Green Lantern review (Ooh look, Spoilers!)

Oh dear...

That's really the first thing that came to mind regarding seeing the finished product. I'm a huge fan of the Green Lantern, yes I may have only discovered his stuff a few years ago. But I've since had Hal Jordan as one of my favourite fictional characters to read about.

When the film was announced I thought it was brilliant, I thought it would be DC's equivalent of Iron Man. One of their second tier titles getting a big billing and a (hopeful) trilogy! What went wrong? The trailers were pretty good, they showed the audience the main gist of the character and the plot. And they showed some good action scenes. Unfortunately, that was it. All the action hinted at in the trailer was about the same length in time in the film! And that was it!

Alright, here's the blow-by-blow:

Starting in Deep Space, we spend the first two-three minutes of the film learning about who and what the Green Lantern Corps is. Now, while I can understand the need to bring the non-comic readers up to speed, to me this felt rushed. At the same time, we learn about Parallax and witness three alien astronauts get killed by him. This again, while a compact intro to the character feels rushed. The best example I've seen of a character being quickly and economically introduced well was The Joker in The Dark Knight. But that was a different sort of character, Parallax is the embodiment of fear, so show him as fear! Make it feel like the opening of a horror film, not like Galactus' pet smoke octopus.

Hal Jordan's intro is much better in execution. It shows him as arrogant, immature and reckless, not only almost causing several car crashes and shutting down his place of work. He endangers himself in a test-flight against some robotic jets and breaks the prototypes! This is one of the better action-sequences in the film, simply because it wasn't shown to death in the trailers and it felt very realistic. Compared to later scenes involving flight, this is by far the best. When Hal is using the ring to fly, it doesn't feel right. We hardly see it and there's very little of the camera following him close up and it suffers for it.

Out of the characters present some don't get enough time to be properly developed. On Earth, Tom Kalmaku is introduced as Hal's best mate, then vanishes half-way through the film! On Oa, we meet Tomar-Re, Kilowog and Sinestro and the Guardians. Other lanterns are seen in the crowd scenes, but unless you're a fan, you wouldn't know one from the other, which is a shame. I would like to have spent more time on Oa, seeing Hal interact with the others Lanterns instead of just them three.

Overall, the film felt like it was trying to do too much in too little time. It tried fitting two villains and three or four different plots into it, instead of sensibly spreading them out over the inevitable sequels. The effects feel like they were specifically made for 3D, now while this is fine. I still personally think it's not all it's cracked up to be. The Ring's constructs were well-developed and about as accurate as you could ask for, the costume did grow on me. IMO, it made sense that it would look a bit odd, it is an alien costume after all. And Oa was very pretty. I do wish they'd kept Hector Hammond alive, if anything just to see him with a head as big as the one from the comics. Really, it were huge! It was an okay film in the end, it tried but it really tried to cram everything in and it failed in that regard. Hopefully a sequel will improve on the low points but we never know.

It's D'n'D!!!

Yes, much like the song, myself and some of my mates begun playing DnD! I know, I know, ultimate geek cred there. So yeah, DnD, we're enjoying it for our first ever campaign. The Dungeon Master's got more of a sense of humour than the stereotypes make out and the fact it's rare me and my friends take owt like this seriously have made for quite an amusing game! So, to sum up our adventures so far...

I have joined this little world as a human Ranger, my friends have chosen to play as a gnome, an elf and a dwarf. Called Barry. I've taken the name Jim, to sound equally as hard/idiotic. And we have already saved a town from pirates and witnessed such sights as a small village called Seawoll, not Seaworld which has a mighty Bearded Whale as a tourist attraction! And fought valiantly against a Calzolem! Part- pizza-based food item, part-golem, all badger-smushing bastard...

And so continues our quest, for honour, glory and Russian Roulette brothel-trailing! As our game continues so shall something of a game journal... If I can be arsed.

I've just realised I've been neglecting this...

Yeah... Been distracted by many things, work, real-life, twitter, porn... So many fascinating things on the internet dedicated to wasting time, it's amazing! Let's see what's been happening?...

