Hey there, how about some old comic book movie news? How old? Like two weeks old. So recently (San Diego Comic Con... I said it was like two weeks old.) the announced Marvel Phase 2. Which is essentially post Avengers Sequels. So here are the titles with some thoughts.

Picture
THOR: THE DARK WORLD... Wait, its not just 'THOR 2'? We aren't seeing, 'THOR: THE RETURN OF REVENGE RISING'? This is amazing. A personal pet peeve of mine is movie titles that just toss a number on the end. Its lazy. Get a little descriptive will ya? Though to be fair, there is a few words that should be avoided in the title, DARK is fringing.
What is 'THE DARK WORLD' in reference to?... I've only read 'Thor Masterworks volume 1' and Walter Simonsons run on the title (Which I highly recommend). So my Thor knowledge isn't a deep pool. But Dark World makes me think we'll be seeing some dark elves, maybe Malekith the Accursed, and MAYBE my favourite Thor villain Surtur. I at least want to see a shot of a hammer dropping onto the twilight sword, with a huge TANG! That echoes through the cosmos.
Something else I want to see in THOR:THE DARK WORLD is Beta Ray Bill, I love me some good old horse face. If he's not in this movie, he should be in the 3rd.
The film is being directed Alan Taylor, one of the directors of 'The Game of Thrones' television series on HBO. So hes no stranger to swords and sorcery. And speaking of 'Game of Thrones'... WINTER IS COMING!


CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER
WHA! Another title with a subtitle!? Well the first film had a subtitle, so its not that surprising that the second would also feature a one as well. I'm just surprised they're taking a subtitle from the comics, not going with 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: FOREVER'
I know exactly what Winter Soldier is. Its a story line that broke what was considered one of the holiest of marvel comics rules. I don't want to spoil anything, but I'll be honest I'm excited for this now.
What I want to see from this one? the return of the Red Skull, and a more defined power set for Cap. In the first, and Avengers, we don't really see Captain do anything to impressive. I want to see less of the soldier and more of the SUPER. There's that part in the first where he love taps a guard with his shield and the man goes flying, that was awesome. I also want to see him be more of a gymnast too.
This one is being directed by the directing duo of Anthony and Joe Russo. Like Alan Taylor these two are usually television directors. Responsible for such television classics as, oh wow, 'the Community', 'Arrested Development', and 'Happy Endings'? Wow that's awe-... Wait a second... Sitcoms? Great sitcoms yes, but sitcom directors are doing 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER'? Alan Taylor made sense but these two? Lets have a look at these guys.

What a couple of dopy looking fuckers. Anthony is the one with the goofy looking grin, and Joe is the clone gone wrong of Jason Segel. (Being serious, these guys being on board makes my excitement shoot through the roof, these guys pretty much guarantee a fun movie).

Lets continue with the movie everyone is probably most excited for...



Picture
IRON MAN 3... oh come on! IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2 and now IRON MAN 3. Okay, so I'll know the proper sequential viewing order, but they couldn't have called it 'INVINCIBLE IRONMAN', or are they saving that for the reboot when Robert Downey Jr. Abandons the character? Okay fine. Rumour is they'll be following Extremis story line, then IRON MAN EXTREMIS could be your title!
CAPTAIN AMERICA is following the Winter Soldier storyline, and has that in his title, then why not do that with Iron Man?... Sigh. All I want to see in this movie is FING FANG FOOM. Bring it on! Giant Dragon!
Directing this is Shane Black who directed 'KISS, KISS, BANG, BANG'. Shane is apparently really good friends with RDJ, and director of IRON MAN and IRON MAN 2 Jon Favreau (who also plays Happy Hogan in the films).
This film should be fine. Apparently Shane advised the guys on the first two films, and now Favreau is advising Shane.

And what movies has Marvel announced?

ANTMAN fuck yes! I know most of the general non comic book readers are probably thinking 'Who? What the fuck does Antman do? Talk to ants?'... Well not just talk to them... Don't roll your eyes at me!
Antman not only can communicate with ants, but shrink and grow! And I love characters that can shrink for some reason (subconscious relation to penises?)... but beyond that, Antman is just an awesome character. He's my favourite character on the Earths Mightiest Heroes cartoon, and a character I've really wanted to read more of.
Edger Write, director of 'SHAUN OF THE DEAD', 'HOT FUZZ', the television series 'SPACED' and of course the comic film 'SCOTT PILGRAM VS THE WORLD' is handling this one. Hes a guy that knows how to handle his action and his comedy.
Rumour is the story will follow Hank Pym the first Antman in the 1960's, then flash forward to the second Antman Scott Lang. I'm actually mostly familiar with Eric O'Grady... the Irredeemable Antman AKA the worlds most unlikable super hero.
What I want out of Antman, is the set up for a villain for avengers by the name of Ultron. Also some good old fashioned Antman and Wasp!

And then there is...

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Again, you probably responded with, 'Huh? Who?' Well let me just say... Rocket fucking Raccoon. An alien Raccoon. GROOT a sentient tree man! Need I say more?

 
Okay, two things. First, a story I forgot to tell about when I saw 'Amazing Spider-Man'. When I was in line to buy my ticket for the movie, an elderly women got in behind me. I went through just after hearing her say, “One seniors ticket.”
The woman was a stereotypical, fragile old lady. I looked at her and thought, 'MAN! YOU LOOK LIKE AUNT MAY!' Heck, for all I knew she was dressed up as Aunt May for the movie.
I took maybe twelve steps away. Then I heard a clunk sound, like someone had dropped their large drink. I turned to give the person my silent condolences, since dropping a 5 dollar drink? That blows. Thats not what had happened though, what happened was the old woman lost her balance and did a face plant into the wall, knocking her self out.
In a instant I thought, shit, if she had been in line in front of me, I may have noticed her falling and I could have grabbed her, or helped her. I thought, is there anything I can do? People have already rushed to her care, and someone was already dialling 9-1-1. What was there for me to do? And the answer was... Nothing, so I turned the fuck around and watched Spider-Man.

Second thing. I want to talk about the big violence of the week, the shooting in Colorado during the midnight screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises.' These two things relate in many ways. First off, both happened in a movie theatre, during a screening of a comic book movie. And for me, they both caused me to reflect and think... What would I have done?
I can't honestly answer that, If I had been that theatre there is no telling how I would react. But with every little, personal story I hear come out of this, I get a little more terrified. I've read stories of a guy seeing his girlfriend get shot, and hearing her scream for only a moment before a second bullet struck her in the head.
Or another man who threw himself atop his girlfriend and best friend and took bullets for them, leading to his own death, but their survival. Its scary stuff. Stuff no one ever wants to experience.

