Hungry for more Game of Thrones season 3 news? Well, I can’t help you there just yet, but as time marches on towards the premiere date on March 31st, I have some actually delectable news: Game of Thrones: The Unofficial Cookbook by Alan Kistler is out on sale now from F+W Media, and includes over 150 recipes, including several based on Storm of Swords (the third novel on which this season is presumably based) dishes for any premiere party worth its salt:

 

 Dragonstone Meat and Mash
Fiery Dornish Frittata
Jeyne’s Stewed Onions and Leeks
Late Lord Frey’s Leek Soup
Lord Walder’s Green Bean Salad
Eastern Fire Crab
Ballroom Blackberry Honeycake
We are aiming to get ourselves a copy here at the ‘Scape, so expect reviews and pretty pictures of my wonderful attempts at making a Feast fit for Crows, if not Kings.

Nothing get me more excited than a male power fantasy (except maybe a female power fantasy), and independent powerhouse Dark Horse Comics is ready to give me more of what a want! Today, the publisher officially announced that fan-favorite Conan creative team—writer Timothy Truman, artist Tomás Giorello, and colorist José Villarrubia—are set to adapt Robert E. Howard‘s novel, The Hour Of The Dragon into two, six-issue mini-series. The Hour Of The Dragon is Howard’s only novel-length story about the Cimmerian barbarian.

 

Here’s what Dark Horse teases about the serials:

 

King Conan has faced many threats to his throne in Aquilonia—but none more deadly than a traitorous alliance backed by the resurrected sorcerer Xaltotun, at whose command mountains crumble!

 

The first series shall be called The Hour Of The Dragon and will begin May 29, running through October of this year. The story continues in King Conan: The Conqueror, beginning February of 2014. What a great way to prepare for Schwarzenegger’s pending return to the character in The Legend Of Conan!

 

king-conan1 (1)

 

For an exclusive look at interior art, visit MTV Geek.

Today, Comic Con International announced that the new DC animated film, Superman: Unbound! shall have its world premiere this March at WonderCon in Anaheim. The film is set to be released on DVD, BluRay, and OnDemand in the late Spring 2013, but a lucky few will be able to see it first at the convention this year.

 

wca_supermanunbound1

 

The film is based on the 5-part story arc Superman: Braniac by Geoff Johns and Gary Frank, which ran in ACTION COMICS (issues#866-870) in 2008, where Superman faces off against Brainiac as he tries to exact revenge on the Last Son of Krypton by destroying Earth.

 

The official announcement from WonderCon’s programming schedule:

 

WonderCon Anaheim 2013 presents the exclusive world premiere of the DC Universe Animated Movie Superman: Unbound! A destructive force is devastating planets across the galaxy—with Earth next in its sights—and even Superman may not be capable of halting the destruction alone in Superman: Unbound, the next entry in the ongoing series of DC Universe Animated Original Movies. Based on the Geoff Johns/Gary Frank 2008 release Superman: Brainiac, the film’s stellar voicecast is led by Matt Bomer (White Collar) as Superman, John Noble (Fringe, The Lord of the Rings films) as Brainiac, Stana Katic (Castle) as Lois Lane, and Molly Quinn (Castle) as Supergirl. Supervising producer James Tucker (Justice League, Batman: The Brave and the Bold) also directs the film from a script by Bob Goodman (Warehouse 13, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns).

CORRECTION 1/21/2013: Previously, we reported that Diablo Cody would host the Athena Film Festival. This is an error. Ms. Cody shall co-chair the festival, which runs in February in New York. Please read on.

Earlier this month, the lineup for narrative, documentary and short films for the 2013 Athena Film Festival was announced, including screenings of Acadamy Award nominees Beasts of the Southern Wild and Brave, and the documentary WONDER WOMEN! The Untold Story of American Superheroines.

 

This year, the recipient of the Laura Ziskin Lifetime Achievement award will go to Gale Anne Hurd, producer of The Walking Dead. Diablo Cody shall co-chair of the festival, which runs February 7-10, 2013.

 

The stated mission of the festival is to promote and illustrate women and leadership. The pictures selected highlight women’s leadership in real life and the fictional world. Throughout the weekend festival, there are also many workshops and conversations with prominent filmmakers, from directors to writers to producers. The festival is held annually in New York at the women’s college, Barnard College.

 

From the official press release:

“We are proud to announce such a robust lineup for this year’s Festival,” said Kathryn Kolbert, co-founder of the Festival and the Constance Hess Williams Director of the Athena Center for Leadership Studies at Barnard College. “The variety of films and filmmakers at the festival this year exemplifies the increasing presence of female leaders in the industry.”
“The balanced mix of films represents the breadth and depth of the Festival’s mission,” said Melissa Silverstein, co-founder and artistic director of the Festival and head of Women and Hollywood, an online leader in the conversation about women’s roles in the film industry. “Each year we strive to select films that inspire filmmakers and industry members. This year’s slate is our strongest yet and continues to convey this focus.”

More information about the festival is available at the festival’s website.

 

Below are the categories and films set to screen:

 

FEATURES

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Brave

Fast Girls

Future Weather

Ginger and Rosa

The Girl

Hannah Arendt

Middle of Nowhere

La Rafle

Violeta Went to Heaven (Violeta Se Fue A Los Cielos)

DOCUMENTARIES

Band of Sisters

Birth Story: Ina May Gaskin and The Farm Midwives

Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has To Travel

Granny’s Got Game

Inocente

I Stand Corrected

Putin’s Kiss

Women Aren’t Funny

WONDER WOMEN! The Untold Story of American Superheroines

 

SHORTS

55 Socks

ABC

DEVOUT

Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend

Free Kick (Libre Director)

Georgena Terry

Hilary’s Straws

In A Heartbeat

Jasad & The Queen of Contradictions

Our Rhineland

Prizefighter

Self-Portrait with Cows Going Home and Other Works: A Portrait of Sylvia Plachy

She, Who Excels in Solitude

Stella is 95!

Who is Pauline Park?

First, some background.

Django Unchained was the most anticipated film for me after the summer, and even during parts of it. I was rather bummed that I was unable to finish the bounty hunter game that was going on during San Diego Comic Con this year. But I digress. Not only is it a Quentin Tarantino film, but it was a western—which, if you haven’t learned by now, is my favorite genre of all time. I knew he was going to pull from spaghetti westerns and the usual late 60s, early 70s trash, including the 1966 Django, from which this movie gets its name (and the greatest theme song of all time). So, like a good fangirl, I decided–for once–I would try and prepare myself for the movie, and do some research. Over the summer and fall, I saw nearly three dozen westerns—mostly revenge and bounty killer plots—some for the first time, some for the thousandth. When I walked into Django Unchained, I was certain I was going to know every crook and cranny of this film and it was going to love me the way I was bound to love it.

I was wrong about those things. Django Unchained came at me in ways I never could have expected. It was the anti-thesis of everything I thought I wanted and expected. Granted, there was some patent Tarantino sensationalized violence and blood ridden carnage; there was also some parts that were so brutal I found myself on the verge of tears (Franco Nero‘s cameo in the parlor scene was just enough winking at the camera to help my emotional jets cool and feel safe in my seat again). While many people have and will just write this off as another pastiche, a modern day blaxploitation film, I will go on record as saying this is Tarantino’s most ideologically mature work, because for the first time he seems to actually be saying something about society rather than just waxing poetic on popular culture.

When Tarantino called it a Southern, I will admit that I did not understand what he meant. I doubt many of us going in could really understand, because that part of US history is rarely talked about with any kind of depth or maturity. When talking about the 1850-60’s, Americans can go on at length about the western expansion and the Civil War, but we always view the latter through the eyes of the North. The rare exception being if you’re from one of those rebellion States in the South (and therefore aren’t over it), but even then you tread very softly on the topic of slavery. “It’s about State’s rights.” And while that may indeed be the case, it is ignorant to suggest that the latter did not go in line with why a person might have fought so hard for those rights. Additionally, since the war was fought and won by the North, it will be impossible to prove if slavery was truly “on the way out” thanks to Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin, as so many claim. Which brings me back to Django Unchained.

The review in brief.:

The film is set in the south just prior to the Civil War. Django (played by Jamie Foxx) is a slave on his way to auction, after having recently attempted to runaway from his former owner. He is soon purchased by a German dentist and bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who offers him his freedom in exchange for some information on a couple of bounties. Django agrees, and soon has his freedom. When asked what he plans to do with his freedom, Django says he plans to purchase his bride, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), give her her freedom and live happily ever-after. The name “Broomhilda” has personal significance to Schultz, who vows—as  a German—to aid Django on his quest, which eventually takes him to Candieland, the plantation run by Leonardo DiCaprio‘s character Calvin Candie.

As a movie, it serves. This is Tarantino’s first film since editor Sally Menke passed in 2010, and her presence is dearly missed. The out-of-sequence, chapter storytelling is gone, and the third act in long and out of place from the rest of the film, although it is 100% Tarantino. As usual per Tarantino, everyone is a villain, except for Broomhilda who is less a character than a prize. The violence is great, some of it shocking; between the Mandingo fight and a man being torn apart by dogs, you may want to save your Christmas Chinese for after the movie. Every actor is at the top of his and her game her. Despite the shock in casting, Jamie Foxx is fit to play the cowboy, even riding his personal horse, Cheetah, in the movie. Leonardo Di Caprio’s is exceptionally disturbing in his role as Calvin Candie, the pleasure he takes in his slaves’ plight is unnerving, and the ease in which DiCaprio seems to play him is frightening.

It is a movie I recommend, as to be expected; but I do so for its social commentary rather than it being the cream of the grindhouse crop.

The review at length (plus some unexpected soapbox).:

There is an element lacking among the characters here that is present in the rest of Tarantino’s films and that is respect. Usually in his movies, the parties involved respect each other; those who don’t typically die unnecessarily (I am looking at you, Vince Vega). In this movie, no one respects anyone (with the exception of Schultz—who may very well be Tarantino’s apology to the Germans for Waltz’s character in Inglourious Basterds) and that lack of respect is very important to the story telling and also what makes me believe there is more to this flick than just grindhouse, blaxploitation “fun.”

“Nigger” is said 115 times (plus or minus 5, as I did not have a pen or paper ready while I was tallying). Many will say and have said that this is offensive and only done to piss off Spike Lee or defend it as being historically accurate. I will do neither. What I will say (and why I brought up the number to begin with) is this: Tarantino has used the word liberally in his other works, but there is something about it this time that makes it different. The source from which it is said.

In Pulp Fiction, for example, it is said either by a person of color or a person very close to a person of color (you may or may not recall that Tarantino makes a point to show that Bonnie, the wife of his character Jimmie, is black), and therefore may be able to have a “pass” at using the word. Here, however, the word is only used with hatred. To hurt and belittle; show ones place of superiority over another. Truth be told, I cringe and cower like a child every time I hear the word, no matter the context, but this time I felt it was being delivered at me rather than to a character. And this is why I believe this may be Tarantino’s most mature work in terms of social commentary. I may be giving Tarantino too much credit, but since Obama’s election (and re-election), the United States has become increasingly racist (the reactions to Rue in Hunger Games or the introduction of Miles Morales as Ultimate Spider-Man should be proof enough) and Django Unchained pretty much just lays it out for you in a way that can be pretty hard to watch. It’s like rubbing a dog’s nose in its own shit to try and teach it to stop crapping on the floor, or forcing a child to smoke an entire carton of cigarette when caught smoking one. If you want to do something, know what the hell it is you think you’re doing, and know what it’s like to do it all the time before you allow yourself to build a tolerance. But for the betterment of yourself and society, just don’t do it. This doesn’t apply just to Whitey McSlaveowner Candie, but also to head slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) and our hero Django.

Racism is a theme present in the original Django, as well. Like Foxx’s character,  Nero’s Django finds himself fighting the KKK and dealing with racists. In that film non-KKK members comment on the silliness of how a person can be judged by the color of his skin (that movie was made towards the end of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, two years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from whom Schultz no doubt gets his name, was shot), while here we actually have a plantation owner explain how it is a white man evolutionary superiority that allows him to rule over another person, especially a negroid. The latter would seem laughable and out of place in the 21st century, if I didn’t recall someone telling me a similar tale four or five years ago while I was a college student in Texas.

Django Unchained is the movie America deserves, if not the one we want. While I do not believe it is the role of the son to pay for the sins of his father, it is his job to learn from them. If we continue to perpetuate the kind of racial hatred that forces the Master of Trash to momentarily grow up and put out a movie as painful and soul crushing as this, then we have a lot of growing as a nation.

I’m not one to get particularly sentimental when it comes to creators of the media I consume, let alone executives and editors. Of course, like everyone, I have my  pantheon of persons whom I trust and whose content I relish and devour and track the moment it is in announced but they are few and far between, but even of those, I know which projects I might cling to and which I can avoid. That said, there was one imprint I trusted fully when I wanted to try something new, back when my income was more disposable than it is now; before the recession, before I was an ‘adult’. The imprint in question was Vertigo Comics, and the reason I trusted it was by and large because of Executive Editor and Senior Vice President Karen Berger.

