Pepsi X Rape!

This week soft drink giant Pepsi and Japanese clothing company A Bathing Ape teamed up to produce a line of co-branded products promoting... rape!

Yes, it's the fun new Pepsi X Rape advertising blitz!

What's that...? Hold on... Ah, I'm being told that it most definitely does not say Rape, but AAPE, the name of the clothing line. My mistake.

In my defense, you've got to admit that's a pretty unfortunate choice of font there. Look at it! Tell me that doesn't look like it says "rape" at first glance. Go on, tell me!

Yes, they used Pepsi's official corporate font, but at a glance that first "A" looks mighty like an "R."

Why didn't they just use the official Aape logo, seen here? It appears to be set in Typewriter Gothic or some other such font. Then they could have avoided all the laughing and the pointing and the mocking.

Pepsi X Rape isn't just available on a subway poster, tucked away underground! It's plastered on many different items. Why not flash your own special Pepsi X Rape smartphone cover every time you take a photo of your dinner at the Thai restaurant! 

You can even proudly wear your message of Pepsi X Rape emblazoned on your chest for the whole world to see!

Or jot down your innermost thoughts in your Pepsi X Rape journal! Live For Now With Pepsi X Rape!

As a graphic designer I honestly do not understand how something like this could happen. One person didn't design this campaign while locked away in a broom closet. There were hundreds of people involved. There were brainstorming sessions to come up with marketing plan, legal teams on both sides deciding who'd get top billing and demanding each logo be the same size, numerous meetings with merchandising vendors to decide what products would be used, and dozens upon dozens of executives who all needed to sign off on it before the whole mess got sent to the various printers. 

Every time I design something where I work it has to be approved by at least twenty people. Maybe even more. Between Pepsi and A Bathing Ape it would not surprise me if this had to pass through the hands of five hundred people. Are you telling me that not even a single one of them noticed something was amiss with their logo? 

I was going to suggest that maybe a disgruntled designer might have done this on purpose to get even with one or both of the companies, but even if that happened there would have been fifty people above him that should have caught it.

I'm looking forward to next summer's fun new Coke X TORTURE promotion!

Why Do They Call Them Comics: B.C.

So I guess we've just outright dispensed with the idea that the B.C. comic strip is set in prehistoric times, right? Apparently it now takes place on some remote, inaccessible island that's somehow aware of the outside world and on which protohumans, dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals coexist.

Or perhaps it never was set in the remote past. Maybe it's actually set in the distant future, in a post-apocalyptic hellscape populated by the primitive descendants of humanity and talking, mutated animals that resemble dinosaurs.

The iPod joke feels like one of those references artists inject in a desperate attempt to try and make the strip seem hip and current. If I was a little more cynical I'd suspect this was an old, repurposed strip from the 1990s and they simply whited out "Walkman" and inserted iPod.

It Came From The Cineplex: Riddick

Riddick was written and directed by David Twohy. He also co-wrote and directed the first film in the series, Pitch Black, and wrote and directed The Chronicles Of Riddick. 

When we last saw our favorite gravely-voiced Furyan at the end of The Chronicles Of Riddick, he'd killed the Lord Marshall of the Necromongers and became ruler of the Underverse (whatever that is). I think it's safe to say that most fans of the franchise expected to see a continuation of that storyline in this third film. Silly fans!

So why isn't this film all about the Necromonger/Underverse story? What happened? In a word-- money. The Chronicles Of Riddick cost around $120 million to make but grossed just $57 million domestically. The Necromonger plot line would no doubt have cost even more to film and the producers couldn't find a studio that wanted to gamble all that dough on a less than sure thing. So… the dangling threads of the Necromonger plot line get resolved in thirty seconds and we go back to basics with what amounts to a stripped down remake of the original.

Yep, that's right. Riddick is pretty much the same movie as Pitch Black. Don't believe me? Let's examine the evidence, shall we?

Pitch Black: Takes place on a planet with a harsh environment full of deadly alien life forms.

Riddick: Takes place on a planet with a harsh environment full of deadly alien life forms. 

Pitch Black: Features a large cast of characters who get picked off one by one by the aliens (and Riddick). 

Riddick: Features a large cast of characters who get picked off one by one by the aliens (and Riddick). 

Pitch Black: The crash survivors find an abandoned outpost station on the planet and seek safety inside. 

Riddick: Riddick finds an abandoned outpost station on the planet and sends out a distress signal. 

Pitch Black: Riddick is captured and chained. While incapacitated, he tells the survivors that there's something far worse on the planet than him and if they want to live they'll release him. 

Riddick: Riddick is captured and chained. While incapacitated, he tells the mercs that there's something far worse on the planet than him and if they want to live they'll release him. 

Pitch Black: A once-every-twenty-two-years eclipse blocks the planet's three suns and plunges the landscape into darkness. A horde of deadly light-sensitive creatures take advantage of the dark to come out of hiding to feed. 

Riddick: A rare and violent rainstorm softens the ground, releasing deadly creatures that were hibernating under the hard-packed dirt who come to the surface to feed.. 

Pitch Black: One of the characters is a Muslim imam on a pilgrimage, who believes everything that's happening is the will of Allah. 

Riddick: One of the mercs is a Christian and believes everything that's happening is the will of God. 

