Star Trek Into Darkness of the Movie Theater Again

Well, this came out today.



Now, let's go back for a minute to 2009, to my reaction to the first movie in this new continuity: "The movie was amazing...but it wasn't Star Trek." I left the theater with the satisfaction of having seen stuff blow up real good IN SPAAAAAAAAACE, and with the disappointment of my favorite entertainment franchise heading off in a direction more appealing to hip, young Star Wars fans than curmudgeonly, fun-hating Star Trek fans like me.

Part of me is looking forward to this new movie—crashing the Enterprise into downtown San Francisco looks like it should be cool, and I'll finally be able to determine whether this new direction was worth four years of aggravatingly conflicting emotions.

The other part of me doesn't really care.

You know I've still only seen the previous movie once? On opening day, in the theater. That's it. I've seen Star Trek: Nemesis at least four times—willingly, no less. I think that says something about where my loyalties lie. I'd rather watch bad Star Trek than a good movie pretending to be Star Trek.

Though, really, I'm no longer sure the previous movie was all that good to begin with. And after more intense scrutiny, Nemesis doesn't seem as bad, either.

I read through all of "Star Trek by the Minute," a series of 117 blog posts analyzing the science, moviecraft, and faithfulness to the Trek name of every single minute of the 2009 Star Trek film. I watched Cowboys & Aliens, a film written by the same guys who wrote Star Trek. I continued my ongoing endeavor to watch every episode of every official Star Trek series with several seasons of Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager. I chatted about the film with Morgan Gendel, writer of (among others) TNG's famous episode "The Inner Light."

I've had plenty of time to think about the 2009 film, and plenty of opportunities to pick it apart and compare it to other movies and other Trek. I've reached the conclusion that the action sequences, special effects, music, and novelty of having the original Star Trek back on the big screen have successfully masked some very serious flaws with the storytelling, and deflected attention off of the heart of the movie, which is so fundamentally different from what has traditionally made Star Trek...well, Star Trek.

There have been bad films and bad episodes that haven't really felt like Star Trek, or haven't lived up to the standard of quality established by the likes of Wrath of Khan and "The Best of Both Worlds." Even with the wrong director at the helm or a sub-par script to work with, someone involved in any given Star Trek production was trying to keep Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future alive. If this new movie trailer is any indication, it looks to me like J.J. Abrams wants to recreate Star Trek in his own image.

Time for spoilers, kiddos.

From the press release: "When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew."

So, let's think about that while we consider what was destroyed in the first film, and what will probably be destroyed in the second one: Spock's mother. Kirk's father. Vulcan. Starfleet. "Friendships," whatever those are. (I'm already blaming Uhura.) Possibly even the Enterprise itself. And that's not to mention the Prime timeline's Romulus, along with 40+ years of continuity.

Kinda looks like he's gunning for a totally blank slate where the characters are the only things identifiable as being from Star Trek. Who's the villain in this one? Not an iconic alien like a Klingon or imported-from-another-timeline Romulan. Though, that is not to say the villain might not be iconic—that is, i-Khan-ic.

What I'm hoping for: Those parasitic mind-control grubs from the TNG episode "Conspiracy" finally make their grand return, infiltrating Starfleet Command under the watchful eye of a lesser-known villain from the annals of Star Trek history.

What I'm expecting: KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

There can still be mind-control grubs, though.

We'll see how this one turns out—without the oppressive shackles of loosely observed continuity shaping the direction of the story, J.J. Abrams and Co. are free to do absolutely anything they want with this film.

Things We'll Probably See:
- Nurse Chapel, whose only function is to scream at scary things, and give McCoy somebody to talk to, 'cuz he really doesn't seem that tight with Kirk
- An impromptu Gorn battle that completely interrupts the flow of the story
- Vulcans behaving completely out of character
- A reference to a classic Trek scene or quote, which inadvertently devalues the scene or quote if you think about it too hard
- LENS FLARE
- An incredibly important plot point that's barely explained and/or makes absolutely no sense if you think about it too hard
- Adults who are absolutely useless in crisis situations, leaving the young'uns to take matters into their own hands
- Petty bickering over a woman (I'm already blaming Uhura)
- Someone getting killed off for plot convenience and/or a cheap emotional response
- No Klingons, or worse yet, pointless Klingons
- Really awesome action sequences that make you forget about everything I just mentioned

Despite my cynicism, I'm open-minded enough to give Star Trek Into Darkness a chance. Skyfall was enough to rekindle my enthusiasm for the James Bond franchise after Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace took it in a direction I wasn't overly excited about; all it takes is one movie.

Though, given how downplayed the words "STAR TREK" are on the movie poster, I doubt Into Darkness will help me see the light.

Exfanding Review: Double Dragon

In an effort to expand my knowledge of movies based on video games (to broaden my frame of reference when other people talk about them; not because I think they'll be any good), I sat down with my wife to watch the 1994 film Double Dragon.

Her reaction: It was painful to watch.

My reaction: It was exactly the kind of cheesy, tongue-in-cheek '90s action flick I didn't realize I had been craving.

 Don't let my reaction fool you, though; Double Dragon is not a very good movie. It falls under the category of "awesomely bad," the term used by a friend of mine to describe the Spanish dub of The Legend of Zorro—that is to say, parts of it are so over-the-top bad that they're good again. Which is the evilest thing of all.

I don't recall ever playing any incarnation of the game, but I've seen and heard bits and pieces about it over the years. I know about Billy and Jimmy Lee, the two bad dudes (whoops, wrong game) who punch and kick the stuffing out of wave after wave of enemies, all in an effort to rescue their (their?) girlfriend, Princess What's-Her-Name (whoops, wrong game again). Along the way, they occasionally beat up such iconic, vaguely human enemies such as Abobo...and...yeah, that's about all I know.

And someone, somewhere, said, "Let's fill an hour and a half with this game that takes 15 minutes to beat if you don't die."

So they fleshed out the simple kidnapping plot with this story about an ancient Chinese medallion known as the "Double Dragon" that grants the wearer incredible power of body and spirit. The medallion was broken into two pieces, hidden away from people who might misuse it, and promptly stolen by people who might misuse it.

The spirit half is stolen, at least; the power half is possessed by some possibly unnamed girl (did they ever mention her by name?) who hangs out with Billy and Jimmy, and who totally doesn't try to use the medallion when her life is in danger and she's about to get thwacked by the bad guy. (Or maybe she does, and I missed the subtlety of it.)

