E. R. Torre is a writer/artist whose first major work, the mystery graphic novel The Dark Fringe, was optioned for motion picture production by Platinum Studios (Men In Black, Cowboys vs. Aliens). At DC Comics, his work appeared in role-playing game books and the 9-11 Tribute book. This later piece was eventually displayed, along with others from the 9-11 tribute books, at The Library of Congress. More recently he released Shadows at Dawn (a collection of short stories), Haze (a murder mystery novel with supernatural elements), and Cold Hemispheres (a mystery novel set in the world of The Dark Fringe). He is currently hard at work on his latest science fiction/suspense series, Corrosive Knights, which features the novels Mechanic, The Last Flight of the Argus, and Chameleon.
Is it just me or does it appear every famous/sorta-famous male out there is a creep?
I’m glad women are, in this day and age, empowered to speak up about these things which, sadly, in the past were brushed under the rug. I’m also alternately enraged and shaking my head at the growing list of people who have been accused of these types of acts. Though clearly some of the revealed actions are far more heinous than others, I hope my fellow men view this as a teachable moment.
Men, think about what you’ve done in the past. Take a good, hard look in the mirror and see if any of your actions when you were younger or -the Gods forbid- recently might fall into the category of sexual harassment or -the Gods forbid redux- assault.
And for fuck’s sake: Don’t do this sort of crap. Don’t ever do this type of crap. Behave.
Behave.
At this point, either you do this or prepare yourself to face some potentially huge consequences.
It has been a very -in fact too long- a time since I posted new artwork. Why? Because I’ve been incredibly busy and simply haven’t had the time to put (Apple) pen to (iPad screen) paper.
This weekend, I was determined to remedy that situation and, voila, here you go!
The subject is actor Scarlett Johansson and the role is the Black Widow.
As successful as Marvel has been with their movies, its weird they haven’t bothered to make a Black Widow standalone film.
Back in 1974 director Sidney Lumet gathered together a mega-star cast including Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, etc. etc. etc. to star in the movie version of what is easily Agatha Christie’s best known Hercule Piorot novel (if not best known novel, period!) Murder on the Orient Express. Playing the lead role of super-detective Hercule Poirot was Albert Finney. Here’s that movie’s trailer…
There would be other versions of this most famous novel made for both the large and small screen and a couple of weeks ago famed director/actor Kenneth Branagh offered his version of this famous story. In making his version of the film, it appeared Mr. Branagh was looking toward that 1974 version and, therefore, made sure to fill the movie with some very big names. Here’s the trailer for Mr. Branagh’s 2017 theatrical release of Murder on the Orient Express:
As one can readily see, among the famous actors participating in this movie, in which Mr. Branagh not only plays the Poirot role but also directs, is Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Derek Jackobi, Daisy Ridley, etc. etc.
As a fan of Agatha Christie and her writing, I’ll be the first to admit that her murder mystery novels are about as close to science fiction as you can get with regard to the mystery genre. The fact of the matter is that her mysteries are usually byzantine and feature events that, if one were to look very closely at them, would fall apart in the harsh light of “reality”.
Then again, that’s the case with most works of fiction.
So, if you know the depressing truth that in “real life” murders are usually the result of opportunity combined with a person’s twisted and disturbed impulses, you also know there is often no “clever” solution to a murder and when all is said and done you’ve got a bunch of sad/twisted people who are hardly “upper crust”, well spoken, and “beautiful” like those present in Ms. Christie’s novels.
But you know what? If you’re willing to do the proverbial “suspension of disbelief”, you’re in for a fun time… as fun as you can with a subject as dark as murder.
In Murder on the Orient Express, we have a classic “locked room” mystery. Actually, a double locked room mystery: A person is murdered within his locked room and within the confines of a sealed train. Within this train we have our genius detective and 12 suspects, all of whom present shifty eyed stares and less than truthful statements when asked what they were up to at the time of the crime.
All the elements of a classic mystery are there and, to someone like me, that alone proved a freaking blast.
If you’re a fan of old railroads and trains, the movie is incredibly beautiful to look at, though I suspect much of what you’re seeing is CGI. CGI or not, it is beautiful.
Mr. Branagh’s direction is fluid and his characterization of Poirot turned out to be quite wonderful. The mystery is presented in a very linear manner and allows viewers to follow the breadcrumbs from murderer to suspects and, if you’re clever enough, you may be able to figure out the ending just before Mr. Poirot figures it out for you.
That’s the really good stuff.