An end of an era has come, as DC has officially announced that Berger shall be leaving Vertigo and DC Entertainment this coming March in a statement released Monday:

Karen Berger, Executive Editor & Senior Vice President of DC Entertainment’s Vertigo brand, has announced she is stepping down from her post after nearly 20 years at the helm of the award-winning literary imprint. She will remain on through March 2013 where she will be assisting in the transition to a new leadership team which includes veteran staffers whom she has mentored over the years.

As I am writing this, I am more than a little choked up. Tears are stinging my eyes, as I look at my physical comic book collection (I have gone mostly digital in the past few years) and think back on my development as a comic book reader over the last decade. From the near-universally adored Sandman and Fables, the controversial-but-profitable V for Vendetta, to the practically unknown 12-issue run of the Vinyl Underground. Berger was behind each of these titles and shaped my reading and understanding of comics in ways that the mainstream superhero titles could not. They explored heavier philosophical ideas, endured more mature themes (not just violence and sex, but the many shades of gray that gradient between our concepts of right and wrong), and they kept my interest in the graphic medium when spandexed crime fighters began to feel a little too puerile even for me. Vertigo was like an independent publisher but with the luxury of a corporation behind it. Under Berger, it took chances at every turn and refused to rest on its laurels, even when the money made sense to do so.

As a girl real reading comics, it didn’t hurt that she was a woman. I remember the first time I flipped through a volume of Sandman and saw her name in small print on the inside cover. I must have been fifteen or so  when I ran to my mother enthusiastically and said, “Look! We can work in comics. She did it, so can I!” Even though I am writing this article in a feature called “Heroine Addict,” which is all about women and their place, role, and future in geek culture and genre fiction, I still forget how much it means to see other women succeeding and paving the way for future female creatives and executives. Visibility matters.

It only helped that she managed such a strong and stable history of amazing titles and creators filter through during her tenure. American Virgin, TransmetropolitanGarth Ennis, Grant Morrison. Household names now, but then? What would life be like if Karen Berger hadn’t been there? Certainly some of the greats would have made it through, but in a world where George R. R. Martin turned down Neil Gaiman to write for an anthology because he was too unknown, one cannot truly surmise how greatly she has impacted us as individuals, let alone as a community. I do not want to spend too much time on hypotheticals, but one thing is certain: for the past decade when I picked up a number one of a new title or bought a trade by an author with whom I was not yet familiar, if it had the Vertigo logo on it, I knew I was in for some solid storytelling, brilliant ideas, and great characters.

We do not know yet where Berger plans to go from Vertigo. She simply said that she was in need of a “career change,” and in light of DC pulling the plug on Hellblazer and other Vertigo staples coming to an end, one can only speculate that even with Fables, its spin-offs continuing their runs, and Sandman returning in March, this very well appears to be Vertigo’s twilight. Lucky, for me, there is still a back catalog of work that was produced under her tenure that I have yet to complete (namely Y: The Last Man and Scalped), and a few I couldn’t quite get behind but may revisit (i.e., Preacher—I loved the ideas, but sometimes the gore was just too gruesome for me to get past). At least for now, there is more to be read and, of course, her legacy will remain in print thanks to trades and digital publishing. But what of the future—for both Vertigo and Berger? We will have to wait and see: one with morbid curiosity, the other with hope.

Earlier last week, when I read that Clark Kent was going to quit his job at The Daily Planet, I was pretty excited. I caught the panel of the deed on Wednesday from a little forum known as Scans_Daily, and immediately I was pumped. Mild mannered reporter Clark Kent was taking a stand, and it was going to be awesome. Not to mention the newspaper industry is a dying beast, so it had the possibility of being a relevant and interesting update.

Then I picked up and read the rest of the comic. Immediately, I was disappointed and heartbroken because it became very clear to me that writer Scott Lobdell and DC editorial had made a huge mistake, and one that did not lack in irony (be it intentional or by happenstance).

In the book—Superman #13—Kent says that he reports on the news, he does not “make it”. However, as Superman, all he does is make news. Additionally, the method in which he quits—that is, a sudden decision with little to no build up—makes it look like all DC wanted to do was make a headline, rather than tell a story. This isn’t too surprising given DC’s media whoring the last couple of years (a few choice examples: Batwoman’s back and a lesbian, but it’ll take half a decade before they finally utilize her! Rebooting the universe left and right! Not to mention that Wonder Woman and Superman are now a power couple”, etc.).

Stop bitching and write an editorial, Kent!

It’d be far more interesting if Clark actually used his position as a reporter to supplement his heroics, and not just maintain it as a lame-duck identity. If he’s only working for a paycheck, then why not be a waiter or a mechanic, something a little less public? There’s a reason he was a reporter and DC seems to have lost track of why and hence ignored that aspect of his character for some time. Even a mild-mannered reporter can rattle cages and investigate! If Superman really does stand for Truth and Justice, then he should be out there on the streets seeking those things, even when not battling aliens and evil geniuses with his fists. He would have a better and more effective time at it as a reporter than a fireman or accountant. Perhaps finally reveal Lex Luthor as an evil genius to world, rather than keeping it a secret. Remember when Lex became President? Yeah, probably wouldn’t have happened so easily if Kal El had utilized his position more effectively at The Daily Planet (you know, done his job). Granted, that part of DC’s history is no longer continuity, yet it still speaks to the illness that is present in a lot of superhero comics. And that is, not supplementing the alter-ego to aide in the character’s main goal (i.e., saving the world).

But, maybe, that’s the American Way aspect? All this information and hording it for himself as a 1%er of knowledge (though doesn’t Batman already have that kind of douchebaggery covered?). After all, he doesn’t owe us anything, and neither does DC. It’s completely selfish of me as a reader to suspect otherwise. Nevertheless, as a former, zealous reader of DC Comics, it is disappointing that they went after it from this angle. It feels like a cop out and not one with any real merit.

It may very well be interesting to see where Lobdell goes with this. How will he justify the transition; can he? Or will we see Clark back at The Planet or some other news-based gig in a couple months (after all, that’s all his resume is built for). Whatever the next step for Clark Kent is, I urge creative and editorial that his identity will supplement the character and his mission, rather than just be an ad hoc identity that serves no real purpose. After all, unless the secret identity has a purpose, why bother with it? The X-Men certainly don’t (no one in the Marvel Universe really seems to, aside from Spider-Man). The Fortress of Solitude is always available for living quarters, and surely someone would be willing to pay Superman copious amounts of money to be a part-time body guard, motivational speaker, etc.

Though maybe he meant the speech he gave, and the future of Clark Kent as investigative blogger for The Metropolitan Post (or whatever) could potentially be worth reading. We’ll see. After all, I’m not against change, I just hope it means something. Adds something. But in the past year, there doesn’t seem to be enough Blue Lanterns in the New 52 to justify my hopes.

One last thing: Lois Lane had always been the character Lobdell is trying to make Kent into in this issue. She was the tough-as-nails reporter who cared about the news and getting the information out to the people. In this issue, she cares about sales, credibility be damned. That’s a ‘fridging of character if I ever saw one. But another article for another time.

Superman#13 is written by Scott Lobdell, with art by Kenneth Rocafort. It is on sale NOW.

Previously, Comic-Con International had extended its contract to 2015, but today, in a joint announcement, CCI and Mayor Jerry Sanders revealed that Comic Con was to stay in San Diego through 2016. Additionally, the city committed to a $500 million expansion of the convention center, to appease the event organizers. With the annual event attracting over 130,000 attendees, the expansion is greatly over due—as any seasoned Con goer can tell you.

CBS8 reports:

“It’s not only an enormous source of pride, it’s an enormous source of revenue for San Diego — for the city, for the hotels, for the shops and for the restaurants. The economic impact is out of this world,” Sanders said.

The convention pumps $180 million into the local economy and provides the city of San Diego with $3 million in sales and hotel room tax income, Sanders said.

That revenue goes directly to city services, like public safety and library hours, according to Councilwoman Lorie Zapf. The convention center expansion will allow Comic-Con to host more attendees and conduct more panels, so there will be more jobs to support them, she said.

So what do you think? As a native Californian, I am of course pleased I don’t have to travel  very far for the experience. Is there another city (or state) you’d like to see Comic-Con International travel to, or is it so ingrained in your mind that it can’t possibly be the same any place else?

In this month’s Vampirella vs. Fluffy the Vampire Killer, writer Mark Rahner continues his series of Vampirella one-shots, taking Vampi into the worlds of current vampire fandoms. Previously, in Vampirella Annual 2, we witnessed Vampirella venture to the fictional city of Spoons, where she went to a convention for Gloaming, the in-universe equivalent of Twilight, and battled the fans and characters of the franchise (based, in part, by Rahner’s own experience in Forks, WA). This time , Vampirella is pitted against a satirical version of the much beloved pop-culture alluding, cheer leading, vampire slaying Buffy Summers. And. It. Is. Awesome.

Granted, my lack of love for Joss Whedon is well documented, so it may be hard for me to not actively fangasm all over this particular book for poking fun at the Buffyverse. That said, I do believe any Whedonite who can take a light jab at his or her fandom will thoroughly enjoy this book as much as anyone who isn’t all that familiar with the Slayer and her universe. Which is to say: a lot. It truly is a book for just about anyone, except maybe children (there’s a sufficient amount of blood and gore) and die hard religious conservatives (but they don’t read comics, right?).

Here’s the gist of the story: Vampirella goes undercover as a teacher (cue: multiple jokes and references to Van Halen’s Hot for Teacher) at a high school that is located right on top of an occult portal to Hell (insert: snide comments about government and improper use of tax dollars). Luckily for the town, peppy Fluffy and her friends Xtanley and Sallow, along with her Minder Miles, all attend or are employed by the school and therefore have been able to handle the supernatural situation up to this point. However, a new group of demonic (im)Puritans are mutilating the sexually active members of the student body in order to unleash the wrath of a greater demon, who gets his power from sexual repression, onto the world. And as “Abstinence Education Week” is in full swing at the school, there’s a lot of pent up sexual frustration going on. Whatever shall the teen-aged vampire killers do?

In addition to Fluffy and company, Whedonites may even be able to spy their beloved creator hidden somewhere in the story, as well.

The dialogue is plenty clever, even with—or perhaps because of—the forced puns and dated music and film references. I found myself genuinely laughing and giddy throughout. Even so, my favorite line is actually an on-the-nose statement about feminism, particularly reactionary to Whedon’s brand of female hero.:

After countless jabs from Fluffy regarding Vampirella’s scanty costume, Vampi finally states, “Empowerment means I can wear whatever I want and kill anyone who has a problem with it.”

While killing isn’t exactly an option in the real world, the sentiment is understood. Clothes, or lack thereof, should not be the focus or the excuse of any attacks on a person (from slut shaming to “forcible” rape). But that’s a different article entirely.

Like all satire worth its salt—and any decent horror story—, Vampirella Vs. Fluffy the Vampire Killer is more than just wildly entertaining. It addresses serious real world problems, as well. While playfully jabbing at the Whedonverse, critical hits are dealt to the United States’ ultra-conservative movement’s war on education and sex via the “Abstinence Week” setting, the demons’ M.O., and even a line of dialogue from Sallow that is poignant and painful in retrospect. It’s too much of a spoiler to disclose here, so pick up the book. Seriously. I’d love to discuss the themes further.

Finally, the art. While Nick Bradshaw‘s cover serves its purpose, interior artist Cesar Razek (Zorro) is pitch perfect, rendering gorgeous, in addition to some truly gruesome, images. While Vampirella, Fluffy, et al, are of course comic book beautiful (as are the men in the story), his style here is decidedly not cheesecake, which is always a relief. I love my female heroes and I will defend to the death (in true Voltaire fashion) their honor and right to style to any non-comic reader or slut shaming jerk, no matter the artist or the writer. Nevertheless, it certainly makes my job easier when I don’t have to do so in view of 20 consecutive panels of pure T&A and back breaking poses. So thank you, Mr. Razek for that. I hope to see your art again in the near future.

If you are looking for something fun and bloody, clever and violent, all the while remaining culturally relevant, then Vampirella vs. Fluffy the Vampire Killer is most certainly the book for you this Hallowednesday (see what I did there?).

Vampirella vs. Fluffy the Vampire Killer is out Oct. 24 from Dynamite Entertainment. Look for it at your local comic book shop!

I’ve never been much of a gamer, but I completely fell head over heels in love with Dragon Age: Origins. The game was wholly engrossing and entertaining. Regrettably, the sequel and expansion weren’t quite as good for me, but the cast of characters were still pretty solid even if Anders completely ruined my end game plan with his poor decision making. SIGH.

