…rest in peace. Many have noted the big hits he was involved with, the most memorable being his Velvet Underground work and, of course, his biggest hit, the album Transformer. Loved them too, and greatly enjoyed these songs, from one of his lesser remembered ones, the 1984 album New Sensations.
To you, Lou…
…that should have been really easy to avoid:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20651_5-movie-deaths-that-should-have-been-really-easy-to-avoid.html
Hilarious!
Was particularly amused by the first entry, regarding the death of the villain in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. I never thought of it that way, though the author makes a terrific -and accurate- point. I suppose in my defense I was enjoying myself so much in the movie that I didn’t even realize how silly the premise of what he does is.
(And, yes, they do mention the ridiculous death-by-rolling-starship in Prometheus).
…how about a fascinating article by Rebecca Onion for Slate magazine which offers examples and a link to a book of criminal slang from the 19th century?
If this has you interested, check out the link to the full book on 19th century (more specifically circa 1850’s) slang:
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924073798740#page/n0/mode/2up
Some random words I came across in the book:
“Easy” = Killed
“Fork” = A pickpocket
“Frog” = A policeman (interestingly, “Pig” was also used as slang to describe a policeman, and this very insulting term remains used today. You can find plenty of references to animals and many of them, like “Pig”, remain familiar even today. “Pigeon”, for example, retains its meaning from the 1850’s, ie a criminal who may engage in a crime and then inform on his partners to the law. A “Rat” remains a cheat).
“Jilt” = A prostitute who “hugs and kisses a country-man” while her accomplice(s) rob him.
“Pin-Money” = Money received by a married woman for prostituting herself.
“Roper-In” = A man who visits hotels and other places for the purpose of ingratiating himself with persons who have plenty of cash and little prudence…and then luring them to gaming houses, presumably to cheat them out of said cash.
“Shadow” = First class police officer. Wonder if that was one of the original reasons why the name was chosen for the famous pulp character of the same name?
“Vampire” = A man who lives by extorting money from men and women whom he has seen coming or going out of houses of “assignation”.
This one is really fascinating: “Whip-Jacks” = Men who pretend to be shipwrecked sailors! I imagine enough people pulled off this trick for this term to merit inclusion in the 1850 book, but I can’t help but wonder why people would pull that particular con in the old days. In other words, what were they hoping to get for creating this story? Sympathy? Ill-gained charity? Or perhaps lying their way onto cargo ships and a “real” job?
Fascinating, fascinating stuff.
Fun list from Cracked.com featuring both early concepts and originally considered actors for some truly memorable roles/characters:
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_591_27-insane-but-true-early-versions-famous-characters_p27/#27
Some of the early actor considerations, like Burt Ward (TV’s Robin) originally considered for the role made famous by Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate, was known to me. But John Travolta for Forrest Gump? Interesting! (I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time my favorite bit of original casting: Frank Sinatra as Dirty Harry! Reportedly a painful finger injury made Mr. Sinatra bow out of the film as he didn’t think he could handle firing that massive 357 Magnum. The role was offered to many other interesting names with various degrees of interest/disinterest, from Burt Lancaster to John Wayne to Robert Mitchum. Eventually Clint Eastwood took over the job and Dirty Harry the movie and character arguably became the most famous/iconic role he ever played!)
Also like the revelation that Krusty the Clown was originally supposed to be Homer Simpson himself! Makes sense as he did originally look an awful lot like Homer and the idea that Homer was secretly the character might have been an interesting concept for a few episodes.
Just goes to show that the creative process is rarely a very direct one. People can come up with concepts and ideas but they are refined and changed over time and circumstance…sometimes giving far, far better results than were originally conceived!
