Neither Geek Nor Not Geek

The very best vacation I ever took was to Disney World.  I was eleven.

The very best vacation I ever took that I planned myself, as an adult, was to New Orleans, LA.  I was 26.

And as an adult, I always wanted to go back to New Orleans, not just for the drinking and debauchery (note: I never experienced any debauchery), but for the people, the sights, history, tours, and FOOOOOD.  So much fun.  Different after 2005 (I have not been back since the hurricane), but still a living city and one I always enjoyed more than any other location in the south.

Then, I met Jenni.  Jenni's favorite vacation of all time (that did not involve dinosaurs) was going on a cruise ship, specifically with Princess Cruises.  She had tried another line, but vastly preferred PCL... and upon her recommendation, we saved up, got a great deal, and have just returned from a 7-day cruise to Alaska.

Now I know someone else's vacation photos are not always the most interesting experience, but for my own memory, and to perhaps sell YOU on it (both of my dear readers), here's a rundown.  Not the most geekly/nongeekly experience, but not ALL vacations can be to comic-cons and the movie theater, alas.

PROS:

1) Getting to see Alaska.  I'm not used to describing scenery as "beautiful," because first of all I'm a dude, and second of all it's a bunch of fucking dirt.  But I was blown away driving through Northern California for the first time (also at about 26), and Alaska was even more impressive than that.  It's all too easy to use phrased like "snow-capped mountains," and "glacier-carved rocks," but it's an entirely different thing to see these things in person.  No photograph can do them justice.  It's like having sex, you can read all the manuals, see all the pictures and/or videos you like, but NOTHING can do the actual experience justice.  That and bacon.  Some things just need to be seen/experienced to be believed.

2) The fucking SHIP.  Holy crap, there was so much to do.  Food, swimming, art gallery, drinking, live shows, live music, movies, the VIEW.  Rocking with the waves for ten hours straight was definitely a new experience, and three days back and my legs still aren't used to a steady floor.  But damn if that wasn't part of the charm.

3) The people.  When you put that much planning into a vacation... it's not like you're going to run into locals on the ship who are annoyed you're there.  99% of the people were damn glad to be there, the staff was friendly and excellent at their jobs, they're just there to bring you stuff and chill out, man.  They're seeing the world, too.  And the other passengers... most all friendly, happy to be there, and just as eager to learn about the sights and sounds, too.  And then there's just staring out at the ocean.... for all the vacation destinations at home and abroad, being surrounded by water is definitely unique for any type of vacation.

4) The ports.  We stopped at Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, and Victoria BC.  Each has something unique to offer, Ketchikan was so/so (more on that in a moment), but Juneau was a perfect mix of small town and wilderness.  Plenty of mountains, regular amenities, nice people, and shopping options beyond just the regular tourist crap.  Skagway was far smaller, but we did get to see some wilderness there, going ziplining fifty feet above the ground, between trees.  Highly recommended, by the way, provided you can go hiking for an hour without needing to sit down and pass out.  The jumping is easy... the hardest part was getting up the side of the hill.  But then you're surrounded by giant trees, with clear views of mountains and some train tracks on the side of said mountain.  Pretty fucking impressive.

5) The FOOD.  We ate nowhere but on the ship (though we did take a one-day cruise from Vancouver to Seattle before we started, and Ketchup Flavored Potato Chips (unique to Canada) are fucking TERRIBLE)... where was I?  Too many parentheses, but the point is, the food was fucking delicious, plentiful, and included.  Some room service items had a tiny room service charge ($3 for pizza), but most all included and spectacular.  I'm actually quite sad that no one put a napkin in my lap before dinner tonight.


CONS:
1) Only a couple hours in each port.  Ketchikan is tiny, a little fishing town, there's tourist shops but not much else, so there's nothing there you couldn't get at every other port (which is probably why this one was first).  There's not much town to see beyond the few blocks of the tourist area, but the scenery... nice.  Juneau I could have spent a week in.  Skagway, tiny as it is, the same.  Small rural streets, with wooden planks at the sidewalk, just like in an old west town.  Granted, it would probably be quite different with a foot of snow on the ground, but look!  Mountains!