The Saturday after the shooting, the day after I saw and LOVED the 'Dark Knight Rises' I saw the cell phone video taken outside the theatre after the shooting. I was nervous watching it, I was concerned for the people that stood around outside the theatre slack jawed, gocking, at the people poring out of the theatre crying, some splattered in blood, their own, or other.
I watched and thought, WHY! WHY ARE YOU STANDING! THERE! This early after the shooting there is no telling where the shooter is, or if he's alone. For all they knew his next stop would be the fucking lobby, or he could have a buddy waiting to start phase two in the parking lot.
I learned a valuable lesson watching these fucking people who just couldn't walk away. I learned that if I see something horrific happen, and I am powerless to stop it (which I often will be). I'll turn to the people I'm with and say, 'Lets get the fuck out of here. We can read about this later.' I don't need to witness it myself.

As soon as I first heard about the shooting, I knew this would mean some irrational fall out. People needing something or someone to blame aside from the obvious people. I was sure we'd hear the usual shit, movies, video games and music caused this. And since it was a movie based on a comic... maybe comics will be blamed as well.
I was right, people think he was inspired by a scene in the 'Dark Knight Returns' by Frank Miller. People are saying that its the violence of the movies that drove him to do it. This all of course distracts from the possibility that maybe, just maybe... James Holmes was an unhappy, fractured human being, who for some fucked up reason could only find relief by doing something horrible. In which case, what made him this way? Probably a combination of a million things.
Gun laws will be debated like they always have after a shooting. And people are going to look for something to blame. One man has already filed a lawsuit. What he went through was traumatic, and I'm sure he was thinking emotionally not logically, but his lawsuit is retarded. Lets look at it.

First he's suing,
The theatre. He claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

Okay, lets look at this in parts. Usually its considered negligent for a theatre to NOT have an emergency door. He's not complaining about that though, he's complaining about it not being guarded or alarmed.
If it had been guarded or alarmed, it may have saved some lives, I'll agree to that. But you can't expect the theatre to have an armed guard at every (or ANY) fire exit. As a far as the alarm is concerned, this would mean that every joe blow, or jerk off kid who walks out of the movie via the fire exit would interrupt the screening.
I've seen hundreds of people go out the fire exit in a theatre, (dark theatres where you couldn't possibly read “Alarm will sound” written on the door if you weren't looking for it) but I've only ever heard of ONE shooting in a movie theatre EVER.
Theatre is not to blame for this shooting. The person to blame is named James Holmes. He is the one that propped open the door and got the guns. You could argue that the American Government is to blame, since you know... laxed gun laws and all. But not the theatre. That being said, he could win this one.


2. Holmes' doctors. He says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

Does he know what properly monitoring him means? I sure don't. I guess hindsight is 22, this guy obviously should have been locked up in a institute away from all things pointy, and I like to think that the doctors, if they knew Holmes was violent, would have done something about it. But the second thing I heard about the shooting, was 'He was a nice, intelligent guy'. No one saw this coming from him.
I'm also left thinking about the documentary 'Generation RX'. Its about the effects of psychological meds on teens and children and how it really effects their mind. They claim that meds for depression and bi-polar disorder given to teens actually results in more damage then anything. They give examples like the columbine shooting, where the two shooters were on meds. But again, could be miss placed blame, blame the meds, not the illness, or even blame the meds for the illness. Or maybe a guy named James Holmes shot up a theatre.

3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

This on is the most retarded of the bunch. I've seen the movie, the movie is PG 13, PG 13 is not particularly violent. No more violent then any other action movie. And he mimicked some of the action?... Yes you're right guns were shot in the movie, just like... nearly every other action movie/every other act of violence in REALITY.
I've heard that a lot of people first thought it was part of the movie, giving the shooter a 6 second edge. But thats not the movies fault! Its a movie! Shit like that happens all the time. “Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence shown today” Yes! His name is JAMES HOLMES! THEY ALREADY CAUGHT HIM! And if anyone is to blame for this whole thing, its him.


If you think violent entertainment causes people to be violent, you're a fucking moron. Violent entertainment is a 100 times less violent then it used to be. Because violent entertainment used to be real. 'Hostal' back in ancient times wouldn't have been a FAKE movie, it would be a public display of torture.
I want everyone looking for someone to blame, to think critically, to the point that your brain hurts. Don't just point your finger and stop there. James Holmes shot a bunch of people. He is to blame directly. You'll then ask, WHY? What made him do it? This question opens a unlimited number of more questions, cause no one thing made James Holmes who he is. No single moment created him, but 22 years of moments. When you start to dissect him, his life, his interest, you'll get to the point where you ask yourself a question like, 'How is the fact that he liked crunchy peanut butter, and Stephen King, relate to him killing people?' Your brain will start to hurt, and you'll only be able to answer 'I don't know.' Thats when you stop.
You stop thinking about 'Why?', you stop trying to understand and find someone to blame. And you just go out and enjoy a movie, just like you always have. Remembering that out of the millions of people that have gone to the theatre, something bad has only happened once.
Remember that the world is actually the least violent its ever been, and you are statistically, safe. Uncompromisable, emotionless numbers say so. Don't be afraid.

 
Okay, starting today off with the end of my Rainbow Brite 'review'. I know I said that I was going to watch episodes 4-5, but do to lack of time and personal interest (I feel Learned everything I need to learn about Rainbow Brite) I'm going to end with episode 4.
So my run down. What did I think of the show? In all honesty, it was okay. I'm not going to become a fan, but if some day in the distant future, VERY distant future I have a daughter, or niece and I see 'Rainbow Brite' on RedRay I'd buy it.
For a girls cartoon, 'Rainbow Brite' has a slight edge to it. Its villains are dark, and the tone is adventures. Its themes are nothing special, neither is the art style. It just looks like strawberry shortcake, and the themes are the same old 'Carebear' crap. But 'Rainbow Brite' is LESS gay then 'Carebears'.
Speaking of gay, how is it that 'Rainbow Brite' NOT a gay symbol? How does Madonna with her gross tits, and man arms, become symbol of the gay community but not a character named 'RAINBOW BRITE.'

Anyway, to fill out this post a little more, here is “5 Mixed Media Urban Legends!... Some of which I may have made up myself.”

Alfonso Ribeiro taught Michael Jackson how to moonwalk

Who is Alfonso Riberio you ask? You may know him better as Carlton Banks of Bel-air. The guy that does this famous little dance.

The story starts back in 1983. Alfonso had just stared in a Broadway show called “The Tap Dance Kid.” Showing that he had obvious dance talent, he was recruited for a Pepsi commercial featuring the king of pop, Micheal Jackson.

Not the Pepsi commercial where Jackson's head burst into the flame.

No, this one.

See that move Carlton did? The Moon Walk? That was the first time Jackson had seen it. He liked it so much that between takes MJ had Alfonso Riberio teach him the move... its also safe to assume that, considering the age of Alfonso, Jackson touched him... But that's not the point. Point is Jackson learned his signature dance move from the guy famous for not being able to dance well.