The bad? Well, Mr. Branagh the director sure does like Mr. Branagh the actor. The fact of the matter is that Poirot is front and center in this movie and, despite the big named actors around him, his character hogs the spotlight a little too much. Other than Michelle Pfeiffer, who gets to act out a little more, the other actors are held back too much.
Perhaps I’m being too harsh with regard to Mr. Branagh.
After all, the large cast are playing suspects and, as suspects, they are supposed to hold back whatever truths they’re hiding.
Still, I wish I could have seen a little more emoting from many of them.
Despite this, Murder on the Orient Express works much more than it doesn’t and the complaints I point out above are very small stuff.
Thankfully, the movie follows Ms. Christie’s novel closely and, much to my relief, the conclusion is pretty much straight out of the book. I admit going into this film I was afraid Mr. Branagh and company would get cute and try to pull some kind of switcheroo with the movie’s conclusion/resolution. The fact of the matter is that what makes the novel successful is the way it ends and, in that, this movie nailed that particular bit.
I also liked the way this movie hinted at the next mystery for Poirot and pointed to another of Agatha Christie’s famous novels. That one was made into a film as well…
Yesterday I wrote about the just released Justice League and, based on some of the negative reviews, worried this film might be suffering from a reviewer’s bias. Critics seemed to so hate the movie this one is a direct sequel to, 2016’s Batman v Superman, that I couldn’t help but wonder if that might cloud their opinion of this film.
While in between we’ve had the release of Wonder Woman, which met with near universal adoration, that film wasn’t directed by Zach Snyder and, let’s be clear here, Mr. Snyder is the individual receiving most of the blame by certain critics and fans who don’t like these films. And like it or not, Justice League is his third foray into the DC Universe.
I’ve beaten this particular dead horse for a while, but I liked BvS, though I will admit the theatrical version of the film doesn’t hold a candle to the extended “ultimate” cut that came later and was released to home theater. Obviously Warners/DC were anxious with the film’s original run time and wanted to cut the thing down for theatrical release so that it wouldn’t cut down on showtimes but, in the end, a hacked product was released and the longer version was clearly the intended version which should have been released.
Regardless, the theatrical cut of BvS received some absolutely brutal reviews/reactions and with work already initiated on Justice League Warner Brothers got nervous. They attempted to win back the fans/critics by offering several of them an extended visit to the Justice League set while the film was in production and had Mr. Snyder talk about how this new film would be a different animal, much lighter in tone versus the more somber BvS.
Then in May, word came that due to a family tragedy Mr. Snyder was leaving the film before it was completed. Co-screenwriter Josh Whedon, who made a splash directing both Avengers films and was announced as the director of the upcoming Batgirl film, would finish the film up and be responsible for any re-shoots.
Mr. Snyder’s departure was due to the suicide of his daughter and, while an undeniably great tragedy, there were those who wondered -an icky thing- if he was going to be fired from the DC works eventually anyway.
Regardless, with Mr. Whedon in charge of finishing up the film, there was renewed skepticism regarding what the finished product would look like. Would the film be a mess? Re-shoots, rumored to be pretty extensive, were made with Mr. Whedon in charge. Again, how coherent would this film be?
Two days before the film was officially released Warner Brothers lifted the review embargo and new controversy flared when rottentomatoes.com pushed back the release of their score for the film to promote See It/Skip It, their new program which was meant to “premiere” scores of new films. Fans, understandably, were again skeptical: Was this Warner Brothers’ doing? Were they nervous about the film’s score? If so, did they force rottentomatoes to hold back on the reviews?
Ultimately, the rottentomatoes score was released and… it wasn’t terribly good. The movie currently sits at a below average 40 percent positive among critics. Interestingly, the fan reaction is considerably more positive. Among fans, the film sits at 86 percent. Over on metacritic, the movie stands at 46 percent positive among critics and 7.2 (out of 10) among the fans.
A wide disparity indeed!
As a fan of BvS, there was never a question that I’d see this film. But, based on all that stuff I just wrote about above, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t nervous about the overall product.
This Saturday morning, I had the free time and decided to give Justice League a try. I entered the theater with the proverbial “hoping for the best” attitude but, deep down, expecting the worst.
The opening minutes of the film proved something of a slog. While not terrible, the opening act was a very slow burn and I wondered if the rest of the film would go this way.
Things picked up considerably when we get to the introduction of Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman.
After these characters were introduced and integrated into the film, the movie, IMHO, started to soar. That, in a nutshell, proved to be Justice League’s greatest strength: The characters and their interaction among each other. It was just so much… fun.