2) Crowds.  Embarking and disembarking in Seattle was a mob, but no better or worse than getting on an airplane, or more accurately a sports stadium.  On ship there was less of that, everyone off doing their own thing, in their cabins, it's actually quite thinly populated (or seems so) except at the beginning of the first day, the end of the last day, and getting off the ship anywhere in between.  Other than that, chill as hell.  Easily a con that can be overlooked.

3) Motion of the ocean.  I don't get seasick, but as stated, after ten hours of that... whoa.  I actually didn't mind so much in bed, and if I just got irritated by the motion, a nap actually helped.  Jenni, on the other hand, spent a couple days getting adjusted... it's definitely not like flying.  But after a while, for me anyway, it got charming... "Oh look, time to take a shower.  Better learn how to do it at a 15-degree angle!"

4) Price.  We got a great deal-- a GREAT deal-- but it's still four figures.  Granted, this is a family of four, but I'm new to the whole family vacation thing, and I'm used to going on vacation for $500 tops.  This was definitely not that.  But hey, at least I didn't have to get scanned naked.

5) Length.  A week?  PSHAW.  By day six we were all winding down and ready to be home, shower in a space bigger than a shoebox, do our laundry (though there IS laundry on the ship, but who wants to do laundry on vacation?), but as I got off the ship on day seven, I just wanted to do it all over again.  I'd walk more of Ketchikan.... I'd drive more and shop more in Juneau.  Skagway I'd take more pictures, talk to the staff, schedule more sightseeing/activities.  And Victoria, well... I only got an hour there, and it's definitely a city that appreciates looking good instead of just being functional (I'm looking at you, Every City in Texas).  Plus I didn't get to try the raspberry raisin Orange Crush, or whatever the fuck that was...

.... IN TOTO, the pros far outweigh the cons.  By a WIDE MARGIN.  Oh, and the DJ in the nightclub was a fucking moron, but he played requests so that can be overlooked.  Is it New Orleans?  No, but nothing is... it's still a floating village, interesting people, fun and entertaining all hours of the day.  Worth the money, worth the time, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

And the more friends, the better it is.  Hint, hint.  :D

Spring Horror

Great Caesar's Ghost!

NOT GEEK
"Evil Dead" was exquisite.  We show up at a location, establish no one will be leaving, and start killing people one at a time.

Is it a slasher movie?  No.  Something starts happening to these... not kids, exactly, since it's established they're all in their early-to-mid 20's.  First one starts to lose her mind, then they all do.  There are knives, needles, smashing, trashing, vomiting, bleeding, cutting and DEMONIC POSSESSION (not in that order), and it's exactly what the doctor prescribed.

There's a certain bored familiarity with slasher movies, in that we know what the threat is and what it's gonna do, and it's just a question of if our characters can avoid that threat to get to... wherever safety is.  "Evil Dead" is important, and great, because you don't know WHAT the fuck is going to happen.  Evil spirit?  What the fuck are THEY capable of?  Well, whatever the fuck the filmmakers say they are, and that's more and more right up until the final scene.  It keeps you on your toes, it will surprise you, it WILL make you jump sky-high.  Worth seeing on the big screen, and in a year or two, if you're considering the DVD.... take hold of it, watch it, and think "Damn, I shoulda seen this in the theater."

GEEK
This is the exact same movie as the 1981 original, but with a budget, and a few minor differences.  At the theater, the girlfriend mentioned the original and someone nearby was completely unaware that such a thing existed.  It's just as well; the scares are there, but they remain completely different animals.

To enjoy "Evil Dead" (1981), you must first get past the non-existent budget.  If you can do that (not all casual viewers can, or want to), then it doesn't matter that one of the actors is a young Bruce Campbell, it's just an enjoyable low-budget horror movie that doesn't always make sense, but hey, lots of people die and the special effects are pretty good for the money.