Notice how we've sort of lost the girlfriend-kidnapping plot. The girlfriend (Marion—she has a name) does appear, however, as more of a not-until-the-end girlfriend, who happens to have her own gang, which prowls the streets of post-apocalyptic Los Angeles in the far-flung year of 2007 against bad guys like this film's main antagonist, who is actually the T-1000 from Terminator 2 disguised as a goofy, gaudy bajillionaire.

As far as cheesy movie villains go, he certainly is one. It's funny how he's not really evil, and he doesn't seem to be all that good at villainy; at best, he's like a mediocre CEO who fires his employees by turning into a shadow and choking them to death. Sample quote: "I just want total domination of one major American City! Is that too much to ask for? Is it? Is it? Huh?"

He's not the only antagonist; there's Whip Girl (who I'm pretty sure never got a name), hordes of colorful cannon-fodder grunts, and, of course, Bo Abobo.

Abobo on steroids:

Abobo on more steroids:

Abobo on spinach:

There are plenty of action sequences, all of which seem to have been choreographed by someone who merely shouted out things he wanted punched or broken, leaving the "martial arts" bit to the imagination of the actors. Somebody even threw in a couple of vehicle chases, with vehicles that have onboard computer navigation screens so you feel like you're inside a video game! Not the right video game, mind you, but the fact that somebody thought to make a video game movie feel at all like a video game? Genius.

What made Double Dragon so fun to watch was that it wasn't really a failed attempt at a game-to-movie translation; it was more like a live-action adaptation of a terrible cartoon based on a video game, one that tried its best to be taken seriously while fully acknowledging its ridiculous source material, all the while referencing the source material's source material wherever possible.

If that makes any sense.

The absolutely random cameos from the likes of Vanna White and Andy Dick. The sight gags and one-liners that actually made me laugh out loud—I am a sucker for punnery and the ironically absurd, so take that with a grain of salt. The gratuitous jumping. The whole production feels like Escape from New York meets Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles meets Mighty Morphin Power Rangers meets Looney Tunes, which, in and of itself, is amusing to me.

It's still got a quirky-but-otherwise-average script, a predictable plot, passable acting, messy fight scenes, and a forgettable soundtrack (which at least attempted to sound like a video game toward the end!), which keep Double Dragon from being a good movie. But, unless your sensibilities are closer to my wife's, it remains a fun movie.

Coming in with low expectations and no nostalgia for anyone to tread on, I found myself pleasantly surprised. So, if you need your cheesy, tongue-in-cheek '90s action flick fix, Double Dragon might just do the trick.

Especially if you're watching the (Swedish?) subtitled version on YouTube, which has subtitles that sound really funny when you read them aloud as though they're in English.

Stanna, get me a pudding! Pudding forever. My type.

Sunday Spotlight: Wreck-It Ralph

As a gamer, it's my duty to weigh in on Disney's Wreck-It Ralph, which promised (at least, from the trailer) to be the rare sort of video game-inspired movie that not only uses its source material well, but uses it with reverence.



Everything you need to know about the story is there in the trailer; the question is, how is the movie?

It's very good. As a gamer, I'm pleased. Wreck-It Ralph left me optimistic for the future of video game movies. But it also left me wanting more.

Wreck-It Ralph is, first and foremost, a family movie. It's not really a movie for gamers, any more than Toy Story is a movie for toy collectors. There are more than enough scenes, cameos, parodies, and references to warm the pixelated hearts of retro and modern gamers alike, but at its core, Wreck-It Ralph is a movie about a big guy and a little girl who just want to be treated as equals. The fact that they're video game characters opens up some fun possibilities for how their story unfolds.

As a film, I appreciate how Wreck-It Ralph continually takes the story in unexpected directions, especially when it's so obvious what's supposed to happen next. Characters are fun, memorable, and have a good amount of depth to them (yes, even the 2-D ones, har har har). As a film set inside a video game (really, a game arcade), I'm relieved to see that the people involved with Wreck-It Ralph have actually played a video game before. From the music to the backgrounds to the character animations, everything feels right.

Where the movie leaves me wanting more is the large portion of time spent inside one particular game, which could have instead been spent hopping around to so many more video games. Granted, the movie does a great job of making the most of that location, but the film's own success up to that point is its greatest downfall: It's so rare to see video games treated with such genuine respect on film that I wanted the creators to spend more time exploring all the different games in the arcade, rather than focusing on the one place where it made most sense for the characters to be. The story, which is a very good story, got in the way of the even better presentation of various video games and video game genres by people who knew what they were talking about.

The movie's funny, too, and I have no doubt the writers could have made Wreck-It Ralph a full-on video game comedy instead (which, honestly, is what I was really hoping for). Keeping in mind that Wreck-It Ralph is first and foremost a family movie, however, keeps me from dwelling on what could have been. Because, once again, it's still a very good movie. I could do without the obligatory potty humor, though; all those jokes about Hero's Duty are making me rethink the way I phrased my introductory sentence for this post.

Nevertheless, Wreck-It Ralph—like the latest batch of Marvel movies, which have done the same for comics—reassures me that it's not impossible to make a video game-inspired movie that's more than a little above average, if not downright great.

Oh, and as a side note, Metroid: Other M could've had a Samus like Sgt. Calhoun: tough, assertive, focused, driven, and with the most tragic backstory ever, but still a caring woman under that butt-kicking exterior, and still sexy without endless fanservice.

We could've had this Samus...

...but instead we got this one:

 

Just sayin'.

Honest Trailers

If you're any kind of movie buff and don't mind a little adult language, you'll probably get a kick out of these: Honest Trailers, which parody the teasers of popular movies and tell the world what they can really expect to see:







If you liked these, there's a whole playlist of 'em on the Screen Junkies YouTube channel for Twilight, Titanic, The Dark Knight, and other movies that start with T.

Enemy Mine: A Star Trek Fan's Look

And now, a guest post!
 

You are, perhaps familiar with (and if you read this blog, shame on you if you aren't) the franchise Star Trek. But, I ask you, I urge, I bid you if you are not familiar, to become familiar with a science fiction movie entitled Enemy Mine. So let me, Joseph Belle, bring you up to speed; maybe you'll give it a watch.

The beginning of the film is quite simple: you have the humans and the Dracs, two vastly different races who can't even talk to one another, vying for control of a mineral-rich area of space. Both believe the area belongs to them, and neither is willing to try and even communicate. So when they see the other, they just send out fighters and blow each other apart. Now I call this a review from a Star Trek fan's point of view because it's not what happens in the beginning that matters so much; because, soon into the film, one of the human pilots goes after a Drac ship, and in the dogfight, both ships are damaged.