Oh, I've finally uploaded some new youtube videos! Starring my brother and I, we basically parody games. Might do some more when we have the ideas and money for props. Also, may start this whole internet reviewing thing we've been kicking plans around for. And the parody songs, oh the parody songs! Credit where credit is due, Weird Al is amazingly talented. I've been struggling for the past month or so since coming up with the main bulk of the song, but a Mario parody is bloody hard to write when you're not a gamer. Also the webcomic is still sort of going strong.

I will get back to writing and updating properly tomorrow, hopefully. I'll be sober then.

Upgrade or Suffer

Currently I am listening to Two-Tone Army by The Toasters. A band not commercially available in the UK. If I wanted to listen to it offline, I would have to first order it off either an online store such as Amazon or Play.com or put in an order in one of my local record stores in town. No, at the moment I am listening to it on a lovely streaming web-service called Spotify. I'd link to it, but at the rate it's going there's no point. As I write this, I've got a free account which means that I can listen to as many tracks as I like from any number of different artists and I only have to suffer the odd advert which pops up after every four or so songs. Nothing too strenuous there then. But, from today,in about 14 days time, I probably won't be listening to the Toasters, or the Porkers, or any of the artists I've discovered since joining it. Why? Well, I'll tell you.

Spotify have pretty much done the business decision equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot. Today, I received a notice when I opened the program concerning 'Upcoming Changes to Spotify'. Clicking the link I was informed that Spotify would be changing their free/open account policy. Fair enough, I thought, nowt stays the same forever. I was right, sort of. These changes primarily concerned how the accounts would operate. Before I go any further here's a quick description of the differences between the four accounts that exist:

FREE: Unlimited playtime, adverts every so often.

OPEN: Limited to 20 hours a month, adverts every so often.

PREMIUM: Costs around a tenner a month, unlimited playtime, no ads.

UNLIMITED: Costs a bit more a month, unlimited playtime, no ads, other features not sure off the top of my head.

So I have the first one, and I'm happy with it. I can stand the ads for Lucozade, Jessie J and other stuff I am never going to buy, it's worth it for the free music, sort of. Basically, the way Spotify get their revenue is through the paid accounts and the advertisers. So in a way, I am still paying the people behind it. Now, here's what they're proposing to do. Firstly, all new users can enjoy Spotify as it it today for the first six months. This does not affect me. 'Okay, nothing concerning me so far' I thought while reading.

"As of May 1st, any user who signed up to the free service on or before November 1st 2010 will be able to play each track for free up to a total of 5 times. Users who signed up after the beginning of November will see these changes applied 6 months after the time they set up their Spotify account." So, I signed up at some point last year, I'm not sure when although I'm pretty sure it was before November... 5 times? That has to be the stupidest idea ever. By all means limit my playtime per month, but really? 5 plays per song? Does that mean I'll only be able to listen to The Mountie Song by the Arrogant Worms 5 times after May the first? What happens after that? It's barred from my account? It's very hard to buy obscure Canadian Comedy music in my local HMV and I'm not sure I like the idea of paying £10 per month for essentially renting it. It'd be easier for me to buy it online! At least then I don't have to check my bank balance before pressing play. Actually, this reminds of a similar experience with my computer and a Region 1 DVD I own. Popping it in my comp, it happily said "I'll play it, but if you play this one three more times, I'll stick to only play region 1 DVDs and you'll be buggered." In the end, I bought a portable DVD Player for my computer area (nowhere near a tv), and a Multi Region player. Problem solved!

"Additionally, total listening time for free users will be limited to 10 hours per month after the first 6 months. That’s equivalent to around 200 tracks or 20 albums.
" Remember me mentioning that thing about limiting my playtime? This is that. So Spotify, you're taking away my unlimited playtime and giving me ten whole hours? Probably still with adverts? That's an interesting play, but I somehow don't think it'll pan out with the 5 times limit on top of that. Again, it'll probably be easier in the long run to buy a physical copy of the album than simply rent it. But I suspect that's not the outcome Spotify want.

In fact I think this is a 'controlled' attempt to coerce/persuade/trick me into upgrading to a paid account. And according to the feedback on the news page concerning it, it's not working. Seriously, 84 pages of feedback in two days almost 90% are against the idea! Now I can understand some of the reasons why they're doing this. Spotify currently is only available in the UK and Europe, they've been trying to make a move in America, however it seems to have been blocked by most likely the Record Labels. Yes, them greedy rich bastards. Not liking the idea of Spotify allowing people to listen to music for free, they've decided to start pulling their content from it. So, this may be some sort of compromise between the two. More content available for Spotify as long as they up the rent and hound the free users. Probably. But really, there are better ways to change your entire operation without alientating your users. Personally, I wouldn't have done the 5 times thing, I'd be happy with the limited playtime and ads, just as long as the option of playing Riot on Broad St. over and over and over during that time. I'd not do that anyway, but you get the idea.