A munchkin hung himself on the set of Wizard of Oz

Dwarfism is a fairly rare condition. And back in 1939 when they were called together to film The Wizard of Oz many of them had never even met another midget. What they found out upon meeting one another in a mass scale, was that they had more in common then their short limbs. They also all loved to party!
Every night after shooting the munchkins got completely pissed. 'Shmamered' if you will. Fraternizing together lead to many relationships and bonds being made. One particular paring involved a little person named David Connelly, and an unknown little lady. They started a romantic relationship, and David fell hard. A lot harder then his lady friend.
No one knows what happened. But at one particular Midget fest, the two had a falling out, and David left the party very upset.
The next day he wasn't seen on set... until they had filmed this particular scene.

See that thing swinging in the background of the scene? Thats David Connelly, a heart broken midget.

Die Hard was based on a true story.

The plot of Die Hard is John McClain an off duty police officer is stuck in a office building with a group of 'terrorist'. Shoeless, and armed primarily with his wit, John McClain must survive, and save the hostages, which include his estranged wife. Believe it or not, this story has its roots, lightly buried in the grounds of reality.
The true story takes place in Japan. Where Fu Nakatomi a off duty constable was accidentally invited to a party at an office building (Fu Nakatomi is a common name in Japan). Moments before Fu was to excuse himself from the party the room was stormed by the Asian Dawn terrorist group.
Fu, being the badass he was, was able to reason with the terrorist and have some of the hostages freed. When things appeared to go sour hours later, Fu was forced to kill a terrorist with his bare hands, and rush the remaining hostages to safety.
There is actually a few references to these true events in Die Hard. Such as the building in the film being called Nakatomi Tower, and the tong in cheek joke about the Asian Dawn terrorist organization.


Jackie Chan fakes his injuries.

We've all watched Jackie Chan movies, bubbling with anticipation for the end 'blooper' reel where we get to see Jackie Chan do his stunts and get carried away by paramedics. But have you ever wondered, how do they ever finish a movie if Jackie is constantly breaking every bone in his body?
Its simple... He doesn't actually break any of his bones. Jackie actually FAKES his injuries for the amusement of the audience. It started out as a gag, but spawned into a running gimmick, where Jackie would add lib injuries and then later have them cut into injury reels.
To take this out of the realm of urban legend (That I may have just made up). Lets talk about a strange FACT about Jackie Chan. Did you know that he started out as erotic film star? Its amazing to think that a former porn star would later on in life be the subject of a childrens cartoon.

Faker...

Steven Spielberg cut off a mans fingers.

To be fair it was an accident. On the set of Jaws Mr. Spielberg was showing off the giant robotic shark (Bruce) to some grips. He showcased the animatronic monsters movements while the men watched. Afterwords they were allowed to inspect the machines mechanics.
When one gentleman placed his hand inside the giant sharks mouth to inspect a system of pistons... well, Mr. Spielberg had this expression behind the control panel.
Deciding to give the grip a scare Steven closed the jaws of... Jaws, on the grips hand. Unfortunately for Steven and even more the grip, the robot sharks controls were a little fidgety. And it clamped down HARD onto the man's fingers, leaving him with four nubs and a thumb.
They rushed him to the hospital and sowed his fingers back on. Steven Spielberg footed the medical bills and the grip, though lacking some feeling, gained full motor functions.

 
People always have something to bitch about in comic book movies. Collected here are the top five complaints about comic book movies that annoy me. Enjoy!


Giant Squid Monster

I'm here writing about 'Watchmen' without my copy of 'Watchmen' nearby. So bare with me if I get some facts wrong.
If you've seen the film 'Watchmen', you know in the end Ozymandias has framed Dr. Manhattan as a mass murder. This plot is tightly wrapped, very secure. All the pieces fall into place. The only problem? Its not what happened in the comics.
When ever an adaptation is made, a group of people get their panties in a bunch. This group is called, the fans. Fans usually are purest, and any changes are a slight not only against the property, but to them personally.
Example: “Kristen Stewart doesn't look anything like ME! She can't be Bella Swan.”
'Watchmen' has a huge fan base. And when it was announced that a film was being made, their pants not only bunched up, they were back drafted into their ass. People would not subtle for anything less then a exact adaptation, zero changes...
...Naturally they had to make some changes. Some for the better, some for the worse. But none got as much back lash as the ending (They changed the ending).
In the graphic novel, Ozymandias does not frame Dr. Manhattan, but instead frames a fictitious giant alien squid. The squid was designed and created by scientist and artist who believed it was for a Hollywood blockbuster.
To understand this, imagine Steven Spielberg on the set of 'Jurassic Park' had his crew create a super realistic T-rex, then killed them all. That's what Ozymandia's plan was. Its really not that big of a plot point, and I personally think the movies ending is better.
To most 'Watchmen' fans? The lack of Giant Squid Monster was the movies greatest flaw, and instantly made it shit. Which is retarded, it REALLY changes nothing in the plot. Its a superficial complaint, actually most complaints about comic book movies are superficial complaints.

Lack of costume

I'm going to admit something to you all. Its a personal belief of mine that you have to be tiny bit gay to be into wrestling, and super hero comics. Other wise, why would we be so into guys in flamboyant costumes? And comic fans are VERY picky about the costumes.
You'll get some serious backlash if your super hero movie isn't loyal to the costumes. Example, lots of people are against the new Spider-man reboot because of the costume. Lots of people were against the X-men films because of their lack of costumes. They didn't want those black leather costumes.They wanted this:

The fact is not all super hero costumes are suitable for reality. Bright yellow and blue doesn't translate well into film. Though 'X-Men First Class' did a great job mimicking the Jim Lee's yellow and blue uniforms from the 90's.
The X-men costumes are fine, but if some studios had it their way, many costumes would be altered to retarded levels. Example, Fox wanted Ben Affleck as Daredevil to NOT wear a mask. Famously Kevin Smith has told of his experiences writing a Superman sequel, where the producer (Jon Peters), didn't want Superman to wear a cape, or tights... or fly.
One of the greatest shames though is the Green Goblin in Sam Rami's 'Spider-man'. I liked the helmet version, but when I saw the test footage of the mask version? I fell in love.

Fans are picky though, and will bitch endlessly about every nitpick they can pinch between their fingers. Whether its the CGI, the costume or the characters RACE.

