CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Breaking news, Oct 30th 2012.
>Disney acquires Lucasfilm.
>Star Wars Episode VII slated for 2015.
In answer to your question, I don't know.
I'm pretty much trying to stay out of the discussion until the dust settles (despite this blogpost), as the geekier side of the internet combusts in what is mainly opinionated speculation (from what I've seen, anyway). I've already seen enough kneejerk Lucasbashing and witty 'putting Mouse Ears On A Star Wars Thing™ because that's what everything will be like from now on' pictures to keep me out of it.
The bottom line is:
• George Lucas handed over the LFL reins to Kathleen Kennedy back at the start of June, prior to his 'retirement'. We knew something big was on the cards then.
• This breaking news has been known at Lucasfilm also since June. Now that the news has gone public, that staff at LFL seem fairly happy, as well as other other influential media types. It'll be interesting to see which high-profilers aren't happy with it, of course (not you, Pegg, you've already burned your flag).
• Lucasfilm and Disney have a partnership going back to 1987 with the Star Tours ride, and they've been producing cross-over merchandise (yes, Mouse Ears On A Star Wars Thing™) for their on-park stores for years now.
• Disney also bought Marvel. Back in 2009. Avengers turned out alright though, didn't it? Potential Movie-of-2012 material, if we're being honest. That's because although Disney own Marvel, they let Marvel run Marvel. Disney are a business, and they see the opportunity to let Marvel carry on being itself and making money for them. I have no reason to believe that the Lucasfilm deal is any different. Buying into one of the most powerful and long-lasting marketing franchises in history, and then changing that would be monumentally stupid. And you don't have to like Disney, but they're not stupid.
• Yes, it is all about money. Sorry to burst that bubble. I know many people believe the entertainment industry is built on kittens, clouds and lollipops, but I'm afraid that isn't the case. And yes, I suppose the slew of merchandising around the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy really does piss all over the sanctity of your childhood Star Wars figures. Duvet covers. Pencil cases. Toothbrushes. Tape dispensers. T-shirts. Rub-on transfers. Badges. Soundtrack albums. Marvel comics. Multiple video releases of the same three films. Dairylea tie-in promotions. Burger King tie-in promotions. You get my drift.
So while I'm cool with the business changing hands at the top-level, and I'm certainly cool with 'increased output' in the theatrical and home markets, I have to admit I'm extremely hesitant about Episode Seven. Irrespective of what George Lucas said back in the day about nine/twelve movies, you've got to admit that Return of the Jediis kind of a great ending point to the cinematic saga, chronologically speaking. As a devoted reader of the comics and novels, I can confidently say that the next 30-40 or so years after RotJ is pretty much mapped out in terms of the central characters. Now, Episode VII doesn't mean that all the existing Expanded Universe material couldn't just be scrapped/rebooted, and it also doesn't mean that the story can't focus on secondary/tertiary/unknown characters in the GFFA (Boba Fett movie, anyone?). Alternatively, you could just set the story several hundred/thousand years in the future, but how tight can you make the episodic connection then? (The MORPG The Old Republic is set around 3500 years before the first Star Wars, which is fine, but it isn't called Episode -1)
The fact is, Episode VII won't be easy to implement smoothly, but then, it isn't my job to make sure it is. And if I don't like the direction Star Wars goes in, it won't diminish my love for what we've had so far. We'll* just have to wait and see, won't we*?
In short:
Am I happy that there's a future for Star Wars? Yes (there always was anyway).
Am I okay with Disney owning Lucasfilm? Yes.
Am I pleased about more Star Wars TV/movies? Yes.
Am I stoked that Episode VII is heading up that roster? I don't know. But hey, always in motion, is the future.
Thank you for reading this.
My name is Ian, and I'm a boy that loves Star Wars.
You can read about how and why here.
These are just my opinions, yours will vary. I hope.
*You.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
RECKLESS LOVE - Sub89, Reading.
17th October, 2012
I haven't been to any gigs all year. All year. I think I can just make out the 18yr old Me tutting and calling me an old fart; Ne'er mind, Young Me is an idiot. Quality takes precedence over quantity these days, and like the proverbials, I've waited all year and now three come along at once.
I can't really review gigs as I always forget the order of set-lists, and I'm not one for standing by the sound-desk nodding appreciatively. Suffice it to say that Reckless Love were fucking phenomenal. Then again, I saw them two years earlier in the same venue and they were fucking phenomenal then, too.
So yeah. Here are some photos and that.