"Evil Dead 2" is as much comedy as it is horror, and the continuity with "Evil Dead" is marginal at best.  Sure, you can argue that Ash brings his girlfriend Linda make to the same house as the first movie, but WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE DO THAT.  They're separate animals, enjoyable but not really a continuing story.

"Evil Dead" (2013) has a plot.  Mia is there to detox.  It's an intervention, they're all going to be out at so-and-so's mom's cabin in the woods, away from society, to help their friend through this difficult time in her life.  Of course, there happens to be some remnants of "witchcraft" in the basement......

One of the hallmarks of any movie, smart or dumb, is "If you think about it later, does it make sense?"  I mean, sure it makes sense in the moment, it happened "because," but what about later?  If not, the movie falls apart, you probably won't watch it again (Transformers, Phantom Menace), but if so......

Well, despite the movie devolving (and I use that term with respect) into blood and death in the final act, the filmmakers actually CARED enough to give a reason for all this.  Where did the Book of the Dead come from?  It's never explained, but nor is it explained in the earlier movies.  It just IS, the schoolteacher among them gets curious (he's a schoolteacher! he likes to read!), then none of them believe the recovering junkie, because she's a recovering junkie.  THEN THE BLACK CHARACTER DIES FIRST.

.... This is a horror movie standard, to be sure, so that goes firmly in the "not geek" section.  ON THE OTHER HAND, I turned to my girlfriend during the movie, who is an avid gamer (hence our love), and said "They killed the cleric first.  Smart move."  Because the first to die is (oh, btw, spoilers, sorry), also the nurse.  Not that a nurse could have patched up what happens after that (oops, severed arm!), but it's still a wise tactical move.  After that, every kill seems to be a kill of opportunity by this demon or whatever it is, up to and including as many references to the original as possible.  The opening shot of the movie, practically, has someone far in the distance, silhouetted by fog and shadow, who appears to be carrying a shotgun and a chainsaw.  Who it is turns out to be a minor character of no importance, and it's all in a flashback sequence before the story gets started, but they filmmakers CARE.  They care enough to drop in references without making them obvious or contingent on knowing the original, like when Stan Lee or Lou Ferrigno show up in an Incredible Hulk movie, or Leonard Nimoy shows up in the Trek reboot.  Hey, if you cheer at the Book and Shotgun on table in the big reveal there in Act I, good for you.  If you don't know the image, it's not important, and doesn't detract from the movie at all if you don't get the reference.

.........  1993 was TWENTY GODDAMN YEARS AGO, and they even used three words that summoned the evil, and they WEREN'T "Klaatu Verada *cough cough*."  They actually sounded creepy (though for all I know they could have been Latin for 'fabric softener').  They weren't referencing something else, they were just words in a creepy, creepy book.  Mission accomplished.

.... Except the ending.  Good luck explaining all the dead bodies to the authorities, (character or characters who survive).

PART THE SECOND
Go to the library or bookstore right now and buy a copy of "John Dies at the End" by David Wong.  It's horror comedy in the best way, one moment you're in awe of the creepy or disgusting images you've just read on, the next moment you're laughing at the next dick joke.  It's a great read: fun, creative, original.

"John Dies at the End" the movie, directed by Don Coscarelli (Phantasm, The Beastmaster, Bubba Ho-Tep) is a waste of time.

It starts off fine enough, a little rushed, but the voice of the author is there, and the humor, and the randomness.  It gets iffy from there almost immediately, as the "creepy Jamaican" from the book is now just a really good looking dude with dreadlocks.  You know, someone who would NOT be out of place at a party of 20-somethings.  No thought put into THAT sequence, but maybe they'll pick it up again after--

Nope.  The entire fun of the book is the interactions between Dave (your narrator) and John (his best friend who constantly gets him in trouble / can always be counted on to save the day).  That interaction was completely gone from the movie.  John was barely in it, becoming a plot device instead of an actual character.  Characters who weren't these two, got even less development.  Every single female character is a pale white girl with long straight black hair, making them difficult to tell apart.  In fact, John and Dave are the same body type, making them ANOTHER two nondescript white guys... now, these two actors ARE quite good, and very nearly save the movie, but they can't overcome (1) a director who hasn't read the book, and (2) a movie that blows all its money in the first half.

