Monthly Archives: July 2013

Books/Literature

J. K. Rowling and the Power of Brand…

Interesting article by Lev Grossman for Time magazine concerning the recent revelation that mega-popular Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling secretly published a novel under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith last year and the implications of this revelation…

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/07/16/the-name-game-j-k-rowling-and-the-power-of-brand/

I’ve long realized -and it seems only obvious- that once you become a recognized “name” in the literary field, you automatically sell far more books than if you’re a newcomer and/or nobody.  True, sometimes a book by an unknown author seems to appear out of no where and become incredibly popular -this could be said of Ms. Rowling’s initial entry into the Harry Potter series- but once you’re established, your books sell.

But when you’re not…

I’ve read in other articles that Ms. Rowling’s pseudonymous novel, The Cuckoo’s Calling, sold something in the order of 1500 copies worldwide before the revelation of her involvement in the book.  Naturally, post-revelation the book is a hot seller and as of yesterday was #1 on Amazon sales for novels.  When it was initially released, the book was apparently well received by critics, yet despite that the novel fell into the black hole of public indifference many, many novels good and bad fall on a daily basis.

The fact that the novel is now a big seller further emphasizes the obvious…once you’re a well known author audiences tend to be interested and receptive to your works.  I noted a couple of days ago the passing and my admiration of the works of Richard Matheson (you can read about that here).  Toward the end of the blog article I mentioned his novel Hunted Past Reason.  The only (ahem) reason I bought the novel was because I saw it in a bookstore in the “new arrivals” section and noted it was written by Mr. Matheson.  Simply seeing his name on the book made me reach out for it.  I read the description of the book on the dust jacket and wasn’t all that impressed.

But it was a new novel by Richard Matheson!

I had to give it a try.

In the end, the book proved a BIG disappointment, perhaps the absolute worst thing I’ve ever read by Mr. Matheson.  If the novel had been written by Joe Blow, I probably wouldn’t have given the book a second glance.

The moral of the story is that if you’re an author and hope to have any success, you have to try your best to create a buzz (any buzz) regarding your book.  Otherwise, expect mediocre to terrible sale figures.

C’est la vie.

Music

David Bowie’s isolated vocal tracks…

…to “Starman” and “Five Years”.  Absolutely fascinating stuff:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/15/david_bowie_s_isolated_vocal_tracks.html

As mentioned in the article, there was interest around the web when the isolated vocal tracks of the Queen/David Bowie collaboration “Under Pressure” was released.  If you’re curious about that, here it is.  It’s worth giving a listen to as well:

General

McDonald’s 10 Most Spectacular Menu Flops!

And you thought all McDonald products were successes! (If not gastronomical delights)

http://www.thedailymeal.com/mcdonalds-10-most-spectacular-menu-flops

Some of these are quite…interesting.

Like the Hula Burger.  And the McLobster (!).  There are only a few items I can remember (several of the mentioned items on this list appeared in certain specific parts of the country or were on foreign menus).

In fact, looking the entire list over again there are only three items I’m familiar with:  The “Supersize”, The McLean, and the Arch Deluxe.

I was always bothered by the whole “Supersize” thing…it seemed like waaaay too much food (and drink).  I don’t believe I ever tried the McLean, but I do recall eating the Arch Deluxe.  It wasn’t too bad, all things considering.  I’m surprised it was such a big flop.

Movies

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) a (mildly) belated review

I know I’ve mentioned this before, so indulge me for a bit.

When I was younger, I was really harsh in reviewing films.  I couldn’t tolerate what I viewed as mistakes, large or small, especially in a feature’s story.  If something didn’t make sense, even if it was a tiny thing that might not have amounted to all that much in the feature’s full running time, I nonetheless blasted it.  If a film was suspiciously similar -at least enough to accuse it of being a rip off-, well ditto.  If the effects weren’t up to snuff, if the acting was off, if the direction and editing weren’t pleasing, ditto again.

In recent years I’ve mellowed out considerably.  Not that I don’t find films here and there that are, to me, utter and complete failures.  It’s just that I as an author I can sympathize with the heavy lifting that goes into the act of creation and have come to realize that sometimes things just don’t work out, no matter how hard you may try.

A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth (!) movie in the Die Hard franchise (but not the last as a sixth movie is in pre-production for release in 2015), arrived with considerable critical scorn, at least as far as I could see.  The original 1988 Die Hard was a watershed moment in the career of actor Bruce Willis.  While his TV series Moonlighting was popular, his movie career was hardly flourishing.  His two previous motion pictures were both directed by Blake Edwards, first the comedy Blind Date and then the comedy/mystery/pseudo-western Sunset.  Both movies, if memory serves, didn’t exactly light the box office on fire or make anyone think Mr. Willis had what it took to transition from TV actor to Movie actor.

All that changed with Die Hard.