Pitch Black: The survivors find an abandoned shuttle ship, but can't use it to escape the planet until they replace its power cells with those from their crashed ship. 

Riddick: Riddick steals power cells from the two merc ships and hides them. This prevents either group from taking off until they agree to give him a ship and he returns the cells. 

Pitch Black: In the final scene Riddick pilots a ship (with two other survivors) off the planet. 

Riddick: In the final scene the remaining mercs give Riddick a ship and he pilots it off the planet.

There are differences of course (especially in the first third of so or Riddick), but for the most part the two films are very similar.

They seem to be trying to make Riddick a bit more sympathetic here, or at least less morally ambiguous than he was in Pitch Black. There he killed people to save his own skin; here only kills mercs who are bad. I'm assuming his pet dog-thing was meant to soften him up a bit as well.

ANTI-HEROIC SPOILERS AHEAD! ALTHOUGH IF YOU'VE SEEN PITCH BLACK IT WON'T MUCH MATTER.

The Plot:
Anti-hero Richard B. Riddick, last of the Furyans (maybe) wakes up and finds himself marooned on a harsh alien planet. Apparently his last gig as Lord Marshall of the Necromongers didn't go so well and Commander Vaako ordered him exiled.

Riddick survives as best he can on his new world, dining on the local fauna and domesticating a wild alien dog-thing. After several months he finds an abandoned outpost station on the planet. He sends out a distress signal, knowing it will attract numerous mercenaries and bounty hunters eager to capture him. When they arrive he plans to steal their ship and escape the planet.

Eventually two sets of mercs arrive, both wanting Riddick's head. The more "civilized" mercenaries are led by a man who calls himself Boss Johns. Johns has a particular interest in Riddick-- he believes the Furyan killed his son William Johns during the events of Pitch Black.

Unfortunately everyone's plans are complicated even more when a rainstorm unleashes a horde of deadly alien creatures.

Pros:
• Vin Diesel seems like he was born to play Riddick, what with his sub-woofer voice and menacing stare. Maybe I'm just imagining it, but it seemed like this time out he played Riddick a bit weary, like his brutal life's finally catching up to him. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but if it was, kudos to Diesel.

• I enjoyed the first third or so of the film, in which Riddick is simply trying to survive on the planet against overwhelming odds. The lack of dialog helped intensify Riddick's plight.

• I liked Riddick's new alien dog sidekick. He acted and moved just like a real dog and was totally convincing to me. I wonder if they motion-captured a dog or just filmed and observed one?

• Nice to see Katee Sackhoff again. Wow, Starbuck ain't afraid to lose her top if it's "essential to the plot." Damn you, new version Of BattleStar Galactica! Why couldn't you have aired on Showtime or HBO instead of the Siffy Channel?

• I'm surprised but pleased that Riddick is rated R, especially after the previous film was a watered-down PG-13.
 
Cons:
• In the flashback that dispenses with the Necromonger storyline as hurriedly as possible, Commander Vaako offers Riddick a deal. He tells Riddick that if he hands over his title of Lord Marshall, he'll have him flown to his home planet of Furya, the location of which only Vaako knows.

Riddick accepts the deal, but Vaako betrays him by flying him to some no-name planet and ordering his men to kill him.

This makes zero sense. Why go to all the trouble of flying a guy clear across the galaxy just to kill him? Why couldn't Vaako have just poisoned Riddick back in the throne room like members of royalty have been doing for centuries?

• Are there any "nice" planets in the Riddickverse? Every planet we've seen in the series so far has featured an incredibly harsh and brutal environment, is filled with hordes of deadly creatures and has a name like "Furya" and "Crematoria." No, I'm not making that up. There's a planet in the Riddickverse called "Crematoria." I guess "Hellholia" was already taken.

Are there no planets anywhere with blue skies and nice green fields?

• Speaking of planetary names, every time I see "Furya" written out I read it as "Fur YA." Spelling it "Furia" would make more sense, but then you wouldn't get to have "fury" in the name.

• Speaking of names yet again, Katee Sackhoff's character in the film is named "Dahl." Every time anyone said her name I thought they were saying "Doll." I just figured it was a nickname the other mercs gave her, like calling her "Toots" or "Hot Pants" or something.

Why would you give a character a synonym name whose true nature is only evident when you see it spelled out in the end credits?

• All through the film Dahl implies she's a lesbian and threatens to kill any man who dares to so much as touch her. When Riddick is chained up in the station, he does his Riddick-y thing where he tells everyone exactly what he's going to do to them the minute he escapes. Part of his matter-of-fact plan involves having sex with… OK, strike that-- with raping Dahl. Instead of becoming incensed at his crude innuendo and shooting him between the eyes as you'd expect, she actually becomes intrigued! She does everything but bat her lashes, get the vapors and say, "Why Mr. Riddick, you do go on!"

I guess Richard B. Riddick is just that good.

• Late in the film Boss Johns asks Riddick to tell him how his son William died. Riddick gives him the short version of the events of Pitch Black and says Young Johns was a morphine addict and was willing to sacrifice a young girl to save his own life. When Boss Johns asks if Riddick killed him, he says no. Technically Riddick's telling the truth here. Technically.