They crash to the ground, and you find that the human pilot (one Willis E. Davidge played by Dennis Quaid) is now alone, as his gunner died in the crash. Not knowing if the Drac pilot survived, Davidge tries to radio for rescue, only to find his radio is out, so he starts making his way towards the downed Drac ship, only to find that the Drac pilot survived.

I don't want to go into a complete play-by-play of the entire movie, but in the end, Davidge is faced with living alone, or living with an enemy. Choosing to live with his enemy (The Drac pilot Jeriba Sherigan played by Louis Gossett, Jr.) the two learn to speak each other's language and find that they are not so different.

The story is a heartwarming adventure of how two people can be so different, but so alike at the same time, culminating at the midpoint of the movie, in which Davidge is forced to make a decision that will potentially make all of humanity turn their backs on him.

It's worth a watch, if you can find a good copy of it, and it's based on the story written by Barry B. Longyear. Despite the book being so short, the movie is an exception to the rule of the book always being better than the movie. But I believe both are worth attention and time, especially if, like me, you feel that warm attachment to the hope that humanity can move beyond our petty disagreements and become something greater. If nothing else, it's a good, classic science-fiction movie.

What the Caped Crusader Did for Videogames

Today's guest post comes from fellow GameCola staff writer Daniel Castro, who has successfully captured two of our favorite topics on this blog: videogames and Batman. And it's actually more relevant to modern society than most of the games we talk about! Note that this post uses slightly stronger language than you might be used to seeing here, so feel free to put the kiddos to bed before proceeding.

 

Possibly many of you already know this, but I’ll say it again, the latest Batman games developed by Rocksteady are truly awesome. For those still unaware of this, you don’t have to take my word for granted, there are plenty reviews over the ‘net, and most of them will tell you just that.

But still, every now and then I get to talk about videogames with some of my students. Everyone has played Battlefield or Call of Duty, and the conversation always veers toward the latest Halo, Grand Theft Auto, or whichever other sequel is coming out this year, but anytime I mention Batman: Arkham Asylum/City, I always hear the same old, “I’ve heard it’s great, but I haven’t tried it yet.”

Part of the blame is probably this multiplayer-obsessed era of gaming we’re currently living in (we can discuss that later), but still I know there’s a lot of people not trying any of these games just because they're based on a superhero character, and licensed games have a tendency for sucking.

And while both Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City aren’t exactly underrated or unappreciated, I still want to talk about the things these games do great, because I consider them to be a great contribution to this gaming generation, and they’re already influencing the way some games are shaping up to be.

A licensed game done right

Since the early days of videogames, licensed titles have mostly sucked, and those based on a superhero license have been some of the worst offenders. This seems almost a general rule, since licensed games are commonly rushed and underdeveloped in order to meet an irrational deadline.

I can see why there are still some people not trying Arkham Asylum/City; many of them must have grown skeptical about superhero games; I know I did, and I know that I was a hell of a lot more skeptical the first time I tried Batman: Arkham Asylum.

And thanks to you, guys.

Batman: Arkham Asylum wasn’t being developed in order to be released during the hype surrounding the newest blockbuster movie; it was created and conceived in order to serve as Rocksteady’s interpretation on how a Batman game should be experienced. Speaking of which…

A game done right

Rocksteady actually worked their minds to create these titles; as the game industry is actually going, they could’ve just reskinned the game on top of something already made. While it takes some obvious inspiration from other games and genres, the final result feels like a game utterly different from anything this generation has thrown at us.

It just doesn’t look and sound awesome; way more importantly, it plays awesome, and that’s the part where these games really stand out.

I hate to say it this bluntly, but they did everything right! While the game is focused to be played in a stealthy approach, it also gives you freedom to tackle every situation any in way you want, and it works that way too!

That’s my biggest issue concerning sneaky games, like Splinter Cell, Tenchu or the previous Hitman titles; they play perfectly while you remain undetected, but the games utterly break down the moment you’re caught; then is when you realize every single fault their control scheme has.

But it doesn’t go that way for Batman. In fact, your enemies eventually will realize they’re being pinned down and will react accordingly, growing more desperate as their numbers start growing thin.

And when you have to fight your enemies in a face-to-face situation, the game actually feels more awesome. I can’t help but admit that the combat mechanics in these titles are the thing that really got me all over them. I can play these fights over and over and still amaze myself of all the crazy stunts Batman is capable of doing in order to beat an always more numerous foe.

By the way, it brings me odd memories of the old Adam West’s series.

An exclusive plot for the game

Now this is the thing that truly marks how different the Arkham games are compared to the rest of the crowd. Every superhero game being made has always been tied in to the events of the newest movie or loosely based on another publication.

Rocksteady’s take on the Batman franchise tells a story that, while based on the lore of the series, is also not afraid to create and go further than any videogame ever has. Up until now, every superhero game has played safe and sticks really close to the material it tries to represent. But after the events of Arkham City, we all know that these games just don’t walk the same way; they have the nerve of killing some major characters of the series, creating a whole new continuity exclusive to videogames.

Do the Batman!

Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, and maybe time will prove me right or wrong, but I’ll say it anyway: I think Batman: Arkham Asylum has created a new milestone in videogames, the same way Ocarina of Time did for adventure games and Halo: Combat Evolved did for first-person shooters.

Batman: Arkham Asylum has set a new standard for new games to come; superhero games especially are trying to be like Batman, and you can’t really blame them… I mean, who wouldn’t want to be The Batman?!

The comparison bar is now higher than ever before, new superhero games can’t stumble into our consoles and expect to make a dent into the industry now that Old Bats has shown everyone how it’s done.

Captain America: Super Soldier and The Amazing Spider-Man games feel heavily influenced by Batman’s fighting and general gameplay; they’re both not that good, but they’re not as bad as superhero games usually are, their main flaw remain being tied-up to the newest movie and rushed in order to meet a crippling deadline.

Now here we are, while there is a Deadpool movie in the works booked for a still unspecified release date on 2014, next year there’ll be a Deadpool game hopefully not tied-in to the movie, but being crafted only because someone had the great idea that the character deserves to live on videogame glory, and people are possibly working on a plot and a gameplay tailored specifically for the “merc with a mouth.”

I know that trailers are not always accurate... but so far, it looks awesome.

