I’m going to have to add Psycho to my list. Fortunately, I have plenty of time to get to it since Bates Motel is not coming out until next year. However, since I’ve managed to avoid the original film for 25 years, I better not just assume I’ll “get to it” given another year, either. I’ll have to be diligent this time around.
In addition, I cannot wait to see Freddie Highmore’s interpretation of Norman Bates. Freddie fascinated me from the first time I saw him act in Finding Neverland, and has not lost my respect since. Definitely impressive is a young boy who can consistently hold his own against a veteran favorite like Johnny Depp. His role in Bates Motel will reveal much about how he’s developed as a young man and as an actor.
I only have one trepidation regarding the new series, though, and that has to do with Cuse’s comment that it will surprise and “subvert expectations.” To me, that implies, “We wanted to try something new that may not have anything to do with the original intent of the previous director/writer.” I automatically think of films like The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor that were intended to be in the same “spirit” as the first film(s) but failed miserably. My one consolation is that the teaser poster released for Bates Motel produces the same chilling aura as when someone mentions the word Psycho. Hopefully these artists’ skills of capturing that Hitchcockian atmosphere transfer over into the entire cast and crew, as well.
This looks promising.
Seeing classic filmmakers’ works be appreciated, copied, and referenced in this day and age gives me hope that television and Hollywood magnates will not altogether forget their past so we can continue to pass on these stories to our children. Hopefully, this is the way that A&E is viewing its Bates Motel, and if so I’ll be ready to turn on the television. I just need to make sure to add Psycho to my “things to watch” list this week.
Yesterday, science and science fiction sites alike exploded with the news that German scientists had found out some interesting information about a carved Tibetan statue originally discovered by Nazis in the 1930s. The Nazis were definitely not known for their interest in Buddhist-type religions, yet the swastika-like symbol on the statue’s chest is probably what drove the Nazis to bring it back with them to Germany. But this is not the main reason scientists find the statue that they name “Iron Man” to be so interesting.
Remember, I mentioned that science fiction sites also had this news posted? Normally, science fiction involves matters of space, like aliens. Well, it turns out the “Iron Man” sculpture happens to be from space. The German scientists studied the material the figure was carved from, and it’s made of a substance called ataxite, a rare form of iron with high levels of nickel (thank you, Wikipedia). After more investigations, the scientific team surmised that the statue was carved from a Chinga meteorite fragment, a field of which had been discovered around the Mongolia and Siberia borders in 1913 (near modern-day Tibet).
Currently, “the Iron Man statue is the only known illustration of a human figure to be carved into a meteorite,” said lead researcher Elmar Buchner [Gizmodo].
As quick-catching as this news is, I found it interesting, but nothing to get worked up over. I realize that carving into a very, very hard form of meteorite metal was a feat in and of itself, but many people have accomplished incredible feats throughout the centuries; this is just one more to appreciate and add to the book.
I think the reporting of the story is what made it seem so hyped to me as an ethically-trained journalist who believes you tell the truth as accurately as possible. All the news stories made the story seem a little sensationalist, using titles with words in them such as extraterrestrial and alien origins. If you take those words at their literal definitions, they 100% fit the description of the statue being made from something not organic to this Earth. However, since extraterrestrial and alien have very science fiction-y connotations of other beings existing in the universe, these stories’ titles initially made it seem like the statue was originally carved by these beings before arriving (or being “sent”) to Earth. That’s good marketing, but definitely misleading reporting.
“Yeeeeess, I carved that statue you found, you insignificant Earthlings.”
Also, I found it curious that after the plagiarism scandal by Time editor-at-large and journalist Fareed Zakaria, that much of the news stories I found yesterday regarding the “Iron Man” statue were bordering on their own plagiarism issues. For example, the Gizmodo article about the “Iron Man” starts, “No, it isn’t the plot for the next Indiana Jones movie” [Gizmodo]. And take this opening line from The Mary Sue: “It’s like Indiana Jones, Marvel and 2001: A Space Odyssey all in one story” [The Mary Sue]. Or what about this line from the Huffington Post: “It sounds like a mash-up of Indiana Jones’ plots” [Huffington Post].
Fareed congratulates you “Iron Man” reporters on plagiarizing each other’s ideas.
And this isn’t stealing each other’s ideas… how? If Zakaria can take another author’s ideas and simply reword them and be called out on plagiarism, all of these articles’ authors seem to be doing the exact same thing in regards to the Indiana Jones reference. I realize that it’s getting harder and harder to be original on the Internet when you’re racing to get news out, but it seems a little too ironic that all of these authors would be thinking about Indiana Jones as they wrote their articles (or maybe they’re just more geeky than I realize).
Speaking of ironic and all this iron meteorite talk, I’m going to end on a quote for you to consider from our beloved Caboose: “I think it would be ironic if we were all made of iron.”
When you combine transportation by horses, bows and arrows and swords, and small villages that farm produce and raise sheep, you would think that you’re stepping into a historical drama, possibly one from Medieval Europe. However, this is actually the setting of our future, according to one new TV show.
The much-anticipated pilot of J.J. Abrams’ Revolution (directed by Jon Favreau) was shown on NBC two days ago, and the response has been mixed. Some say that the concept of the show is fascinating, that instead of humanity being threatened by zombies or infection or alien invasion, we have to face the reality of living without electricity. Others say that everything else in the show falls well below expectations.
My thoughts? I think we have to wait and see.
I wholly agree with those who think the concept of Revolution is unique. After the scores of technological dystopias that have come our way the last several years, this idea of living off the land without electrical power is appealing. The only other time I remember seeing any idea similar to this in current popular culture was in The Hunger Games, and even then some of the Districts still had electricity.