Absolutely fascinating article by Kevin Maney for Newsweek concerning SportsVU, a motion capture technology that will apparently be available to all viewers of NBA games starting with the next season, and what all this data means in terms of your viewing and -at least to me- what it might mean for the future of sports itself:
http://www.newsweek.com/nbas-tech-revolution-will-change-way-we-watch-sports-563
I’ve noticed on talk radio (I tend to listen to it while driving) how the conversation has shifted from generalities to data specifics. We went from talking about how great a certain player was/is (generality) to where we now can find and look at their speed, their scoring percentages, their completion percentages, their success by quarter, etc. etc. etc.
The statistics are fascinating but, of course, can be messed up by player’s “off days”, where their performance may dramatically shift from their “norm.”
Then again, maybe we’ll get to the point where we can predict such dramatic shifts in performance. How? Perhaps by getting information regarding a player’s sleeping habits or how much they travel between games or how their diet, personal life, etc. etc. etc. affect their performances.
So much information to gather…so much information to sort.
Could it be possible that one day we take all this data and can effectively compute which team/player will win their given sporting event on a given day?
And if we do get to that point will sports, whose main draw is the fact that almost anything can happen and the outcome is often difficult to predict, no longer hold their luster to fans?
Take a look at one of them:
Curious to see a little more? Check out this article by Phil Plait at Salon.com:
Heard about this low budget thriller a while back and was intrigued by what critics said, specifically that this was a “realistic” thriller involving an expedition to Europa. For those unfamiliar with Europa, it is one of Jupiter’s moons and a source of great scientific curiosity. The moon has ice on its surface and liquid water below and, therefore, may well have some kind of life forms within.
Anyway, I was intrigued. Would the film live up to the critic’s kind words?
To this I would say yes. For the most part.
Europa Report is a “found footage” type film. We watch the story unfold in “real” time (to a degree) via cameras positioned within the spacecraft as well as “contemporaneous” statements by the people behind the mission, one that we are clued in from the very beginning met a very bad end.
The ship features an international crew (the best known of the actors playing the crew, to me at least, is Michael Nyqvist, who made a villainous turn in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and was Mikael Blomkvist in the European version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy).
The group’s trip to and eventual arrival and exploration of Europa -and the mysteries they encounter there- form the backbone of the story. I don’t want to get into too many spoilers, but suffice to say the mission encounters plenty of problems on their way to discovering if Europa contains life forms.
The film is a very low budget affair but manages to get a maximum for its money, at least in the early going. The effects are way more than adequate for the space flight and even the arrival on Europa. Unfortunately, as the movie closes in on its climax the small budget hurts the film’s revelations. I suspect the screenplay asked for more than the budget could effectively show, and while director Sebastian Cordero did a pretty good job with what he had, there came a time when the movie demanded more spectacle and it simply couldn’t deliver.
It was also during the later half of the the film that I realized…well, this might get into SPOILER material, so I’ll get into it after the trailer below…
Still there? SPOILERS FOLLOW!
Ok, so after the astronauts reach Europa I come to the realization that this film, like The Blair Witch Project and a few other “found footage” thrillers I had seen before, was building up to a final, shattering image as its conclusion. I was even more certain I knew what that image would involve. And, when it came, I was disappointed.
That final image, meant to fill us with equal parts awe and terror, was simply…ordinary. The image wasn’t bad, mind you, but I’ve seen far more chilling and startling effects in many movies and video games.
Too bad.
In the end, I do recommend the film, but with the caveat that this is a low budget affair and that low budget does hurt the overall product.
…all of them apparently. An apparently well known and liked Stenographer on the House floor snaps and rants on the floor following the vote to finally fund the government and raise the debt ceiling:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/17/stenographer-snaps-rants-on-house-floor/
Nothing much to add here but say that there obviously was plenty of pressure on everyone up there.
Robert Downey Jr. returns as Tony Stark/Iron Man in Iron Man 3 (I’ll refer to it as IM3 from here on out). After the general disappointment with 2010’s Iron Man 2 and the euphoria over 2012’s The Avengers, would this film be a keeper?
To my mind, yes…and no. No, no, no.