In Pitch Black, Acting Captain Fry walks in on Young Johns as he's shooting up morphine and rebukes him. Johns tells her that Riddick stabbed him in the back in their first encounter and part of the blade is still inside him; he can feel it pressing against his spine. He implies that he's addicted to morphine because he's trying to dull the constant pain from the blade fragment.

So yes, Young Johns was an addict, but it's all Riddick's fault! He conveniently left that whole stabby part out of the story he tells Boss Johns.

Additionally, near the end of Pitch Black, Riddick, Young Johns and a handful of survivors are surrounded by bloodthirsty creatures. Young Johns actually does suggest sacrificing a young girl so the rest of the group can escape. Riddick apparently takes exception to this and slashes him in the back. The blood attracts the creatures who then attack and tear Johns apart.

So again, Riddick was technically telling the truth. He didn't directly kill Young Johns, but wounding him in the middle of a horde of ravening beasts wasn't exactly good for his health.

A back to basics chapter of the Riddick saga that unfortunately is pretty much a remake of Pitch Black. It's not a bad movie, but it doesn't offer anything we haven't seen before. I give it a B.

This Week In Ideas That Need Quashed With Extreme Prejudice

This week Disney released their 1989 feature The Little Mermaid to theaters nationwide for at least the third time. But in a surprising and innovative move sure to win the hearts of cinephiles everywhere, this time Disney executives are actively encouraging viewers to bring their iPads into the theater in order to interact with the film.

Called Disney Second Screen Live, it's a special app designed by Disney to let viewers interact with the movie, as it's playing. Once loaded onto your tablet or smart phone the app will lead audience members in sing-alongs with the film soundtrack, allow them to play games based on events in the film, provide behind the scenes info and even let you electronically interact with fellow movie-goers! All this in the comfort of the theater during the film!

This sounds like a delightful idea to me. Why should you be restricted to diddling with your brightly lit, blooping and bleeping electronic device in the privacy of your living room when you can do so along with hundreds of fellow theater-goers? And the sound of dozens of tiny off-key voices belting out mis-heard lyrics to the film's songs are sure to melt the heart of even the grumpiest curmudgeon. Yes indeed, this is an idea that's long overdue.

But this seems like just the tip of the iceberg to me. Why limit this idea to electronic devices only? Why not embrace all types of activities in the movie theater? 

For example:
 
• Between work, running a home and caring for the family, these days Mom's time is limited. So why shouldn't she take advantage of the hours spent in the theater watching a 24 year old kid's movie? Bring in a card table, set it up in the aisle and fold your laundry during the film. Remember, only sort the black socks during the daylight scenes!

• Still trying to learn to play the trombone? The theater is the perfect place to improve your skills! Why not bring in your instrument and practice your scales, or even attempt to clumsily play along with the soundtrack? Your fellow patrons will be clapping in time with you before you know it!
 
• Say ladies, do you love scrap booking but never seem to have the time to do it anymore? Bring your scrap book, photos, pinking shears and all your supplies into the theater! A small desk lamp (with a two hundred foot extension cord twisting across the pitch black theater floor) shouldn't bother viewers too much and will provide much needed illumination as you complete that page commemorating little Aiden's first goal in soccer!

• Moms aren't the only ones who're busy these days. Dads have constant demands on their time as well. Why sit bored out of your mind through a movie your kids have already seen on home video several hundred times when you could bring in your lawnmower and finally tune up that pesky, sputtering engine?

• Calling all musicians! Bell ringing is the latest fad sweeping the nation! Why not get in on the craze and practice your bell ringing skills during the film?

• Looking for a part time job to help make ends meet? Who isn't these days? There's big money to be made in the fast growing field of Nautical Signal Flagging! Feel free to bring in your flags and practice your signaling during the film. If you're really bold you can even stand in front of the screen and encourage your fellow viewers to shout out the messages you're trying to spell out!

• Why just amuse yourself during the film? Why not engage the entire audience? Encourage your fellow moviegoers to join you in a rousing, show-stopping Riverdance! Once the sensation of the 1990s, it's primed to make a comeback!

• Theater food is expensive! Why pay for overpriced drinks and popcorn when you can cook your own delicious food? Bring in your charcoal or gas grill, set it up at the foot of the screen and have your own indoor cookout! I'll have my steak well done please!

• Even the most exciting films have occasional slow spots in the plot. Why not liven up those lulls with a spectacular indoor fireworks display? The audience will be oohing and ahhing in no time.

• Bored by the film? Forgot to bring any of the above items? Amuse yourself by simply bouncing a ball against the wall of the theater, over and over and over for an hour and a half.

Right now only sixteen theaters nationwide are participating in the Disney Second Screen Live program. No doubt once audiences find out how much fun it is, it'll spread like wildfire into every theater across the country! "Under The Sea?" More like "All Over The World!"

It Came From The Cineplex: You're Next

You're Next was written by Simon Barrett and directed by Adam Wingard. Barrett also plays one of the Masked Men in the film.

The movie was actually made in 2011, but didn't get a wide U.S. release until August 2013.

At first glance You're Next appears to be a typical Home Invasion Horror film in which an innocent family is brutalized and tortured seemingly at random by masked, faceless psychopaths. Similar in content and tone to When A Stranger Calls, The Strangers and even The Purge. You're Next bucks the trend a bit by featuring heaping helpings of dark humor and a third act plot twist that changes the entire reason for the invasion.