Nevertheless, we got good news from Dark Horse for a new Dragon Age series, coming from the mind of the great David Gaider (who I totally wrote a fan letter to once AND received a reply. Boo yah!). While not all the details are available, we know that fan favorite characters Varric and Isabel will be teaming up with my one true gaming love, King Alistair, along with the bad ass warrior race known as the Qunari for a brand new adventure.:

Dark Horse is pleased to announce the third installment of the wildly popular Dragon Age series! David Gaider—the lead writer of the Dragon Age games—takes three of the games’ most beloved characters on a quest into the realm of nightmares, demons, and magic!

King Alistair, allied with the world’s most feared warrior race—the Qunari—the pirate Isabela, and the rogue Varric, brings a battle royal to the evil mage responsible for his father’s disappearance!

The series shall be called Dragon Age: Until We Sleep and it is set to launch in March of 2013.

No word on if my favorite enchanter will be making an appearance …

Dragon Age: Until We Sleep will be scripted by Alexander Freed (Dragon Age: The Silent Grove; Star Wars the Old Republic), with art by Chad Harlin.

Excitement? Excitement!

Not to be confused with a similar project set to star Katee Sackoff and Gina CaranoExpendaBelles is the tentative title for the “official” female spin-off of the supremely awesome Expendables franchise. Though I am typically one to be overjoyed by anything with explosions, guns, and tough as nails heroines, this news has me a little uneasy.

Deadline writes:

After grossing $563 million worldwide on The Expendables and its recently released sequel, Millennium Films has set Legally Blonde scribes Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith to write ExpendaBelles, the title of the spinoff action film that will show the feminine side of the mercenary business. The intention is to hatch a franchise that will be driven by actresses who’ve logged time in action films over the years, much the same way that The Expendables team is comprised of action film staples. Millennium will finance with Avi Lerner and Mark Gill producing, along with Heidi Jo Markel of Eclectic Pictures and Julie Kroll of Summertime Entertainment. Trevor Short will be executive producer.

While I thoroughly enjoyed Legally Blonde and managed to sit through The Ugly Truth, as an action fangirl I can’t say I support this. But, we’ll see how it goes and what kind of names they can get attached to it. Since the other project seems to be going for the younger actresses, perhaps this one (as an actual spin-off) will be true to the franchise and go with the likes of Pam GrierLinda Hamilton, and Cynthia Rothrock instead. One can only hope.

What do you guys think?

So you like Buffy, you love Joss Whedon, but for whatever reason you never made the jump from the television show to the comic book, and now you feel that it’s too late to join in on all the fun. Well, Dark Horse, the publisher who cranks out the continuing adventures of your favorite Slayer and her inept friends, hopes you’ll give them a chance and potentially hook you as a reader on January 23, 2013, with the release of the Buffyverse Sampler.

In addition to the first issue of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 9 (yes, I know Buffy had 7 seasons aired, but it’s been a comic book since 2007. Catch up on season 8 in the trades, if you haven’t already), the sampler will include the full first issues of SpikeAngel & Faith, and Willow.

In total, there will be 96 pages of 1st issue shininess, at the low cover price of $4.99. So, Whedonites and Buffers (or whatever it is you call yourselves) assemble and pick up a copy of the Sampler. Be it for yourself or, like some kind of sick crank dealer, for a friend who just doesn’t quite understand your love (no, don’t order a copy for me).

Also, it features this cover by C. L. Bradley. Now I know you want it.


Tuesday, September 11, marked the official Snow White and the Huntsman on DVD and Blu-Ray. Say what you want about the story, the acting, and the mess of celebrity gossip surrounding the film and its potential franchise, but what cannot be denied is that it is a visual and cinematic delight. All of the creatures and landscapes seen in the 127minute feature are fantastic and belong very much in the modern take on classic fairy tales. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with the visual effects supervisor, Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, who tells me that working on a project like Snow White and the Huntsman is why you get into visual effects in the first place.

Nicolas-Troyan’s earlier projects, from One Hour Photo to The Weatherman were all very grounded in the real world. But according to him, Snow White and the Huntsman is the kind of project he has been trying to look into for a longtime. “You don’t get into visual effects to stay in the real world, you do this because you want make trolls and dragons and fantastic environments,” he says.

That said, it is without a doubt his background in the making the mundane interesting that got him on board this project. Well, that and director Rupert Sanders, whom Cedric had previously worked with on several commercials. Once he expressed interest in bringing Cedric on, the two began to decide on the kind of the world they wanted to make. After all, it is a fairytale so it has to be fantastic, but they very much wanted to make it for a modern, somewhat jaded audience.

Cedric with Rupert Sanders on set of Snow White and the Huntsman.

“First, we had to figure out the type of film we wanted to do,” Nicolas-Troyan says, “what kind of fairytale we wanted to do. We looked at the original story–the fairytale–and it is actually really short … Obviously we wanted to make it very imaginitive, as it is a fairytale, but we wanted to make it modern for the audience. We wanted to get away from the cliches of how fairytales are told and tell the story in a new way. And then after all that, it is about constructing the world and what the world could be.”

And what kind of world did they want to create? According to Cedric, it was to lay “right between” the fantasy epic of The Lord of the Rings and the historical retellings of Robin Hood. It would not be any kind of pure fantasy like Lord of the Rings. “Once we settled on that, we began creating the creatures.”

Like the setting chosen, the creatures had their limits, too. Although gruesome and literally grounded in earth by the look of it, Cedric says the troll is the most “farfetched in the universe” he created. While it is a fantasy, Cedric wanted to make certain everything was believable for that world. “There’s no fantastic stuff. Every creature we made existed for a reason and within the terms of the world we settled upon.”

Breath mints, however, were not part of his department.

But what about the magic? After all, the very root of the story comes from the idea that the Queen, played masterfully by Charlize Theron, drains the very youth out of the women of the kingdom to remain forever the fairest. “For all the magic for the queen–for Ravenna–we tried to give everything a sort of a look, somewhat of a reasonable kind of world. It’s not realistic, but it is not all over the place.” Everything, trolls and magic proper aside, is very much in the real.

“We took the real world and tweaked it a bit to give it the look. It is very stylish, but it’s not too far out there, like you’re sitting on a massive mushroom,” in reference to the producer’s previous project Alice in Wonderland.

And he’s right. For what Snow White and the Huntsman may lack in story and character development, it truly is an visually interesting world that will delight anyone of any age, no matter their level of creativity and imagination.

Snow White and the Huntsman is now available on DVD and Blu-Ray.

The day I have been waiting for since the premiere of The Expendables 2 is slowly encroaching upon us: Xena Warrior Princess XXX release date! And now, the porn parody starring Phoenix Marie and Lexi Belle as the Warrior Princess and her sidekick the Battling Bard of Potedeia finally has a trailer. I must admit, I couldn’t be more excited. While I’ve never really been a porn aficionado (the only one I’ve watched is A Party at Kitty and Stud‘s starring Sylvester Stallone, because … duh), I am a Xenite to the (lady) bone(r), and any chance to reignite interest in the Warrior Princess has my vote for best idea ever.

And after seeing the trailer, I am still pretty psyched as the look and feel based on those three minutes is in the vein of the show. Castle Corsetry does well making the costumes. The sets and sounds, especially our Celtic lady of perpetual wailing, all feel right for the show they are parodying. Hell, they even brought Argo along for the ride! Thought maybe I should be more worried than excited about that one? I can only hope that there are awesome woosh! sounds to go with her chakram throwing and some Three Stooge-style humor mixed in.

But my favorite touch from the trailer is this right here:

While not quite so famous as the Xena “pinch”, this move was featured prominently in the show.

This is a bonafide Xena sex trick (because no one else does this. Ever.). I recall this move used rather vividly on Ares during the Amphipolis Under Siege episode in season 6. I can’t recall if it was ever used on Hercules, I’ll have to do a rewatch of the Warrior Princess trilogy from Hercules to know for sure. Perhaps a marathon of the seasons is in order to prepare for the DVD release in September of this year? As if I needed a reason …

That said, based on the story I can glean from the wordless trailer, I’m rather concerned this wasn’t made by people who are aware of the fanbase and that it mostly comprises of the members in the LGBT community. Case in point? It’s clear that Gabrielle is going to have sex with someone who isn’t Xena. While Xena may have seduced scads of men through the course of the show, Gabby only ever truly had eyes for Xena (though there were some pretty poor attempts at pairing her with Joxer throughout the show). Gabrielle would never of her own volition forsake Xena. Ever. Even though it looks like they are playing out the main gag of the episode A Comedy of Eros, where baby Bliss gets a hold of Cupid’s bow and starts making everyone fall in love with each other, which can explain away Gabrielle getting on with someone else. Nevertheless, it still is rather baffling. You finally have a chance to get over the “are they/aren’t they” question of subtext and give the only surviving fanbase of Xena what they finally want: a hardcore sex scene between the battling bard and the warrior princess. And while it most assuredly will be in there, somewhere, to have the characters be mostly (it seems) heterosexual is rather, well, surprising.

But, perhaps if it does well (I have no idea what that means in the porn world), they’ll make a more lesbian-filled sequel. With amazons. So many Amazons!

Another pairing that seems likely will be Ares and Aphrodite (who, curiously enough, both appear to be more clothed in the parody than they ever appeared on the show). While canon to the Greek myths, in the show the pair played heavily to sibling rivalry and distaste of each other that makes it a little odd. But hey, incest in wincest (amiright?).

Ironically enough, it will have way better special effects than the TV show ever did.

Finally, speaking as a true fan of the show, I have to admit I am surprised with the selection of Alti–though Juelz Venture looks way more like Velasca–over Xena’s archnemesis Callisto is another surprising choice. Not to say I didn’t like Alti (I think she’s great and wish Claire Stansfield would find some work) but if you’re going to do long haired, billous green sports bra era Gabrielle, then you have got to go with Callisto. You just do. Alti, while a major villain in season 4 (who fought spiritual battles, not physical ones, as a shaman), she doesn’t come into contact with Gabby until gets into full body henna while singing the praises of Jesus Christ Eli and about to go full butch.

This was a show that definitely impacted my understanding of sex and sexuality, so it’s rather fitting to me that it make a come back in the porn world. I never thought I’d ever say this about a porn film, but I am definitely looking forward to its release. I only wish I had written it.

Xena Warrior Princess XXX An Exquisite Films Parody will be released on DVD September 26

With all the build up to Expendables 2, did you honestly think I wasn’t going to review it? Pssh! From the moment it was announced, I knew it would be the only movie this summer , let alone (with exception of Django Unchained) this year, that I was going to actually be excited for. The Avengers? Not a fan of Whedon. The Dark Knight Rises? Cool, I’ll happily see it, as a fan who is invested in the franchise. The Amazing Spider-Man? Another movie that exists only so a company can retain the rights, great. Expendables 2? Oh, hell yes! I knew exactly where I am going to be all weekend long: hanging out in a movie theatre watching a bunch of old men kick each other’s asses, while explosions and terrible in-jokes go off in the background. It was my first intentional midnight showing since The Dark Knight and it did not disappoint.

It’s a movie that, like Skynet, is self-aware. It knows what it is and why you have come to see it, and cuts most of the fat (“Let’s give them their money’s worth,” Jean-Claude Van Damme’s Vilain quips to no one as he and Stallone’s Barney Ross have their final show down). Like the first film, it takes the good and bad aspects of 80s action films, puts them all into a blender, and lays everything–the explosions, the terrible dialogue, the lack of plot, the misogyny, the xenophobia–on thick. The only thing it lacks is characterization (aside of caricaturization) and plot; but if you’re going to see this movie, you probably weren’t expecting those  things anyway. Lord knows I wasn’t. In fact, when little Liam Hemsworth’s Billy the Kidd tried to give us some back story on his army days and how he got involved with Sly and company, I knew it was time to turn my brain off and just ignore any other attempt at plot or cohesiveness of story.

The rest of the movie is a ride and a half. Although the best action sequences happen at the beginning of the film, there are still some solid explosions and kicks from Jean-Claude Van Damme to make the other 70 minutes of the film worth it. In fact, I realized after the movie was over, that I would watch 104 minutes of just JCVD jump kicking Stallone in the face. What’s even better about that, however, is that you know it’s him doing it. No stunt doubles, no wires; it’s all legit from the Muscles from Brussels.

JCVD kicking back at the premiere.

The cameos in this film aren’t done as seamlessly as they are in the first film: Chuck Norris’s Booker, aka “The Lone Wolf”, comes in and out of the action with no real explanation of why (“Sometimes it’s fun to run with the pack”). Likewise Schwarzenegger and Willis are there and then they’re gone, quoting each other’s own famous lines. After their early parts in the film, they are more or less superfluous (expendable, if you will), and should just let the main team do what they have to do. They should have just served their purpose to their story and head out. While it’s fun to see them doing what they did best in the 80s and 90s, they weren’t doing it any better than Lundgren, Couture, and Crews.

