Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hackery doesn't mean crap, hackery means for the Benjamins. Terminator 2 and Aliens were fun movies, and well done. But they were also complete and full on hack-jobs. They're about explosions, violence, and tomfoolery with a thin patina of LOOK WHAT GIVING BIG BUSINESS POWER (OVER/WITHIN THE MILITARY) WILL DO TO USSSSS.

In other news I just got done watching Apocalypse Now for the first time. I've long been suspicious and cool towards Coppola because I really do not understand how a tale glamorizing a bunch of violent, sadistic thugs could possibly be the peak of cinema. So instead of thinking that the critical- and large swaths of the viewing- establishment are insane for lavishing praise on The Godfather, I think they're truly, deeply ill for thinking that any movies in that trilogy even remotely compare to Apocalypse Now. Some of the editing and the dialogue could use a tweak here and there, especially towards the beginning, but overall it really does have to be one of the greatest films ever made.

Hack: n.

a. One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling.
b. A writer hired to produce routine or commercial writing.

adj.
a. By, characteristic of, or designating routine or commercial writing: hack prose.
b. Hackneyed; banal.

"Hackery" is not a positive, nor would I consider Terminator 2 or Aliens to be part of such work. That they are not high brow, dramatic or existential does not denote them as hack work. They are populous work, and they are populous work executed with finesse and skill that makes them excellent films. They are not "hack jobs." Hack jobs are a best average and commonly suffer from weak storytelling, acting and execution.

As to whether or not James Cameron is a hack...one can become a hack. It's not like just because you produced great work once, you'll never produce a string of banal work later.

Just a rumor. One I haven't even heard yet, actually, but can't find any valid sources on.

What I'm hearing is that Raimi wants John Malkovich for the Vulture, (Malkovich actually confirmed that) but the studio wants a different villain, as well as a Black Cat romantic subplot. I really want to trust in Raimi here, and I know that Spider-Man 3's failure wasn't entirely on his shoulders, but I can't help but think the studio has a point here. The Vulture wouldn't be my first choice. Far from it. I like to think Malkovich could pull it off, but really, who knows. I really do think Lizard is the way to go. Maybe even throw Kraven into the mix. Raimi loves campiness, and so do I, but he definitely took it a bit too far in the last movie with the whole Saturday Night Spidey thing. And really, how could he not go overboard with an old man who dresses in a green bird suit? Raimi and camp mix well, but Spider-Man isn't the right venue for it, at least not in large doses.
As far as Black Cat goes, I think it could work. A hell of a lot better than the other prevalent rumor I've been hearing - Felicia Hardy will be in the film, but not as the Black Cat. Instead, she'll be "The Vulturess." Uggghh. I'm really hoping that's bullshit, but with Raimi, you can't rule anything out.

For the record, though, I thought Spider-Man 3 was worse than Superman Returns and the third X-Men. Not by much. It still beats the hell out of Ghost Rider, though.

Wow. Don't know how I missed that. Nowadays, I get most of movie news from the Rotten Tomatoes widget on my desktop. razz

Weak, though. Super weak. I've never thought the Spider-Man movies were anything special, as much as I love the character, but this is really unnecessary. These are movies that will draw in huge crowds no matter what villains they use or who's in them. One bad movie isn't grounds for a reboot. This could turn out pretty awful.


X3 was just a horrible storyline with too many characters and not an ounce of character development. (Seriously. Angel had, what, 3 minutes of screentime?) But it was more fun than I care to admit. I don't remember much about Returns, except that it was painfully dull and full of plot-holes, but at least it had Spacey. Maybe it's because I had little-to-no vested interest in the Superman franchise. I was pretty excited for Spider-Man 3, though, and watching it was kind of painful.

It saddens me that you cannot see the interesting comments on motherhood and sexuality within Aliens (and T2 for that matter).

Check out Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse.

I'm going to be the only one that really didn't care much for any of the Spider-Man films, aren't I? I thought they were pretty piss poor and only got worse. Baring the second film's excellent villain casting, I thought they were mostly overwrought and annoying, and suffered once again from Extemely Poor Female Characters. Putting Black Cat in those movies would grate my nerves. Want to be she'd be super sluttly?

I also don't mind Vulture being cast as the main villain because, well, what the hell? A well written villain is a well written villain. And maybe now we'll FINALLY get to see a cast of villains other that same stock three that keep appearing all. the. ********. time. And old man dressed as a vulture is not weirder a starting concept than "A nerd who dresses like a heroic spider" or "Corperate guy who dresses like a sci-fi WoW character."

On an entirely different note, the Twilight reveal...ugh. Lame. Lamelamelame. And confusing.

talk2hand

PS I hate Kennedy. Tara was better. ninja

EDIT: I mean Twilight from Season 8 of Buffy. ninja