Changing Race


Lets go to 'the Hunger Games'. There is some character named Rue, who was black in the film and the fans were annoyed. Having not realized that Rue in the book was in fact black. Luckily racial ambiguity in comics isn't a problem since its a visual medium. And in the event that you aren't sure about a characters race, (for what ever reason), its easy to tell.
If a character is black, It'll be clear by their name. (Black Bolt, Black Panther, Bling, Brother Voodo ect). Some reason black characters don't hit it as big in comics. Maybe there is no real interesting black characters (since most are characterized by the fact they're not white), or maybe we're all just a bunch of racist.
The strange truth is, a lot of the black characters in comics, kind of need to be black. Most where made during the civil rights movement, and thus a African American super hero was quite poignant.
On the other hand, its not very crucial now a days that Peter Parker is white. He could easily be black, or Latin American, and his character would stay the same... Sadly, must people don't feel that way.
People are more enraged by a change in race then any change to plot or costume. There was serious backlash when Micheal Clark Duncan played the King Pin. There was great annoyance when Heimdall of Thor was black. And there was serious rage when a British Actor was cast as Superman.
How did all of this racially incorrect casting affect the quality of each of these films? Not at all. Comic fans just like to bitch and whine.
What is a personal nitpick of my mine is when the films affect the comics. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) in the Marvel Ultimate Universe is not only black, but they requested that they base his design off of Samuel L. Jackson. Before that in the regular Marvel Universe (616), Nick Fury was white... At least for the 47 years leading up to the Avengers movie.
Now, for whatever reason, marvel was in love with their Ultimate Universe line for a while. Every video game based off a marvel character had the word 'Ultimate' wrenched into the title just for some kind of recognition. And the characters all wore their 'Ultimate' comics costumes... but retained all their 616 universe stories... Its all kind of confusing.
Regardless. 'The Avengers' movie needed a splash of colour beyond green, and Samuel L. Jackson was an obvious choice. Marvel worried they would confuse the general, none comic reading audience, when they decided to finally check out the source material and discover a white Nick Fury. So in their infinite wisdom they concocted a masterful plan.
It had been revealed that Nick Fury had at some point (Probably the 60s) splattered his seed into a sista. Meaning he had a illegitimate black son, named Marcus Johnson. In a mini series named 'Battle Scars'. Nick Fury retires... But not after Marcus loses his eye... here is the ending...

I'm looking for a word right now... and its not subtle.

Indian Slums & Adopted Joke

These last two are lumped together, since they're both kind of equally retarded, and both about the same movie. 'The Avengers'.
If you recall, early in the movie (I'm assuming everyone has seen it), we're introduced to Bruce Banner in what was apparently a Indian slum. He's using his medical knowledge to aid the sick there. Hes being a regular Norman Bethune... Except not a communist.
This scene didn't even register to me. I was just like, “Good Dr.Banner helping these poor sick people.” But India was just like, “Enough of this slum dog shit! We're not all that poor! We don't need fucking whites helping us!”... Yes I am paraphrasing slightly... honestly, only slightly. Also it helps if your read that line as if its being said by an angry Gerry Bednob.
Here is what I think. That 3 minute scene in 'The Avengers', didn't have people walking out of the theatre going, “Damn is India in the dumps.” By the end of 'The Avengers' people were to busy talking about the other 120 minutes. No one gives a shit about India, when their is a fucking giant green monster in the movie.
The second thing, was something that probably got a chuckle out of you in the theatre.

Thor: Have a care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard. And he is my brother.
Natasha Romanoff: He killed eighty people in two days.
Thor: He's adopted.

Everyone in my theatre laughed, or at least it sounded that way. Apparently there was a group of people out there whose pouting was over shadowed by the yuks of the audience. This small group was the adopted.
An adoption group was highly insulted by the adoption joke. They felt it was unnecessary that they should be reminded of the fact that their parents didn't want them. So insulted as they were they did what anyone would do. Started a petition.

As noted in a petition created by Jamie Berke on Change.org, “According to your scriptwriter, the fact (Loki) was adopted is the reason he is a bad guy!...Being adopted is not something to use for the butt of jokes! Marvel, immediately cease using adoption as the butt of jokes AND issue a public apology to the adoption community!”

Holy shit. Fuck you, you adopted shit heads. Do you not shower because your worried the water will damage your thin skin? First let me explain the joke to you adopted fucks.
The fact that Loki was adopted isn't the reason he was a bad guy, the reason he was a bad guy was the fact that he's a power hungry asshole. The reason Thor points out that Loki is adopted was to distance himself by making a point of the fact that they're technically not blood.
So fuck you, and your public apology. I hope marvel makes MORE jokes about adoption just so you'll continue crying. Cause news flash asshole. No one feels bad for the kids that were adopted. People feel bad for the kids that HAVENT been adopted.
And I'm willing to bet those kids weren't offended by the joke in 'the Avengers'... Mostly because they haven't heard the joke, since they don't have parents to take them to go see it.


 
Every great horror movie should have that cryptic stranger who knows whats going on. That guy that in the beginning hints of things to come. That guy who screams 'You're Doomed!' at the cast of cannon fodder.
I love that guy. I've secretly always wished that I was that guy. Anyway, Its my birthday, the last thing I usually write is actually the intro. So I'm not going to waste much more time. So here is my top five, un edited (so ignore the glaring errors of grammar((lol))) Here is my top five “You're Doomed!” guys.

Ripley – Aliens

Most 'You're Doomed' guys are minor characters, who make only a momentary appearance. They get in, lament about how fucked you're going to be, and get out. Its their job to act as a trailer for things to come. You have no idea who they are, or how they know what they know. The only thing you can be sure of, is that they're right.
None of that applies for Ripley, cause not only is she the 'You're Doomed' guy of 'Aliens', she's also the main character.

In the first movie we see the crew of the Nostromo systematical killed off by the Xenomorph (The Alien of 'Alien')... Now I'm going to avoid spoilers for most of these movies, but I don't think that saying Ripley survives 'Alien' is a spoiler, since... well, there was four sequels starring her.
At the start of 'Aliens' (The sequel is just a multiple of the first), we hear Ripley giving a few speeches about how the Xenomorph is super dangerous, and that it should be avoided at all cost! You'd be mad to go anywhere near it!
She then goes on to ignore her own warning and proceeds to go straight for it! Now, I know there was more to it. But, this is a very unique duality to the character, she fills not only the role of the warner, but also the dumb ass that ignores the warning!

Ol' Judd – Pet Semetery

The best 'You're Doomed' guy is usually, old, and wise, with knowledge of a dark past, that is bound to repeat itself.
O'l Judd of 'Pet Semetery' (intentionally spelt wrong), is exactly that. Except... that dark past he knows about? That wouldn't have actually repeated itself if he had just kept his old hick mouth shut. But you know how the elderly are, they just like to have someone to talk to.
Judd blabbers about the mystic Indian burial ground to his neighbour Lou, and they even bury Chruch their cat there. The results are a psycho zombie kitty! Lou asks, “Has anyone ever buried a person up there?”
O'l Judd expands on the story, telling him, “Some times, dead is better.” But this warning, again, would not of been needed, if O'l Judd had just shut the fuck up! Why blabber about the evil, Native American, burial ground, in your back yard? Old people that talk like that get put in the home! Way to drop the ball Judd.

I didn't want to spoil the movie, even though its been out for years. So instead of a clip of Judd I have the Music Video for the film. I haven't watched it, so I'm just assuming the video is spoiler free...