You know, the actual team.

That said, there was only one thing about the movie that truly irked me (not enough to keep me away or from squealing like a fangirl at the end), and that was addition of Nan Yu’s Maggie. First, who the hell is Nan Yu? From what I could tell, she existed solely because Jet Li didn’t want to do the movie if it was filmed outside of China. Their characters are inexplicably the same. Just as Li got mocked for his size and nationality in the first one, she received similar treatment regarding her gender and nationality, as well. Michelle Rodriguez would have been a better and more proper choice (what other woman, after all, is more Expendable than her?). And with Rodriguez, we wouldn’t have likely had that awkward moment at the end where she’s like, “I don’t have to leave, you know …” to Ross, even though there was no sexual tension whatsoever. While I am fine with having a female fighter, one who doesn’t use sex as a weapon or even seem to be aware of the fact that she could do that (in fact I prefer that), her addition to the team as a pure unknown (and not even an up-and-comer or someone with a martial arts background) was just weird.

Also, if anyone should have “got” the girl, it should have been Lundgren, damnit.

I know I’m not really giving you any new information or insight on the flick. If you’re going to see Expendables 2, you already know what you’re going for. It’s not the plot, it’s not the characters; it’s the nostalgia, the explosions, and the testosterone. And it has those things in spades. If you prefer a high body count to high culture, then you’ll be satisfied. Otherwise, this flick may just be expendable.

Expendables 2 is kicking ass in theatres NOW!

The 2012 Emmy nominations were announced earlier today, reminding me, at the very least, how much good television I missed out on this year and hope to catch up on before the actual ceremony. Of those nominated, AMC’s perennial Mad Men received 17 nominations (meaning it could potentially be the most lauded TV drama of all time), as did American Horror Story (which, apparently, was a mini-series?).

Also on the list of nominated shows is the controversial Girls. I’ve not watched it, but people seem to either love or hate it. I’ve yet to meet someone who say it was just, “Meh.”

Among the actors and actresses nominated are returning champions Peter Dinklage for his role on Game of Thrones and Jim Parsons for his work on The Big Bang Theory. If you run through the nominated lists for actors and actresses in mini-series and TV movies, you’ll find film mainstays like Julianne Moore (Game Change), Nicole Kidman (Hemingway & Gelhorn), Kevin Costner (Hatfields and McCoys), and Clive Owen (Hemingway & Gelhorn), among others.

And, thanks to PBS Masterpiece Theatre, across-the-pond favorite Benedict Cumberpatch managed a nomination for his titular role in Sherlock, in the episode A Scandal In Belgravia. It’s in the mini-series and movie category, so I guess someone thought it was a movie (or are they presenting it as such on Masterpiece? I’ve been watching it on the BBC. ‘Cause I’m fancy.)

Notably missing from the nominations, however, are The Walking Dead and geek favorite Community. I am personally bummed that Jack Gleeson didn’t receive a nomination for his role on Game of Thrones, but no one loves you when you’re evil.

Are there any shows you missed and now plan to check out? I definitely plan to catch up on HBO’s Hemingway & Gelhorn (which I meant to see when it first aired), and History’s Hatfields and McCoys, and catch up on the rest of my favorite, Mad Men.

For a complete list of nominations go here.  Snubs that personally offend you? Let us know below!

Emmys air Sunday, Sept. 23rd on ABC and will be hosted by Jimmy Kimmel

If you’re a consistent reader of Geekscape, or at least give a click to read my articles, then you are like to know that I partake in the act of cosplay. I enjoyed dressing up as a little girl (even if I didn’t do it all that often), and Halloween has always been my favorite non-religious holiday. Sure, you get to blow shit up on the Fourth of July in America, which is pretty cool, but there is rare a chance you can, quite simply, not be a you for a night. And that kind of freedom is invigorating. Since moving to Los Angeles and joining the Geekscape crew, I have been given the opportunity to attended conventions throughout the year, which has allowed for Halloween to seem like child’s play in the face of the art that is cosplay. I attended my first Comic Con in 2011, and as part of the experience I put together a Black Canary costume.

Since then, I have played that role at four different conventions, two film sets, and an “-ism” themed costume party (some people got “heroism”, other assumed “sado-masochism”–whatever works). In the process, I have nearly shredded the left leg of my fishnets (due to getting caught in the zipper, running into crap ’cause I’m a klutz, etc), nearly passed out due to heat exhaustion, and fallen over multiple times due to my inability to properly run around in heels–even twisting my ankle twice ’cause I was drunk. (Wee!)

Maybe I should work on my balance first …

For my 1st anniversary as a cosplayer, I  decided it was a perfect time to prep a new character. So I settled on a character (Emma Frost), a costume (White Phoenix a la Endsong), and began to do my homework so I could properly represent the part at the convention (reading everything from The New X-Men to her brief solo run) and trying to look awesome in photos (aka spending hours posing in front of the mirror to get her smirk down pat). It was fun, it was exciting, and it gave me pride when I put my costume on for the first time and it not only fit, but I felt confident in it. I admit it is a pretty fleshy costume (not that skin bothers me, I do go to the beach from time to time), but there’s something about dressing up like Emma Frost that made me feel powerful, a subject rather than object, and I think that’s a credit to her character. And her super awesome mutant abilities.

Then the days leading to Comic Con became fewer and fewer, and guides on “How to Survive” became more prevalent. Although, it was my second SDCC, I decided to click on a few, each saying the same thing: shower, chew gum, try to sleep, respect your fellow geek, etc. Helpful stuff. However, almost all of them also made sure to point out cosplayers and while telling Con goers to “look but don’t touch” could be helpful, claiming we all have daddy issues is quite another, and it goes to show just how few people seem to understand what cosplayers do and why we do it. (Spoiler alert: It’s not because our daddies ignored us and/or gave us too much attention as children).

First: Cosplayers are people, too. Second, cosplayers aren’t just female. There is an incredible amount of men who cosplay. From the elite 501st (while not all male, is predominantly so), to the Waldos, and even the dude Slave Leias. These guys are putting themselves out there as much as the women, sometimes showing as much skin (if not more thanks to bare chests on guys not violating some silly decency code), yet they aren’t mocked for having an Oedipus complex of some sort. And why is that? I’m not 100% sure I can even attempt to answer that question, but it is one that needs to be asked and one that needs to be addressed.

Ash Ketchum and Pikachu … gotta catch ’em all, amiright?

 I’m obviously not saying we should start accusing the men of cosplay of being attention whores or having parental issues or anything else. Rather, I am saying we shouldn’t be attacking the women in such a way either. Cosplay is an art. Sure, it can be fetishized, but so can ponies from Canterlot and Ponyville. Yes, the costumes can be quite sexy, but more often than not it’s because the we are trying to properly replicate the costumes from the comics or movie or tv show as much as possible, and even if we hate how sexualized Star Sapphire is, if she’s our favorite character, and we have the nerve to wear it, we will.

And no, it’s not the admirers or the fetishizers of cosplay that I’m talking to in this article. It’s the slut shamers (who are not defined by gender!) and those who think every girl in a costume is a mindless “booth babe” (i.e., woman who is paid to be attractive and hang around a booth at conventions, selling an item she may or may not be knowledgeable about). Booth babes are people, too, and they’re doing a job they’ve been paid to do. If you hate them, talk to their employer. But in my personal experience, I rarely have ever been asked who I am or why I chose the character. I can only assume it’s the same experience for most cosplayers (male and female), so unless someone out there is always demanding, “Who are you dressed as and why?” then the complaint of oblivious attention whores seems, for the most part, rather unfounded. 

You bet she knows who she is!

That said, speaking as a cosplayer: It’s not all about you, the non-cosplayer. It’s about us. While you may think we dress up for dudes to get attention, we dress up for ourselves above all else, no matter our end game. We are part of the show, part of the greatness of Comic Con.  We work hard on the outfits, the concepts. We don’t just wake up and think, “Oh, I know, I’ll run around half naked in a costume that costs about a month’s rent to get some nerd boys and girls’ blood pumping!” In fact, sometimes it’s hoping we’ll get a job. That the attention will come from someone with a camera, so we can dazzle with our personalities (not just our tits and ass) and hopefully get a job. Be it a booth babe next year (we’re already doing half the job for free), or an announcer gig on some geek-central TV show. While you may look down on that, it is what sells and this economy isn’t all too great (I don’t know if you’ve noticed).

But it’s not just about that. It’s also about the craft and the characters, and trying to be people we love, and show off our creativity and personalities.

Prior to commissioning Emma Frost (I can’t sew, but my good friend Abby can and she runs her own shop called Cape & Cowl Creations), I wanted to do Daenerys from A Song of Ice and Fire. SPOILERS AHEAD! But I didn’t want to do just any Daenerys, I wanted to be Daenerys the moment after giving birth to her dragons. Meaning, I wanted to be naked, covered in soot and dragons. My original plan was to essentially make a bikini made of dragons. END SPOILERS! Obviously, it’d be a sexy costume. I get that. Curiously enough, when I was talking to Abby about it, I didn’t even think of the men when I was telling her about my ideas. Rather, I was thinking of the Slave Leia cosplayers and trying to 1-up them. Mostly because I hate Leia in Return of the Jedi and do not understand why anyone would want to be her. Nevertheless, people do, and that’s fine. In the end, we didn’t make the costume due to cost. It’d be expensive. In the mean time we made Emma Frost, and next on the list is a female Predator costume, hopefully in time for Halloween. In a few years, we may revisit Daenerys the Unburnt, if something else hasn’t come along in the mean time. 

How I really feel about Slave Leia

It’s funny talking to men who are cosplayers vs. men who aren’t about cosplay. Those who aren’t often think it’s all about attention or sex. While those two things may not be out of the equation, they are certainly not the only parts of it. We dress up because it’s part of our identity as geeks. We want to be these characters, we want to show off our craft, we want to play dress up in ways we haven’t since we were kids. We want to show off our creativity and how clever we can be, especially if it’s a group or a specialty cross-over cosplay (like the Playboy Bunny Avengers or Superheroine Disney Princesses, etc.). We don’t just want (if it is what we want) attention. For the most part, we can get that anyway, it really isn’t all that hard. And, ironically enough this year, I received more attention as the Red skirt than I did as Emma Frost and Black Canary combined. Except when, as Emma Frost, I was standing next to a Jean Grey and a Scott Summers. That’s because group cosplay is cruise control for cool, and it’d be hard to find even a cos-hater who thinks group cosplay sucks, especially when done extremely well.

Seriously, how awesome are they? [Photo by Pat Loika]

When talking to men who do cosplay, I invariably express my desire to do something hyper conservative to the point of others not knowing my gender. While my love of Star Wars has waned since high school, I have always wanted to dress up as a Storm Trooper for that very reason. I have since realized that after the third or fourth person informed me that I was “A little short to be a stormtrooper” I’d probably get bored and change. I’ve looked into other avenues and ideas for full body, nonsexy stuff, and each time I talk to my male colleagues they respond the same way. “Why would you ever do that? One of the best parts about being a girl is not having to wear much. You can be the character and let your skin breathe!” Definitely not the argument I was expecting for Babea Fett, but it is one–a legitimate one at that! Considering I did nearly pass out from the Canary costume not breathing in the chest, it is one I need to think about in the future.

So, before you (if you’re the kind to do this) go off saying cosplayers are just doing it for the attention, a lot of strumpets, etc., try thinking about why they do it as an extension of their geekdom. Geeks are so quick to claim that they have been shat upon by society, yet we also are very quick to shit on other groups. Either claiming our superiority because we know more about the topic, because we have the most collected of a product line, or because we don’t dress up in costumes in public. It’s ridiculous. Unless a cosplayer is giving you unwanted attention, there’s really no need to be offended. Look the other way, or stay home and watch the coverage from your computer. It’s a lot less stressful that way.

I’m not afraid to admit that the only thing I wanted to do at Comic Con was go to Hall H on Thursday for the Expendables 2 panel. I was begging everyone I knew with any kind of work or personal relationship with the cast and crew of the film to help me sneak in. Of course, Comic Con being what it is, there is a fairly strict first come, first serve policy. Which is cool, as it puts pros, press, and fans on the same level, and that is a rarity (but not the case when it comes to off-site screening of films). Luckily, the panel took place on Thursday, meaning once Twilight was over, the hall cleared out and I was able to get in and snag a seat in the first section of chairs, with only having waited 20 minutes. Who else can say that (besides those who came in line after me)? Fans hoping to get into the Game of Thrones panel waited well over 8 hours, let alone the days and fatalities that occurred for the Twihards waiting for a glimpse at Kellan Lutz, the self-proclaimed god of wetness … and moisture. It’s insane, and there are very few things I am willing to wait for, no matter my adoration (I guess I’m not a real geek …).