The movie proved a box office hit and the character Mr. Willis portrayed in the movie, Officer John McClane, was funny, witty…damn near brilliant.  Two years later Die Hard 2 was released, and while some now “poo-poo” that film as nowhere near as good as the original, I consider it a great action film as well.  Five years later, in 1995, Mr. Willis and original Die Hard director John McTiernan returned for Die Hard: With a Vengeance and audiences once again were happy to follow the further adventures of Willis’ McClane.

Me?  I didn’t like Die Hard: With a Vengeance all that much, though I enjoyed seeing Bruce Willis return to that role.  It would prove to be the last time we’d see Mr. Willis playing the character until twelve years later, in 2007, when Live Free or Die Hard was released.  As with the previous Die Hard film, I thought it wasn’t all that great.  It seemed the action sequences were becoming waaaay too big and unbelievable while the characterization of McClane was becoming an ever smaller part of the overall picture.

Which, in a nutshell, is the problem A Good Day to Die Hard has in spades.

Sadly, another problem is that Mr. Willis has aged.  He no longer looks like the young man he once was, the young man we could envision doing all those crazy stunts while beating his body to a pulp.  Still, it would be hard to envision a young Bruce Willis doing the action sequences called upon his character in this film.  For the action sequences in this movie are so big, so wild, that it becomes nearly impossible for us as an audience to believe anyone could survive even one of those set pieces, never mind the five or six strung out through the film.

And those action sequences, as good as they might be (I happened to think the initial one, involving what appeared to be the demolition of every road and vehicle in and around Moscow was quite excellent) nonetheless strain our ability to believe what we’re seeing could happen.

In action films, that’s the trick a director/actor/effects crew should be sensitive about.  Can the audience believe what they’re seeing might happen?  Even avoiding that question, the fact is that A Good Day to Die Hard winds up being so enthralled to those same action sequences that the characterization so beloved in the first few Die Hard films is almost completely missing.  This is easily the least “John McClane” film of the bunch.  Bruce Willis could be playing any “good guy” Bruce Willis-type character…he’s that invisible as a person within the context of the movie.

He’s not the only one.

We’re presented with McClane’s son and, to a far lesser extent, daughter in the movie, but both characters are just that, characters.  Jai Courtney, who was nicely menacing as one of the main baddies in Jack Reacher, switches to good guy mode here and isn’t all that bad…but neither is he all that great either.  The blame, as before, lies in the fact that this is a movie built around those all important action sequences.  Jack McClane’s character, therefore, is a stereotype:  The angry, abandoned son who, by the end of the film, grows to love the old man.

Dodging bullets, I guess, will do that to you.

Anyway, near the end of the film we are presented with an interesting switcheroo regarding the bad guy(s) and, I have to admit, I found it a clever switch indeed (Maybe by then I was desperate for anything other than action action action).  In fact, seeing that switcheroo made me wonder what the original screenplay for this film was like.  Could it possibly have been more character oriented?  Could more thought have been put into creating a suspenseful, less pedal-to-the-metal action fest?

Who knows.

We can only judge A Good Day to Die Hard for what it is:  An expensive and near non-stop action fest that features little in the way of character development.  Not the worst action film I’ve ever seen, mind you, but one that desperately could use an infusion of the smart-assed humanity we saw in the earlier appearances of one John McClane.

Books/Literature, Movies, TV

Richard Matheson, RIP

1 Comment

Found out a bit belatedly of the death of one of the 20th Century’s most influential authors, at least to me, Richard Matheson.  He was the rare author whose works spread out form “mere” novels and short stories to include screenplays and many, many famous episodes of classic TV shows, including The Twilight Zone.

Richard Corliss of Time Magazine offers a great essay about the works and influence of Mr. Matheson over his career:

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/28/richard-matheson-1926-2013-the-wizard-of-what-if/

For me, the ultimate Richard Matheson story was/is Duel.  There’s something about the idea of facing off against a mysterious -and homicidal!- truck driver that intrigued and terrified me.  The first movie I ever recall seeing was Duel, which was also director Steven Spielberg’s first big hit and an obvious template for what would become his first MEGAhit, Jaws.

But even taking Duel out of the equation, there are plenty of other memorable movies and concepts he created which are buried deep in my psyche.  The novel I Am Legend (and, more specifically, the Charlton Heston starring second movie version of the same, Omega Man).

There was also the very chilling Trilogy of Terror and that doll…

And let’s not forget the classic Twilight Zone episode Nightmare at 20,000 Feet!

I could go on, mentioning such classics as Kolchach: The Night Stalker or Legend of Hell House or The Incredible Shrinking Man…but suffice it to say, for the most part I’ve been delighted by Mr. Matheson’s work over the years.  Given the volume of said work, there were bound to be some disappointments and, sadly, my most recent experience with Mr. Matherson’s writing was the novel Hunted Past Reason.

Do yourself a favor and, if you haven’t already, check out the stuff I’ve mentioned above.  But avoid that last novel.

General

Stars who were once homeless

Recently Jennifer Lopez noted that she was homeless at one time before achieving stardom.  Here, from Time magazine, is a fascinating list of ten celebrities who were also homeless for a time before hitting it big:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/11/stars-who-were-once-homeless/

I’m fascinated by the list because it proves, to some extent, that even when you’re at your most down and out, there is a chance you can pull yourself up and make something of your life.