Randy – Scream

The first 'Scream' is not only is a great slasher movie, but its also a top notch comedy. Mostly since every single character in the movie is aware of the conventions of slasher movies. Especially, Randy, who may not be old, but he is defiantly wise beyond his years... well at least, wise beyond his own movie.
Randy sets up the 'rules' of the genre, for everyone. Which essentially is a serial killer check list.

Had loads of sex? Your dead.
Drink and/or do drugs? Your dead.
Say you'll be back? Your dead.

The rules of the slasher movie are put in place because slashers are supposed to be fun, we don't want to see people we LIKE be mutilated, that’s no fun. So bullies, drug addicts, and fornicaters are the targets. Are those people evil, and deserving of death? No. But they go against social norms.
Slasher movies are extremely conservative for that reason... I mean, yes, the Friday the 13th movies showed a lot of boobs, which seems liberal. But this liberal behaviour is always met with death, and Randy makes sure we know this.



See that? Randy is so on the ball, his mind so far out of his own movie, and thus beyond his own existence, he even implicates himself as murderer.


Addie – American Horror Story

When I heard that the guys from 'Glee' were doing a horror themed TV show, my first thought was the choreographed 'Thriller' zombies, wearing clothing from the Gap, in a school club run by their third period Spanish teacher.
What we got instead was just as awesome, 'American Horror Story', featuring the finest actress with down syndrome, I've ever seen, Jamie Brewer. She plays Addie, the 'You're Doomed' guy of 'American Horror Story'.

Most 'You're Doomed' guys, either scream at you about how you're going to die, like a mad man, or give long winded speeches, Addie keeps her shit simple.

“You're going to die in there.”

That's it, that's all she gives you. And its creepy as fuck. She says this a few times, offering up no more info then that. Just plain and simple. 'You're going to die in there,' no idea HOW, but its certain to happen.




 
This time next month, I will be strutting around with a massive erection. One that simply wont be contained, and is impossible to repress. Because May fourth is the day that 'Marvel's Avengers' hits theatres.
I have no doubts that I'll love this movie. Marvel Studious handling of their film franchises has been brilliant. Where the WB (DC) has never been able to have a success outside of Batman and Superman, Marvel has been able to bring their relatively obscure characters into the lime light.
I'll say with certainty that I'll probably love 'the Avengers' more then 'The Dark Knight Rises', though 'The Dark Knight Rises' will probably be the better film over all but I've always 'made mine marvel' so Avengers just has an edge (I'll talk more about 'TDKR' and Batman when its closer to being released).

Though to be honest, my comic book exposure to the Avengers is limited to crossovers, big events, and cartoons. I've always been more fan of Marvel's merry mutants (Geek Translation X-Men). According to the opening blurb at the start of the film 'Unbreakable' the average Comic collection is 3,312 comics. I haven't counted them all, but probably around 800 of my comics are X-men. Thats counting individual issues in collected volumes, and single issues, not digital copy's (Legitimate Digital Copy's bought in a store), counting digital copy's its around 900. That's a big chunk... No wonder my last book shelf broke into pieces...

The second and third biggest pieces of my comic collection are Daredevil and Punisher, third biggest being Batman and (The biggest draw to the Avengers for me) the Hulk. Every single piece of Hulk footage I've seen so far, has given me chills. I love the hulk. My issue count on the Hulk would probably be around 300 (Digital included). But beyond that, I've had a Hulk poster above my bed for years, and a Hulk cut out sits above my TV. I want to see the Avengers for the Hulk.

That's enough of me gushing though. I actually have a small little history/film/interesting thing... to talk about... Okay, not my greatest transition, and defiantly not my clearest thought, so...

Some people are saying that nothing like the Avengers has ever happened before in film. Characters and actors from different franchises, coming together to duke it out. Thing is though it has been done, it was actually done 69 years ago... Nice.

Back in the 30's and 40's, super hero movies weren't really a thing, they existed as movie serials and radio plays mostly. What the world had instead was MONSTERS. The Universal Monsters to be exact, named after their studio.


They had a list of characters based mostly off of classic literature and folk lore, Frankenstein and his monster, Dracula, the Invisible Man, Wolf man, the Mummy. What a cast of characters! And they all had their own series of films, and they were huge!

And of course they had to meet at some point. 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man' was the start of the franchise crossovers of the monsters. They later went on to make 'House of Frankenstein' and 'House of Dracula' which again brought the monsters together to battle it out.

Now obviously 'The Avengers' had a lot more thought put into it as film franchise, the monster mashes had hardly any continuity between them. The monsters would die in the end of the movies, and with no explanation be alive in the next. But still, the principal concept is the same. And the point is that it has been done before in film.

Also people are annoyed when actors drop parts... Like how Ed Norton all of sudden looks like Mark Ruffalo, or Batman in the original series. If that bugs you, let me draw another comparison to the Universal Monsters that may make you feel better about it.

The monster movies had ALOT of the same actors in them, and some times... they liked to switch roles. Seemed like everyone needed a turn at each monster. So as long as we don't have Chris Hemsworth stepping in for Robert Downy as Iron Man in 'Avengers 2: Avengers with a vengeance' we have nothing to worry about.



 
I read an article the other day on MSN news, about 'remakes'. It was called something like, 'Second time isn't the charm' or something? It was about remakes that failed at the box office compared to the originals (adjusted for inflation).

I'm usually against re-makes, with some very specific exceptions. Like I'm fine with continuously remaking comic book movies... since, well, they aren't really remakes, they're 'reboots.' And it kind of just fits the nature of the comic book beast, since comics are a constantly 'rebooting' and 'retconing' things all over the place. And there's also adaptations of cartoons, and books and video games, and it really depends on how 'pulpy' the property is. Every once in a while though, there is an adaption of a novel or comic, that transcends the original format, and becomes its own entity, and should not be tampered with. Easiest example... 'Gone with the Wind', you could remake 'Gone with the Wind', but you shouldn't.

To me, movies are an 'art', and in 'art' a photocopy of a painting isn't worth as much as the original. Follow me? Worth even less, is someone untalented attempting to copy a painting with there own brush and canvass.

Thats not what I'm really talking about though, I'm actually talking about, a slight pet peeve of mine. Which is how people criticize remakes, not the fact that people DO criticize them, but HOW they do it.
People love this line when talking about remakes, it was used in the MSN article that started this whole thing actually.

“There’s no original idea's left in Hollywood!”

Actually, yes there is. Theres lots in fact. Thousands of screen plays are written a year, and the mass majority of them are original concepts, they simply don't get made. You know why?... MONEY. MOVIES ARE MADE FOR MONEY.

We see a trailer for a movie, we go pay and see the movie. They make back the MILLIONS of dollars it took to make the movie, (and some), and they go on to make another movie. And the process begins again. The reason they do remakes, sequels and adaptations is, its a tested property, one that they can be sure they'll make their money back on.