Of course, the game that I’m really waiting for next year is the sequel to Batman: Arkham City, because this game not only had a lot of momentum going on its own, but it managed to let us know that it wasn’t quite the end of the story; if you’ve investigated enough into Arkham’s world, you’ll know there’s something huge coming to Gotham.

See you next year, you creepy bastard.

Exfanding Your Horizons Turns 4 Years Old!

It's official: Exfanding Your Horizons is four years old! Happy birthday to us!

Because it's now a tradition, we'll be following in the blogsteps of the last three years with a Q&A format guaranteed to please new readers and longtime Exfanders alike. (DISCLAIMER: That's just talk; we guarantee nothing.) Due to various circumstances, this year we've condensed the list from ten questions down to five. There's probably DLC already on the disc for the other five questions, though, so it's not like we're totally gypping you.

Our blog rules.


Hey...didn't there used to be two guys writing this blog?

NATHANIEL: Um...there did used to be two of us. It just occurred to me that perhaps I didn't back up the Alex Posts Stuff widget before I asked my HTML-savvy wife to do most of the work overhauling the blog, because I haven't seen him since.

ALEX: *Crawls out from under his rock, locks around, sees shadow, thinks about heading back under his rock.*


This past year, in an effort to minimize filler and still continue to write amidst everything else going on in your lives, you introduced a new weekly column and several revisions and reductions to the regular posting schedule. For the last six weeks, one of you has been blogging solo while the other has been completely occupied with other endeavors. How do you feel about all that?

ALEX: It certainly wasn’t the ideal for me to stop writing for the blog, but unfortunately, it was (and, sadly, still is) a necessary evil. I’ve pretty much stopped sleeping in an effort to extend the day, so sitting down to write up an Exfanding post should theoretically be something I can handle. And yet, apparently I cannot.

Handle writing an Exfanding post, that is.

I actually just got back from a week in LA for work, and this week has been nonstop crazy as I try to finish off everything that’s due. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, though, and I honestly do hope to be back to the blog pretty soon.

NATHANIEL: Hey, you're here now, and that means a lot. Writing solo for a two-person blog is like performing without your co-star when the marquee clearly says "[pick one: Laurel and Hardy / Abbott and Costello / The Blues Brothers / Jay and Silent Bob / Penn and Teller / etc.]." You can make references to the other person, and carry on with the same kind of material as usual, but after a certain point it's almost disingenuous to work as a one-person duo.

It honestly feels like a different blog now than it did a month ago. Yes, the new look is part of it. But I think what was most jarring to me was spending a couple of years posting every single day virtually without exception, and then suddenly looking at the blog one day to see that it'd been just me posting two or three things per week. That all happened over the course of less than a month, and I don't think either of us expected things to be so drastic or last so long.

It'd be one thing if we'd just decided to pursue other projects, and I ended up starting up a blog of my own, but Exfanding has always been about collaboration. I find myself missing the joint posts and the theme weeks and the daily back-and-forth e-mail banter that we had before things got busy for us--and I miss having Alex's posts to read. Like I said two years ago, I'm a fan of Exfanding.

All that being said, there's still been a lot of good to come out of the changes we've made to accommodate both our crazy schedules. Sunday Spotlight has rejuvenated my focus on sharing new fandoms, which is ostensibly what this blog is all about. By relaxing our self-imposed posting deadlines, I've been able to take my time on writing the kinds of long, rambly posts I like best. Consequently, that occasional feeling of, "Aw, I need to write a blog post tonight," has all but disappeared, and the number of new "favorite posts" I've been able to write will make our Year in Review for 2012 even more of a challenge, assuming we get to our 2011 edition before then.


Whether it was Flashback Week, being on a Konami kick, the epic tale of the wedding saga, New York Comic-Con/Anime Festival, the ups and downs of self-publishing, or your latest D&D quest, you've told a lot of stories in the last twelve months. You've also been a bit more outspoken, reflective, ranty, and soapboxy than usual. Where do you see your writing going over the course of the next year?

ALEX: Hopefully on the blog.

No, really. I don’t care what I’m writing about; I just want to have the time to write for the blog again.

NATHANIEL: Well, if Alex will be writing again, then maybe I won't take over his Waiting for Wednesday column and talk every week about all the comics on my shelf that I picked up ages ago but haven't gotten around to reading yet.

Actually, that idea's not half bad...

::ahem::  I'm looking forward to taking a break from sprawling stories than span multiple posts. Writing them is fun, but it's also exhausting, especially when you get up to seven or eight parts. I've always been a short story and poetry kind of guy, and these things keep turning into novellas, so I'll be striving to find new ways to keep my storytelling concise. I'm hoping to maintain and expand the variety of topics I cover as well; I mean, off the top of my head, I can't even think of the last time I mentioned Mega Man.


Got any big, geeky plans we can look forward to hearing about in the near future?

NATHANIEL: Once The Avengers comes out on video in late September, you can bet I'll be hosting a 13-hour movie marathon of everything the Marvel Cinematic Universe has to offer so far.

Now that I've already brought up Mega Man once in this post, I can also mention that I'll be doing something for the Blue Bomber's 25th anniversary in December. If I can swing it, I'll do a streaming livecast marathon over the Internet, but I make no promises because I'm not even sure if "a streaming livecast over the Internet" is the proper terminology for what I'm thinking of, let alone something I've got the technology or know-how to properly pull off. I might have to get one or two of my tech-smart friends involved.

Alex, I know you've got something exciting planned.

ALEX: Yes! I have spent the past several days piled under printer files for my forthcoming children’s book, which is scheduled to be on sale the first week of October.

Aside from that, I’ve also started work on a comic book for which I’ve hired a really kicking artist. We plan on completing the entire first issue, then posting it (for free) on KickStarter in an effort to get people to pay for the rest of the series. It’ll be a four-issue mini, and it’s an idea I’ve toyed with for a while now.

Hmmm…what else? Oh! I’m going to the Baltimore Comic Con in an effort to drum up some interest in the children’s book, and in the comic series. I haven’t been to a convention since last year’s New York show, so I am really excited to make that trip.


Dare I ask about that blog book you keep threatening to release?

ALEX: I don’t even want to talk about books, or getting books printed. Seriously. Ask Nathaniel.

NATHANIEL: Oh, sure. Ask Nathaniel. I think it's been long enough now that we can file this one under "Things We'd Like To See, But Probably Won't," along with the full story of The Great Comic Book Adventure of 2011 and Part 2 of that Transformers 101 guest post.

Oh, jeez. Didn't we promise you a t-shirt, too?

