Category: Film and TV

There’s this Ridley Scott movie coming out called Kingdom of Heaven that’s about the Crusades. Word I’m getting is that it is problematic, though not an all-out Christian bashfest.

For some of the problems, here’s films critic Peter Chattaway semi-fisking the NYT-noids at the New York Times and their comments about the movie.

EXCERPT:

The article continues: "Mr. Scott and his screenwriter, William Monahan, have tried to be balanced. Muslims are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe."

Um, this is balanced? All the extremists are Christian and all the Muslims are nice and peaceful? I think the film, to say nothing of history, is more complicated than that, though I don’t think the New York Times is.

GET THE STORY.

For some time there has been talk that George Lucas was thinking about a live-action Star Wars program.

He is.

The series is still a ways off, but Lucas has confirmed that it’s being planned. The series would be set between episodes III and IV and, he says, be similar in tone to the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Like the latter series, the scripts for the first season would all be written in advance. It also would focus on previously minor characters in the Star Wars universe, leaving the actions of the big dogs to the big screen. (Though we might get an occasional Darth Vader or emperor cameo, I s’ppose.)

Lucas is also planning an animated series, this time using computer-generated animation. It also would be set between Eps III and IV.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Daffy Duck made his first appearance April 17, 1937 in the short "Porky’s Duck Hunt" and was an instant success.

Audiences couldn’t stop talking about the screwball duck and he quickly supplanted Porky Pig in popularity.

Porky gracefully recovered, eventually accepting the role of straightman for the daffy duck.

As a prima donna, though, Daffy never recovered when he himself was supplanted by Bugs Bunny and has become obsessed with reclaiming the spotlight he lost to Bugs.

That’s no reason not to pay tribute to a true comic genius, though.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DAFFY!

The final batch of episodes for Star Trek Enterprise start tonight!

While the series has been much better this season, I don’t know how good tonight’s episode is going to be.

From what I’ve read about it, it sounds like it features green Orion slave girls prominently and might ought to be titled "Capt. Archer’s 3-D House Of Slave Chicks."

CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS.

I know what you’re thinking: "It already has been!"

Yes, it’s true.

Star Trek Enterprise has been spiked in the sense that it’s been cancelled after its fourth season (when it finally got really worth watching).

As Larry Niven would say: "TANJ!" (There Ain’t No Justice.)

There’s only a few new episodes left before the series goes where four Star Trek series have gone before.

Well, Enterprise may get spiked in another sense.

TURNS OUT THAT SPIKE TV IS INTERESTED IN POSSIBLY PICKING UP THE SERIES FOR A FIFTH SEASON.

Fans may want to contact Spike.

I’ve never watched Spike TV before, but if they pick up Enterprise, I’d tune in to check out their version of the show.

I was in a bookstore last night, and right there in the first display inside the main door was the novelization of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

It was sitting right there.

With a complete novelization of what will go down on movie screen across the country just over a month from now.

It had all the spoilers one could want (shy of a bootleg copy of the finished film itself, of course).

And it’s available not only in hardback but also in CD and audiocasette, both abridged and unabridged.

At very reasonable prices.

Next day shipping available.

But be warned: If once you start to read it, forever will it dominate your experience of the film.

YOU MUST FACE YOUR GREATEST TEMPTATION, YOUNG PADAWAN.

So the other day I’m sitting around watching a Stargate SG-1 episode, and they’re going through this wormhole. Looks like this:

And I’m thinking: Why does it look like that? Why does it look like anything? The event horizon of the Stargate wormholes is supposed to disintegrate you into your component molecules and transmit them thorugh the wormhole. If you were totally discombobulated, you shouldn’t see anything.

But then we have evidence on the script-level of folks experiencing things in the wormhole, talking about what a "wild ride" they are and such.

So I think: Maybe when the wormhole disintegrates you, it doesn’t totally de-pattern you, it simply restructures your body in such a way that it can travel through the wormhole, but all the while you and your consciousness are still functioning. Your body’s been re-arranged, but it’s all still operational.

So then I thought: Hey, there’s evidence of the same thing on Star Trek. In that there Realm of Fear episode of Next Gen, Lt. BroccoliBarclay has some unusual experiences in the transporter beam (which he’s deathly afraid of [left]).

He even gets into a tussle with some critters that are up to no good in the transporter beam, though they later turn out to be something other than they appear (right).

The thing is: He’s conscious during all of this. So on Star Trek, like on Stargate, we have evidence of people remaining conscious and in some sense "together" during a period of de-materialization.

Now that may shed light on a long standing "mystery" in Star Trek: Namely, why you don’t simply die and get cloned each time you enter the transporter.

They recently referred to this problem in the episode of Enterprise where they had the inventor of the transporter guest star. During one scene they referred to all the "metaphysical" worries of folks about whether the transporter killed you and made a copy, at which point Trip looked around the dinner table and noted that, if that were true, "We’re all copies here."

Well, despite the fact I once saw a very neat cartoon on PBS exploring this premise (an animated character made a transporter transmitter and receiver out of two refrigerators then transported herself and pondered the moral implications of having done so, only to discover that despite the fact she died in the transmitter, she is now a "guiltless clone"), it would seem that Trek (and SG-1) ahve both provided evidence that this is not the case.