They don't re-make movies that weren't a successes in the first place, they don't make sequels to movies that didn't make money, and they don't adapt books like 'The Hunger Games' because the story is good. The do it because they already have an audience. They don't need to win you over, that already have you, before the script is finished.

Movies cost an insane amount of money to make, out of all the forms of art, its the riskiest to create. You need a note book and pencil to write a poem, but it takes hundreds of people, with different skills, hundreds of hours, with lots of equipment, to create a film. (Granted you can do a film for cheaper, with less hands but were talking a Hollywood block buster).

If you're Joe Producer and you've given people your money to make a movie, don't you want it to have good odds of making your money back? If yes, you want a tested property, AKA: A remake, sequel or adaptation. Not something original, because original is risky.

Its very simple. There is plenty of idea's in Hollywood, they're just being repressed. Who is to blame for this?... Well... Everyone is. People like familiarity, we don't like strange or different, we want something we can peg on sight, now more then ever because... Well the cost of going and seeing a movie is so high! We want to know what we're paying for, no surprises. That's why the tell you who is involved in the making of the movie, its called name recognition, “From the Director of 'Two girls one cup' comes a film about love.”
If what we get is to different from what we expect, or like, we'll feel ripped off, like all those people that went to see 'Drive' thinking it'd be like 'Fast and the Furious'.

We'll see it, and hate it, then go on facebook, twitter or our blog and proclaim “Drive suxed! So boring! #Iwantgenricmovies.” You in that moment become a self published reviewer, and everyone on your feed is going to go, “Jimbo Johnson says 'Drive' sucked. I guess I wont see it.”


I know it seems stupid, and unlikely, but mass communication plays a huge part in the theater life of a movie. It used to be a that a shitty movie would last on the screen a few weeks before word of mouth spread of its shittyness. But now we can reach hundreds of people, who we would never even imagine talking too, by making a 6 second facebook comment.

We are speaking to Hollywood with our money. And what our money is saying, is we want another genericly painful romantic comedy staring Katherine Heigl. We want another Vin Diesal peck fest. We want another Super hero movie. We want the same'ol, same'ol. And Hollywood is listening.


Oh! Almost forgot. Congratulations at the Razzies Adam Sandler.

 

So hunger games has opened, and is a huge success among fans and general audience alike. To many its no surprise, the popularity of the book was a sure fired, tested property. They could have made a completely shit movie and called it ‘Hunger Games’ and it would have still made its dime.
Some people are surprised though. Since female lead ‘action movies’ don’t have the best box office records. Which brings me to today’s subject. Female action heroes.
I was originally going to do two list, one of excellently developed female heroes, and one listing the shitty side of the coin. But I realized that the majority of the strong female protagonist all have certain things in common, and so do the shitty ones. Which is why I’ve decided to simply voice my opinions, on what makes one good, and another shit.

First, I want to talk about suspension of disbelief.  When you see a talking dog in a movie and you go, “Pfff, Dog’s can’t talk.” Not only are you right about dogs not being able to talk, but your also not suspending your beliefs at all.
Movies are not reality, we all know this. But every film, book, and comic defines its own reality. NO, in reality dogs cannot talk. But in Narnia they can, since the reality of Narnia is animals talk. Now I could wax philosophical and talk about how we all define our own reality,  through beliefs and ideals, but that’s not what I’m getting at. What I’m getting at is, most people, (probably mostly men) don’t like female action heroes because they aren’t realistic.
The fact of the matter is, in reality, if Natalie Portman comes at Dolph Lundgren like a bro, and he cracks her one in the face, her neck would snap. BUT watching them throw down in a movie? Its very possible Portman can pull out a win, because it’s a movie.  
This is actually a double standard, since, news flash, men in action movies do unrealistic things all the time. Its honestly slightly misogynistic to say, that its more believable for a man to dodge an explosion then it is for a woman. Its fiction, there are NO limits, and its asinine as a viewer to be setting them.  
Anyway, allow me to get back on point. What makes a good female action hero, what makes a shitty female action hero.


THE GOOD

A quality female action hero, should be, you know… FEMALE. I’m going to hit you up with a little movie trivia. The roles in the film ‘Alien’ were never gender specific. They decided the characters genders during casting. That’s right Riply could have been a dude. And it shows in the first film, there is nothing Gender specific in ‘Alien’ as far as Riply is concerned, but by the sequel, she’s all woman, and all bad ass!
Her, Sarah Connor, Sue Richards (Aka: Invisible Woman) are all uniquely XX chromosome, because they all bring something to the table that no male action hero can… except for Arnold Schwarznegger… They’re all MOTHERS.  
The amount of ‘Fantastic Four’ I've read, is honestly limited. But everything I read depicts Sue Richards as a being a mama bear, with big ass fucking claws! In one comic, a brain washed Wolverine invades the Baxter building to kill the ‘FF’. And who is it that stops the hairy little killing machine? Not Reed! Not the Human Torch! Not the ever love’n blue eye’d Thing! But Sue!
Nice, polite, pretty and petite, she’d never kill… Unless her family is in danger, in which case she’ll put a bubble around your lungs and suffocate you.  Ouch!
These mother action heroes are AMAZING. Not because they are physically imposing, but because their motivation is so strong, and primal. Protect your young at any cost. Sarah Connor and Ellen Riply especially, since there is a transformation between films, from victim, to hero.
Stepping away from mothers, let’s talk about single lady characters. Like teenage Buffy Summers, Kitty Pryde, and bachelorette Black Widow. These characters aren’t mothers. But they are uniquely female, and exhibit famine attributes in their personality. They like typical girl things. They enjoy shopping, and going dancing. When Kitty Pryde and Buffy Summers were teenage heroes, they’d get crushes and experience mood swings, they were self conscious about their body and appearance. They were TEENAGE GIRLS. Fuck, Kitty Pryde was constantly indecisive about what here super hero name and costume would actually be, which screams teenage girl to me.
I’m not saying that we should enforce gender stereotypes with female action heroes. I’m just saying a female action hero should generally be unique to the gender. Otherwise you have what a I consider a shitty female action hero.  