That said, I was extremely disappointed about how little this was about The Expendables and more about the actors themselves. And by actors, I mean Stallone and Schwarzenegger. Dolph Lundgren answered maybe one question from the moderator and NONE from the audience–which was so appalling to everyone that when the moderator said “last question” and it was directed at Stallone, there was a mass cry of “HE-MAAAAAAAAN!” as we all left.


Five guys came to the panel, but only two will speak

Additionally, I had hoped to see more footage from the actual film and hear from the other filmmakers (where were you, Simon West?). Was I seriously the only person there that cared about the moving coming out and not the past careers of The Italian Stallion and The Governator? With two montages dedicated to the aging action stars, it seems so.

Speaking of which, let’s be honest, if you’re going to do an Arnold montage and include shots of Mr. Freeze, why would you skip out on Sly’s excellent work in A Party at Kitty and Stud’s? I mean, seriously. It’s beautiful, and the only porno I have intentionally watched (not that I have a thing against it, it’s just not really my thing).

So, I’m going to say this: unless breathing the same air as Sylvester Stallone means as much to you as it does to me, you shouldn’t feel bad about missing the panel. You missed out on nothing aside from listening to Arnold still talk about the greatness of muscles (his own and the rest of the cast’s), fail to answer even yes or no questions in a straight forward manner, and hear the duo say some of their most famous lines LIVE AND IN PERSON. For the most part, it was all fluff: pure masturbation of an era gone by.

Let me remind you that this is coming from a girl who loved the first Expendables (I say it was the best movie of summer 2010) and who literally started crying tears of joy when she read Stallone was going to be there to talk about it. There was one brief clip of an action scene, a new trailer (and nerds still apparently care about Chuck Norris based on cheers when he was featured, even though that joke has got to be at least 10 years old), and a little talk about the plot, which was so vague that it could have been the pitch for Fast Six. Not much more to it. But, hey, based on the fan questions, that isn’t what everyone came for anyway. At least those who were got to, there was a line that circled Hall H by the time the moderator was completed with his bit. It was absurd. I can only hope that someone with a like mind was up there, but unable to speak due to the time constraints. For that, I partially blame Arnold who refused to answer any questions in a straight forward way. “What’s your favorite Stallone movie?” “Oh, I like all of them. I mean Rambo is great, but let me tell you about every Stallone movie ever so Rocky here doesn’t feel bad I missed one.” And he was like that with everything. A true politician, afraid to give an actual opinion.

Eet’s not an opinion, it’s not!

I’ll admit, it was fun to hear Stallone compare his on-screen body count to Schwarzenegger’s. And their pissing contest banter was endearing (Stallone challenging the team to a spelling contest, Schwarzenegger claiming Sly was his English tutor, etc), but it’s an ensemble film and was an ensemble panel. Let the other heads up there talk.

Expendables 2 comes out August 17th.

Recently, I had an opportunity to watch the new CW pilot Arrow, based on DC Comics character Oliver Queen, the Green Arrow. Now, I know many of you probably weren’t interested in this show anyway (Lord knows I wasn’t), but since this baby is set to premiere at San Diego Comic Con, I thought I should give a little bit of advice to those of you who are planning to attend the pilot screening: Do something else. Anything else. Please. You’ll be saving yourself from mental distress and you’ll almost certainly be doing something more valuable and productive with your time if you go to a different panel, head to the convention floor, or go out, get drunk, and get run over by a pedicab. I know the latter is true because I have officially experienced both of these things and can say the rickshaw incident is a hell of a better story than the one the creators of Arrow are going to try and tell you.

Why is Arrow so terrible? Well, it’s not because there is no relation between the show and the comic (though there isn’t). It’s unwatchable because it is one of the most derivative, boring pilots I have ever sat down to watch. It’s predictable, cliched, and not even the actors seem all that invested in trying to sell it as realistic, even within their universe. Chocked full of melodramatic over-acting and uninspired dialogue. Which, I hear, is typical for a CW show, so if that’s the audience it’s trying to reach, then cool, I guess. It’s still derivative schlock with nothing interesting to add. If it’s trying to reach a larger audience comic audience? Good luck with that, since, as I’ve already mentioned, it has nothing to do with the comic.

What’s that? You want more specific reasons? Oh, all right. Henceforth, Spoilers abound!

Attractive grouping, too bad they all miss the target

Let’s begin with the fact that its wasting the brand. Now, I am  a huge fan of alternative histories and revamping mythology, but there are bigger and better stories to be told with the Emerald Archer than this one; and this could have very easily just been a show called “Hood” about a modern Robin Hood (which, yes, Oliver Queen is), and would have likely pissed less people off. But they didn’t go that route. So, instead, we have a show about a 20-something year old playboy (which I know he is now, and I admit I much preferred midlife crisis, crotchety Queen) who, after a three hour booze cruise turned into a five year desert island adventure, decides to change his ways and become a green hooded vigilante. Every other character is new or just a cute reference to the comic.

For example, we have “Laurel” Lance (as in Dinah Laurel Lance) who is a lawyer (not a florist and/or  vigilante in her own right) and Queen’s ex-girlfriend before he accidentally got her sister killed because he was cheating on Laurel with her (but she is totally willing to give him a second chance, ’cause that’s like her purpose in this show). The one thing that they get right about Laurel is that her dad is a cop. Next, is Tommy Merlyn, Ollie’s best friend, who is apparently seeing Laurel on the sly (though she totally want to break it off. Seriously). If you read Green Arrow, you’ll know that Merlyn is Oliver’s archnemesis. You may also remember that they did the exact same thing in Smallville, where Clark and Lex were depicted BFFs. Third, there is no Roy Harper, rather we have Oliver’s sister Thea, who Ollie calls “Speedy” because she used to chase him around as a kid, also she’s a drug user, so she and Roy have that in common, too (poor Roy will never live that one issue down). Last we have John Diggle, a character who has no basis in the comics, but is likely named after the writer of Green Arrow: Year One, Andy Diggle.

 Also, Queen’s mother, Moira, is still alive and kicking and she’s probably evil, or in some way his nemesis. Because it’s a show geared towards tweens, you see, and tweens only understand conflict if it’s parental conflict or between your best friend who will eventually turn into your frenemy before they eventually decide they want you dead. Or something. I don’t know, I didn’t understand 11-15 year olds when I was one, let alone now.

Nevertheless, they all live in Starling City (Yes, Starling. I don’t understand the change either), which is apparently a small metropolis where absolutely no one reads the newspaper. At least not the corrupt CEOs who own half the town, as they seemingly have no idea who Oliver Queen is. You know, the richest kid in town, who was probably mentioned in the papers every day he was alive, every week he was missing, and without a doubt front page news when he returned. This is perhaps a bad idea, as his return aligned perfectly with the appearance of Starling’s new hero: The Guy in The Green Hood.

Aptly named!

Another thing I didn’t quite understand about the show is why it isn’t a spin-off of Smallville. Although I never really watched the show, I do recall there being episodes with Green Arrow (and even Black Canary!). I think at one point, Ollie may have even been a mainstay on the show. I’m certainly curious as to why the network didn’t do a proper spin-off when the character already has some familiarity with their audience.

I realize that it very well may not have been the direction in which the creators of the show wanted to go. But if that’s the case, again I ask why use Green Arrow? His fan base isn’t so substantial, nor is he all that familiar to those outside of comics and the DCAU. Additionally, if you’re going to call the show Arrow rather than naming it after the branded character you’ve already put stake in (presumably because of some kind of superstition towards the audience’s distaste for “green” comic book characters, e.g., Green Lantern, Green Hornet), then, again, a retooled telling of Robin Hood would have been better. There’s a lot less baggage using Robin Hood, since the myth has been put through the recycle bin enough times that it doesn’t matter how close it resembles any of the older tales, so long as there’s a dude named Robin (or Robby, for the CW crowd), who has a couple of buddies with names like Will and John, and a hot chick named Marian (or any name beginning with the letter “M”).

And you could still have a hot guy shooting arrows and wearing green!

 Now, I will give the show one thing: Stephen Amell actually looks like he knows what he’s doing with that bow, unlike some live action comicbook archers (I’m looking at you, Renner). However, the distinct lack of trick arrows (aside from one hacker arrow that was nifty) did not go unnoticed. Trick arrows are GA’s thing. They’re his gimmick. They are what make him fun. Using standard arrows and actually having him kill bad guys is (1) very un-DC Comics and (2) not really his thing. Sure, Oliver has killed people in the past, but the circumstances are never so tenuous as Grunt #51 is blocking my path. But, hey, if TV wants to be more hardcore than comics, why not? Oh, because it’s not the same character. Right.

It was the longest 42 minutes I’ve spent watching television this year. Every fade out that signaled where commercials will be placed, I not so secretly hoped would lead to the credits, but alas. When the credits did roll, it was too late, because I had already wasted the better part of an hour on the tripe.

I suppose there is more that could be said about this show, but I feel at nearly 1500 words, you all get my point. The characters are paper thin tween-age archetypes typical of the CW, with little to no resemblance to their comic book counter parts. The drama is superficial, rehashed storylines from soap operas that don’t seem to have any baring on how the characters interact with each other. We all know what’s going to happen, and it’s just painful to watch the actors try to act surprised when the obvious twists and turns are “revealed” to them.

So please, ladies and gentlemen, learn from my mistake and find something better to do with your time. To ensure you don’t go, I’ll even give you the frame of the one thing that actually brought a small smile to my lips:

But if you don’t get it, maybe you should watch the show … nah.

Comic-Con 2012 Programming for the Preview Night and Thursday have officially been released on San Diego Comic Con’s official website and there is already a smattering of awesome panels and screenings that my little fangirl mind is about ready to explode from the awesome. I love fantasizing and making schedule mock-ups of the panels I plan to attend (and then going to none of them, due to time and line constraints) each Convention season and this year looks pretty amazing. The worst part, however, is seeing my two favorite subjects being discussed during the same time slot and on opposite sides of the convention hall.

So far, there are two panels I am already squealing with delight for and they are:

Censorship and the Female Artist— Attacks on women’s speech are on the rise in the current cultural climate in realms including politics and pop culture. This panel examines how censorship affects women artists, in realms including library challenges, community dialogue, and the larger cultural conversation. ModeratorAdaPia d’Errico is joined by panelists Anina BennettCamilla d’Errico, and Olivia for a freewheeling discussion of their experiences with censorship and observations on how women’s speech is treated in the cultural conversation.

The Future of Superhero Studies— Superhero scholarship has exploded over the past few years. Professors Ben Saunders (CCI 2012 special guest and author of Do the Gods Wear Capes?) and Charles Hatfield (author of the Eisner Award-nominated Hand of Fire: The Comics Art of Jack Kirby) invite you to join them for a frank, free-spirited discussion of superhero studies: its history, challenges, and possibilities. What has been done in the field, what can be done, and where do we go from here?

Also, I just about cried reading that Stallone will be there Thursday promoting Expendables 2. Regrettably, in Hall H, so I doubt I’ll be able to make it. But, you know, a girl can dream …

Oh, and if there’s time I MAY just make it over to see our fearless leader own the stage with some other awesome and (actually) funny dudes for the Comics on Comics panel that evening:

Comics on Comics LIVE! with Jon Schnepp and Chris Gore— Producers Vito Lapiccola and Juan-Manuel Rocha and The Hollywood Improv host another amazing edition of Comics on Comics LIVE at Comic-Con. Host Jonathan London(Geekscape.net) welcomes the return of fan-favorite writer/producer/director Jon Schnepp (Metalocalypse, The Venture Brothers), film guru Chris Gore (Attack of the Show, PodCRASH), and the always-controversial comics journalist Rich Johnston(BleedingCool.com) for another hilarious episode of the podcast where the greatest comic minds meet the greatest minds in comics! And if that wasn’t enough, Comics on Comics presents the world premiere of Schnepp’s Grimm Fairy Tales animated trailer, produced in association with Zenoscope Entertainment and funded via Kickstarter.com. Comics on Comics  debuted in 2008 and quickly gained popularity and praise due to its high concept format and memorable guests (including Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, Dark Knight Rises producer Michael Uslan, and DC Comics CCO Geoff Johns). Find out more at www.ComicsOnComics.com.

What about you guys? Please take a look at the panels and let us know which ones you’re most excited about, so we can be sure to cover it!

 

aka The Los Angeles Film Festival and What Molly Saw There, pt. 3

Now that you geek plebeians have had a chance to watch the trailer, let me give you my review of Robot & Frank, which was the last movie I saw at The Los Angeles Film Festival this year. I will do my best to stay spoiler free, and I will warn you if I cannot keep to it.