ALEX: And Exfanding Hand Puppet Theater©.

NATHANIEL: Yeah. You can officially stop listening to everything we promise you.

Sunday Spotlight: Netflix Recommendations

With nothing particular in mind to spotlight this Sunday, I'd like to share a few quick recommendations of things my wife and I have recently watched on Netflix:

Mystic Pizza (1988)

This seemingly predictable story of three girls working at a Connecticut pizza joint ended up being a pleasantly unconventional, comedic, and heartwarming tale of love and friendship. And pizza. I realize that's about the most generic description of a movie anybody could possibly write (seriously, "heartwarming tale of love and friendship"?), but it's a cut above the average...whatever category of movie this is...because the characters are believably human. It took a little while for me to get invested in it, but we ended up giving it a 4/5, though I could have been persuaded to settle on a 3/5 instead.

What Women Want (2011)

This Chinese remake of the 2000 Mel Gibson/Helen Hunt film by the same name is an almost verbatim retelling of the original movie (as I remember it, anyhow), but there's more than enough unique flavor brought to the table by the cultural and casting differences to make this not only a worthy remake, but an enjoyable movie in its own right. There's a fun chemistry between the two leads, and the supporting characters are amusingly quirky, but triple-threat actor Andy Lau really sold me on the film--whether dancing, singing karaoke, or emoting dynamically, his sheer force of talent and personality got me to like him not just as his character, but as an actor--I'd easily watch another of his films simply because he's in it, and that's not something I can say about more than a dozen or so actors. We also gave this one a 4/5.

Cosi (1996)

Organizing the patients of a mental institution to put on an opera by Mozart sounds like something with equal potential to be touching, hilarious, or incredibly uncomfortable, depending on how it's handled. Fortunately, this Australian film does a good job of balancing the first two and somewhat minimizing the third, although it takes a while for the momentum to get going and the humor to fully develop. I was inclined to give this a 3/5, but everything builds up to a riotous conclusion, complete with what might be the most wonderful post-credits tag we've ever seen in a movie...which is what ultimately swayed us to also give this one a 4/5.

I picked this one out after seeing Colin Hay in concert and being curious about his film and television appearances, but it was an added bonus to see the actor who played Faramir in Lord of the Rings alongside him as a fellow patient of the mental institution (which, of course, we didn't realize until after the fact).

Missing Some Gory Details, Part 2

[Continued from Part 1]

I like Joss Whedon. Firefly, Serenity, The Avengers, even Alien Resurrection. Yet I'm not one of the legions of fans who insists "Joss Is Boss"; just because he's made one or two things I've really liked doesn't mean that I'll blindly follow him into anything with his name on it. Especially when his name is on a cabin in the woods that my friends refuse to tell me anything about, aside from the fact that IT'S JOSS. WHEDON.

Sorry--I did just say JOSS. WHEDON, right? I thought for a second I'd heard myself say JAMES. CAMERON.

::ahem::  It's primarily the gore that turns me off from horror movies, though even if I can get past that, it's usually the premise or the locations or the characters that do nothing to pique my interest. That's why the Alien films, especially the first one, are such big exceptions--it's space, it's characters with enough brains and muscle to stay alive by more than sheer luck, and it's more often a psychological horror of what might happen than what actually does happen.

That's why I sighed along with the other characters in the booth when "Zombie Redneck Torture Family" (or whatever they were called--I'm quoting Wikipedia here), was selected from the list of monsters that would terrorize the visitors to the cabin in the woods. If there's one monster that has been overdone--and if there's one monster I can barely tolerate in the first place--it is the unsubtle zombie. Perhaps that was the point. Another zombie movie. In my experience, Joss Whedon doesn't do anything entirely straightforward, and creating a parody of the horror genre that was, in itself, still a legitimate horror movie, was quite clever.

At least, I'm assuming that's what he did--I had my eyes closed half the time. I cannot handle slashy gore, and that's what you get with zombies. Come back to me when zombies can fire rocket launchers and accidentally shake themselves apart with the concussion.

As a side note, my squeamish tendencies have helped me to develop a "something horrible is about to happen" radar, and I've gotten extremely good at anticipating when a big scare is about to occur--and my rate of guessing when it's just going to be a cheap fright is about 50%. With Joss Whedon, however, I have unfortunately developed a more specialized radar: the "Joss Whedon is about to impale someone" radar. It activated itself for the first time after Serenity, started blipping slowly in The Avengers, and went into overdrive in Cabin in the Woods. I'm onto you, Joss.

Ultimately, I didn't like The Cabin in the Woods. I recognized Joss's signature humor and the clever twists on the genre, but I couldn't fully appreciate them because of one key component that was a total turnoff: the gore. For an hour and a half, I was like a motion-sick asthmatic trapped in a car with locked windows driven by a tipsy smoker. Doesn't matter how good the scenery or conversation are in that kind of situation.

A few weeks later, I saw The Hunger Games. Suddenly, I liked Cabin a whole lot more.

Both movies have a similar premise: People live and die on national television for the entertainment of the masses, trapped in an arena controlled by others who have the power to gently or forcibly impact how matters are unfolding. Aside from the obvious differences of style, casting--pretty much everything, really--Hunger Games was considerably more depressing than Cabin in the Woods. When the technicians crank the heat to encourage two characters to throw their clothes off--leaving them unprepared for a zombie attack--it's kinda funny. When the technicians light a forest on fire to push one character unprepared into a fight with some other "Tributes," it's kinda disheartening. Curious how such similar actions can have such a different emotional impact on the viewer, depending on the context.

When basically everybody dies in Cabin in the Woods (seriously, this is not a spoiler--it's a horror movie), there may be a pang of regret for any of the characters you kinda liked, but by the very nature of the genre, it's unlikely and/or inadvisable to get very attached to anyone. If anything, you get attached to the concept, or the villain(s), or the overall situations that lead to such creative, horrific deaths.

When basically everybody dies in Hunger Games (seriously, this is not a spoiler--it's a movie about people killing each other to death), there's this lingering feeling of emptiness--especially when the survivors turn around at the end of the movie and put a happy face on everything that's happened (OK, that is a spoiler). The characters are at the heart of the movie, and there is no victory in lying to oneself after all that suffering and senseless loss. I know there's a bigger picture with two more books in the series to be turned into movies, but I've looked ahead at the plot synopses of them, and I really don't see anything compelling about sticking around for them.

