Trust the fashion world to annoy me.
A rogue click on this image on the Tor Books blog had me thinking that we would be receiving a big-budget Steampunk flick with Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Bell and Garrett Hedlund doing their best, pseudo-Victorian poses on the big screen.
Alas, we are denied.
This is part of fashion house Prada‘s new Menswear campaign for the Autumn, which is taking serious stylistic cues from all things Steamy, Punky and ever so slightly nerdy. It has to be said that it is the latter thing which annoys me the most, as high fashion tends to eschew the geeky in preference to perpetrating the pursuit of glacial cool above all else, which is perhaps the least interesting thing that I can conceive of. The eternal pursuit of cool = the absolute pursuit of humourless self-defeat, mark my aphorisms.
That said, this shot of Jamie Bell and Gary Oldman makes me yearn for some high-end, next-gen, Bizarro World incarnation of hyper-nerdy PC real-time strategy game, “Command and Conquer“, with these fine thesps hamming it up in a Steampunk World War scenario. Make it so, current “C & C” devs!
In the name of Mecha Queen Victoria – attack!
Oh, Hollywood – is there no end to your cowardly, money-grubbing idiocy?
“So, we just hug them to death, right?”
Empire magazine‘s new issue has an interview with Toby Jaffe, producer on the new and entirely unwanted reboot of “Starship Troopers“, which ageing geeks will remember as a pretty decent, absurdly gory sci-fi actioner (fans of the original Robert Heinlein novel will probably remember it less fondly, what with director Paul Verhoeven and screenwriter Edward Neumeier reinterpreting the book as a giddy joyride through a fascistic future). And it doesn’t make for good reading.
If this version of the book does make it before cameras, we can look forward to a less violent (what now?), less satirical, straight-up bug hunt with all hints of complexity safely jettisoned and gee-whiz cgi effects replacing anything potentially disquieting (i.e., less likely to make the box office tills ring).
So, Selena Gomez and Taylor Lautner in a PG-13 shoot-em-up with a song by her boyfriend on the soundtrack and nothing likely to tax the brain of anybody with a driving license, then? Where do I sign up for that?
In “No shizz, Sherlock” news today comes “Battleship” director Peter Berg‘s assertion that his film flopped so that “The Avengers” could soar at the box office, like Tony Stark carting Hawkeye up to a better vantage point. Or something.
“The reviews! They burn!”
Citing the unprecedented success of the Marvel Studios superhero epic having a knock-on effect on other would-be summer blockbuster fare in the marketplace, Berg still holds out hope for a sequel based on decent international business – the film’s US performance makes for less hopeful reading to anybody but the terminally optimistic.
Well, you can’t argue against a US box office take of $600 million but to cite “The Avengers” as the sole reason for your film under-performing is to ignore the rather more accurate idea that “Battleship” is so asinine, noisy and dim-witted that it makes your average Joel Schumacher/Rob Cohen/Michael Bay popcorn flick look like a Ken Loach film and reduces the IQ of anybody unlucky enough to be exposed to it for more than two minutes.
I like stupid, undemanding, glitzy genre crap – see my “Resident Evil“/“Underworld” fandom for ample evidence of that – and even I couldn’t drag myself to a cineplex to behold the spectacle of Rihanna pretending to be a naval officer and various aliens mocking our Earth Physics in the name of entertainment.
Once it comes to DVD and Blu-Ray, I might give the film a go but I don’t expect it to be anything more than shrill and silly, uber-patriotic fluff. Weirdly, Peter Berg seems to believe that he’s made an important film. One of us is right, and I don’t think that it’s him…
Filed under Films, Geekery
Yep, feels pretty much like he’s got his eyes on all of us…
My position on copyright infringement and piracy is pretty clear, I think. It hurts creative industries and helps to foster a culture in which somebody’s art doesn’t have any value – if you can steal it via the internet then why would you think that the MP3 or movie file you’ve downloaded would have any financial worth?
That said, the UK government has a new, asinine idea in the fight against intellectual property theft which adequately illustrates how genuinely clueless they are about technology.
Under new proposals, if you’ve been accused by a rights holder of illegally downloading their creative works, you will have to pay £20.00 for the privilege of defending yourself.
Whilst this would be a fine way to conduct ourselves if the process of bringing somebody to court for these kinds of offences was in any way clear-cut, the nature of wireless broadband connections, unsecured routers and general I.T. ignorance means that any number of entirely innocent people could find themselves facing charges and having to pay to defend themselves purely because they lack the wherewithal to securely comport themselves on the internet.
For that reason alone, I can’t see this kind of legislation standing up in court – we would have to live in a culture where it was a legally enforceable condition of internet use that your hardware was secure and password-protected, so as to prevent such potential miscarriages of justice from occurring. And how likely is it that your ageing ‘Silver Surfer’ relatives are going to be taken to court because they neglected to stop a grandchild from torrenting porn or the new Bruno Mars CD on their internet connection through ignorance of securing their laptop and router?
I’d love to see the government which tried to enforce that law.
Given that we live in a society where nuisance legal firms and shady right holders troll the unaware and get rich on the basis of spurious ‘pay up or be sued’ requests based on nothing more than an IP address – not the safest of identifying characteristics – I worry that this kind of thing will target exactly the wrong, tech-illiterate folks and let those savvy enough to circumvent elementary barriers to get away with merrily torrenting all the while.
Paying to defend yourself against potentially baseless allegations from cynical rip-off merchants – isn’t it great to know that you live in a country where the idea of being innocent until proven guilty is a thing of the past?
My wife is a fan of the Kyra Sedgwick crime drama, “The Closer“, the final series of which is currently unfurling on UK TV.
All well and good so far. For reasons connected to long days and tiredness, she missed last Thursday’s episode but rationalised that our cable TV catch-up service would allow her to watch it the next day. When she came to investigate that possibility the next day, there was no update and no episode to watch. That state of affairs has continued to today, which is problematic as the catch-up service on our cable only runs for seven days when the next episode is supposed to go up.
My wife could watch the catch-up service on the internet but prefers to watch it on our TV, which I think is understandable – our internet service via cable is usually pretty great unless we want to watch a programme for 40 minutes or so, by which time it becomes so laggy and stuttery that you often can’t watch the end of the show that you started viewing in reasonable quality. Also, despite what various creative industries seem to want to believe, watching anything on a laptop for a prolonged period of time is bloody annoying and doesn’t approach the experience of seeing the same thing on a decent TV screen.
First world problem? Undoubtedly. Annoying? Absolutely. The kind of thing which would drive fans to acquire their TV via routes that broadcasters would prefer we didn’t pursue? Well, you can see the point of the torrenters when this state of affairs presents itself…
Filed under Random Notes, TV