Look, the zombie and monster effects were great for the first bit, but the movie goes off the rails when whatsisname (a white guy named Justin, which is unimportant), the gangster wannabe, gets possessed (is a word I'll use for simplicity's sake) and kidnaps everyone.  In the book, there's a reason for this: He takes them all to Vegas for his own nefarious purposes.  In the movie, they driving five minutes to the mall, at which point no explanation is given why he needed to bring all these people to the mall.  One of them, yes, but how did this possessed guy know THAT was the right person?  Okay, even if he did have powers to know this, why the fuck did he bring everyone else, INCLUDING JOHN'S DEAD BODY (spoilers: he's not dead for long).  This makes no sense,  and jumps over about 200 pages in the book, neutering all the best lines, and failing to execute the lines that DID make it in.  In fact, the opening narration ("The terrible secret of the universe") is explained later in the book, as to WHY this is the terrible secret of the universe.... in the movie, it's never referenced again.  It's a non sequitir.  Sure, these few pages in the book are funny, and the director wanted to leave it in, but the director hasn't actually read the book so has no idea of the context or what's going to make sense.

The thing is, I could pass all this off as the low-budget director of "Phantasm" simply not knowing (or caring) how to make a mainstream movie.  He can experiment with his cute little low-budget effects, but at a certain point you have to start playing with the big kids and make a movie people WANT to see, or you're going to get your toys taken away. He flirted with mainstream-ness with "Phantasm II" and "Beastmaster," but then stubbornly refused to do anything anyone wanted to see, casting the same sorta-good actors in "Phantasm III" which was never even released theatrically.  Thing is, it was actually pretty good (Phantasm IV is unwatchable), but nobody gave a fuck because he cast the entire movie with his friends.  That was the end of his career, until....

"Bubba Ho-Tep" WAS incredible.  It had great actors (Bruce Campbell and the late, great Ossie Davis), an explained plot, a beginning + middle + end.  The effects were cheap, but when wielded by a director who knows how to hide that, and build tension, the whole thing can still work.  How the director of THAT movie directed "John Dies at the End" is beyond me.  Lines are delivered wrong, random scenes from the book are cobbled together into a nonsensical series of events, and then I think there's a big explosion (which is telegraphed so clearly you'll be like "no way is that plan going to work," and then it happens exactly the way the minor character explicitly stated it would).... then the movie peters out.  The book also explains how the title relates to the ending.  The movie doesn't even know what its title is.

The short version is this: You knew the "Last Airbender" movie had problems when the director of THAT piece of shit swapped nationalities of the entire cast before the movie even went into production.  There was no reason to do this, he just did it because he wanted to make a terrible movie, and make a change just to be an egotistical douchebag.

In "JDATE," the director swaps genders of the dog.  Why did he do this?  Why is the dog now male instead of female?  Does it contribute to, or enhance the plot or events in any way?

No it does not.  It's just an arrogant, douchebag of a director jealous of a writer who is more talented than he is.  He wants to put his own stamp on the material (which has exactly one legit scare, all the rest from the book are simply left out), and in doing so, has made a movie not interesting or watchable.  I had the luck of seeing the DVD, so I can tell you that the deleted scenes are actually the best ones in the entire movie.  A few of them are actually very funny, one of them is straight-up creepy, and the last is just a character monologuing, but at least is helps advance the plot in some way.  All cut.  For no reason.  (and don't say "for pacing."  What pacing?  I watched the movie.  WHAT FUCKING PACING?!).

Because Don Coscarelli is incompetent, and "Bubba Ho-Tep" was an anomaly.  Which, by the way, is also based on a story, written by someone more talented than Don.  Note to authors: When at all possible, write your own screenplay.  Or at least be in the room.

On a 1-4 star rating:

Evil Dead: 3.5 stars (would watch again)

JDATE: Zero stars (was going to set fire to my copy, but Netflix gets touchy about that).

