Showing posts with label Lost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lost. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Fringe Season Finale = Letdown
I looked forward to the Fringe finale last Tuesday with great anticipation. I had discovered the show halfway through the season and, thanks to the magic of Hulu, was able to catch up on what has become my second-favorite show. It is like the X-Files (of which I was a voracious fanboy) except funnier and lighter. I also feel like it attains moments of real terror (i.e. the opening scene of the episode with the Microwave Lady- I almost soiled myself).
Leading up to the finale, things were really ramping up. Olivia was tumbling down the rabbit hole of scientific experimentation and weirdness that was her childhood, toggling between alternate universes. Walter- by far my favorite TV character in a long time- was led away by the Observer. By the end of the second to last episode, I was rubbing my hands together in fanboy bliss, anticipating a killer finale.
But what I got was just alright. Bad guys sneaking around opening portals to alternate universes and accidentally catching people and vehicles in the crossfire? That's okay, I guess. Bad guy trying to get to the other side to kill William Bell? Doesn't really mean anything to us yet. And then the reveal in the last five minutes of Leonard Nimoy as William Bell and them being in the Twin Towers? Cool, but it didn't really make up for the lack of intensity or significance in the rest of the episode.
It was, in a word, a letdown. It seemed more designed to set the stage for next season. Maybe Lost set the bar a little too high (I watched the two finales back to back), but I felt ripped off. I didn't want the whole thing to be about the Spock reveal at the end. Having just seen and enjoyed Nimoy as Spock in Star Trek just days earlier, I found it really hard not to think of him as Spock, except that he smiled. Note to J.J.: you might want to space out the Nimoy cameos.
At any rate, I am looking forward to a second season. Let's hope they give us a better season premiere than a season finale.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
My Predictions for Season 6 of Lost
Okay, those of you who saw last night's Lost season finale are probably still reeling from one of the most adrenaline-charged finale's the show has ever given us. [I would warn you of spoilers, but, honestly, if you haven't seen it yet, you either don't really love it or you shouldn't be looking at blog posts about it.] In past season finales, the first hour has been very slow, insignificant, all build-up to the more thrilling second hour. From the opening scene, however, this one gave us reveals, action, critical confrontations, and more.
How much more? How about the long-overdue scrap between Sawyer and Jack where the whiny, daddy-issues-laden doc got the tar kicked out of him (with a whopping crotch kick, no less)? How about the sudden and then abundant revelation of Jacob, not as a grisled old apparition in a cabin but as a flesh and blood, and even saintly, immortal guy? How about multiple shootouts between Team Jack and the Dharma Initiative? Jack even tried to gun down Uncle Rico, I mean, Ben's father. And it all ended-infuriatingly, I might add- with a mortally wounded Juliette whacking Jughead with a lava rock and the whole thing going kablooey. Boom! The end.
I know, I'm still recovering. But I do want to take this opportunity to go out on a limb and submit my predictions on the sixth and concluding season of Lost (yes, it shakes me to my core just to write those words):
Prediction #1: With the death of Jacob at Ben's hands, choas has just been unleashed on the Island. The final conflict will center around taking down the guy wearing Locke's skin.
Prediction #2: The Ajira folks are Jacob-followers. The Others, especially Ben, have been taking orders from the wrong guy (i.e. the guy who has been trying to kill Jacob). This same guy has been using Locke's issues the whole time to bring him in as his corporeal host.
Okay, other than that, I'm clueless on how this thing will end. What will happen with the '77 crew and the bomb? Will things reset? If so, how will it happen?
Share your predictions (if you dare, this early)...
How much more? How about the long-overdue scrap between Sawyer and Jack where the whiny, daddy-issues-laden doc got the tar kicked out of him (with a whopping crotch kick, no less)? How about the sudden and then abundant revelation of Jacob, not as a grisled old apparition in a cabin but as a flesh and blood, and even saintly, immortal guy? How about multiple shootouts between Team Jack and the Dharma Initiative? Jack even tried to gun down Uncle Rico, I mean, Ben's father. And it all ended-infuriatingly, I might add- with a mortally wounded Juliette whacking Jughead with a lava rock and the whole thing going kablooey. Boom! The end.
I know, I'm still recovering. But I do want to take this opportunity to go out on a limb and submit my predictions on the sixth and concluding season of Lost (yes, it shakes me to my core just to write those words):
Prediction #1: With the death of Jacob at Ben's hands, choas has just been unleashed on the Island. The final conflict will center around taking down the guy wearing Locke's skin.
Prediction #2: The Ajira folks are Jacob-followers. The Others, especially Ben, have been taking orders from the wrong guy (i.e. the guy who has been trying to kill Jacob). This same guy has been using Locke's issues the whole time to bring him in as his corporeal host.