I'm generally more critical of serious and depressing movies than I am of any other kind, because I'm the type of moviegoer who wants to laugh, smile, and generally take a break from anything serious and depressing in real life. However, if I am intellectually or emotionally enriched by the experience, I don't care what kind of movie it is.

The Hunger Games had all the right ingredients to spark discussions of politics and morality, pique one's curiosity in a richly developed fictional world, even inspire the audience to stand up against dubious authority...but it ended up being an unsatisfying 2-1/2 hours spent in a fictional world centered around the Hunger Games arena (in contrast to having the story be centered around the arena; it's a subtle difference, but a significant one), with characters who have just enough personality for you to feel sorry for them when tragedy strikes, and who constantly submit to power and authority they cannot or will not challenge. No matter how many individual moments or aspects of the film I may have liked, ultimately I felt hollow and thoroughly unenriched. No thought-provoking message; no triumph of good over evil; no success other than, "well, some of you didn't die."

If you don't connect with the characters, don't get absorbed in the world, and don't think about the film beyond the walls of the story, it doesn't matter who survives.

That being said, The Hunger Games helped me to look beyond the uncomfortable parts of The Cabin in the Woods to more clearly see the film's merits. Sure, it was gory, but it creatively used those same elements that appeared in The Hunger Games to make a truly unique contribution to the horror and parody genres, all the while being a generally fun and entertaining piece of cinema under all that oozy blood. The farther away I got from that nauseating feeling I had while watching the film, and the more I compared it to The Hunger Games, the more I appreciated what Cabin in the Woods achieved. But I still can't say I liked it.

So, the next time my wife says I only like sci-fi action movies where stuff blows up, I can now point to one or two more movies and say, "nuh-uh."

Missing Some Gory Details, Part 1

I've been watching a lot of movies lately thanks to Netflix, and I was recently chided by my wife for only liking sci-fi action movies where stuff blows up. This accusation came after watching a string of movies together where our opinions varied drastically--of particular note: Repo! The Genetic Opera and The Terminator.

My wife adores Repo! for its soundtrack and intriguing story. I think rather highly of Terminator for its clever concept and execution. Both feature a fair amount of gore and violence. I can handle most of what Terminator throws at the viewer, but there are a few moments--while cool--that are a little much for me, so I'll usually look away from the screen for a couple of seconds. I am incredibly squeamish where sharp objects and flowing blood are concerned, and especially when a huge component of a story is repossessing people's organs, you can imagine how quickly I walked away from Repo! Everything Is Sharp and Gooey. My wife couldn't wrap her head around how I could like one dark movie where almost everybody dies in a grisly way, and not another dark movie where only some people die in a grisly way.

There's a fundamental difference between what we both find to be too gory to stomach. There's no obvious reason why I can very comfortably go out to a shooting range but can barely handle my own kitchen knife without panicking a little. Some things bother us more than others, and it's not always logical or simple to explain. When I look at Terminator, I see an interesting story peppered with plenty of action, some of which is kinda gross. When I look at Repo!, it's not individual moments of grossness, but a pervasive atmosphere comprised of concepts, images, and even particular words that keep my stomach churning. No matter how interesting the story may have been, I couldn't overcome my involuntary gut reaction to the subject matter.

Such was the case with The Cabin in the Woods:

All my friends: "But it's Joss Whedon!"

Me: "But it's a horror movie!"

(after the film)

All my friends: "Joss Whedon, that was awesome!"
Me: "[bluh.]"

We'll take a closer look later this week; seems I've run out of time to finish this up today.

Waiting for Wednesday, Volume 4, Issue 21

Well, it's Wednesday again, and that means one thing--new comics! Actually, it also means that Alex has four meetings in a row and hasn't spent more than ten minutes at a time at his computer.

That's okay, since I have a whole buncha stuff due in the next couple hours and I still have two more afternoon meetings to attend.

Plus, lunch, and possibly squeeze in a trip to the comics shop.

So, instead of talking at length here about...well, anything, really...I think I'm gonna cop out totally this afternoon and just encourage you all to go buy some comics today. And, if comics aren't your thing, then go to a local bookstore (preferably not one of the big ones) and buy a book by an author you've never before read.

Or, hey! If you haven't yet seen The Avengers in theaters, go do that. It's two hours of (nearly) mindless fun. But, boy, is it fun! Great characterization, cool plot, and everything that should blow up real good most definitely blows up real good!

I'm gonna go see it again this weekend, which is something I very rarely do. Actually, I think the only movie I've ever seen in theaters more than once is The Dark Knight. And, while The Avengers is not Dark Knight (my opinion, anyway), Joss Whedon's epic is well worth your time and attention.

So, yeah.

Go do one of those things. Before you do, though...what are you Waiting for?

The Amazing, Despicable Iron Star Age of Resident Steel Avengers Rises...2

I think it's about time to get out to the movie theater again. Between Big Life Stuff and a general lack of interest in most new movies, the last movie I immediately remember seeing in theaters was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull--back in 2008, when I was still going to the movies about once a month or so. Given a few more moments, I'll think of Star Trek in 2009, Alice in Wonderland in 2010, J. Edgar in 2011, and The Secret World of Arrietty earlier this year, among others...but the memories are few and far between, and most of the movies I've seen in theaters the last few years have been because someone else was already planning on going.

With any luck, that'll change this year.

Provided we can procure a copy of Thor within the next few weeks, my wife and I will be headed out to see The Avengers, and I, at least, will be going for The Amazing Spider-Man not long after that. My wife really dislikes everything about Spider-Man, and the Tobey Maguire movies are still too fresh in my mind to even consider watching a reboot, but I've learned my lesson about the Marvel Cinematic Universe: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the individual films are more interesting because of their connections to the others. I skipped Thor because I didn't care, and I didn't find out about Captain America until everybody else had already seen it, and it's been a struggle to watch these films without starting a DVD collection I'm not willing to invest in before The Avengers disassemble.

There's a new Ice Age movie coming up. I've liked the series well enough so far, and would certainly be willing to give it a shot if someone else wanted to go. Then there's The Dark Knight Rises, which I pretty much have to see if I'm going to continue co-writing this blog with Alex. Nothing I've seen so far has triggered my "wow, awesome" fanboy reflexes, and though I deeply respect how well-executed The Dark Knight was, it was simply not my kind of movie--and Batman Begins was a rollercoaster of liking and disliking the film for me. So, it's almost entirely curiosity driving me to eventually see this one.