Motherfuckin' Potpourri

1) I haven't written since before "The Hunger Games," but after nearly a year in release there's nothing more to be said.  It was surprisingly adequate for a director with only three movies under his belt.  Lenny Kravitz was wasted (as in, he should've been given more to do).  The director did not trust his own camera work, and would frequently cut away from something really interesting... the finale made it look like the entire games took place in a holodeck, and sending the contestants all together in the same shuttle, only to enter the field from different rooms, makes absolutely no sense.  RE: THE BOOK.  IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.  (though the twitter controversey was worth a headshake or two).

2) Let's just jump right to it: JJ Abrams directing Episode VII.  That means the same man controls both Star Trek and Star Wars.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  This is not okay.  As geeks we should rail against it.  As "not geeks" we should not give a single FUCK, because the only non-SW or ST things JJ has directed are (1) Mission Impossible 3, (2) Super 8, and (3) Lost.  Two of the three were total shit.  Discuss amongst yourselves.

It'll be adequate, depending on the screenplay.  Except for the fact that they have no story other than the one written by Timothy Zahn.  (Heir to the Empire).  Were any of us really clamoring for a sequel to "Return of the Jedi?"  No.  No, sir, we were not.

3) The Dark Knight Rises.  From a non-geek perspective, it was quality entertainment with some grand characters and the style we've come to know from Christopher Nolan.  From a Geek perspective, it was disappointing and a kick in the teeth.  Look:

The ending of "The Dark Knight" raised many a possibility.  Now he's not a mysterious crimefighter-- he's a vigilante, on the the run from the cops.  This will make his job harder, this will truly test him.  Four years later (and ten years later, in the context of the movie), we find out that... Bruce Wayne handled it by.... DOING NOTHING.  This is the worst possible option.  I recognize that Nolan probably didn't want to direct any more of these, if indeed he even wanted to do the third.  But while the movie was fine, the premise was a cop-out.  And Bane's death was incredibly, incredibly anti-climactic.  Also Batman died.  I don't care what Alfred saw in the restaurant-- it was the same restaurant from earlier in the movie, and there's no way he walked into it on accident.  It was a fantasy sequence, and in making it real Nolan is essentially saying, "That's the whole story.  Riddler?  Penguin?  Superman?  None of that shit happened.  He fought Joker, Bane, then he died."  No, fuck you, he didn't.  Read a comic book.

4) "The Justice League."  ... There are two kinds of superhero movies.  "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," and "Batman Begins."  The fact that anyone even uttered the words 'Ben Affleck' should answer you pretty fucking well which category this will be in.

5) The Man of Steel.  I don't care how good the trailer is, it was directed by Zack Snyder.  And while I will forever be wowed by his visuals in "Dawn of the Dead," he has become so lazy since then, his every movie has been underwhelming and embarrassing.  And before you mention "300," go back and watch it again.  Take a drink every time you hear Gerard Butler slip back into his Scottish accent.  If you finish the movie sober, I will give you $1,000,000 dollars.  And no, you can't cheat by muting the entire film.  I tried that once, and I passed out from masturbating.

6) The Avengers.  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

7) DAT.  EVIL DEAD.  TRAILER.

8) The Amazing Spider-Man: Andrew Garfield has no screen presence, and Marc Webb is a music video director who got lucky.  I feel about it like I felt about "Batman and Robin" ... yes, there are people who will like it.  These people never read a comic book.  History is on my side here, people.

BUT THEN AGAIN, WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE THE SAME MAN CONTROLS BOTH STAR WARS AND STAR TREK.

The state of being a geek is........... bad.  Even with that White House response to the Death Star petition.  Let's one of us make a billion dollars and buy back the rights to something, eh?

.... oh, and I know there's no trailer for the second Wolverine movie, but do we really want to live in a world where THAT gets a sequel, and "John Dies at the End" isn't even playing in theaters?  C'MONNNNNNNNNNNNNN.......

*Warning, this blog makes references that not even Google may know, you have to be a GEEEEEEK