SPOILERS! INCLUDING A BIG HONKIN' PLOT TWIST!! DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED!!! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!!

The Plot:
Various members of the wealthy but estranged Davison family gather at their remote summer home for a reunion. During a tense dinner the family is attacked by a group of assailants who are all wearing incongruously cute animal masks.

The Masked Men begin picking off the family members (and their significant others) one by one, occasionally scrawling "You're Next" on the walls in blood.

Unfortunately for the Masked Men they didn't plan on the resourcefulness and survival training of one of the guests.

Pros:
• You shouldn't have any trouble figuring out who The Final Girl will be. Ten minutes in and I had her pegged as Erin, Crispian's Australian girlfriend.

• Nice to see Barbara Crampton on screen again. Crampton is a fan-favorite scream queen who starred in many horror and sci-fi movies in the 1980s and 1990s, including Re-Animator, Chopping Mall, From Beyond, Puppetmaster, Trancers II, Castle Freak and more.

• Right before the fateful dinner Erin stares at a family photo of the Davisons. The photo is very telling; everyone wears grim expressions and no one's touching one another. In fact Mom & Pop Davison are sitting on the couch with a good three feet between them. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it's a nice little touch, giving us visual evidence of the family's cold and distant feelings for one another.  

• I really liked the Erin character and loved the twist that she'd been raised in an Australian survivalist compound and knew all sorts of offensive and defensive tactics. For once we get a Final Girl who's every bit as dangerous (if not more so) than the villains. 

• Much of the film's dark humor comes from Erin and the devious traps she sets. Some of them, like the nail-studded boards below the windows, would make Kevin McCallister (of Home Alone fame) proud.

Cons:
• The film begins as the Masked Men slaughter the Davison's next door neighbors. But why? The Masked Men were hired by brothers Crispian and Felix Davison to kill their parents and siblings so they'd inherit the family fortune. I don't see how killing the neighbors factored into that plan.

Did the Masked Men kill the neighbors for practice? To keep them from snooping? Or did they kill them so it wouldn't look like the Davison's were being specifically targeted, which might arouse suspicion? 

• Shortly before the massacre the neighbor woman fixes herself a drink and plays a CD. Oddly enough she puts the disc in the player upside down (or silver side up). Luckily for her it still manages to play somehow. I suppose she might be playing a disc she burned, but if so there's nothing written on it.

I see this a lot in movies; I think if they actually showed the top of the CD they'd have to pay some licensing fee to the artists, so they're always shown with the artwork side facing down.

• As Mom & Pop Davison pull up to their summer home, there's a very odd, lingering shot of the front of their Jeep, which lovingly displays the logo. Product placement, perhaps?

• I'm not a fan of the whole "Greedy Kids Hire Hitmen To Kill The Parents In Order To Inherit The Family Fortune" plot twist. It was very jarring and seemed to come out of nowhere, like it was shoehorned in at the last minute.

I get that it sets this film apart from all the other Home Invasion Horror films out there, but I think I might have liked it more if it had just turned out to be a bunch of faceless killers who picked a family at random. 

Also if the Masked Men had remained faceless, unknown psychopaths with no motives for their depravity, it would have been infinitely scarier. Are they human or supernatural? Who knows what they're capable of? Having them whip their masks off and reveal that they're just a bunch of normal guys kind of torpedoed any chance for scares.

• Crispian explains to Erin that he gave the Masked Men explicit instructions not to harm her so that she'd survive and be an impartial witness, deflecting suspicion from Felix and him. But Felix's goth girlfriend Zee knows about the plan as welll. Why did they let Zee in on it too? Was she originally supposed to be another witness but discovered the plan and they had to include her?

• I'm glad that the film was rated R, as I'm not a fan of watered-down PG-13 horror movies. That said, for an R rated movie there's very little gore. Sure there are a few slit throats, but for the most part all the violence takes place chastely offscreen.

• At the end of the film all of the Masked Men (as well as Felix and Zee) have been killed by Erin. Her boyfriend Crispian is the only Davison left. He goes into a long, drawn out monologue, explaining his motives to her and urging her to join him. Erin listens to his spiel for a few minutes, then comes to a decision and stabs him in the throat, killing him.

Unfortunately this action turns Erin from a victim into a cold blooded murderer. Everyone else she killed was in self-defense, as she was literally fighting for her very survival. Crispian, although a sick and twisted bastard, was no threat to her. She rage-murdered him just to make a point.

She should have just stabbed him in the leg to incapacitate him until the police came. He'd have then gone to prison for the rest of his life, which would have been a far worse fate. If she'd done that though then the film couldn't have ended with the policeman seeing her stab Crispian and shoot her, thinking she's the killer.

You're Next is a home invasion horror film with a streak of dark humor that takes an unexpected twist that you may or may not like. I give it a B-.

This Week In Foolproof Ideas

This week the South Korean government announced construction of the world's first "invisible" tower. 

Tower Infinity will be built in Seoul and will stand a whopping 1,476 feet, making it the sixth highest building in the world. 