As good as it was, the film kicked into another, even higher gear with the return of the character everyone knew was coming back: Superman. I won’t go into the hows and whys of the character’s return, but suffice to say when he does return, things get even better, and his interaction with the Flash, in particular, is (dare I say it?) super-fun.
Now, the movie does have its issues and I’m in agreement with many who have pointed them out: The villain is not the most memorable character but I personally felt he was good and scary enough. The CGI effects, at times, weren’t as good as one would have hoped, which is strange given the fact that the movie had as big a budget as it did. Perhaps this was due to time constraints. Who knows.
But those two things for me were the only two things that one could point to as being true negatives.
I should also note that this is the first of the DC films to use what has become standard with Marvel films, ie the end clips. Justice League has two of them, and both of them are delightful, IMHO. The first one, featuring Superman and Flash, was pure mana to a comic book geek like me.
Now to address the elephant in the room: What about cut scenes? There was something like 45 minutes to an hour reportedly cut from this film. When I saw BvS in theaters, though I liked the film, I could sense the fact that things were missing. With Justice League, I didn’t have that same reaction. It felt like all the “important” stuff was there. Still, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t curious as to what was left on the cutting room floor. I fully anticipate a longer, “extended” cut of the film when it eventually makes it to the home video market.
In sum, while not perfect, I very much recommend Justice League. It presented flesh and blood versions of very familiar and beloved characters in a fun and at times rousing way.
I hope we’ll see more… especially what was hinted at in that second post-credit sequence.
After what seems far too long a time for opinions both negative and positive to percolate -and the back and forth has been at times intense!- the Justice League movie is officially being released and the reviews are… not terribly good.
While these reviews are better overall than the reviews of Batman v Superman and several high profile critics have offered very high praise, the fact of the matter is that once again a DC universe film is being released to generally negative reviews.
Predictably, there’s been screaming from some parts -the fanboys most certainly!- about bias and, perhaps, they have a point. The question arises: Has the negativity associated with Batman v Superman permeated this new product to the point where a cold, neutral look at it is impossible? There are those, after all, who seem sold on the idea that anything director Zach Snyder touches will instantly turn to crap, so perhaps they go into the film thinking this is inevitable in Justice League’s case?
Biases most certainly can exist.
Way back in the year 2000, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu starred in the film Charlie’s Angels, a theatrical remake of the cheesy -but somewhat beloved- TV show involving a trio of very pretty female detectives who, along with their assistant Bosley, worked for the mysterious “Charlie” solving crimes each week.
The show made a mega-star of the late Farrah Fawcett but I doubt even the most ardent fans of the show consider it a “classic”. Thus, when word came that a movie version was about to be released, many didn’t think it could possibly be any good.
I know this because I found it curious, at the time, how professional review after review I read had variations of “I can’t believe it… they made a good movie out of this!” in their positive reviews.
It was clear many critics went into the film (here comes the bias thing) thinking it would be absolutely terrible and were surprised when they found it to be good. In their opinion, of course.
So I, who shared very similar negative thoughts –no way they could make a good film out of Charlie’s Angels, could they!?- read those reviews and, based on them, softened my negative (biased?!) opinion. I figured that perhaps against all odds, the people behind this film made something good.
So off I trot to the theaters and see the film, now thinking I’m about to have a good time (another bias!).
I didn’t.
Charlie’s Angels, to me, wasn’t a horrible film, but the reviews elevated my hopes to the point that when I saw the film and it didn’t deliver as I felt it would, I was very disappointed.
So, think about it: Many critics went in to see the film with very LOW expectations and figured the film would be awful (negative bias). They were pleasantly surprised when they found it wasn’t.
I, on the other hand, expected the film would be awful but, after reading several positive reviews, changed my mind (positive bias). I go into the film with high expectations based on the words of so many critics. I wind up being disappointed.
Getting back to Justice League, clearly there are many, many people out there who really like characters like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. They want any film featuring these beloved characters to succeed just as there are many, many people who feel so negative toward director Zach Snyder and his work thus far with the DC Superheroes (he directed Man of Steel and Batman v Superman) that they feel Justice League will be another bomb, no doubt about it.
Positive and negative biases formed even before seeing the actual film.
I’ve noted -far too many times!- that I enjoyed Batman v Superman and am unapologetic in that opinion. In fact, I feel that in time and when emotions cool people may give the film a second chance and find it far better than the overall negativity it currently elicits.