Also, maybe it’s because I built scenery for plays during my college years, but I found the effort put into the set for Revolution to be splendid. While it’s a bit funny to see a cul-de-sac turned into a mini village with corn growing out of the ground and someone planting herbs in a broken-down Toyota, it’s also consistent and realistic with the situation in the show. It’s also terrifying to see famous American landmarks like Wrigley Field in Chicago being overcome with crawling vines. But I’m sure that’s what would happen in a world without electricity, so the image fits very well. Finally, any CGI used is not very noticeable, which can be difficult for some shows to achieve.
The foliage-laden city in Revolution reflects the early concept art
Small touches in Revolution really help to cement its presence into the brain as well, such as a “parking in rear” sign placed at the entrance to The Grand Hotel, now turned into a bar. A computer power symbol is cleverly tucked into the show’s logo. Charlie, the female protagonist played by Tracy Spiridakos, stores various items she has collected over the years, including an iPod, in a vintage Return of the Jedi tin lunch box. That’s pretty hard to forget, especially for all the science fiction fans bound to be watching.
Despite all of these production qualities, the script felt lacking in several points, especially in regards to exposition and background story. The pilot starts with a voice over describing very clearly the current state of affairs as we see images of the decrepit United States. I felt like I was being talked to like a child who didn’t understand what 2+2 was. Fortunately, the character voicing the lines was soon shown on screen, and he was indeed a teacher talking to a few students. Lead-ins to shows can be tricky for the writers, but this one definitely felt awkward. At another point, I was wondering why it mattered that we were watching Charlie and a few others sit around a campfire talking when the same exposition could have been revealed in a more creative manner. In addition, many of the lines are not that compelling.
I can’t figure out her mood. Confused? Worried? Not thinking?
My main concern was with the acting and character development. The “bad guy” did not feel intimidating to me, nor even the least bit creepy. The village doctor dating Charlie’s father felt overly grim , and Charlie herself did not seem to have the ability to show emotion other than grief or frustration. Spiridakos delivered her lines well for the most part, especially the ones where she started to cry, but otherwise I didn’t agree with her father’s character who called her “strong just like her mom.” Spiridakos may play Fallout, but despite her involvement in that digital wasteland, I did not get a vivid sense of who her character was in this current wasteland of Revolution. The only two character fates I was truly curious about were Charlie’s brother Danny, and an ex-Algebra teacher named Grace. Their stories made me care to want to see the next episode.
The Revolution pilot did end with a few twists that made me tilt my head a bit and say, “Well, that’s interesting.” The show does have promise, and I find it very difficult, if not hasty, to judge an entire series on just the first episode, especially when stories, characters, acting, and production tend to improve over the course of a show’s life. As it stands, Revolution may not actually start one on TV, but it could have a very good chance to do so with a little improvement.
Hike up your glasses and pick your favorite case everybody! The iPhone 5 is almost here – Apple fans have already been rejoicing for months now and I definitely wanted to be in on this new product because it seems that news about the iPhone 5 is everywhere. So now it’s time for me to review this news-maker. Will it meet the hype that dedicated Apple fans have created over it, or will it fail to deliver?
Wrong kind of ‘deliver’
First of all, the bigger screen is pretty impressive. The first time I held the phone and looked at the screen I could have sworn I was looking at a netbook instead of a phone. Apparently, people want our phone screens to keep getting bigger like our TV screens have and Apple definitely delivered on this aspect. I tested out the screen’s size by pulling up a picture of a pizza (because I was really hungry at the time) and I could have picked the entire thing right off the screen, it was so real and life-sized. I was shocked. How awesome would it be if the next iPhone could be even bigger and I could look up even bigger food items, like a foot-long Subway sandwich?
I can’t wait until they’re this size!
I’m also pretty stoked about the new charger for the iPhone 5, a cable called the Lightning. The connector is really small and fits perfectly into the small spot allotted for it on the new, slimmer iPhone 5. I think Apple was trying to go along with the whole diet mentality because everything about the Lightning seemed based on smaller proportions to produce greater effects in the end, except for the screen of course. Not a bad strategy if you ask me. I read that apparently a lot of Apple products are going to start using this charging cable, which is pretty awesome that I’ll get to throw away my perfectly good iPod to buy a whole new one just so it will be compatible with the new charger.
I wish mine looked like this.
A few final notes about the iPhone should be covered before I wrap this up. I simply adore the fact that the iPhone 5 has faster memory and therefore functions a lot faster. Now I don’t have to wait the excruciating 1 second for a website or app to load anymore – it only takes half of a second now! Holy crap, how did I ever deal with dial-up? Also, the lighter weight means that I don’t have to lug around the stupidly heavy iPhone 4S in my purse anymore. The difference in weight between the previous iPhone and the new one is like an elephant to a mouse, which is WONDERFUL for my shoulders to deal with now. Sure, I guess nothing else much has changed besides what I already mentioned, in addition to the new operating system, the iOS6, and an improved camera. But really, it’s the newest and greatest from Apple, and that is good enough reason for me to own it.
But I guess now would be a good time to let you know that I’m not one of those “lucky” writers in the tech industry who was able to get their hands on an iPhone 5 for review. In fact, I’ve never owned any iPhone, or any other smartphone, for that matter. My review was based on me imagining that I was an Apple addict who shells out money for everything my beloved company produces because I must remain a part of their cult. So I hope this article at least entertained you, because there’s no way I’d ever actually want to review an iPhone 5 for real. For as long as I can, I’d like to avoid people telling me that I’m becoming a follower of Apple-ology, Apple-anity, or any other way you want to describe the worship of all things Apple.
Grizzly Bomb 