THE BAD

Unique to the gender, is what makes a good female action hero. What makes a shitty female action hero is a woman, defined by her boobs. I’ve only seen two of the Resident Evil movies, but you perform a double mastectomy on Milla Jovovich , and shape her vagina into a cock, and her character hasn’t changed a bit.
A shitty female action hero, has a personality that may as well be a mans. She is a hard as nails, stone faced, bad ass. And NO there is nothing wrong with this archetype, its just boring, and kind of offensive to woman, since essentially they’re fan fair.
Typical action movies have your bad ass male lead, with a sexy female love interest. ‘Resident Evil’, ‘Aeon Flux’, ‘Tomb Raider’ cut corners by fusing these characters together. Their stories could play out the exact same if they were dudes. This actually goes both ways, since obviously male stories can play out the same with female leads. But when one in ten action movies, stars a woman, then why not make it worth it? Give the girls out there a respectable hero instead of a sexual vessel.
I also hate the wardrobe of shitty female action heroes. If its a sword and sorcery story, the female fighter is wearing chainmail on, and only on, her lady parts. Like a woman's breast a labia are their only vital organs.
Then their is female super heroes. How does showing off your mid drift help you fight crime? Is running in those heels make you faster or something? Does your thong dig in much?   
Even worse though, is this archetypical female action hero who is defined by the fact that she ISN’T a man. We see this character all the time. My first thought of this Eyown from ‘Lord of the Rings’. She’s as good a fighter as ANY man, but she can’t go to battle! She’s a girl! Actually what is her big line? You know at her triumph? Oh yeah “I AM NO MAN!”
God has that story arch run dry or what? “I’m just as good as a boy!”
“No you aren’t!”
Achieves X goal (becomes a warrior, joins the boys wrestling team, bowls a perfect game ect.)
“See!”
“You’re right! You’re our equal!”
The end.   
That story arch doesn’t need to die, I’m fine with it. But those female protagonist only claim to being a woman, is the fact that they aren’t a man... Which is retarded. A character needs more depth than  being defined by what they aren’t. Give them some substance for crying out loud. 


In the end, when trying to think of female action heroes I liked,  and ones I hated, I noticed how small the pool really is in general. But when you look at the movies coming out, you can see there is an upwards trend of ladies who kick ass. And for me, I’m interested in this, as long as the characters are of substance.
I have no opinion of the lead of ‘The Hunger Games’ since I haven’t seen the movie, or read the book. And I don’t really plan to. Not because it has a female at the helm, or because I’m attempting to step away from the popularity of it, but because I just don’t have an interest. The premise just doesn’t grab me. I’ll probably catch it later on, when it’s on DVD, but not right now.
Right now, I’m just happy to see that there is female action hero who can grab an audience’s, attention. Maybe when I finally watch it, I’ll be happy to see that she has some depth, and is uniquely female.   

 

Okay. Going to hit you all with piece of news, about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Then a big'ol piece of criticism.

"When you see this movie, kids are going to believe, one day, that these turtles actually do exist when we are done with this movie. These turtles are from an alien race and they are going to be tough, edgy, funny and completely lovable."

-Michael Bay


Wow is that retarded. Michael Bay really kind of misses the point of Teenage MUTANT Ninja Turtles. Changing them to Aliens is pure retard, no two ways around it. Its retard, I know its retarded, and you all know its retarded. So I'm not going to waste much time painting a picture of how retarded it is.

What I am going to do is blast the majority of the criticizers of this news. People are using, a turn of phrase that annoys the shit out of me. “They're raping my childhood.”
Why do I have a problem with this? Well first off, I have no qualms about joking about rape, or using the word 'rape' to express hate. I do have a problem with people faking a love something from their childhood, when they REALLY only care about it in a shallow superficial level.
I get that its nostalgia, and nostalgia by nature is shallow. I understand that lots of people loved TMNT when they were a kid. But what do you actually remember about the Turtles? Sure you can remember the main casts names, and the general idea of the cartoon, but what else? When was the last time you sat down to watch the show? If it was more then ten years ago, then how in love can you really be?

And to truly look closer at what that Shit Head Bay said. He could mean they will be 'alien' in the sense that the mutiagin ooze, is created by TCRI... which is run by Alien's. Which would actually be true to the source material, the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic. In which April isn't a reporter, there is no Krang, and the turtles kill people. They also don't eat pizza, or wear different colours, they all wear uniform red, that is when the started appearing in colour... original comic was black an white. Oh, and Shredder also died in the first issue. Wow, that cartoon really did rape that comic didn't it? By changing it from being something for adults, and into something for children.

I'm being sarcastic. For anyone to care about the numerous changes between the comic, and cartoon, would mean that they would have to love the comic... Which lots of people do, but who cares about them! Most people 'love' the cartoon, and thus it is the definitive source of the turtles, and should never be strayed from EVER!... Except in the original movie series which acted as a perfect fusion of the cartoon and comic. I'm done being sarcastic now.

Anyway, I get that it was a long time ago. I can't expect you to remember every little detail about the show, and movies. But come on! are YOU a fan of it, or is YOUNG you a fan of it? There is a difference between 'loving' something, and something you 'used to love'. Just like there is a difference between your current girlfriend, and your ex-girlfriend.
I understand you don't want anything bad to happen to your ex, but really, they're your ex for a reason. You grew away from it. But that's the beauty of it, your childhood is always there in the past for you to re-visit. Just like your ex is always a viable booty call... er, maybe not the most perfect analogy.

Don't be afraid to go back and watch these cartoons you loved, maybe you'll view them and your love will be reignited, or maybe you'll hate it, and learn that your love is long dead. (This happened for me with 'He-Man and the Masters of the Universe', man was it gay.)
Really though, the fact of the matter is, no matter what shitty re-boot they create for the turtles, there will always be the comics, the cartoons, and the original movies. So please, everyone relax, and take a step back in time. Your child hood is unrapable, because its long gone. But you get to create your second childhood, and its ass hole is locked up nice an tight, in your buns of steel. You have complete control over what gets in, and what goes out. Use that wisely, and just ignore pricks like Micheal Bay.

UP DATE:

"Fans need to take a breath, and chill. They have not read the script. Our team is working closely with one of the original creators of Ninja Turtles to help expand and give a more complex back story. Relax, we are including everything that made you become fans in the first place. We are just building a richer world."

I've talked about adaptations before with the 'Walking Dead.' And I just want to say that this guy, doesn't get how a great adaptation works. Especially since TMNT already has a perfect adaptation, with plenty of depth, humour and edgy action. Its called 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: the movie'.
As I mentioned before the Comic and the original Cartoon are very different. Thing is, I still enjoy both. Despite the differences there were changes in the cartoon that were very much improvements.
Like giving the Turtles more distinct personalities, and individual colours. In the comic you can't really tell who, is who, unless you can see their weapons, and I enjoy April as a reporter instead of a lab assistant to Baxter Stockmen.
And when they went to make the first motion picture, they amalgamated the gritty comic, with the colourful cartoon and made an excellent movie out of it. Probably one of my top five comic book movies actually.
Back in the early 2000's when the remade the cartoon, the did the same thing, pieces of the original comic book, were combined with the original cartoon. Honestly it was as good as, if not better then the original series.
Then when they went on to make TMNT the fourth, computer animated film, they said to themselves. 'We can try to retell the origin story, we can do a full blown reboot, and have everyone hate it. Or we can do a direct sequel.' Which is what they did... Was it good? Not really. The main plot sucked, but the subplot between Raph and Leo was excellent. The main plot was so contrived.
Now going ahead and making a complete reboot is a huge mistake, especially since it was already done perfectly, and no matter what, Bay's TMNT will pale in comparison. Its a dumb idea. Like I said before, retarded. On SO many levels.