Now, the way I saw it was pretty cool, because before hand there was a short called “Robot” which actually showed the current state of robotics in our country and what we were using the AI for (typically as an educational aid) and what was being done to get people to treat robots as if they were real people. This was done typically cheating in a game of rock-paper-scissors would do the trick. Rather than reacting to the person observing them,  they’d say, “You cheated!” to the robot. As if the robot knows what it means to cheat. It was rather interesting and cool, and it definitely got you in the mood to feature to follow. You can watch the short here.

Robot & Frank is set in a very believable near future. Technology is familiar yet more advanced–Skype calls answer to your voice, the latest edition of the smart phone is  thin and practically transparent until in use, and cars still look like cars (though the director admits if they had the time and money for hovercrafts, they would of course have gone that route)–and the paper medium is a novelty of the past. It is both beautiful and terrifying; and a plot point surrounds the fate of the local library (where Susan Sarandon plays the lovely Librarian). It’s about the library environment as an experience rather than the books themselves, as everything is now settled into the cloud.

Susan Sarandon and Frank Langella with the archaic technology known as the book.

The story centers around the character Frank (Frank Langella). An aging ex-thief who in recent years has begun to have spurts of Alzheimer’s. Some days he’s good, others not so much. His son (James Marsden), no longer wanting to drive 10 hours roundtrip to make sure he is eating okay, decides to give him a robot helper. Although Frank is initially against it, the mechanical bundle of wires and AI eventually warms up to him.

Robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) is tasked to do one thing: make certain Frank takes care of himself. As a robot, he has no sense of morality, but he does have an understanding of risk. Believing a project will keep Frank’s mind active, Robot suggests they create a garden, but after seeing Robot’s ability to pick a lock, Frank gets his own idea about what kind of project they should undertake.

Better to pick a lock than to pick your nose, right Frank?

Grounded in a highly plausible reality, Robot & Frank grapples with some serious issues, in addition to being sweet, funny, and all around entertaining. Divorce, senility, and many more issues anyone with a family can share and relate to. Robot & Frank is one of those movies that should be remembered. It is also one of those rare movies that actually makes me feel sympathy for a robot, technology that I typically refuse to trust thanks to Skynet and Asimov (sorry, Wall-E). I believe it is Robot’s recognition that he has no morality that allows for me to trust him, but it may just be Peter Sarsgaard’s voice (sorry, Alan Tudyk). It’s hard to say.

Needless to say, this is a movie I would definitely recommend to anyone, though I do think it is geared to a somewhat older (35+) crowd. I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts come August 24, 2012, when it receives a wider release.

It’s official, and we now have details! As previously reported, Browncoats everywhere can celebrate (while I roll my eyes) at San Diego Comic Con International this year for the 10 year anniversary panel of the one-season wonder Firefly panel. Panelists will include your beloved Captain Nathan FillionJoss WhedonAlan TudykAdam BaldwinSean Maher, Michael Fairman and many more! The panel will be held Friday, July 13, at 12:30 PM, and is brought you by SCIENCE (the channel, not the school subject).

Although not much of a fan of the show myself. if Gina Torres makes an appearance then I may suffer the Whedonites and try to find my way in. I love her and her work prior to Firefly and Serenity, and would love to hear what she’s currently doing.

SCIENCE will also be hosting other panels, including one for Dark Matters: Twisted But True and one about Time Travel (F’ yeah!) from the podcast Stuff You Should Know.:

TIME TRAVEL: SCIENCE FACT OR SCIENCE FICTION?  STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW WITH JOSH & CHUCK, Thursday, 7/12/12, 4:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

SCIENCE presents Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant, hosts of the Top 10 iTunes podcast STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW, as they lead a discussion about time travel with some very special celebrity guests for a live from Comic-Con taping of their podcast.  Josh and Chuck’s loyal fan following, chemistry and insatiable curiosity are core to the launch of SCIENCE’s upcoming series Stuff You Should Know, as the two pioneer the way for what likely will be more introductions of talent discovered and incubated online finding a place on new platforms.  Join Josh and Chuck and the SCIENCE team at Comic-Con for an exclusive sneak-peek of Stuff You Should Know, as well as limited edition Comic-Con exclusive giveaways from SCIENCE.

 

FIREFLY 10-YEAR ANNIVERSARY, Friday 7/13/12, 12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m.

It has been 10 years since the crew of Serenity took flight in Joss Whedon’s short-lived but now revered series, Firefly.  SCIENCE will reconvene, for the first time in a decade, Captain Mal Reynolds and the crew from the ship, calling all Browncoats to unite at the 2012 San Diego Comic-Con.  The cast ofFIREFLY will talk about the past, present and future of Firefly, 10 years after its debut.  SHINY.

 

DARK MATTERS, Friday, 7/13/12, 7:15 p.m.–8:15 p.m.,

This summer, SCIENCE returns to the laboratory to unearth history’s most sinister tales with the second season of the breakout series Dark Matters: Twisted But True.  Join USA Today’s Brian Truitt; John Noble; Executive Producer Rocky Collins; and science historian Michael Stevens as we take a closer look at the forbidden research records on the most shocking scientific studies ever executed.  From gruesome lobotomy experiments, to controversial CIA studies, to spine-chilling accounts of live human transplants, the all-new season shows that science fact can be stranger, and even more entertaining, than science fiction.  The six world premiere episodes take audiences inside a real-life Twilight Zone, where shocking CGI re-creations illustrate unforgettable tales of genius gone horribly awry.  DDark Matters: Twisted But True premieres Saturday, July 14, at 10:00 PM (ET/PT).

aka The Los Angeles Film Festival and What Molly Saw There pt. 2

Unlike Dead Man’s Burden, which I saw with a definite idea of what I was going to see, when I walked into the theatre to see The History of Future Folk I had no idea what to expect. Based on the title, I had assumed it was going to be a documentary about some kind of early millennial music scene (it was in the “Beyond” category, so it could have literally been anything), but once the opening credits began with child-like drawings of crimson clad astronauts from another appeared, I knew I was wrong and that I was going to be in for a treat.

The History of Future Folk is nothing short of a delight. It tells the story of a humanoid alien named General Trius (Nils d’Aulaire) who comes from the Earth-like planet Hondo, who have been sent to earth to eradicate the human population so that the Hondonians may come and populate it, as their planet is pending destruction by a meteor. When he arrives to Earth, he is ready to set off his Doomsday device when suddenly he hears music for the first time! Enraptured by the sounds, he decides to assimilate with the earthlings and find a way to save his planet without having to kill off a species that created the beautiful gift of music.

Flash forward about 10 years. General Trias has settled in Brooklyn and now goes by the Earth name “Bill”. He is married with a daughter (Onata Aprile), and works as a at an aerospace museum that sits on top of a deactivated warhead, while moonlighting as a bluegrass musician at a bar owned and operated by Larry (Dee Snider), where he uses his backstory as an alien for his stage persona. Each night he tells the audience the story of his life, and no-one is the wiser that he is actually telling the truth. He is still trying to find a way to save his home planet, but his new life has taken the front seat. That is, until another alien from Honda, Kevin (Jay Klaitz) comes to assassinate him. Fortunately, Kevin is a terrible assassin, so Bill is able to subdue him easily enough and he opens his mind to music, and shortly thereafter Kevin learns to play guitar and the two become a bluegrass duo.

From there, the film comprises of a series of wild antics, getting in trouble with the law, which for Kevin leads to falling in love with a lady of the law, giving us a sweet, almost-tender-if-the-circumstances-weren’t-so-damn-creepy love ballad–in Spanish!–, and having to fight a serious alien assassin, while trying to save both Hondo and Earth from certain destruction. It’s a brilliant, fun mix, and with a running time of 86 minutes, every second counts.

The film is co-directed by John Mitchell and Jeremy Kipp Walker, based on Mitchell’s script which is in turn based on the actual band known as Future Folk (which d’Aulair and Klaitz are the members). It is truly a film that “dares to be different”–which is what the Beyond category for the festival is all about–and it’s as much fun as you can have without causing any trouble yourself.  The story is fitting for children of all ages and will have you screaming, “Hondo!” by the end. If you like music (even marginally), you’ll enjoy this fantastic ride. I know I did. Hondo!

If you’re still not convinced, here’s a little clip.

aka “The Los Angeles Film Festival and What Molly Saw There, Part 1”

This past week, I was lucky enough to spend some time at the Los Angeles Film Festival, presented by Film Independent. As such, I decided to play it smart and prepare for it by watching two or three movies I had carefully selected from the line up, so as to not suffer from film fatigue. Of the films I saw, Dead Man’s Burden, was my first.


I was drawn to watch this particular film, because it was touted as “traditional western”. Yes, I realize not everyone is so easily swayed, but as a lover of American myth and legend, Westerns will always be my all time favorite genre (and since they are, in part, a subgenre of action, I don’t have to sacrifice my love of bullets!). Additionally, given that it is so rare to see a new western, in the classical sense, on the big screen, I knew I had to muscle my way in to get a seat. And I was not disappointed. Written and directed by Jared Moshe, Dead Man’s Burden is a labor of love by a true western aficionado. A tale layered with moral ambiguity in a time where people truly could make themselves out to be who they wanted to be. Dead Man’s Burden delivers the goods and reminds everyone why the Western is such an important part of film history.

Like all tradtional westerns, Dead Man’s Burden takes place some time after the Civil War, where some Southern families have decided to move West to may a new name for themselves, where there is less baggage of losing the war. And like many westerns, the topic of land ownership and acquisition comes into play.: After the sudden death of Joe McCurry, his daughter Martha (Clare Bowen), his only known living progeny, after all his sons died fighting for the South. . The land is desirable, because it contains the largest underground water source in a town ripe for mining copper ore. Her father did not wish to sell the land, but Martha finds the property to be hold too many bad memories and to be too much for her and her husband Heck (David Heck), so she decides to sell it and move to California.

At the funeral for her father, it is a closed casket ceremony, which leads Three Penny Hank (Richard Riehl) to believe that there may have been some foul play–i.e., that the buyers must have killed him. A few weeks after the funeral, a man named Wade McCurry (Barlow Jacobs) shows up on the scene, with a letter from Joe who he claims is his father.

The reunion between sibilings is bittersweet. Wade was Martha’s favorite brother (whom she claims raised her more than their father ever did) whom she was led to believe had died on his way to fight for the South. In truth, he moved North to fight for the Union, and was thereby banished from ever returning home. “If you come home, I will shoot you myself,” their is quoted to have said to Wade when he left. It is only the mysterious letter from their father that causes him to return, and fight for the land rights which his sister is eager to get rid of for the right price.

The dynamic between the siblings is amazing. They act as foils to each other, rather than opposites, in a way that is in line with the modern western. Both are proud, strong willed, with their own sense of justice and what must be done. Neither is truly good, nor truly bad; their motives and desires are understood by the audience, even if their choices aren’t ones we must (or should) necessarily agree with. A story that allows you to empathize with characters you do not typically identify yourself with is one worthy of note, and Dead Man’s Burden is filled with such characters.



Not to mention, the acting is remarkable as well. I could definitely sense Jacobs’ performance channeling Clint Eastwood’s Blondie/Man With No Name, down to his speech patterns and the timbre of his voice. David Call is likewise exceptional;  showing the range and depth of Heck’s love for Martha that can be completely startling–if not disturbing–at times, and he sells it to the last drop. But the true show stopper is new comer Clare Bowen. Playing a woman of the time with the kind of subdued strength, nearly brimming with an inner-ferocity and pride that audiences don’t get to see too often from women. Not to mention she is a hell of a shot. The supporting actors are likewise enjoyable in their respective roles, with each actor  giving a solid performance, but the dynamic of the main three is what makes or breaks this story. Lucky for us, they give it out in spades.

Finally, I cannot get by with writing this article without mentioning the landscapes and visual tone. Shot on 35mm film rather than digital, the all encompassing, panoramic views and wide shots show the kind of difference celluloid truly makes. Granted, the great outdoors shots caused for a few more lens flares than I would have liked, but they were soft and not garish, working with the aesthetic rather than distracting from it. The film itself is beautiful and enjoyable to look at even without the emotionally heavy content and plot.

This is how light naturally reflects off a lens.

The film premiered Saturday, June 16th, as part of the Official Selection of the Los Angeles Film Festival, nominated in the Narrative category. Please stay posted for more on my trip to LAFF, including more film reviews and an interview with Dead Man’s Burden writer/director Jared Moshe later this week!

Last week, our beloved Saint Mort asked me how I felt about the movie Predator. Not knowing the intention of the question, I responded with, “It’s the feel good movie of the century!” Because of that response, I am now writing this article. So, you best read it and like it, ’cause doing so will make you a god-damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me.:

This Tuesday, June 12, 2012, Predator, the original film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, and Jesse Venture, turns 25 years old! That’s right, the movie that stars two former governors, has now reached the age at which it can legally run for public office. Let that settle in for a moment. Also, if you haven’t watched the movie before, stop reading and do so. Now. After experiencing its 104 minutes of gloriousness, return to this page. I can wait.