The most unusual thing about the tower: the building's surface will be covered in a series of massive hi-tech LED screens that will project an image of what lies behind the building onto its front. This will effectively render the building invisible.

Why an invisible skyscraper? Good question. Because why the hell not, I guess.

Oh, and Tower Infinity will be constructed near Incheon International Airport just outside of Seoul.

A quarter mile-high skyscraper? AND it's invisible? AND it's right next to a busy airport? Sounds like a great idea to me! Nothing can ever possibly go wrong with that plan.

Bosses From The Eighth Circle Of Hell: Lorem Ipsum

Throughout my career I've prided myself on working hard, performing what's asked of me to the best of my ability and being an all-around good employee. I've also done my best to get along with my various bosses.

Alas, sometimes that's just not possible. Sometimes you end up with a Boss From The Eighth Circle Of Hell.

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I worked for vast mega-corporation Sony, in a division that manufactured CDs, CD-ROMs and PlayStation discs.

I spent most of my time there making very simple CD-ROM labels that didn't require a lot of time or creativity. Occasionally though I got to flex my design muscles and create promotional materials for the company.

One such time I designed a brochure touting the company's lightning-fast turnaround time and other amazing benefits. I designed the cover and general layout, but I hadn't been provided with any of the body copy so I filled the space with "lorem ipsum" text.

For those of you not in the design biz, when you don't have all the text you need for a job you use lorem ipsum as filler to simulate how the finished piece will look. Here'a a sample:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

It doesn't mean anything, it's just a bunch of Latin gibberish that people have been using as filler for decades. It looks better than a big empty box that says, "Text goes here."

Shortly after I finished the design, my supervisor said the president of the company wanted to see it immediately and told me to take it to his office.

I printed out a quick copy of the brochure and walked down the hall to the executive suite. I'd never spoken with the President before, much less ever been in his office, so I was a bit nervous. I walked in and presented the mockup to him. He looked at it for a few seconds with a puzzled look on his face.

"Um... is there a problem?" I said.

"Well, yes. It doesn't say anything," he said.

"Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean."

"This brochure. It's all just a bunch of gibberish. I can't read it."

"Oh, that! That's just filler text. I haven't been given the actual body copy yet, so I used the filler to show where the real text will be and how it will look in the final piece."

"But... this needs to say something."

"Yes, I know. It will, eventually. This is just temporary."

"Well I'm not spending thousands of dollars on a brochure that doesn't say anything."

"Yes, of course. I can assure you that the minute I get the final copy I'll plug it right into the pages and it'll be ready to go."

"But I don't see why we'd want to print something that doesn't make any sense."

(Sighing heavily) "OK, can we not talk about the filler text for a minute? What do you think about the actual design? Do you like the cover?"

"I'm just not comfortable with all this this gobbledygook. Something needs to be done about that."

"YES, I KNOW! Can we please move on to the rest of the design? Do you like the colors? We always use blue since it's our company color, so I thought maybe if we added some accents in a yellow gold it would punch up the..."

"No, I don't like this gibberish at all. This... we can't use this."
 
(Through gritted teeth) "The gibberish is not the issue. I'm trying to find out if you like the overall design. I'm begging you to please stop trying to read the filler text."

"Is that even English? 'Lorem ipsum?' Is that someone's name? It looks like Latin. Our customers won't be able to read Latin."

"OH MY GOD! Yes, it's Latin. It's Latin so you won't try to read it and will just see where the final text will go. Mr. Blankman, please. Please look at the design and tell me if you like it or if you want me to try again."

"I think everyone here was expecting a brochure that we'd be able to read."

It took a supreme effort, but I somehow managed to keep my head from exploding. I grabbed the printout from him and walked as calmly as possible back to my desk. I told my supervisor that I wasn't going to spend another second on the project until he got me the final body copy so I could plug it in.

I eventually got the copy, added it to the brochure, printed it out and showed it to the President again. He approved it with flying colors this time, pointing out that this new readable English text was a vast improvement.

This was a true story.

Butt-Hurt Celebrity Of The Week

This week Star Trek Into Darkness co-writer Roberto Orci became the second celebrity involved with the film to lash out at fans who had the unmitigated gall to suggest it might possibly be less than perfect. His message? Another hale and hearty "F@ck off!"

In an online interview conducted on September 1, Orci had this to say to fans who think the Trek franchise is "broken:"

"I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.

Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of 'broken'. And frankly, your tone and attitude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future."

Orci then added:

As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don't.

Wow. Mocking your fans because they don't have cool jobs in Hollywood doesn't exactly scream "professional." Stay classy, Roberto Orci.

So when did it become a federal offense to criticize a movie, for Polanski's sake? Is difference of opinion now a crime? Must I have nothing but high praise for every banal and mediocre remake that pollutes the cineplex? Am I no longer allowed to think for myself?

You and your fellow butt-hurt celebrities are not elected officials, Mr. Orci. Unlike the President, you don't get to start World War III despite what the public wants. You're just a guy whose job is to make up stories about men who fly a spaceship in their pajamas.

Every precious nugget that emerges from your orifice and splashes noisily into the bowl isn't made of gold, Mr. Orci. Art is highly subjective. One man's masterpiece is another's bird cage lining. Always has been, always will be.