Click for big.
I'd do terrible, unforgivable things to see this band supporting Europe, I kid you not.
More stuff like this soon, with Bowling For Soup…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Looper (Huge Spoilers. Seriously.)
118 mins / Dir. Rian Johnson
Okay. You've had three weeks to see it, so I'm going to dish out the spoilers. You won't really get the rest of this post unless you've seen the film, and it'll ruin it if you haven't. There's a spoiler-free review of Looper here. All good? Splendid...
The Premise: 2044. Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but in 30 years, it will be. It will be instantly outlawed, and only used by the mob seeking to eliminate their enemies. As bodies are almost impossible to dispose of in 2074 (due to bio-tagging, etc, apparently), mobsters will zap their enemies back in time to pre-arranged locations and specialised assassins known as Loopers kill them the second they arrive. Tied, hooded and with blocks of silver strapped to their backs as payment for the Looper, they're despatched, relieved of their loot, and unceremoniously incinerated. The mob's enemy disappears in 2074, and a body is destroyed in 2044 that no-one's looking for as it doesn't exist, legally. Part of the deal with the assassins is a special clause written into their contract: that at some point, the mob will send back the Looper's future self (should they live that long) for termination. This avoids the loose ends that the gangsters don't need, and is known as 'closing your Loop'. Your future self will arrive with a bumper payment on his back (which you don't see until after you've killed him), and once that's cashed, you're released from your contract - free to enjoy your retirement over the next 30 years. Easy.
The Short Actuality: The five year old boy, Cid, is Joe as a child (Joe A). He witnesses his mother being killed by Bruce Willis (Joe C), when Joseph Gordon Levitt (Joe B) fails to stop him. This action sets Joe A (the child) on the disturbed, criminal path to become Joe B (the Looper), Joe C (the redeemer) and eventually Joe D (the Rainmaker). All of these lives intertwine to perpetuate themselves over the time between 2044 and 2074 until Joe B realises it can be stopped by him sacrificing himself at the point of his mother's murder.
Question One:Why send Loopers back to their young selves? This informs the assassin that they actually live for the next 30 years, and effectively makes them immortal in their own eyes. Any change to this (death by recklessness, excessive partying etc) would create a paradox and alter the timeline. By Abe's own admission, altering the future unnecessarily is not something they want to do. Surely a neater solution would be to send Looper One back to be disposed of by Looper Two etc, and keep it as anonymous and lowly-paid as the other killings? No paranoia, no paradoxes.
Question Two:If bodies are so difficult to dispose of in the future, how are the wide-hatted goon squad going to dispose of Bruce Willis's wife in 2074? They arrive to get Willis with handguns which they can't reasonably be expected to use by virtue of their very presence. Once they've clumsily slotted her, why don't they send her body back with him in the time machine? Which leads me to…
Question Three:Why send live targets back at all? Why not kill them in the barn in 2074 and zap the dead bodies back for disposal? We know non-live matter can be transported as the targets all arrive wearing clothes and packs of silver and/or gold. Killing people isn't the problem in 2074, only disposing of the bodies, and it'd be a lot less risky to do business this way.
Question Four:Isn't anyone else a little concerned by the fact that Joe has sex with his own mum? I mean, it's not like he becomes his own father or anything paradoxical like that, but if anything that just makes the whole situation pointless and even more weird. I know Cid claims Sara isn't his mother, but the kid's disturbed, five years old, and Sara's got a far more convincing account of events. His own mum.
Questions one to three, you can take your time with, but someone needs to look at question four sharpish.
Time is of the essence.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
A second viewing for Wallflower as I dragged Mrs Blackout along to see what could well be my favourite film of the year. There's not really a lot to add to my first review, but that's not to say it was any less enjoyable. Knowing the backstories of the characters meant I wasn't as overwhelmed with each revelation of a destroyed childhood, but I got more out of the humour and the details because of it. Watching the film again also reinforced my suspicion that the film definitely isn't going to be for everybody, so outside of this blog, I probably won't be recommending it to people who aren't interested anyway.
For the record, Mrs Blackout enjoyed it very much.
But seriously, who doesn't know Heroes by Bowie? It's not a 'new' song at the time the film takes place. "I found the tunnel song!" Sam exclaims excitedly as she hands a cassette to Charlie. "Indeed," Charlie thinks, "and I hope your new friends aren't letting you hear the bloody end of that one, Mrs Eclectic Taste In Music..."
See the film, that'll make sense.
See the film. Today. Go.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