Sadly, I suspect these are the only few examples of the extreme exceptions to the rules, people who were down and out and turned it around completely.  There are others, of course, who may try and never can get out of extreme poverty.

Books/Literature, General

Orson Scott Card…again

A while back (you can read it here) I noted the controversy regarding sci-fi author Orson Scott Card and his views on homosexuality.  I’m not a big fan of Mr. Card’s works, though I have read what is arguably his most famous novel, Ender’s Game, which will soon be released to theaters as a major motion picture.

I noted in the previous column that the controversy surrounding Mr. Card may wind up hurting the film’s box office prospects, and it would appear that Mr. Card is himself worried about the very same thing and has tried to address the main controversy regarding his previous comments:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/orson_scott_card_gay_marriage_issue_has_become_moot/

In many ways, I feel for Mr. Card even as I can’t find sufficient sympathy to excuse his previous comments.  I feel for Mr. Card because he’s a victim of his own verbal venom in an age when such comments are easily accessible via the internet and difficult, if not impossible, to expunge.  It is possible, for example, that over the years Mr. Card’s opinions have changed and he’s softened his stance toward homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  I’m not saying this has happened, mind you, only that it’s possible.  Unfortunately for Mr. Card, those previous comments he made will remain available for anyone to see and read and will always follow him, even after his passing.

More recently, Hugh Howley, the author of the hit “self-published” sci-fi novel Wool got himself into some similar trouble when he posted a blog entry verbally lashing a woman he met at World Con (http://www.dailydot.com/culture/hugh-howey-the-bitch-from-worldcon-rant/).  Unlike Mr. Card, whose anti-homosexual comments can be found over the years, Mr. Howley appeared to realize rather quickly that his rant was inappropriate and offered an apology (http://www.hughhowey.com/to-those-whom-ive-offended/) and opened himself up to interviews where he further elaborated on the blog post and offered explanations as well as apologies (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/CultureShock/archives/2013/04/19/hugh-howey-explains-why-he-removed-controversial-blog-post)

I suppose the point is this: Think about what you’re saying, whether it be to someone else or something you yourself post online.  It’s common sense.  On the other hand, perhaps it is also a good thing to look inside yourself and evaluate your own feelings and philosophies.  After all, if you’re a public figure (or even a casual facebook user) and are “smart enough” to not make any controversial public rants, yet have such strong feelings, perhaps you should consider, and re-consider, them.

In the long run it might make you a better person.

General

I could watch stuff like this all day…

As you watch these video clips, after a while you figure you’ve seen enough.  I mean, after a while, things have to get a little repetitious, right?  After all, how many times and ways can you see amateur parkour “talent” running into a wall…or the ground…or water.  How many times can you see cars/motorcycles/people on skateboards/etc. wipe out?  How many would-be “extreme” athletes can you still find amusing once they land crushingly on their backs or heads?  And what of the adventures of the very drunk, as they stumble around and inevitably fall?

There can’t be much else, can there?

And then, suddenly, you’re at minute 13:55 of the video and you see a bunch of Mensa candidates find out what happens when you stick a knife into a toaster.

As I said before, I could watch stuff like this all day…

Movies

You’re doing it wrong!

A fascinating list of 15 films based on the lives of real people and their true stories that received a backlash from those people…because they felt their depiction in the movies was incorrect:

http://styleblazer.com/152963/youre-doing-it-wrong-15-movies-based-on-a-true-story-that-received-backlash-from-their-real-life-characters/

Haven’t seen all that many of the films referenced there, though two of the bigger exceptions are Ed Wood and The Doors.  I enjoyed both films though Ed Wood clearly tried to create a “happy” ending for the film, that Ed Wood’s Plan 9 From Outer Space somehow was a triumph when ultimately released instead of an object of complete ridicule.  As for The Doors, Val Kilmer nailed the Jim Morrison role, but the story presented, even to one as fond of the music of the Doors as I am, simply wasn’t all that interesting.  By most accounts, the real life Jim Morrison lived a life of excess, both with drugs and alcohol.  While he found incredible success with his music, those excesses ultimately resulted in dying far too young.  Other than the music and his copious use of alcohol and drugs, I have a hard time recalling other elements of his story as depicted within the movie, which I suppose explains the family’s scorn for Oliver Stone’s film.

Of the films I haven’t seen, I feel for most for  Fritz Ostermueller’s daughter, the pitcher depicted in the movie 42 as a racist headhunter (she noted evidence that suggested this was not the case) and Marc Schiller, one of the victims presented in the recent comedy Pain & Gain.  In the later case in particular, it feels really tasteless for filmmakers to make a comedy of the near gruesome murder of a person, one who wound up in a coma because of the actions of the central characters in said film.

If there’s any lesson to be taken from this list, its that making a movie based on “real life” events and people is tricky enough, but it’s especially hard when the people behind the stories (family or otherwise) are still alive and can voice their displeasure.