Okay, other than that, I'm clueless on how this thing will end. What will happen with the '77 crew and the bomb? Will things reset? If so, how will it happen?
Share your predictions (if you dare, this early)...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The J.J. Abrams Binge and Impending Drought
For J.J. Abrams acolytes, like myself, this week is a virtual feast, so much so that I move to have this week renamed Abramsfest in the annals of our civilization. No, seriously. Last week, we were treated to Abrams’ Star Trek. Tonight, we will see the season finale of his TV series Fringe- and what a funny, morbid, intriguing first season it has been! Then, to top it all off, Lost’s awesome fifth season comes hurtling to a close tomorrow night. I almost can’t contain myself… uh, I said almost.
Is there anyone else out there who can’t concentrate at work, home, or church because of this crazy Abrams binge (which rhymes with Fringe coincidentally)? Does anyone else have so many theories swirling in their heads they can’t drive properly?
On the downside, this binge has me fearing the impending cut-off of the Abrams awesomeness. What will I do with my time or my brain for that matter?
I don’t want to think about that too much. Let’s just enjoy this deluge of Abrams awesomeness while it lasts!
Friday, June 15, 2007
Long Live Sci-Fi!!!
Fellow sci-fi lovers, ALERT!!! According to one apparently high-brow writer, Bill Gibron, we don’t really love sci-fi- we love actioners, dramas, thrillers merely posing as science fiction. True, intellectually stimulating, speculative science fiction is all but extinct, according to Gibron. I quote:
“There are several villains in this creative cabal, elements and individuals that want to see the motion picture category cater to fanboys, geeks, and the easily entertained. But it seems a real shame that the one literary ideal best suited for the most visual of all mediums is constantly countermanded by issues that have nothing to do with either artforms’ visionary nature… Instead of reaching for intelligence and stretching the boundaries of imagination, it [sci-fi film] decides to take hoary old clichés, lots of narrative formula, and one man’s [George Lucas’] F/X laced legacy, and completely rewrite the rules of acceptability. Where once the speculative spectacle questioned the existence of man within the cosmos, today it’s all Westerns with robots.”
Gibron defines “serious” science fiction thus: “Serious science fiction questions and speculates…” (for his full text, click here)
Which causes me to ask, “Are our current science fiction pictures void of that questioning, speculative spirit? Are they all robots, mutants, spaceships, and big guns with no scientific backbone?” I would state that speculation and questioning have never been more present in sci-fi films than they are now. Despite the obvious pulp posers, sci-fi films have not ceased to explore, to envision, and to question our world. In any great science fiction work, going back to H.G Wells and Jules Verne, speculation has never taken precedence over story and character. Regardless of genre, story and character drive any great film, not mere visionary ideas. Moreover, spectacle is the instrument of speculation in science fiction- it always has been, from Metropolis to The Matrix.
I take some great examples of this from Gibron’s list of the last surviving sci-fi movies. 2001: A Space Odyssey, perhaps the film paragon of science fiction, was a wonderful display of mind-blowing ideas. However, the engine that kept that story moving was essentially a thriller template. That engine allowed the audience to stick around long enough to enjoy the meatier speculation taking place. Did this diminish 2001’s “serious” sci-fi status? No, it propelled it to the upper echelons of both film and sci-fi. Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a story of a midlife crisis and discovery; one might even label it escapist. Was it lacking in spectacle, just OMG moments of pure awe? Certainly not. The Mothership (as long as we’re discrediting F/X) blew every young child’s mind and had us watching the skies for years to come, questioning and wondering. As in 2001, the story, characters, and the spectacle drove us forward to those visionary moments.
Without spectacle and human characters and stories, the audience is alienated. And it’s not because we are afflicted by some mass plague of ADHD. It’s because we demand a human connection with our films; we want our sci-fi to show us something un-thought of, unseen. Think, for instance, of the beginning sequence of 2001, with the ape-men and the flying bones. Even to this day, as a mature appreciator of film, I have a hard time digesting that scene. It’s not until we get to that core conflict of Dave and HAL that I become invested enough in the movie to care about the other ideas. The Matrix, on the other hand, has me by the throat from the get-go because it hits us right away with a critical human conflict, a lone female freedom fighter running from the Man. Kung-fu, F/X, and some of the biggest shootouts we’ve ever seen don’t detract us from its incredibly transcending themes- they illuminate and enhance them.
I believe that these same principles live in other films and TV shows that did not make Gibron’s list. I believe that true sci-fi is not dead. Serenity’s premise of the origin of the Reapers was as speculative and searching as any great sci-fi. Minority Report’s questions regarding intrusion of justice into privacy (as well as its myriad of tiny speculations on marketing, identity issues, and manufacturing) are the stuff of the best sci-fi. Terminator 2 raised important questions regarding artificial intelligence and artificial ethics. And let us not forget that subtly sci-fi treat which is Lost, especially with its recent launch into space-time issues created by the Island’s unique magnetic properties. Even the recent flood of zombie films and literature are speculative science fiction at heart.