I'm not happy about this upgrade or suffer ultimatum. I love music and have little time for greed and I have issues with giving out bank details over the 'net, so I'm in something of a predicament. Do I upgrade and enjoy basically the same benefits as I do now? Or do I stay where I am and get into the habit of switching off after an hour or half and play more different songs? Or of course there is the option of simply slogging through Youtube and seeing what I can find on there.

In the end, I don't want to upgrade because I don't think I can justify a tenner a month for something I'm only going to use when I'm on a computer (With my life, it's changes daily). However, I'll probably still stick with what I've got just to see if there is any improvement to content. That said, after May the first I will be awaiting the inevitable email saying Spotify has closed due to lack of interest, business and poor interest figures.
Currently I am listening to Shatner's Bassoon by Lightyear

Frankenstein in Leeds and Wonder Woman's return to the Telly Box

So, two things today.

Caught the last hour of the BBC's Frankenstein's Wedding Live In Leeds tonight. Now admittedly, it's a bit daft to try and review something I haven't seen the entirety of. But I don't care, I can't be arsed watching the thing on iPlayer. So anyway, if you're not familiar with the original story basically, Victor Frankenstein makes a monster out of dead bodies and brings it to life. The Monster ends up accidentally killing some people and runs away. Not before demanding Frankenstein make him a companion, or he'll kill Victor's bride on their Wedding Day. Things go tits up, obviously, and Frankenstein ends up dying in his creation's arms. It's a wonderful story and I do recommend you check it out. Anyway! The Live show was shot at Kirkstall Abbey which is a lovely place by the way, and starred Lacey Turner (from Eastenders)as Victor's bride. I can't remember anyone else in it and the only reason I know who she is is because of Being Human.

So, on with the show! When I came into it, Victor was already about to marry Elizabeth and the creature was on his way to the Abbey and his (hopeful) new bride. The acting was impressive and very well done for a live performance, I don't know how long they'd rehearsed but it showed they had. And despite a few little niggles with sound it worked quite well technically. Wasn't sure about some of the song choices and the creature's make-up was quite good for budget and a fair bit conservative. Overall it was a good hour and a half and nice to see something shot in my hometown.

Now, Wonder Woman's new duds...

Linky
Looks like a Halloween costume, doesn't it? Not sure what the idea behind it was, but it looks terrible. I'll start at the beginning, they're making a new Wonder Woman telly show. In which she's got two secret ids, which make three in total. Diana Prince, ambassador to Themyscria Island, Wonder Woman obviously and a CEO of some big company. What we know so far about the pilot, she goes on about the size of her breasts... THE SIZE OF HER BREASTS! I'll give you a moment to register that. An Amazon Warrior who has God-like powers who wants to better the world is concerned about her cleavage.... Not sure, but I think they've missed the mark a little bit. Now the problems with her costume. It looks like something out of a 90's comic book film, the plastic-y looking tiara, belt-thingy and eagle and the PVC don't really work. It's looks cheap and like something you'd buy from a sex shop. During a Sale. For a BOGOF. I saw a photoshopped fan design for a costume which looked like someone had tweaked Xena's costume a while ago, it looked better than this! Muted colours, traditional Romanesque aesthetic, it worked. This... doesn't.

I foresee fail for this TV Series....

Clothes maketh the Spider-man...

What's the hardest thing about making a superhero film? Is it casting the right actors for the role? Is it getting the villains and the story both accurate and logical (alright to a point)? How about the special effects, both practical and computer-generated. Can you get them looking realistic and amazing? It could be all these things and more, but what I'm curious about is the costume. Yes, there's a small part of me that's always been fascinated with what superheroes would look like in real life. Obviously spandex and skin-tight colourful costumes works in the comics, but there's something odd about it in real-life.