You’re back? Great! Let’s get down to this.

Although I wasn’t yet alive when the film was original released (I turned 24 on Friday), and to be completely honest, I don’t believe I saw the movie in its entirety until I was 9 or so (and as my brother reminded me this morning, I still have yet to see the first sequel, Predator 2, but from my understanding I am better off), it is one of my favorite movies. Additionally, I have made certain to watch it several times this week, to capture the spirit of the film in this write up–and I will let you know that my bond with the species known as Predators goes back long before then and continues now. So while I may only be able to reflect on the film proper for 15 years, my relationship with the franchise goes back almost to as far as its own history does. Take a walk with me down memory lane …

Who’s the ugly motherfucker?  Is it you? Yes it is! Coochiecoochiepleasedon’thurtme

When talking about Predator, you almost always think of Alien in the subsequent thought. Although the two universes were initially created independent of each other (with Alien having almost a 10 year prior history), they are now intertwined. In my experience, however, they were always synonymous with each other (and it wasn’t until I finally re-watched Alien about eight years ago that I realized this wasn’t always the case) and I had always preferred Predator, even though it was my understanding more people prefer the Alien franchise. Am I just being contrarian or is there more to it?

I have always been an action movie person, with little-to-no tolerance for horror films. However, while Alien may be a horror film in the purest sense, the subsequent films in the franchise are heavily geared towards action, so to base it on that alone would be wrong. And while it is true that I do enjoy preposterous amounts of testosterone,  to deny Ripley her badassery would be a sin I dare not commit. So what is it about Predator that earns its place as first in my heart? For that answer, we will have to go back to when I was a wee tyke and did not yet know what the hell a Predator was.

But seriously: shaving without even a trace of stubble? That’s manly!

Now, I am the youngest in my family, and my brother who is 4 years my senior takes great pride in his role of how I was raised. He saw his role as my older brother to be tantamount to being my life teacher. Although some of the lessons were harder than others, he claimed it was all in an effort to make me “stronger”. A sentiment he proudly proclaimed to our mother when one time she watched him pin me down and force me to drink Tabasco  sauce, which my young palate had not yet gained a liking to. My mouth burned for a week, but I love the stuff now. Fancy that! It’s funny how often teaching and training can look like terrorizing …

On the terrorizing side of things were his Alien action figures which he would often use to insight fear into my psyche. Among them was a Flying Queen Alien, with wing flapping powers. I remember car rides where we would be forced to sit next to each other and he would bat its wings at my face and I’d be confused, scared, and defenseless against this 8 inch piece of plastic and start crying. While definitely the weakest response to that situation ever, I was probably five or six and those toys were damned terrifying. I’m sure there was some underlying fear that if I did fight back and broke the toy, I’d be in a world of hurt that surpassed any psychological warfare at the time. Or maybe I was just a little bitch. Hard to say. Nevertheless, it was then, in my darkest moments of fear and panic, that a hero would present himself and rise against my evil sibling overlord and his Flying Queen Alien. And that would be still evil (but less so) sibling overlord taking out his Predator figure to kill and defeat the Alien Queen.

The bane of my 5-year-old existence. I am pathetic.

Even though the Predator would promptly turn his tri-lasers on me after defeating his xenomorph prey, the few moments where I was free of the  flapping was a relief. Also, I rather have three red lights on me than repetitive plastic wings flapping in my face. I’m just saying.

It was in those moments a Predator fan was born. It would be a few more years until my parents saw I was old enough to watch the franchise, but in the fight of Aliens versus Predators, I had already picked me pony.

As I grew older, these memories were later repressed. Although I recalled the franchise fondly, it wasn’t one that I obsessed over. When a new Predator novel, comic, AvP film, etc., came out, I’d experience it, appreciate or complain about it, and then put it away somewhere to forget. None of the stories were quite able to get my juices going the way the original film had. It wasn’t until the release of Predators in 2010, when all the pre-adolescent memories came flooding back to me in waves. I’m not implying that the Predators movie was great, but it did resemble the original enough to bring me back to the franchise.

By which I mean it had an ensemble cast, a jungle, and some predators

Watching Predator now feels just as good as it did when it first came out, if not better. Action movies today seem to either be too serious or too tongue in cheek. Pithy one liners like, “Stick around” after nailing a bad guy through the heart with a machete, just aren’t said with the same amount of smugness as they were when Schwarzenegger quipped them 25 years ago. Actors and screenwriters today either try to pass them off as ironic, or ignore them all together. That said, even in this movie there are characters that look at others for their absurdly awesome one liners. When Jesse Venture’s character Blain famously states that he “ain’t got time to bleed,” after Richard Chaves‘s character informs him that he is, in fact, bleeding, Chaves responds to him the same way the audience does:  “Oh, okay,” with a hint of awe and fear in his eyes.  (I do want to point out that when Blain is later found dead, he isn’t bleeding–all his wounds are cauterized) While admitably absurd, the way Ventura and Schwarzenegger both state their lines with such matter-of-factness is something lost on this generation of action stars.

The 80’s definition of a man. By why need it be relegated to one decade? Why not now?

Granted, calling a group of special force operatives, “A bunch of slack jawed faggots” because they have no interest in chewing tobacco probably wouldn’t go over well at all today. Even if said ironically.

Speaking of horrible epithets towards a person’s sexuality (hell of a segue, right?), has no one else picked up on the homoerotic undertones on this movie? Ignoring for a moment that the Predator’s mouth itself looks like a giant vagina dentata, the testosterone pissing contests depicted throughout the 104 minutes of film are just ridiculous.

Seriously though, it does.

From the mid-air arm wrestling match between Dutch and Dillon, which starts on a shot of them shaking hands, biceps completely flexed, that is held up to a count of at least two Mississippi; to Blain constantly holding his massive gatling style minigun at hip level to look like an extension of his dong. Then there are the rather subtle shots of snakes doing nothing but being phallic symbols, to the subtext heavy scene of Mac telling the moon he will carve Blain’s name into the Predator once he kills him. The way he sells that monologue and angsts over Blain’s demise and saying “he was [his] … friend” leads one to question the true nature of their relationship, in a pre-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military. I’d like to see how it would have been handled today, when one could be out and still join the melee to destroy an extra terrestrial enemy.

Oh, and let’s not forget to mention, that the Predator vagina monster is defeated when he is squashed by a giant log. Phallic imagery ahoy!

They’re not even shooting at anything here. I’m serious.

Perhaps, I am just looking too deeply into an action movie that isn’t supposed to be taken all that seriously. But where’s the fun in that? I have heard it suggested that it may be a satire on action films, with the goofy ending credits giving some credence to that hypothesis. Yet, if that’s the case, I don’t think Arnold is in on the joke as I honestly believe it showcases some of his greatest acting ability, and is without a doubt his most bad ass here. While Terminator is my favorite Ahnuld led franchise, I must admit that his golden skinned Adonis, caked in mud to mask his heat signature, known as Dutch wins me over in ways the T-800 cannot (I can only hope the machine will one day learn to understand this, if not actually sympathize). From smug to betrayed, to confusion to fear, then back to smug again. He shows a full range of emotion that I did not know Austrians–let alone politicians–were actually capable of.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Tree Hugger For Life … literally

There is so much more to say about this movie and how much I love it and why, but I think we’ve covered enough bases if not used enough words. So I’ll leave you here: no matter what the movie  is supposed to be, I am sure we can all agree that it is a great film and will stand a longer test of time than a mere quarter of a century. Additionally, it is true what they say: that if it bleeds we can kill, luckily we can all rest assured that this bad boy ain’t got time to bleed.

And now behold… “Predator: The Musical“!

I have been meaning to write about Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow for a while, and with Battleship do to overtake The Avengers in the box office this weekend, I better write it now! So, here we go: why Black Widow is important to the portrayal of women in action films, especially in the superhero subgenre. (That’s what you call a thesis, folks!)

Although I’m not very familiar with the Marvel Universe when it comes to comics, I am fairly versed with action films in general, and superhero films in particular. I have  seen just about every single superhero movie since they became the “thing” again with the release of X-Men in 2000. Batman Begins, Iron Man, Superman Returns, Spider-Man, etc., etc. As you can tell by the titles, they were about men, and if you watched any of them you might have notice a severe lack of women. While each of these films had a leading lady of some degree—Rachel Dawes, Pepper Potts, Lois Lane, and Mary Jane Watson—you might also have noticed that each of these women also happens to be the titular man’s love interest.

Now, before someone gets offended or pissed off at me for denigrating the clever Pepper Potts or the brilliant reporter Lois Lane to “love interest”, I must say that, with the exception of Rachel Dawes, I am quite fond of all of these women, especially in their comic book form. That said, in the comics they have lives of their own and arcs that consist of more than “I will not date you, but I think you’re adorable” to “you have won me over with your heroism, let’s get to it!” As far as the movies are concerned, there isn’t much else to them, no matter how snappy their dialogue may be.

Enter Black Widow.

There she is!

Just like the rest of these women, she’s attractive, sophisticated, and damn good at her job.  Unlike the rest, she exists without the need of a romantic story line. She is a supporting character who helps the hero meet his goals and doesn’t feel the need to bang him for doing a good job. She is a breath of fresh air, not only in action movies, but movies in general. It is rare to find a female character who wants things, not just in addition to, but completely outside of a husband or boyfriend. What’s more, is she has survived two films without falling into that trope. It was easy for her not to do so in Iron Man, as Pepper Potts is the leading lady in that franchise, but to hop ship to The Avengers and not be paired with any of the men (two of whom lacking girlfriends going in), is pretty spectacular.

Yes, there were a few hints by others that she and Hawkeye may have more than just a working relationship, but each time it was dismissed by the present party. Additionally, in their shared scenes it was standard banter between co-workers. It’s so good to see a male and female character work together without emphasizing the sexual tension. It’s good to see they can be friends and not be destined to the When Harry Met Sally endgame of holy matrimony. It’s good to have movies where the main female character is too busy kicking ass and saving the universe to even think about her libido or if she’ll find true love and all that jazz.

Black Widows kill their mates, anyway. Life is sometimes better than sex. Sometimes.

Now, I’m not saying love is a bad thing. Seriously, it’s one of my favorite things in the universe (you may read my Valentine’s Day article about it), but romantic love isn’t for everyone. Not everyone wants it (believe it or not!), and very few people want it all the time. We go through ebbs and flows regarding the relationships we want and need in our lives (at least I know I do), and it’s nice to finally be able to go to my kind of movie and see the character I self-identify myself with due to the vagina thing (if nothing more) and not have to watch her fall madly in love with the hero. It’s liberating.

What I also like about Black Widow is that she can, for the most part, take care of herself. Aside from the weird horror film sequence in The Avengers where The Hulk–I mean, “the  Other Guy”–chases after her and she runs around, trying to hide like a terrified little girl, she’s a fairly competent hero. A competent hero sans-powers, at that! She kicks ass, takes names, and helps her team save the day with her interrogation skills and ability to coax the villain into monologuing his schemes away (no matter how obvious it may have been to the audience). Additionally, Black Widow’s introductory scene was awesome. Even with the god-awful hair whipping that was supposed to be a headbutt. The way she worked around the chair was pretty spectacular, and not something I had seen before.

Which is more beneficial: A woman with a gun or a bowman?

An interesting, independent female character who is trying to seek redemption on her own terms, and not in the arms of a lover? Yeah, she gets my vote for Best On Screen Female Comic Book Character. Definitely. Even with the over-sexualized portrayal of her in the advertising of the movie (but that’s been talked about to death, and I want to stay mostly positive in at least once when talking about The Avengers).

That said, as much as I like Black Widow, I’m not sure if a solo film starring her is where it should go. Perhaps a S.H.I.E.L.D. film is a good idea; but a solo film, I’d imagine, would basically just be a female James Bond movie, and would negate all the pros I was pitching, as Bond is nothing if not hyper sexed and romanticized, even if he refuses to fall in love. And yes, I recognize that seduction may very well be one of her tools for gaining information, but so far it hasn’t been used and I’d like it to stay that way.

Nevertheless, I see this as a major step forward (be it conscious or not by the filmmakers), and I hope that we can see more women like this in action films, and maybe it will coax DC into finally bringing a decent Wonder Woman project forward, and not just some half-assed attempt like last year’s pilot (which I watched and it was just dreadful).

In the mean time, we’ll see two women in The Dark Knight Rises. One being Selina Kyle aka Catwoman, the other is Miranda Tate who may potentially be Talia Al Ghul. If so, then both women are known for their romantic ties to the Batman just as much as, if not more so, they are known for anything else. Considering Catwoman is advertised as a major villain in the film, I doubt it will be all that defines her (and if Miranda is Talia then of course there will be a bigger arc, due to her Ra’s role in Batman Begins). Nevertheless, it seems doubtful that a romantic story arc–no matter how doomed to fail or tragic–will be missed in the case of either of these women. Not to mention, since the death of Rachel in Dark Knight, there will surely be a hole to fill in the Caped Crusader’s heart.