It seems to me that if your consciousness remains functional through the experience of being de-materialized then that’s at least presumptive evidence that it’s still you on the other end.

So the transporter and the Stargates are not killer+cloner devices.

Of course, since consciousness can exist independently of physical form, this leaves open the question of whether they are killer+resurrecter devices or just "repackaged for easy transport" devices.

So the other day I’m sitting around watching a Stargate SG-1 episode, and they’re going through this wormhole. Looks like this:

And I’m thinking: Why does it look like that? Why does it look like anything? The event horizon of the Stargate wormholes is supposed to disintegrate you into your component molecules and transmit them thorugh the wormhole. If you were totally discombobulated, you shouldn’t see anything.

But then we have evidence on the script-level of folks experiencing things in the wormhole, talking about what a "wild ride" they are and such.

So I think: Maybe when the wormhole disintegrates you, it doesn’t totally de-pattern you, it simply restructures your body in such a way that it can travel through the wormhole, but all the while you and your consciousness are still functioning. Your body’s been re-arranged, but it’s all still operational.

So then I thought: Hey, there’s evidence of the same thing on Star Trek. In that there Realm of Fear episode of Next Gen, Lt. BroccoliBarclay has some unusual experiences in the transporter beam (which he’s deathly afraid of [left]).

He even gets into a tussle with some critters that are up to no good in the transporter beam, though they later turn out to be something other than they appear (right).

The thing is: He’s conscious during all of this. So on Star Trek, like on Stargate, we have evidence of people remaining conscious and in some sense "together" during a period of de-materialization.

Now that may shed light on a long standing "mystery" in Star Trek: Namely, why you don’t simply die and get cloned each time you enter the transporter.

They recently referred to this problem in the episode of Enterprise where they had the inventor of the transporter guest star. During one scene they referred to all the "metaphysical" worries of folks about whether the transporter killed you and made a copy, at which point Trip looked around the dinner table and noted that, if that were true, "We’re all copies here."

Well, despite the fact I once saw a very neat cartoon on PBS exploring this premise (an animated character made a transporter transmitter and receiver out of two refrigerators then transported herself and pondered the moral implications of having done so, only to discover that despite the fact she died in the transmitter, she is now a "guiltless clone"), it would seem that Trek (and SG-1) ahve both provided evidence that this is not the case.

It seems to me that if your consciousness remains functional through the experience of being de-materialized then that’s at least presumptive evidence that it’s still you on the other end.

So the transporter and the Stargates are not killer+cloner devices.

Of course, since consciousness can exist independently of physical form, this leaves open the question of whether they are killer+resurrecter devices or just "repackaged for easy transport" devices.

A reader writes:

Dear Jimmy,

This has been a rough day in a rough week and the news from the Vatican has me totally bummed out. What to do? I had a spare moment and thought that a little distraction would help. I like Bruce Willis. I like Tarantino. I decided to see Sin City.

This movie is one of the worst things to see with the eyes. It is very anti-establishment and has some real over-the-top anti-Catholic moments in it as well. It sickens me that in this time of crisis, I cannot go to a simple movie without being blasted by the hatred of some adolescent mind.

Anywho, my advice: do not see this fifty-pound monkey that sits on your head relentlessly banging it … I mean, movie.

Sin Cerely,
Namewithheld

A thought: I don’t know what movies are playing right now, but one can still see movies that aren’t Evil. May I suggest The Incredibles (just out on DVD)? It’s InconceivableIncredible!

Thanks for the warning about fifty-pound monkeysmovies!

You know you’re a couch potato when you watch reality on TV.

Reality shows, that is.

This season I’ve been watching "Survivor: Palau," "The Amazing Race 7," and "The Apprentice [3]."  I tend to be an on- and off-viewer of these shows, and usually hop on the bandwagon after the first season — and the initial fad — has passed by.  I didn’t start watching "Survivor" or "The Apprentice" until Season 2.  I only started regularly watching "The Amazing Race" this season, and that was because of the entrance of "Survivor"-sweethearts Amber Brkich and Rob Mariano into the Race.

One of the interesting aspects of the reality shows is the moral issues that arise during the course of the season.  For example, if you watched "The Amazing Race" this week, you may have noticed that when one of the leading teams flipped its jeep, another leading team stopped but others (notably Rob ‘n Ambuh) sped on.  Later, Rob and Amber were especially held up for scorn by the team that stopped (Lynn and Alex) because R & A leapfrogged into second while Lynn and Alex ended up in fourth.

So, were Lynn and Alex right?  Was it a moral obligation to stop?

If practical assistance could be given such as medical care or the sacraments, sure.  Human life is much more important than any game — or the possibility of a million dollars.  Of course, if you can call for help, you should; and if you have actually witnessed the accident occur, you should report that to the authorities.  But if all one could do would be to murmur sympathetically and gawk at the accident, there is no obligation to stop, anymore than there would be if you saw the same accident by the side of the road on your way to work.    Indeed, when you would be a hindrance by staying, moving along — and thus keeping the accident site clear of spectators (as distinguished from witnesses) — would be the right thing to do.