Robert Downey Jr. remains an absolute joy to watch and absolutely commands the screen and our attention with his continuing quirky characterization of Stark/Iron Man. This alone makes the film worth watching. Then again, Mr. Downey Jr.’s take on Tony Stark made the far more meandering Iron Man 2 eminently watchable as well.
While Iron Man 2 was meandering and felt out of focus, IM3 moves like lightning, hitting us with something new and interesting every few seconds while giving us plenty of Mr. Downey Jr.’s characterization. Thing is, as great as the ride is, the moment IM3 was over and you find yourself thinking about the story that just play out…the more of a mess you realize it is. Ironically enough, IM3 wound up hitting me almost the same way as fellow 2013 summer blockbuster Star Trek Into Darkness did: I enjoyed it while it played out, but afterwards was left decidedly less impressed.
Now, in the interests of not spoiling anything, I’ll stop here and get into story details in a second. The short review is this: Iron Man 3 is an incredibly entertaining “popcorn” film that most people should enjoy. Just don’t think -or focus!- too much about the story.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!
Still here? Ok, let’s get to this.
The movie begins with a flashback to 1999 and a science convention where a then much wilder/partying Tony Stark simultaneously meets up with an off-putting (and geeky) Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and a beautiful Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall). Stark ditches Killian, who wants investors for some high tech he’s developing, while one-night stand bedding Hansen. But not before she reveals she is working on a formula to re-grow plant limbs. Naturally, these two elements are important for what follows…
Fast forward to today and a mysterious terrorist named the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) appears on TV claiming credit for several mysterious -and gruesome- explosions he claims to have set off around the world. He is now targeting the United States and it is increasingly clear the Mandarin’s endgame involves the President of the United States himself.
Meanwhile, Tony Stark is an emotional mess and is experiencing anxiety attacks -or perhaps even post traumatic stress- related to his experiences in The Avengers movie. At one point, he tells his lover Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), he’s a “hot mess”.
Past and present collide when Killian reappears, much handsomer than before, still seeking an investment in his company. Meanwhile, Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) is nearly killed in another of the Mandarin’s explosions while following one of Killian’s henchmen. This leads Tony Stark to personally call out the Mandarin through the media.
That day, Hansen shows up at Tony Stark’s home to warn him that she thinks her boss -Killian- works for the Mandarin. Stark’s home is assaulted at that moment and Potts, Stark, and Hansen barely make it out alive while the home is destroyed.
Ok, so the plot is a little convoluted to this point but it makes a certain logical sense. It is roughly after this opening that things start to go a little…bonkers.
I don’t want to go over every beat and element of the film that follows and assume those still reading have already seen the film. Thus, the problems start:
Why exactly were the badguys in that small town where the mysterious (apparently non-Mandarin) explosion took place? Didn’t the explosion happen a long while before? And if so, why didn’t they take away all evidence beforehand and not the very moment Tony Stark is there?
While in that town, Tony Stark winds up downloading some incriminating video over the net. Were the badguys really stupid enough to leave material accessible -though granted thanks to high level encryption- over the net showing their criminality?
While I don’t mind the reveal of who the Mandarin really was -on the contrary, I think it was a very clever bit- it also is hard to believe that there could be someone that dumb out there willing to go along with that plan, knowing their face would subsequently be public enemy number one. Seriously?
Then there’s the character of Maya Hansen. She’s good, she’s bad, then she’s good again. I don’t mind shifty characters, provided their allegiances/betrayals make sense. Hansen’s first “modern” time appearance, however, involved her almost becoming a victim of the Mandarin’s attack on Tony Stark’s home. But if, as we later find, she was bad all along (and was aligned with the Mandarin), why would she choose to endanger her life that way? Likewise, why did the Mandarin’s forces attack knowing she was there? Couldn’t they have timed the attack for the moment after she left the home and was away from mortal danger?