Having said that, I’m also one who feels that people’s opinions are just that: Opinions. Your opinion about movie/song/book X is YOUR OPINION and therefore cannot be wrong… to you, just as my opinion of movie/song/book X is MY OPINION and, therefore, cannot be wrong to me.
I haven’t seen Justice League yet, though I must admit I too have some pre-conceived notions about what it will be.
I’ve heard the film had about 1 hour of material cut from it before reaching theaters. Given how much better Batman v Superman was in its “Ultimate Edition” versus the cut down theatrical version, I worry that Justice League, which runs a pretty tight 2 hours, may wind up being more disjointed than it should be and that when the inevitable “Director’s Cut” shows up, it will prove a better overall product.
With all the current news regarding sexual harassment, I was reminded of the first time an incident which could be defined as such was brought to my attention… and how shocked I was to find out about it.
It was the mid-1990’s, so I can claim some excuse in being younger/more naive/stupider then. It was a Comic Book Convention I attended, among the first where I attended as a “Pro” guest.
Being a “Pro” guest meant you interacted more with other “Pros”. In that particular convention, I had the unique privilege and thrill to meet up with several people who, to me, were incredibly gifted and whose works entertained the hell out of me over the years before.
In this particular convention there was a very, very legendary comic book figure, one who was in the business for many years and was behind and/or responsible for many very memorable events during practically her entire history.
Frankly, I was gobsmacked that I could actually meet and interact with this legend and mentioned it to the two people I was with at that moment.
One of the pros I was with, a woman who made a name for herself over the previous years with various successful projects, reacted in a most negative way to my comment.
Though it happened many years ago and I don’t recall the exact words, she essentially told me this individual -this comic book legend!- was a creep, a man who was, as defined by today’s headlines, a sexual harasser. One who had, to my horror, harassed her.
I came away from this conversation with the realization of something I’ve come to know all too well since that time: Sometimes the art is very different from the artist.
Now, I could name names and tell you who this legendary figure is and who the woman accusing him of harassment was but I feel its best I don’t. Understand, I’m not trying to be coy or engage in some childish “I’ve got a secret” type thing.
The fact of the matter is that this happened a very long time ago and, as I mentioned above, I can only go by my impressions rather than specific words told to me by the lady in question. Still, my impression hasn’t changed that this woman genuinely felt the man was a creep.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, though this woman was clearly seething and willing to tell a stranger (who I was to her at that moment!) her very negative impressions of that man, I don’t know what happened afterwards and, for all I know, things might well have changed.
While perhaps unlikely, this woman might have had more interactions with this comic book legend and maybe her opinion of him changed. It is possible the man acted bad on the day(s) she formed her negative impressions of him and maybe he eventually realized the error of his ways and apologized to her.
These are things I don’t know!
The woman in question is still around while that legendary comic book figure has since passed.
Perhaps in this day and age, this woman might come forward to offer her opinions of this man or any other(s) who have shown such creepy behavior toward her.
I hope she -and anyone else who was mistreated by those in power- do so.
In all fields, including the comic book field, it is high time bad behavior –especially bad behavior which crosses the line into outright criminal behavior- was treated for what it is and for those who have engaged in it be called out for what they are.
We’re nearing the middle of November so why not give an update on Book #7 of my Corrosive Knights series? And, while I’m at it, let me again post this nifty graphic showing the entirety of the series and the two books to come…
Alright, so here goes:
I’m still hard at work on revising the first full draft of the book. The book has three parts which are roughly the same length:
An intro which offers us a “the story until now” in as interesting/new a way as I can fashion it which leads to…
The bulk of the story which leads to…
Conclusion
I’ve finished going over that first part and I have to say, I really think it worked well. There are parts presented which offer scenes found in earlier books but offered from different perspectives and, IMHO, it works so damn well!
I wish I could get into more details but to do so would be silly. Today I embark on the second part of the story and, hopefully, soon enough I’ll have made my way through the entire book…
…at which time I begin all over again but with a hopefully far stronger overall work.
Big time politics here, so look away if you’re not interested in reading my opinion of these issues…
The other day Sean Hannity, right wing apologist and another of the too many right wing machine over at Fox “News”, had controversial Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore on his show.
For those who don’t know, Roy Moore is controversial for a number of things, from going against Supreme Court rulings to -this is the latest controversy- having sex with teenage women/girls as young as 14 years of age when he was in his (gulp) thirties.
He’s being accused by women who are willing to put their name to the accusations of engaging in pedophilia.