The fact that your films have inexplicably made obscene amounts of money doesn't mean they're good either. It just means the general public is willing to pay to sit through anything. Why do you care what people think anyway? You probably go home at night and sleep on a bed made from gold bars and cover yourself with a blanket of pure panda skin.

I know what you're thinking, Mr. Orci: Haters Gonna Hate. That's very true. But it doesn't mean they're wrong.

Orci has since issued a half-hearted Twitter apology saying his statements were "not his finest moments." Too late, Roberto! It's already out there. You said, it, you can't unsay it. 

In the meantime I'm strongly leaning towards letting Star Trek 3 watch itself.

A New Hope

If you're a regular reader of my blog (as millions are) you'll know that I am not a fan of 3D films. 

I will admit that when 3D movies are filmed properly (like Avatar) they can be spectacular. Unfortunately the vast majority of them are shot in plain old 2D and then hastily converted to inferior after-the-fact 3D in post production. 

I hate these post-converted 3D films with a white hot passion and avoid them whenever possible. I don't know anyone who likes them, but Hollywood keeps churning them out because it means they can squeeze and extra three or four dollars from the wallets of each customer and artificially inflate the box office gross.

But at long last there's a small, dim ray of hope.

Chart created by MackieDrew

I saw this handy chart today, detailing the horrifying explosion of unnecessary and unwanted 3D films. Not surprisingly, Avatar appears to have been the catalyst that kicked off the whole sorry trend back in 2009. According to the chart 2011 was a really bad year if you hate 3D. 

But last year looks like it was a little less grim and so far 2013 is looking even better.

Could the detestable 3D fad finally be dying a well-deserved and overdue death? Cheezus, I hope so. I'll be the first in line to giddily dance on its grave.

MasterChef Massacre

I stopped watching live TV a couple of years ago so I just became aware of this today. Apparently Fox is currently airing a show called Junior MasterChef, a kid's version of their MasterChef program.

Like the adult version, it's hosted by profanity-spewing professional chef and all around ass-hat Gordon Ramsay.

What cocaine-addled network executive thought this would be a good idea?

There's only one reason anyone would ever watch this show: to see Gordon Ramsay freak out and shriek obscenities at a ten year old until they break down in tears while trying their best to cook franks & beans without scorching them.

"You. What's yer name?"

"T-tina."

"What is this supposed to be, Tina?"

"F-franks and beans."

"Don't you ƒ@¢#ing lie to me! Where are the ƒ@¢#ing franks? All I see are ƒ@¢#ing beans! Did you even ƒ@¢#ing put any ƒ@¢#ing franks in your ƒ@¢#ing franks and beans?"

"I... I don't..."

"LOOK AT ME WHEN YOU ƒ@¢#in' LIE TO ME, YOU LITTLE GOBSHITE!! I'm a ƒ@¢#in' chef and I ƒ@¢#in' hate liars!"

"There's some franks in there, but they must have burned up and disappeared."

"YOU ARE SUCH A ƒ@¢#ing LIAR! DO I LOOK LIKE I'M ƒ@¢#ing FIVE YEARS OLD? (Flings pot across room, where it splashes against the wall in a spectacular spray of dark red sauce). THAT IS THE WORST ƒ@¢#ing FRANKS AND BEANS I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE ƒ@¢#ing LIFE! IT'S SO ƒ@¢#ing BAD THAT IT'S MAKING YOUR ƒ@¢#ing DOG DIE AND YOUR PARENTS GET DIVORCED! CLEAN IT UP!!!"

Junior MasterChef airs Fridays at 8pm on Fox.

I've Got A Slightly Less Bad, But Still Ominous Feeling About This: The Robocop Remake Trailer

Well, for good or ill the trailer for the upcoming RoboCop remake premiered this week.

RoboCop is a movie that doesn't need to be remade. The original film is as close to perfect as a movie can be. Sure it's full of action, explosions and over-the-top violence, but it has its share of smart moments as well-- it's a thinking man's action film. Murphy's horrifying transformation and his attempts to reconnect with his lost humanity, the depiction of the downfall of American industry and plenty of sharp, social satire (most of which is found in the ubiquitous TV commercials interspersed throughout the film) all work to make it a cut above the usual action fare. I don't see any way to improve it.

Back in May I blogged about the first on-set photos of the new RoboCop suit and how awful I thought it looked. I hated the black, generic Iron Man-like armor and the incongruous sight of actor Joel Kinnaman's baby face sticking uncovered out of the helmet. Everything about it screamed "a ten on the absolute and unqualified disaster Richter scale" to me.

The trailer has calmed my fears slightly. After seeing it I now have a small, atom-thick scrap of hope that it won't be the complete and utter waste of time that it probably will be.

It's slickly produced, the pieces are all there and it has a surprisingly excellent cast. It appears to hit all the same beats as the original (making me wonder "why bother?") with few or no surprises, and worst of all, the satire, humor and humanity all seem to be missing. I see no evidence of any kind of the social commentary that made the original so much fun to watch.

Let's dissect this trailer and give it far, far, more obsessive attention than it deserves, shall we?

As the trailer opens we see a run-down, decrepit city in the year 2028. 

