LECHTANSKI.NET

As a huge fan of The Terminator, an old school Guns N Roses guy and a hater of Terminator 3, I was initially excited about the Sarah Conner Chronicles. The first season was good, but I’ve been slowly falling out of love with the Fox series. Frankly, I’m having a hard time paying attention.

However, the best line of the entire series passed with what I thought was very little fanfare.

Shirley Manson plays the T-1001 Terminator Catherine Weaver on the show. She is always quite awkward with her host’s daughter, Savannah. In last week’s episode, Savannah is missing her deceased father, because he used to sing some song to her to make her feel better. Shirley, the singer for the band Garbage, reassures her inherited daughter: “I’ll sing the song with you.”

And Savannah deadpans to her professional singer/actress of a mother: “But you can’t sing!”

Exactly my style of humor.

There are certain things that just aggravate me on sight. Clog dancing for one. I can’t tolerate it. The smug, yet stilted movements. Ugh. But even worse is Giancarlo Esposito. He has got to be the absolute worst actor ever. Maybe it’s not that simple. How about the least deserving successful actor ever. He is so bad it is almost painful. I kind of feel like a dick for feeling so strongly about this, because I’m sure he’s a nice guy. He’s just so bad.

He has polluted many a show that I like: New Amsterdam, Law & Order, Homicide, Kidnapped, even the movie The Usual Suspects! The moment he comes on screen, his ridiculous over-acting, over-pronunciation and faux-aggravation takes over. He ruins entire evenings for me, because he keeps getting jobs. Even in commercials for shows that I will never watch (South Beach, CSI,…), his ridiculous acting is apparent. I just don’t understand the attraction.

It’s not as if there is a mandate that this guy get a set number of jobs per year. Stop hiring him. Please? Maybe he’s smart with numbers and could go into accounting or something. I find faux irritation in accountants quaint.

Recently, I have really started loving political thrillers from the 60s and 70s. I’m talking about those Redford, Hoffman and Beatty movies like the Parallax View, Marathon Man, Three Days of the Condor and, of course, All the President’s Men.

These are movies born from an era of an intense suspicion of the government. I’m a little young to remember it all (born in ’72), so I make a few suppositions: Vietnam, Nixon, the Kent State killings, MLK, JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, the Chicago Seven, theories that the US was behind a spat of coups around the world. The secrecy brought to light within the government, essentially confirmed people’s suspicions about other possible wrong doings by people in power. That in due time their other evil ways will be known.

The country was being run by this white male corporate/industrial/military power structure, and a class of younger white men made these great grainy movies. Everyone in the government is bad. The CIA, FBI, NSA, Congress, Wall Street… bad, bad, bad. The movies were mostly rated PG, but had a tiny bit of skin and swearing (there was no PG-13 rating, yet).

There’s a saying that historical movies aren’t about history, they’re about today. Conversely, these movies remind me of the ridiculous, secretive and bizarro-conservative administration we’re facing right now. They’re a sure reminder of the cyclical nature of government, culture and entertainment.

The modern equivalents would be Conspiracy Theory, Enemy of the State or, maybe, Michael Clayton. The government is an easy target. It’s hard to prove you aren’t hiding something.

My Favs:

• The Day of the Jackal
• Parallax View
• Marathon Man
• Three Days of the Condor
• All the President’s Men
• Chinatown (A little different than the others)
• The French Connection (Is the second one good?)
  
• Mean Streets
• The Conversation
• Capricorn One (A little late in the game, but still a good one)

I know Network is supposed to fit in here, but that one bugs me a little. Am I missing any others?

So, news this week has brought us two reports of convenience trouncing quality. Following the MP3 over SA-CD consumer choice, we’ve got movie downloads being introduced at the same time that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technologies are struggling to stay in the news/consumer’s mind. As I have said, never mind the Coke vs. Pepsi style blue ray technology battle trying to form in the media. Blue-ray technology is too expensive, and it will remain that way for a couple more years. It will take off when it breaks $100 and is seamlessly coupled with current DVD technology. But even then, Blue Ray recorders will be used to save downloaded movies from places like CinemaNow and MovieLink, not to rebuild movie archives in prerecorded HD-DVDs.