So of course, when Mr. Moore shows up on Sean Hannity’s show, the questions are softballs and the purpose of the episode is to give Mr. Moore a platform to prove he’s a good guy and the accusations aren’t true.
He didn’t quite do that… From vox.com, Jen Kirby writes about that interview, and the one startling thing he had to say when asked if he dated teenagers at that time:
As a result of that interview, and the way it was performed by Mr. Hannity, people started flooded some of his sponsors with letters/tweets/etc. asking them how they can continue to sponsor a show where its host seeks to show someone like Mr. Moore in a positive light.
Among the companies that were contacted was Keurig, coffee machine makers. In a tweet regarding whether they would continue to support Mr. Hannity’s show after that interview, Keurig stated:
Thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show.
As with any action, there is a reaction, and one of the big reactions from fans of Hannity’s show is to slam Keurig and, idiotically, decide to destroy their Keurig coffee making machines. Tom McKay over at gizmodo.com writes about this:
But you know what? Dumb as it is to decide to protest Keurig (and liberals, I suppose) by destroying your Keurig machine is just another iteration of dumb protesting.
Way, way back in 1976 and when Blue Oyster Cult first released their song “Don’t Fear The Reaper” (you know, the cowbell song!)…
…there was a great deal of controversy amongst the very religious/right wingers out there about it.
Why?
Because the song’s lyrics refer to death in many incarnations and states “don’t fear the reaper” when referring to, among others, “Romeo and Juliet.” To many, the implication was clear: The song promoted death and suicide and, therefore, it was a sinful song. (Didn’t help that Blue Oyster Cult cultivated a dark image)
So controversial amongst the religious/right wingers was the song and album in which it came on that one day this group has a big BOC bonfire, wherein people brought the vinyl albums and burned them.
To which one of the members of BOC (I forget which) was quoted as saying something along the lines of: “I don’t care what they do to our albums… as long as they buy them first!”
If you’ve been reading/watching the news lately, between stories involving Russians, Trump’s latest stupidity, Sexual Assault, and as much depressing shit as you can handle, came the news that Libertarian Senator Rand Paul was tackled by his next door neighbor while cutting his lawn and suffered several broken ribs.
The cause of the attack remains a head-scratching puzzle. Early word came out that this involved -of all things- landscaping issues. Mr. Paul was mowing his lawn, after all, when he was attacked.
This was quickly disputed, but no reason was given for why the attack took place, either by the attacker or the victim.
Over at theslot.com, author Ellie Shechet offers a quick recap of the whole weird affair and wonders…
I was very amused by the comments after the article. Several people have noted they think the source of the animosity between Paul and his neighbor is something more deeply personal… perhaps even sexual.
That perhaps Mr. Paul overstepped his boundaries and/or has had trysts with his neighbor’s wife or daughter or what-have-you.
This is clearly nothing more than the rankest of rank speculation, yet one can’t help but wonder why both the neighbor and Mr. Paul are so very reluctant to get into the details of why they had this confrontation.
A weird story that, by virtue of its timing, is essentially being buried under an avalanche of other stories.
Rather scary article written by Rob Price and found on businessinsider.com regarding ex-Facebook president Sean Parker and some rather scary things he has to say about our social media platforms like the one that he was president of:
The “money” quote from the article is posted on the headline above, that Mr. Parker notes that these platforms were developed with the express idea of becoming addictive to its users. This from Mr. Parker:
The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them … was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?
Not all that long ago I recall watching a TV program (60 Minutes? I’m not certain) about cellphones and social media and it was noted by the person who was being interviewed that there is a science behind many of the programs, like Facebook, that draw masses of people to them, and that the model for drawing people to them is very similar to that of…
…wait for it…
Gambling.
Mr. Parker further states:
And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you … more likes and comments.
It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.
In other words, these platforms are built to not only get you on them with their various bells and whistles, but keep you on them once you’ve tasted their wares.
I have to say, like Mr. Parker I do wonder what effect this will have on people growing up with these services.
As someone who didn’t grow up with them, there have been plenty of times I’ve forgotten to take my cellphone with me to places and the biggest inconvenience, to me, is the fact that I subsequently couldn’t make a call from my car.
My daughters, on the other hand, have their cellphones essentially attached to them. One day, one of them forgot to take it with her to a store. It was, to her, an incredible, mind-blowing thing to have forgotten!
Here’s the thing, though: As the science of getting people essentially “addicted” to these various platforms becomes sharper and more effective, is it possible people will no longer be able to function, at all, without their cell phones and the social platform programs?