OK, already here's something I don't like-- setting the film in a specific year. 2028 is only fifteen short years from now. Will we really have the technology to put a man's brain inside a robot in fifteen years? I doubt it. You're just asking for trouble when you lock your film into a specific time period. Either the things you predict won't have come true by then or they'll have happened way before then. Either way you and your film just end up looking stupid.

The original movie didn't specify any date. It was vaguely set "in the near future," which is a much smarter move.

OK, back to the run-down, decrepit city. Is this supposed to be Detroit, where the original film was set? Is there a large mountain range like that anywhere near Detroit? I'm thinking nope. This looks more like someplace in the Middle East.

Note that there are what appear to be ED-209 enforcement droids, as well as several RoboCops, patrolling the streets.

From this I'm assuming that this world has all-robotic RoboCop drones that perform less than perfectly or lack human judgement and Alex Murphy will become the first human/robotic hybrid.

Well now this is definitely Detroit! And it could be the present day, not 2028.

Hey, hey, don't send hate mail, Detroit residents (if there are any left). I kid because I love.

Oh boy, another futuristic computer interface that uses broad, sweeping physical gestures to move files around instead of a mouse. I'll bet everyone in all these recent sci-fi movies has tremendous upper-body strength after hurling their computer files to and fro all day.

Is she watching Frank Sinatra while she's supposed to be looking at RoboCop's CAT-Scan? I guess Ol' Blue Eyes still has fans in 2028.

Hey, Iron Man! How's it going?

Samuel L. Jackson!!! What in the name of ill-conceived remakes is he doing here?

I assume he's the equivalent of The Old Man character (played by Dan O'Herlihy in the original)? Except here his name's "Pat Novak." Yawn.

I have an ominous feeling that the "Samuel L. Jackson Hair Rule" may be in full effect here. What's that, you ask? As a general rule, the quality of a film is inversely proportional to how much hair SLJ has and how oddly its styled. If he's completely bald in a film then it's more likely to be good (see The Avengers). If he's got weird hair, well then you're in for a bad time (see The Spirit). 

It doesn't work every time (he had hair in Django Unchained and that one was pretty good), but it's true more often than not.

Gary Oldman!!! I'll say this for it, this gilded turd has an impressive cast. If nothing else it'll be amusing to watch and try to decide whose career it'll damage the most.

Apparently he'll be playing the doctor who puts Murphy back together again.

Well I'll be... Michael Keaton apparently wandered onto the set while the cameras were rolling. Doesn't it look for all the world like they're filming him during the script read-through?

He's supposedly playing the head of OminCorp, so I guess he's the equivalent of the Dick Jones (Ronny Cox) character from the original.

Jay Baruchel, no!!! I'm betting he'll be the Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer) analog.

This is the scene in which the remake craps all over the legacy of the original film. Keaton and Baruchel are seen here critiquing the RoboCop design. Note that the image on the screen is clearly the original 1987 version, and Keaton is saying he doesn't like it and wants it to look more tactical and to make it black. Har, har.

This is obviously meant to be a shout out or a little in-joke, but to me it just comes off as a big F-U to the fans of the original movie.

Aw, look. Alex Murphy's got the perfect family. A beautiful wife, an adorable kid... things couldn't be any better. Nothing could ever possibly go wrong.

Err... um, Murphy, maybe you shouldn't...

Oh Sweet Jesus!

This marks a fundamental difference from the original. There Murphy was personally tortured and slaughtered (with gusto!) by Clarence Boddicker and his gang. This put a face on those who took everything from him and gave Murphy a nemesis he could hunt down. 

It also gave us one of the best villains in all of moviedom. 

I'm not seeing anyone in this trailer who appears to be a Boddicker analog. I suppose it's possible they just didn't have time to cram everyone into it and had to leave him out, but his absence is making me think that in this version, the person responsible for Murphy's slaughter and the creation of RoboCop is supposed to be a secret and will be part of a big reveal in the third act.

So who orders the hit? My guess is one of the above.

Of course I'm basing this theory on scenes from one measly trailer and I could be way, way off, so take all this with a large grain of salt.

I thought MGM went bankrupt a few years ago? Isn't that why The Hobbit was delayed for a decade or so? I guess they must have got better.

"We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better. Stronger. Faster."

Although it sounds weird, Gary Oldman's statement that Murphy suffers from FOURTH degree burns is technically accurate. You don't hear about them often, but there really is such a thing. Of course a fourth degree burn affects tissues well below the skin, such as muscle and even bone, which isn't evident here. His burns look like third degree at most.

Also note the x-ray at the right. It shows Murphy's left leg terminating just above the knee, but his entire leg seems to be gone as we see him lying on the bed. Whoops!

"Why in the name of Data's Pasty Bumhole would you leave me with one flesh and blood hand?"

Indeed. Why would you give a robot a real hand? What possible advantage would there be? So he can use palm scanners to enter buildings?

Note that in the original movie the Bob Morton character was inspecting RoboCop during his construction and noticed that he still had a flesh and blood arm. When he asked why, a medical technician said something about how they were able to save it and Morton barked, "Lose the arm!" 

Is the real arm in this film some kind of weird homage to that scene? 

And even if for some bizarre reason you decided to leave him with a real arm, why the hell would you leave his hand totally unprotected? Do they not have armored gloves in 2028?

And how the hell would that even work? Is it a robotic arm with a flesh and blood hand stuck to the wrist?