I can imagine one of my friends taking me along for The Bourne Legacy, and I can imagine one of my family members taking me along for the Total Recall remake, but The Expendables 2 is the next one on my radar--despite the running joke that my wife and I now have that any given movie explosion is better than anything we saw in the first Expendables. Again, curiosity, but I'd like to think that Stallone is pretty perceptive about the quality of his films, and learns from experience.

The last one on the list for this year is Resident Evil: Retribution. I am expressly not a fan of horror movies (the Alien films being the sole exception), but I'm familiar enough with the video games to be interested in the film "adaptations," regardless of how wildly they veer away from anything resembling the video games. I've seen the first four now, and despite all of their flaws and shortcomings, they're still mindless fun.

Looking ahead to 2013, I'm completely on board with Iron Man 3 despite having heard nothing about it, and I may be curious enough to see Man of Steel (yet another reboot!) if there's any indication there's plans for a DC Cinematic Universe. Despicable Me was the best laugh I've had with a movie in a long time, so the sequel is on my list, too. I might consider breaking my boycott of movies re-released in 3D to see Jurassic Park on the big screen one more time, and Smurfs 2 is a no-brainer.

Wait, how did Smurfs 2 get in here?

Now I'm just looking through Wikipedia's "2013 in film" article and discovering all sorts of things I didn't know were going to be made, and I'm genuinely interested, or at least curious, in much of what's ahead.

Curious enough to start looking at rumors and spoilers for one movie in particular. I am about as anti-spoiler as they come. A half-paragraph synopsis or a movie trailer is all I want to know before I see a film.

Unless that film is Star Trek 2: Khan You Feel the Love Tonight.

A post for another day: predicting the plot of J.J. Abrams' upcoming sequel, and then laughing about it in a year when my patently absurd plotline is proven to be not too far off from the truth. I'm counting on the film to be every bit as much of a fun visual spectacle as the last one, but I'm also counting on it to completely fall apart both as a film and as a Star Trek film when put under the microscope. Maybe a few spoilers here and there are good for the soul--let out all that inevitable disappointment in little bursts, rather than one big one.

Either way, I see movies in my future.

Exfanded Universe

There are only three movies I can recall (willingly) seeing in the theaters more than twice: The Matrix Reloaded, Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones, and Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. This should tell you something about my taste in movies. "Yeah, that you've got terrible taste in movies," you might be thinking. At a glance, to the average fan who loved The Matrix and the original Star Wars trilogy (and hated everything after them), that's exactly how it may appear. To Grand Admiral Thrawn, however, it might seem more likely that I had enough spare cash during the first half of the aughts to indulge in the pleasure of repeatedly watching a few of my new favorite big action sequences and big explosions on the big screen.

Up until three weeks ago, I had no idea who Grand Admiral Thrawn was.

I've been a Star Wars fan for years. I've marathoned all six movies in the prequel trilogy and original trilogy. I've seen the Clone Wars animated film, I'm more than halfway through the first season of the spinoff TV series, and I've watched the previous (and, in my opinion, superior) animated TV series as well. I've played Shadows of the Empire and Episode I: Racer and LEGO Star Wars 1-2. I like the Rogue Squadron video game series, love the Jedi Knight computer game series, and have spent more time with Knights of the Old Republic I & II than any other RPG in the post-SNES era. I own posters from the six main films, a handful of Star Wars trade paperback comics, about a dozen different toy lightsabers, about as many Star Wars PEZ dispensers, and nearly the entire line of Galoob Star Wars Micro Machines (and a fair number from their larger Action Fleet line, too). The list could go on, but I think it's clear that I am, in fact, a fan of Star Wars new and old, in all its forms.

Yet liking the prequels and being over the age of five seems to disqualify me from being a legitimate Star Wars fan.

I always marveled at how people could claim to be Star Wars fans when Return of the Jedi received such criticism for being different from Empire Strikes Back, and when people outright refuse to acknowledge the existence of the prequels. Liking only two, maybe three of the six films that form the canonical basis for your fandom doesn't seem to make you much of a fan. I never minded too much when someone said they liked the original trilogy and not the prequels, but it was incomprehensible to me that I might be considered less of a Star Wars fan for liking something produced by the man who created it!

It wasn't until three weeks ago that my heresy began to make sense.

Early last year I'd picked up Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and The Last Command, the three Star Wars books from the early '90s collectively known as the Thrawn trilogy. I'd read a few Star Wars books before--Tales of the Bounty Hunters, Shadows of the Empire (after playing the video game), the Han Solo trilogy, and possibly one or two other novels that have slipped my mind. While they were entertaining, and helped satisfy my curiosity about this Expanded Universe that Star Wars fans are always talking about, that was about the extent of their influence on me.

Heir to the Empire--the officially sanctioned continuation of the Star Wars saga--was where I first realized how little I understood about diehard Star Wars fans.

Strictly in terms of style--at least, as far as I've read--Timothy Zahn's writing favors function over form, providing only as much information the reader needs to adequately picture the action (with a few descriptions and turns of phrase here and there to add extra flavor, such as time being measured in "a pair of heartbeats"). What is most striking about Zahn's writing is how he seems to truly understand the characters, the Star Wars universe, and how the characters interact with the universe and each other.

I fell in love with Star Trek because of the characters, the universe, and how the characters interact with the universe and each other.

The moment that connection clicked with me was the moment I began to realize that being a Star Wars fan really isn't about the movies at all. The Expanded Universe isn't just an extension of the core fandom--it is the core fandom.

Suddenly, those big action sequences and big explosions on the big screen seemed like a pretty silly reason not to be disappointed by the prequels.

But that's a discussion for Saturday.

The Avengers Have Arrived!

After surviving a Dragon Age and petitioning to be a Trekkie, my brother-in-law has returned to address a topic that has been shockingly absent from this blog so far.
 

IT IS HERE!!!

The movie I have been waiting on for 5 years now. The AVENGERS HAVE ARRIVED…and I could not have been more pleased!

If you recall an earlier post I explained the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a Horizontal Universe that includes The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 1 & 2, Captain America, and Thor. These movies have not only done a successful job at creating wonderful stories on their own, but they have been building up to the moment at hand!

Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, its spin-off Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse (all wonderful TV shows), was the brilliant mind behind the direction of The Avengers. Joss Whedon not only did this movie justice, but no movie has ever catered to its fan base better than this one! There is currently no better movie in existence!

How many people have ever gone to a movie and clapped aloud, almost every 10 minutes? The theater erupted in a sea of colliding hands and a roar of laughter almost constantly throughout the movie. Movies have always been an enjoyable time for me, but this movie will be remembered as one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life.