Yes, true science fiction lives. As in any time, we have our films that are merely gratuitous (I’ll be the first to denounce Aliens vs. Predator as true sci-fi). The genre will continue to evolve, to absorb properties of other genres, and to produce its winners and losers. But that quality will always be present in a great many of them either explicitly or implicitly. Long live science fiction!
I recommend reading Gibron’s article and then tell us what you think. Do you side with Gibron? Is science fiction on its deathbed? Or does it continue to thrive? What movies or TV shows (if any) carry on the sci-fi legacy?
“There are several villains in this creative cabal, elements and individuals that want to see the motion picture category cater to fanboys, geeks, and the easily entertained. But it seems a real shame that the one literary ideal best suited for the most visual of all mediums is constantly countermanded by issues that have nothing to do with either artforms’ visionary nature… Instead of reaching for intelligence and stretching the boundaries of imagination, it [sci-fi film] decides to take hoary old clichés, lots of narrative formula, and one man’s [George Lucas’] F/X laced legacy, and completely rewrite the rules of acceptability. Where once the speculative spectacle questioned the existence of man within the cosmos, today it’s all Westerns with robots.”
Gibron defines “serious” science fiction thus: “Serious science fiction questions and speculates…” (for his full text, click here)
Which causes me to ask, “Are our current science fiction pictures void of that questioning, speculative spirit? Are they all robots, mutants, spaceships, and big guns with no scientific backbone?” I would state that speculation and questioning have never been more present in sci-fi films than they are now. Despite the obvious pulp posers, sci-fi films have not ceased to explore, to envision, and to question our world. In any great science fiction work, going back to H.G Wells and Jules Verne, speculation has never taken precedence over story and character. Regardless of genre, story and character drive any great film, not mere visionary ideas. Moreover, spectacle is the instrument of speculation in science fiction- it always has been, from Metropolis to The Matrix.
I take some great examples of this from Gibron’s list of the last surviving sci-fi movies. 2001: A Space Odyssey, perhaps the film paragon of science fiction, was a wonderful display of mind-blowing ideas. However, the engine that kept that story moving was essentially a thriller template. That engine allowed the audience to stick around long enough to enjoy the meatier speculation taking place. Did this diminish 2001’s “serious” sci-fi status? No, it propelled it to the upper echelons of both film and sci-fi. Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a story of a midlife crisis and discovery; one might even label it escapist. Was it lacking in spectacle, just OMG moments of pure awe? Certainly not. The Mothership (as long as we’re discrediting F/X) blew every young child’s mind and had us watching the skies for years to come, questioning and wondering. As in 2001, the story, characters, and the spectacle drove us forward to those visionary moments.
Without spectacle and human characters and stories, the audience is alienated. And it’s not because we are afflicted by some mass plague of ADHD. It’s because we demand a human connection with our films; we want our sci-fi to show us something un-thought of, unseen. Think, for instance, of the beginning sequence of 2001, with the ape-men and the flying bones. Even to this day, as a mature appreciator of film, I have a hard time digesting that scene. It’s not until we get to that core conflict of Dave and HAL that I become invested enough in the movie to care about the other ideas. The Matrix, on the other hand, has me by the throat from the get-go because it hits us right away with a critical human conflict, a lone female freedom fighter running from the Man. Kung-fu, F/X, and some of the biggest shootouts we’ve ever seen don’t detract us from its incredibly transcending themes- they illuminate and enhance them.
I believe that these same principles live in other films and TV shows that did not make Gibron’s list. I believe that true sci-fi is not dead. Serenity’s premise of the origin of the Reapers was as speculative and searching as any great sci-fi. Minority Report’s questions regarding intrusion of justice into privacy (as well as its myriad of tiny speculations on marketing, identity issues, and manufacturing) are the stuff of the best sci-fi. Terminator 2 raised important questions regarding artificial intelligence and artificial ethics. And let us not forget that subtly sci-fi treat which is Lost, especially with its recent launch into space-time issues created by the Island’s unique magnetic properties. Even the recent flood of zombie films and literature are speculative science fiction at heart.
Yes, true science fiction lives. As in any time, we have our films that are merely gratuitous (I’ll be the first to denounce Aliens vs. Predator as true sci-fi). The genre will continue to evolve, to absorb properties of other genres, and to produce its winners and losers. But that quality will always be present in a great many of them either explicitly or implicitly. Long live science fiction!
I recommend reading Gibron’s article and then tell us what you think. Do you side with Gibron? Is science fiction on its deathbed? Or does it continue to thrive? What movies or TV shows (if any) carry on the sci-fi legacy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)