But all these above problems pale compared to this: Pepper Potts being kidnapped by the villain who sadistically shows off this fact, via video, to Tony Stark. Instead of simply torturing and/or killing Potts before Stark, the villain instead injects her with his formula…which makes her, like the other villains, a superpowered creature capable of kicking major ass.
Seriously?!
Can you not see the…uh…wrongheadedness of doing this? Can the villain not see how a superpowered Pepper Potts just might –might!!!!– come back to bite him in the proverbial ass?! (Note: She does)
I could go on (trust me, there’s more!) but I really don’t want to engage in overkill.
My initial comments remain: IM3 is a fun “popcorn” film that whizzes by and entertains…provided you don’t think about it too much. Otherwise, your opinion may suffer.
Fascinating book review/overview of one Donald Fagen, of the band Steely Dan, whose memoir Eminent Hipsters was released:
Author Seth Stevenson goes beyond simply reviewing the memoir to talking about being a fan of a now aging musical artist…and the feelings entailed in this as well as the artist’s interactions with his fans.
Though I’m no fan of Steely Dan and their music (there may have been a time long ago when I could tolerate -perhaps even appreciate- their music, but the seemingly constant overplaying of Steely Dan hits on the radio have long ago burned me out of any desire to hear any of those songs ever again), I nonetheless am fascinated with the article.
I’ve long been fascinated with the way fans view their favorite artists and the levels of “hero worship” sometimes given. I realize I’m not making any huge, earth-shattering revelations when I say this, but the artists we admire are people just like us. More talented, certainly. Perhaps more outgoing. Perhaps more driven.
But human nonetheless.
I love the music of Jim Morrison and The Doors. However, almost everything I’ve read about Jim Morrison the person makes me cringe. I do note, however, that a large part of the mystique built around Mr. Morrison’s life revolve around his -let’s put it kindly- indulgences and therefore its hard to judge him unless you were there and saw it yourself. Sinner or saint, Jim Morrison was a very talented musician, and in the end that’s all that matters to me.
So with his review of Mr. Fagan’s memoir, Mr. Stevenson, who clearly loves the works of Fagan and Steely Dan, relates his difficulty in realizing his idol is…human. And aging. He notes his discomfort in reading Mr. Fagan’s journal entries at the end of the book, which state the following:
In the final chapter of his new quasi-memoir, Eminent Hipsters, Fagen reprints the personal journal he kept while on that Dukes of September tour. It paints a less electric portrait of his night at the Beacon, concluding with a harrumph: “Hometown gigs are a drag.” Fagen was still reeling from the suicide of his wife’s son, about a week before. He was cranky onstage, thrown off his game by all the “friends, relatives, doctors, etc.” dotting the crowd. Much of the rest of his tour diary is consumed with complaints about health problems, travel snafus, and the spotty acoustics in the venues. Some representative lines:
“Ah, waking up in Tulsa on a midsummer morning with a wicked sinus headache.”
“I guess some Snapple leaked onto my MacBook Pro keyboard so that now some keys are sticky and make a disturbing sucking noise.”
“I’m hoping that Richard can get someone to do a CAT scan of my kidney. It still hurts.”
I’m amused by Mr. Stevenson’s passage and the notes he reprints because though they may surprise and (perhaps) depress Mr. Stevenson, these entries are probably representative of exactly the type of things that go through many artist’s minds. Creating works of art is…work. Performing in front of crowds, while fun for the crowds, is also work. Nowadays many musical concerts are carefully planned and choreographed and therefore feature precious little spontaneous actions on the part of the performers. If this is the case and the artist performs them many, many, many times in their current concert tour, the artist must at some point view the concert as something done on “auto-pilot”.
You hit your notes and you sing your songs and when it is over you get off the stage and on with your life.
So it isn’t surprising the artist may view a particular show through the prism of things that went wrong…both within the show and outside the show (sinus headaches, sticky MacBook keyboards). And if the show went smoothly, then the artist did what s/he set out to do and its on to the next show.
Bumps in the road are inevitably more memorable than smooth sailing.