With the upcoming reboot of Spider-Man in the works, this picture was released:

Now, let's compare it to this one:

While there is nothing wrong with the one from the Sam Raimi films, I like it. It's got everything in the right place, the webs, the mask the red and blue colour scheme., There was always something which bothered me a lot about it. It was too clean. Too factory-ready, if you will. While it looked good, and accurate (a rarity in superhero film adaptations), it didn't look true to the comics. The origin of the costume is that Peter made it shortly after he got his powers for a wrestling match. Not wanting to be recognised, he designed and made the garish costume so that no-one would think it was him under there. So, what have learned from that little tale? What was the keyword? Home-Made. Now again, while I have nothing against the Raimi costume, it didn't feel home-made. And that kind of spoiled it a bit for me.

This new one feels a lot more real. Whilst still having the sleekness of both the Raimi costume and the comic, it feels like it could have been hobbled together by Peter in his spare time! Yes, there's a couple of little differences in the design and the spider-emblem's a bit lopsided but it looks like it was made by hand rather than cut of with a laser. And that I like a lot! It shows it's more than just something the producer's thought looked cool. From this picture alone, I've got a bit of faith in the final product. Of course, that could all go south if the mask doesn't match up...

The Heimdall Identity Crisis

So, there's this new film out next May called Thor, right? And it's all about the Marvel Comics character. I won't bore you with plot details and such, but it's safe to say the guy playing Thor looks spot on:


That's all well and good, as is the looks of Thor's daddy, Odin and his step-brother Loki. In fact, all the cast of the Asgardians look about right to me. Mind you, my calm, collected hippyish world view isn't shared by everyone. Now, bear with me 'cause this is going to get silly...

There's this guy in Norse Mythology called Heimdall, who's the guardian of the Bifrost (sp) bridge between Asgard and Midgard. And he's also in the film. Would make sense, right? I mean he is part of the Norse Pantheon so it makes sense he's in a film starring one or two of the primary gods. Only in the film, he's played by Idris Elba. Who is a pretty decent actor! Admittedly I've only seen him in one or two programmes and one of them was The Losers, which isn't renown for it's Oscar potential, but still a lot more fun that a lot of that nonsense! For some bizarre reason all I can say to his casting as Heimdall is... So what?

For those who haven't been following movie news, white supremacists have decided to boycott the film because of Mr. Elba being cast as a Norse god... Because... that's wrong apparently... Now, I can sort of see where they're coming from yes, Heimdall is a Norse god so therefore he would traditionally be white and most likely blonde. But, this Thor's inspired and based on the comic rather than the original mythology... So I'm struggling to see what the problem is. I will admit at first I was a bit surprised, again for the reasons of "aren't the Norse gods usually white?", but in the long run, it didn't fuss me. If it makes the end product better because they chose the right actor for the job, I couldn't care less for the actor's skin-colour. The best comparison I can think of is Angel Coulby, that's right, the lass who plays Gwen in the BBC tv series. Once more, and I'm probably not the only one, I thought "Hang on, isn't Guinevere usually white?" But again, it didn't bother me beyond that initial reaction. She is pretty good in a series in which they've taken many liberties with the source material.

Now, I am aware that it primarily boils down to hate. Which is one of many things in the human race I will never understand. I don't see the point of hate, dislike yes I can see the point of that, you can't like everyone in the world that's just weird. But hate? Really, what is the point? Intolerance never solved anything and just ends up causing more friction. I'll admit I have said I hate something like, for example, Justin Bieber, I may not like his music, and some of his comments I found ill-informed and slightly offensive, (I have huge issues with idiocy in all it's forms.) but I can't really say I hate him. If any of his crap shows up on tv, I'll simply groan or grunt or make some sort of disapproving noise and change the channel. And that's really all there is to it. I don't see the point of people going out and assaulting someone just because their skin is a different colour or they have a different sexual orientation, or a different belief. I just don't understand it! And really the only thing I can think of about these white-power idiots angry and upset over something as minor and trivial as a guy's skin colour, all I can say is if you don;t like the decisions concerning the film, don't watch it! It's one film, it's not going to shake the world's foundations or fundamentally alter people's beliefs about Norse mythology, the most it'll do is raise awareness of it and I see nowt wrong with that.

Oh and before I go here's some more food for thought, you know Jesus? Well odds are, because of where he was born, he was an Israeli and therefore not as white as the paintings make him look...