 

Next Friday the film adaption of the popular book 'The Hunger Games' is being released in theaters. Its my understanding that it is a film, featuring something we all love, a strange and horrific future. So today I'm talking (writing I guess), about dystopia.
When I was in college, yes I was in college, with my awful grammar and spelling, I had an elective called 'Dark Days Ahead.' The class can be summed up as 'Studying dystopia and time travel'.
Every week we discussed the end of the world, and the degradation of society. With the question always being raised, 'Why are we as a species so obsessed with the end?'
Its a paranoia we all share, some of us are worse then others. People worry about 'big brother', 'natural disasters', and 'terrorism' to no end. Actually it goes beyond that, some worry about 'God', or 'Aliens', and the most delusional of all people are convinced our end will come at the hands of people of a different race or creed.
Some day, the government will just out right enslave us! Or some day we'll be ruled by a religious fanatics! Or the Aliens will descend from the stars and take our resources!
Something is always out to get us, someone always has an agenda, there is ALWAYS a new witch to burn. It is our pattern as a species. We are largely ruled by fear, and NO its not all fear produced by the media or government, its fear produced from within ourselves.
I think its a evolution thing. We never really got past the point where we stopped fearing for our lives at every turn. It is a fact, that those that didn't fear Sabertooth tigers... didn't live long. The future is a our greatest predator. We have no idea how its going to get us, but we're all worried about it. Some day, this world, is going to be worse then ever... Or is it?
We all know, that stats show a decline in crime and war. The world is actually the most peaceful its ever been, even the threat of nuclear war isn't as big as it once was. And anyone with a brain knows the hadron collider isn't a threat, and that killer bees aren't coming up from the south. The shortage of food? That’s slowly being eradicated by GMO's. There is no proof of 'hostile aliens' or 'angry gods' and the hole in the Ozone is apparently shrinking.
The reality is that the future is probably nowhere near as bleak as we like to think it's going to be. But... What if we get lulled into a false sense of security, and we let everything we've developed (Out of fear of the future) fall apart? Then what? I think, strangely, that the scariest future we can imagine, is a future without fear.
Regardless, to shoot back on topic. We can't help but think about what kind of horrors are in our future. We find entertainment in the thought of it, through books and movies, such as 'The Hunger Games'. And today I'd like to present you with, my top five dystopian movies.


5. Mad Max trilogy (soon to be quintet)
Mad Max (1978), Road Warrior(1981), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome(1985). And in development is Mad Max Fury Road and a untitled sequel.

Mad Max is the classic dystopia. After the world has been destroyed by nuclear war, all that is left is a desert wasteland called... um Australia.
We see that there is a society formed in the first film, a society that is attempting to hold onto the world as it once was, with some form of hierarchy. What we also see, is that not everyone agrees with the ideals of the past and have embraced the harshness of the world. A society that is lead by Tina Turner enjoy a classic piece of entertainment. Mortal Combat in the Thunderdome. They also dress bizarrely.
This is the world we could have been in if the cold war had ever truly heated up, a planet scorched, with natural resources used up in the war machine. With no nations, mankind has banded together in small groups, each with their own agenda, all at odds against one another. Its all very clique.

4. Terminator (Quadrilogy)
The Terminator(1984), T2:Judgment Day(1991), Terminator 3 Rise of the Machines(2003), and Terminator Salvation(2009).

The terminator dystopia is caused by our own natural development of technology. Some point in the future of... 1997 um. Oh wait, it like most apocalypses, got pushed back a few years. It actually ended up happening in 2003... The date isn't important.
What happens is we become so reliant on technology, the United States puts a computer known as “Skynet” in charge of its defenses. Thing is they make the computer to smart, and it becomes self aware. The operators where kind of wigged out I imagine, when their Mac turned on, and asked, 'Where am I? Why do I feel?'
So they quickly attempted to shut off the system. 'Skynet' in self defense... did this.

Over reaction much? In the end, mankind rose from the ashes, only to find that 'Skynet' had decided all of mankind was a danger to it, so we must be terminated.
This future shows mankind united against the horrific machines. Life is a terrible struggle, we have no time for love, and man, women, and child are all Soldiers. If you think Kony is bad? You should be going after John Connor.



Interesting, the paragraph I wrote for 'Logan's Run' pretty much mirrors the trailer perfectly.

3. Logans Run
Logans Run (1967)

Imagine a future, where we're all living together in a single domed city protected by the radiation of the outside world. We're happy, and free, plenty of food. More orgies then Caligula could shake his dick at. And there isn't a single catch... Except for something called Carrousel.
In this world, you have a little diamond implanted in the palm of your hand that keeps track of your age, and when you turn 30 you must show up, and partake in the event, Carrousel.
If you're lucky you may walk out of Carrousel 'renewed' meaning you get to continue to live in this cute little utopia we've built for ourselves.
Thing is, has anyone ever actually been renewed? Some people don't buy into Carrousel and attempt to run. Its then up to men called Sandmen to catch the runner and vaporize them. But the truth is the world outside the dome isn't irradiated, and the atmosphere isn't deadly.
This is a terrifying dystopia, well the movie isn't scary at all. Its very brightly coloured and, NOT the point. The point is that dystopia made up to look like utopia is a scary idea. But really whats the possibility of a government, lying to its people about false dangers, so they can control them more easily... right?

OH MY GOD! THEY GOT MARTY!

2. Class of 1984
Class of 1984 (1982)

Again, in the horrible future of 1984! Where the youths of a Toronto, disguised as New York are revolting! Drugs and violence are ramped among teens! Kids fear for their lives in graffiti filled hallways of inner city schools! Metal detectors at every entrance, due to the fear of guns being snuck into the class room and used on other students!
This dystopian future was... reality, that actually happened. When this film came out, people criticized it as not being realistic. But about ten years later, it was a reality. There was shootings in schools, metal detectors were installed, and people were afraid of their teens. This is a dystopian future that became real!... Sort of.

1. They Live
They Live (1988)

They Live is known for two things. This line:

And its 8 minute long fist fight that serves no other reason then to be, a 8 minute fist fight.
The story of They Live, REALLY isn't for everyone. John Nadda, played by Rowdy Roddy Piper discovers a pair of sun glasses allow him to see the world as it really is. I'll just show you.

If you're to lazy to watch that video at least to the 3 minute mark, then I'll give you the break down. The government, and the rich, are controlling us through the media, to be consumers, that don't question authority, and just obey.
This controlling portion of society are actually Aliens, who have quietly taken over the world and enslaved the human race. Which is really the most genius way to make someone a slave, you convince them that they're free!
This dystopia takes number one, because its a satire of the world we actually live in! John Carpenter was making a point with this movie. He was calling us all slaves to the media. He was trying to get us to swap our rose coloured glasses, for a bad ass pair of shades! This IS our world.