This feels somewhat reminiscent of 1992 … did you used to be a blonde?

We’ll see. I won’t necessarily be disappointed either way, I just hope it doesn’t take another decade or so before a female hero can exist without her presence being justified or dependent upon her male counterpart.

Deadline reports that Dimension Films announced the release date for the long awaited (if not marginally forgotten) sequel to 2005’s Sin City today. Frank Miller’s Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is now slated for Oct. 4, 2013 release. Like the first film, it will again be directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, with William Monahan adding a hand to the script (which is also written by the pair).

Production is set to begin later this summer in Austin, Texas, at Rodriguez’s Troublemaker Studios. Sin City alum Mickey Rourke and Jessica Alba, who played Marv and Nancy Callahan in the original, are slated to return. Nothing is official yet with regards to the other cast members, but so far they are expected to return. No word on who will replace the late Brittany Murphy as Shellie (if anyone).

By this time, every Marvel fanboy and girl and self-proclaimed Whedonite is either hanging out in line waiting for the moment to watch the first “fade in” of The Avengers flick they have been waiting for since prepubescence (or since it was first hinted at in Iron Man back in 2008) or just about to step out of the theatre (time zones!). Since I am neither of those things, I am writing this article. I’ve been a DC girl for well over a decade, and I have never been a  Whedonite. That’s right: I am a woman who is into geek things (who even writes about the female perspective on a geek themed website) and I could not give two shits about Joss Whedon, the man who is all too often praised for his “strong female characters” and “excellent dialogue” and his ability to “revolutionize genre”, and countless other lauds that I cannot quite wrap my head around.

Before I get started, I want to make two things clear: first, I don’t hate Joss Whedon or his workI can’t hate someone I don’t know, and his portfolio of work is okay, even marginally enjoyable at times. But it’s not great, and its hardly revolutionary. My problem surrounding the man, for the most part, rises from his fans. Which brings me to the second: when I say “Whedonite”, I don’t mean someone who generically likes Joss Whedon’s work. I mean someone who treats you like a subhuman because you don’t like Buffy.  Someone who believes that anything his name is attached to is immediately turned to gold, like he’s some branding alchemist (people like  you, perhaps, if you’re reading this and already getting riled up). It’s amazing. And if someone dare to say anything about his projects besides that it was or will be the greatest of its genre, then you are labeled a “hater” by such a person. At least that has been my personal experience since the first one reared its head, and it has especially been my  experience ever since I saw Cabin in the Woods last week (more on that later).

Joss Whedon, King of the Geeks? Sorry, I worship at a different nerd shrine.

Typically, seconds after his latest project is announced, my Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail light up with squeals of delight for something nobody knows anything about aside from the fact that one Joss Whedon is attached. It happened with Dollhouse, Cabin in the Woods, whichever Shakespeare movie he’s doing (because we need another adaptation of the Bard’s work), and, of course, The Avengers. Granted, The Avengers was masturbation material long before he was attached; nevertheless it was nerd Carnivale when his name was first thrown out there. “Joss won’t let us down~!” “O Joss, great and merciful, thou art Lord over Nerdom and earth! Thou can do no wrong! Blessed are we to be living in a generation that is filled with your mastercrafts!” Blah, blah, blah.

Give me a break. It’s a super hyped action movie that will, in all likelihood and probability, add nothing or take away anything from the canon it pertains to (except maybe kill a hero or other character that has no franchise awaiting him or her, but has some kind of fanbase–I’ll give you one guess who that might be). Loki’s in it, presumably as the main villain, and he’s already been announced as attached to Thor 2, so at best the big bad is going to elude the world’s mightiest heroes. Which is fine, but does not meet my standards of “revolutionary.” I’m not saying it won’t be fun: it has Robert Downey, Jr., in it after all, and he’s the essence of fun, in my ever-so humble opinion (spoiler alert: this whole article is just, like, my opinion, man).

Am I going to watch it? Of course I am. Tomorrow. I have work tomorrow, and a midnight showing for a film I’m barely invested in doesn’t sound appetizing. I’ll reserve that ticket for Expendables 2 or Dark Knight Rises.

But back to me not caring about Joss Whedon. For the record: I have seen everything he has cranked out since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, except for Dollhouse. The only reason I haven’t seen Dollhouse is because I’m not a Whedonite, duh, and no one has convincingly tried to get me to watch it. As far as I know, it’ll be the first thing by him that I thoroughly enjoyed. Additionally, I haven’t read his comics because, again, not a Whedonite, nor am I an active Marvel reader. If I’ve read a Marvel comic in the last five years, it’s because someone lent it to me. So I’m not going to actively seek out some Astonishing X-Men trades to appease my friends or show how pious I am to their geek god.

Buffy, like most of his work, is okay. Pretty generic and mediocre, if we’re honest with ourselves. It’s essentially another story about a girl who is in love with a vampire. Like all of those stories, she knows better (hell, she on a mission to kill them); nevertheless there’s always one whom she’ll excuse his undeadliness for and bang. Be it he has a soul or looks like Billy Idol. Either way, it’s an unhealthy, co-dependent relationship that is not becoming of a ‘strong’ female lead. The best parts of that show are the minor characters, and they all too often got annoying. I rather read an Anita Blake Vampire Hunter novel. The sex is was better.


I’m so totally turned on right now. You have my number, right?

But it’s not only his female leads who are into unhealthy relationships or making “excuses” for that one person who goes against everything they believe in. Mal Reynolds is the exact same in Firefly when it comes to Inara (who I find unbearable), only he’s man enough to not have sex with her. Regrettably, this makes every scene they share boring and predictable. “You’re a whore!” “You’re a pig!” “Let’s not have sex even though I totally want to bang you!” “That’s fine, I’m banging this guy anyway.”

Now there was a show that could have been something. And no, not in the “oh, why was it canceled after only it’s first season?!” way. I mean in a Space Cowboys way. I’m a huge fan of both genres, and really expected it to be awesome. Instead, I completely understood why Fox canceled it: because its ratings, like the show, were mediocre. You can say it was before it’s time or you could say it was poorly executed. Classic Joss!

Now, before you tell me he’s “too clever” for me or some other tripe, I’m going to tell you something: he’s not. He has good ideas, I agree. I enjoy the premise of everything he cranks out. But the method in which it’s cranked? No thank you.

Last week, I saw his latest “masterpiece”: Cabin in the Woods. I’ll admit, I was against seeing it at first. Not because of my feelings (or lack thereof) towards Whedon (I’m always hoping he’ll show me he can do more than be competent), but because I hate horror. Finally, enough people were like, “You gotta see it, zomg~! It’s like Buffy season 4” (or 5? It all blends together). So, I saw it. Guess what? It’s not a horror movie. It’s not even a satire on horror flicks–it’s an homage. And, again, like all of Whedon’s work, it has a really cool premise. It goes back to mythology and brings it to the modern day. It was a concept I was ready to get behind, but then the 2nd and 3rd acts happened and I didn’t care about anything anymore. The characters were boring, despite moderately amusing dialogue, and the twists and “revolutions” on the genre (whichever genre you could claim it was trying to be) failed to take. All the interesting stuff happened in the first five minutes. Seriously. The rest was just cute.

Especially the bits with Chris Hemsworth in it. He’s so dreamy!

This is the first movie in a long time that I had to make sure I was right about my expectations. “It was advertised as a horror film, right?” I asked a friend of mine. “It was,” he began, “but like all Joss Whedon things it never is what you expect it to be.” Now unless he means I expected it to be “good” after all the hype, then he’s right. It wasn’t what I expected; but, if I’m wrong to expect a movie to be what it’s billed as (i.e., a horror flick) then I have no idea what advertising and trailers are supposed to be about. You got me, marketers. I’m gullible. I believe all your precious lies!

So, here I go again, ready to sink into another Whedon trap. The east coast should be releasing now, while Pac-Time is about to head in, and I’m going to wage in 24hrs when I spend my money and take the time to watch it, I’ll feel much the same way as I did six day ago: a moderately clever and interesting first act that fails to get off the ground, so by the climax I’m ready to leave.

But I hope I’m wrong. Why? Because I prefer to like things than dislike them, and for once in my life I’d like to be as enthralled by something as my Whedonite friends are. It’s really frustrating to watch something because it’s been hyped up so much, and then be like, “It was okay”, which all your friends in turn take to mean you hated it.

Hey guys: hating is different from thinking something’s okay, but by the time you’re through with your little tirade on how I didn’t “get it” or can’t “appreciate” it for whatever made up reason you’ve come up with, then you better believe I hate it now.

So, Whedonites this tirade’s for you. Enjoy your mediocre storyteller. I’m not trying to take his work away from you. You can have it. All of it.

Remember folks: It’s okay to like things, just don’t be a dick about it. Otherwise, eventually push will come to shove and this happens. We’ll fight back. Now, excuse me, I need to be reminded how magical friendship can be.

Buffy-shy and, well, Spike. And a bunny. Stand back, Anya.

Note: Previously it was reported that Tori Spelling would be hosting the event. Sadly, she fell ill and was not able to attend.

This past weekend I had without a doubt one of the greatest experience of my life with fellow Geekscapist Allisonnnn. Together we attended the bridle shower and wedding of two true celebrities: Princess Cadence and Shining Armor, Canterlot’s own Captain of the Guard! Prior to the wedding, we feasted on pony shaped grilled cheeses, tuna tartare, hummus dip, and colorful fruit drinks (like Pinkie Pie’s Purple Punch and Strawberry Lemonade). We decorated our own wedding cakes, tossed some horse shoes, and met with the bride and her lucky stallion.

Caking it up, as they say. Suck it, 5 year olds, my design is superior to yours.

It was a wonderful morning, marred only by the menagerie of precious children acting like they belonged there. Seriously, who brings children to a wedding? Unless, of course, they’re in the wedding. To the sitters, I say!

But I digress. After a couple of fun filled hours and getting supreme sugar highs, we were led to a screening room to catch an early viewing of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic two part royal wedding episode, and given delicious cinnamon-sugar popcorn. Because there just wasn’t enough sugar to be had already!

The happy couple! And kids … so many kids!

Now, I won’t say it was the greatest episode of My Little Pony that I have ever seen, but it was still quite enjoyable. The theme of friendship was disappointingly downplayed to the themes of family and love until the final scene (such nerve for a wedding episode, I know!), and the storyline was extremely predictable. From the moment we were introduced to Princess Cadence we knew where the episodes were headed, but it is a children’s show (sad to say), so I can’t exactly fault them for playing to their targeted audience. Don’t want to blow the minds of these kids any more than you already have with sentient ponies.

Nevertheless, the episodes were sweet and fun. Twilight Sparkle’s love for her brother was something I relate to, being a younger sister myself, and her concern for him is as genuine as she is thoroughbred. My only real disappointment with the episodes was that there wasn’t more set up between Shining Armor and Cadence. Although the unexpectedness of the wedding is addressed briefly at the beginning of the first part, it’s a bummer that we don’t actually know the characters who are being advertised as having the “wedding event of the year!”

It isn’t the best episode to start with if you’re curious about checking out MLP:FIM, but if you’re already a part of the herd, get at it! (Not that you need the encouragement)

Following the episode, there was a brief introduction of Twilight Sparkle herself, Tara Strong, and the writer of the wedding episodes Meghan McCarthy, and then the tossing of the bouquet! They invited all the “single ladies” up, but once they saw me stirring to my feet, they amended their previous statement and said, “That are about this tall” holding a hand parallel to the floor at about four feet. It’s a good thing they added that qualification, too, ‘cause I would have shown all those minitarts who’s boss at that bouquet toss. DON’T THINK I WOULDN’T! That said, I think a little boy won because the next comment made, post-toss, was, “Looks like we have a future brony!” So, congratulations, kid–boy or girl–you won this round. But only because I disqualified based on agism. Or height-ism. I suppose if I was under 4 feet, they wouldn’t care either way.

Getting my ponygraphs on a shiny cast photo commemorating the episode!

Allisonnnn and I also took plenty more pictures with the royal, now wedded, couple and even managed to get the photographer into a few pics with us.

Friendship is Magic ... and so's what's ever in this drinkAin’t no party like a ponyville party!

Finally, the music stopped and we were ushered out the door, where we got some solid swag: A MLP trainset, a mini-pony, some chocolate, a compact, a t-shirt (f-yeah!), and an invitation to all the future MLP events in-town (guess who’s super stoked about that? Hint: ME)!

Needless to say, it was a pretty awesome and solid way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Looking forward to more good times in Ponyville. Just hope next time there are fewer kids and more booze (not that we need it. Clearly).

The second international trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man was released online today. It is longer and reveals a bit more about the film than its predecessors. Look: Aunt May!

I still have no desire to see this, but what do you think?