This may seem like a very weighted statement, fueled with the euphoria of just seeing a wonderful movie, but hear me out. The superheroes featured in this movie are as follows: Iron Man, The Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Hawkeye, and The Black Widow. Whedon did a wonderful job of showing Iron Man fans exactly what they were expecting to see from Iron Man. In addition, he did a wonderful job of showing Hulk fans exactly what they wanted to see from the Hulk. This was the case for every hero shown. Even more so, no one hero was featured above the rest.

Now, many of you remember how this all started. A teaser was placed at the end of every movie, leading into the next movie. Marvel has done such a wonderful job of building up the anticipation for this movie that at the end, one was left satisfied. It was if the era was over and it could not have been better. But wait…stay to the end…

It is unbelievable that although it all seemed to be building to this, more is yet to come! Iron Man 3, Captain America 2 and Thor 2 are already in production and the Avengers 2 was announced. Not sure my body could physically handle the geek-spasm I had in the theater!

All in all, go see The Avengers. I recommend seeing the other 5 MCU movies first, but do yourself a favor and enjoy one of the best movies of all time!

Sunday Spotlight: Airplane II: The Sequel

Airplane!

With an exclamation point.

It's a comedy classic, a quotable treasure trove of hilarity, a slapstick goldmine, and anything else that's ever been said about it. I have yet to come across anyone who didn't giggle at least a little bit at the ridiculous sight gags and the deadpan delivery of such clever and outrageous lines. From my personal experience, the film's current rating of 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, and its preservation by the Library of Congress, it's evident that Airplane! is well-loved, or at least well-liked, by all.

Also, they made a sequel.

When you've got something as popular as Airplane!, it's only natural to consider a sequel. Why squander all that potential acclaim and fame and profit by taking your chances with an unrelated new project? If lightning struck once, it could certainly strike again.

All I'd ever heard about Airplane II was that, if lightning had struck again, it had struck an outhouse in a field of manure. This wasn't the kind of sequel people talked about as disappointing--this was the kind of sequel people didn't talk about at all.

Being a fan of bad movies, I was willing to give this unnecessary sequel a shot.

I liked it nearly as much as the original.

No, no. This isn't an April Fools' joke. I know it's April 1st. I liked Airplane II more than I probably should have.

Yes, it follows almost exactly the same formula as its predecessor. Yes, it reuses most of the same gags, too. It's simultaneously a tribute, a parody, and a flagrant derivative of the first film. I'm fine with this. I grew up on Power Rangers and Mega Man--I don't exactly demand total novelty in each new installment. All I ask is that my entertainment be worth the time I spend with it, and for Airplane II, my time was well-spent.

Well, well-spent enough, anyhow.

There are jokes that fall flat. I'm not talking about halfhearted chuckles and barely cracking a smile; I mean jokes that not only fail to be funny, but actually damage the film a little bit by their existence. Two crewmen get sucked out an airlock and begin drifting creepily into space...and then their corpses bump into each other and begin waltzing together. Maybe this gag had the potential to be funny, but it came off as a little uncomfortable and unsettling.

Oh, I should have mentioned: Airplane II takes place in space. That is, it takes place in The Future, and instead of being on an airplane, everyone is on board a space shuttle that gets thrown off course toward the sun by its crazy navigational computer. I like space. I dig The Future. And I like that, despite too many jokes that fall flat, the humor manages to be more consistent than in the original Airplane!.

Airplane! reaches hysterical heights, but not consistently. At least to my comedic sensibilities, there are entire sections of the film that don't even come close to being as funny as the best parts. Even if the movie as a whole is entertaining, those not-as-funny (but still funny) areas feel like low points in comparison. With Airplane II, there are a few laughs worthy of the original, but rarely or never anything so uproarious that I thought, "I need to quote this movie for the next two decades! Ha ha!" This actually worked to the film's advantage--by maintaining a fairly steady stream of chuckles and giggles and balancing out the no-good jokes with some better-than-average ones, the movie never became so funny that I began anticipating "the next joke that is as amazing as that last one."

I was pleased to see that the majority of the original cast returned, too. I can think of a few sequels that have suffered because they made do without one or two of the key cast members, either writing their characters out or replacing them with look-alikes who couldn't act alike. I know there are several layers of complexity as to why people take part in a sequel, but on the surface, at least, seeing the original participants return is a sort of stamp of approval on their part. I'll conveniently leave out the part that virtually none of the big names behind the camera returned for Airplane II.

Still, it's the same feel and the same kind of humor as the first movie (even when they're not rehashing the old gags), which isn't always the case when a completely new band of directors, screenwriters, etc. takes over an established property. The only two areas that feel lacking--which I differentiate from being overdone or simply not working well--are the plot and the delivery of some of the lines.

Airplane! only needed enough plot to set up its jokes. Airplane II starts off with a plot of, "it's the first movie, but with a space shuttle instead of an airplane," but then loses sight of itself with a random love interest for heroine Elaine Dickinson followed by a courtroom flashback and a psych ward scene that complicate the story of hero Ted Striker's life between sequels. Beyond that, the movie never decides whether it's truly set in the future or whether the future is a pretense to have everything look exactly the same as it did in Airplane! but be humorously passed off as futuristic. It's the same complaint I had with the fantasy elements of Clannad--either commit to what you're doing, or don't bother at all. As it is, Airplane II has plot lumps that need to be smoothed out and a lack of stylistic cohesion where The Future is concerned.

One of the things that makes the first film so hilarious is the way the actors can deliver these absurd lines with a straight face and seemingly natural timing. The sequel falls short here on several occasions, resulting in a number of rehashed jokes sounding like...rehashed jokes. The "...but that's not important now" gag is one of my favorites, and if you can catch the audience off-guard, it'll stay funnier for far longer than it ought to be. A slower delivery with just too much of a pause before the punchline can give the audience enough time to see where the line is going, and the brain catches on to what's happening before the viewer has a chance to laugh involuntarily at the surprise.

Yet, despite all this, I still liked the movie. I still thought it was funny. I believe you have to be in a good, lighthearted mood going into the film, and not be expecting the first Airplane! all over again. If nothing else, it's worth it for the big-name cameo toward the end of the film, which was somehow completely unexpected and yet exactly what I had been counting on the whole movie.

Airplane II never surpasses its predecessor, but there are moments when it comes close. It's a little bit of a turbulent ride, and some of what they feed you is a mite unpalatable, but the trip is an enjoyable one overall if you're not demanding first class.