Convenience is going to win, as it usually does. How do I know? I’m lazy, too.

But what of iTunes, I might ask. What with the current Video iPod and the forthcoming, “true” video iPod expected now in the first quarter 2007. Will iTunes do for movie downloads what it did for music and music video downloads? It is going to let us rent movies over iTunes. But, I’m beginning to have my doubts.

Here’s why: the primary use of movie downloads will not be viewing on a 2-inch, 3.5-inch or 5-inch screen. Listening to music is generally something people do alone. Movies, on the other hand, are usually watched in a group. The video iPod is great for people to watch old episodes of Rocketboom or last night’s Daily Show during their daily commute, but a 120-minute movie is a little too long, unless you’re on an airplane. And most won’t crowd around something the size of your palm. The primary viewing locations are going to range from 42-inch plasmas to 12-inch in-car DVD systems.

Even still, movie downloads are going to take off when the link from the computer to the TV is just as rote as connecting the DVD player. So satellite companies and digital cable companies already have a big headstart, since their machines are already plugged into the TV. Where Apple or another computer hardware company might make this happen is with a wireless connection, ala Wifi. See: Airport Express. I fully expect Apple next generation Airport Express to include a video output, letting my plug into the S-Video or HDMI port of my 37-inch LCD.

Keep in mind, sometimes the secret to the general population excepting a technology advance is by bringing a new piece of hardware into the house. It seems counter-intuitive that you can do great new things like buy movies over the Internet, with the same old stuff you’ve always had. So make it a new piece of hardware that’s affordable, aspirational, technical and easy (Refer to the iPod in 2001).

I guess, just as marketers spend a lot of time coming up with ideas, products and technologies that will make you buy more stuff than you need, writers, too, spend a lot of time pondering and writing about potential doomsday scenarios. (As a writer and a marketer I’m guilty on both fronts).

Take the recent furor around Snakes on a Plane. Some would have you think this is the end of the world. Esquire and Salon just for starters.

This Samuel L. Jackson-starring movie caught fire this last winter, partially because one of the rewrite-script scribes is also an avid blogger. A few other things made this really take off in the blogosphere world.
* The 70s-era disaster-film feeling of the title was perfect
* Samuel L. Is a quality actor, who appeared to be attached to a hokey film
* Snakes on a Plane just sounds quirky

It has been widely reported that after the Internet brouhaha grew to an audible crescendo, the cast was called back for five more days of shooting. My assumption for this is the producers realized they might have something here, but with a few nagging question marks in the back of their minds.

My first assumption: the script had been through several writers, and the movie was potentially on the verge of having the directing credit heaped on good ol’ Alan Smithee.

My second assumption: the last script writer missed the obvious opportunity to have Samuel L. say “There’s mother f**kin snakes on this mother f**kin plane.” A line of this sort can be attributed to Samuel L. in just about every movie he has been in - except for maybe Star Wars (though I thought I heard him mutter something about the “mother f**kin Siths” in Attack of the Clones)

My third assumption: the producers decided they wanted to try and make the movie better, befitting of an Internet craze. Keep in mind though, five more days of re-shoots is not the route to perfection. I’m sure they were just planning on shining up the turd a bit.

Not delving into the origin of the title (I imagine a perfectly befitting and descriptive working title), Snakes on a Plane is not a test of the blogospheres movie making ability. It is not a sign of Hollywood’s demise. It is a cheesy disaster/horror film that will give you exactly what you expect.

For me, I love what Samuel L. said about the simple title: “What are you doing here? It’s not Gone with the Wind. It’s not On the Waterfront. It’s Snakes on a Plane!”

The title tells you exactly what you’re going to get. There won’t be anything to make you go home and contemplate the moral consequences surrounding incarceration and false rehabilitation, but you will get snakes on a plane.