The real arm heavily implies that in this remake Murphy's mutilated body is somehow stuffed inside the robotic suit. This was definitely not the case in the original. There RoboCop had a completely robotic body, not a suit. The only parts of Murphy that remained were his brain, a couple of internal organs and the skin of his face that was stretched over his robotic skull.

"What do you mean they cancelled True Blood? Who's responsible for this? Tell me!!!"

OK, I have to admit that he looks pretty cool when his helmet finally slams down in place. So why do I have a feeling that he's gonna spend most of the movie with it up?

When I first saw this on-set photo, it appeared that he wouldn't be wearing any kind of protective visor, which I thought was a monumentally stupid idea. But after seeing the trailer it appears that the two red dots at the top of his helmet are most likely CGI markers so they can add a visor in post production-- I guess because it would be too hard for Kinnaman to see through the extremely narrow slit?

So it looks like RoboCop will have several different looks throughout the film. If I had to guess I'd say he starts out his proper silver color here-- which again looks pretty cool and fairly close to the original-- and then gets a glossy black paint job near the end of the film.

I much prefer the original silver coloring, but that said I admit the black doesn't look too awfully bad (in this scene at least), especially with the infrared eye slit.

"Michael, I'm detecting a felony in the area."

"Thanks, KITT!"

"Also Michael, when are you going to take me in for an oil change? I'm way past the 5 month or 5,000 mile due date."

Here's the OmniCorp building. I guess they're no longer OCP, Omni Consumer Products. Not sure why they would bother to change something minor like that, but there you go.

Here's another huge deviation from the original: it appears that Murphy's wife knows what happened (she even authorizes the robofication procedure!) and interacts with him after his transformation. In the original his wife and son only appeared in flashbacks.

I can't tell yet if this is a good thing or a stupid thing.

"Dad?"

"Yes, son."

"Um... why did they leave your right arm and hand intact?"

"To provide me with a link to my former humanity, so I don't become a soulless machine. Understand, buddy?"

"Uh-huh. But isn't a flesh and blood arm a weakness? Doesn't it make you less strong?"

"No, sport. It makes me stronger on the inside. In my heart. Now how about you? How are you holding up?"

"It's just... you're supposed to be this unstoppable killing machine but they give you an unprotected and vulnerable..."

"JESUS JETSKIING CHRIST, will you forget about the goddamned arm for five seconds? I swear if you ask me about it one more time I will snap your neck with BOTH hands, human AND robot!"

 Jackie Earle Haley? Jesus, how'd they manage to get an amazing cast like this? Blackmail?

Here's RoboCop practicing his "land in an iconic Iron Man pose" jump.

RoboCop apparently battles a couple of ED-209s during the film. 

"Hey, if they liked him fighting one in the original, they'll LOVE him fighting two in the remake!"

Once again I like this silver suit. It pays homage to the original while updating it.

Man Or Machine? Original catchphrase, or horribly trite cliche?

Here's a better look at the ED-209 or whatever they're calling it here. I don't have any problems with this new design. It looks like a decent update to me.

 

Look at that stop sign in the background though. Where exactly is this scene taking place? That's definitely not English. It looks a lot like Arabic or something similar. Is there a "Little Bagdad" in Detroit in 2028?

I'm guessing part of the film takes place in Iraq. Apparently the filmmakers believe we'll still have troops there in 2028 (which given the way things are going, isn't all that crazy a notion).

I'm not exactly sure what we're looking at here. Is this RoboCop? I don't think it is-- it doesn't quite look like any of his suits from the other scenes. It almost looks like this suit has desert camouflage. I think this is most likely one of the RoboDrones.

Here we see some of Tony Stark's extra suits from Iron Man 3 attacking. Or perhaps it's a squad of all-robot RoboDrones (with no human brains inside) that apparently clash with RoboCop.

If you look closely you'll see those are RoboDrones on the scaffolding and the real RoboCop is down there on the ground, posing in the middle of the screen. 

I'm guessing the RoboDrones are guarding and protecting the Big Bad of the film (Michael Keaton?) and RoboCop has to fight his way through them to get to him.

RoboCop using a RoboDrone as a shield. Um... isn't he an armor-clad robot? Why's he need a shield? To protect his ridiculous flesh and blood arm, maybe?

Another good look at the RoboDrones. 

I'm kind of wondering if they're in the film so that RoboCop can massacre scores of them instead of real people, ensuring the film a more lucrative PG-13 rating instead of an R? I hope not, but it would not surprise me.

Nope, I'm not liking the black paint job. Can't really put my finger on why; I just don't. The black helmet looks cool, but the rest of the suit leaves me cold.

"Dead Or Alive, You're Coming With Me!"

You didn't think they film a remake without saying that, did you?

The title card  looks pretty familiar, doesn't it? If it ain't broke, don't redesign it I guess. 

So there's the RoboCop remake trailer. I have to say it looks better than I expected. I still don't believe there's any way it'll be better than the original though. There seems to be little or nothing new being brought to the table and worst of all, it looks completely humorless and totally lacking the social satire that made the original so much fun to watch.

It doesn't look like a complete and utter debacle like the horrible Total Recall remake, but it still doesn't look particularly good. We'll find out for sure sometime next year.