Advice for Star Wars 7

Normally I don't pay attention to business news. I've got no mind for economics and unless it directly or indirectly impacts me, I'll only skim the business section of Google News. For example, when I see news about publishing companies merging, I'll see who bought who and maybe read analyses of what that might do for me. But then I forget about it a short time later.

But today's news? Well, that got my attention. It's not every day that you see Disney spend $4 billion to purchase Lucasfilm. That means that any future Star Wars projects will come with mouse ears attached.

In some ways, this shouldn't surprise us. At least, it didn't totally surprise me. Not the price tag, certainly. George Lucas has created quite the little empire for himself. And the fact that Disney did the buying doesn't surprise me much either. If you've been to Epcot Center recently, you've seen the theme rides and the dance parties that feature Darth Vader boogie-ing down and accepting the fealty of little girls. So there was a pre-existing relationship there. Given the fact that Disney also has bought Marvel, and that leads to some interesting possibilities in the future. Marvel vs. Star Wars fighting games, anyone? Or maybe Darth Vader and Wolverine will cameo in Epic Mickey 3.

But what caught my eye was the little factoid in there that "Star Wars 7," whatever that will be, is targeted to be released in 2015.

To quote one Dr. Sam Beckett, "Oh, boy." Or, perhaps a bit more appropriate, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

My initial reaction was one of revulsion. Yes, Episode III finally, sort of got it right, but that's only because the bar had been set so low. George Lucas lost his ways, seduced by the dark side of digital effects, focusing on that over and above such mundane details as, oh, I don't know, storytelling, characterization, and so on. And while I've heard that the Clone Wars animated series is pretty good, I've been glad that we wouldn't see any further assaults on my childhood memories.

But then I noticed this little nugget in the middle of the stories, a quote from George Lucas himself:

“For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next,” said George Lucas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucasfilm. “It’s now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers.”

So wait . . . this new movie would be one without George Lucas in direct control?

Interesting.

Further reading reveals that Lucas has turned over control of Star Wars to a lady named Kathleen Kennedy, and that he's shared ideas and plotlines and all that with her, that he will serve as a creative consultant for the future movies (yes, there will be more than just #7).

Initial feeling of worry returning.

Now I've been a Star Wars fan for a long time. Some of my earliest memories are of watching the original trilogy with my family to the point that we had them all memorized. I've read many of the novels. And I've played a lot of the videogames too. I've been a loyal connoisseur for decades now. And even though I doubt that Ms. Kennedy will ever stumble across this, my humble corner of the Interwebz, I do have some advice for her about what to do with Star Wars 7, which I'll share with you now:

1) Don't make them sequels. Or, to be more specific, respect the Extended Universe. A lot of authors have spent a lot of time telling the story where Return of the Jedi left off. The Empire fell and rose again. Memorable characters, such as Talon Karrde, Corran Horn, and Mara Jade, have trod the galactic stage and left an indelible imprint on it. And the main characters have been through a lot too. They've gotten married, had kids, lost kids and spouses. One of them even died (although I won't say which one). While I know that the books and such aren't probably "official canon," it would be a shame to slash-and-burn all of it. So if Star Wars 7 is indeed a sequel, set it in the far future. Avoid the Skywalker clan and their related associates. Tell us a new story set in the same universe and leave the EU to the fans.

2) Bring in some ringers. It's great that Lucas has given you his thoughts and ideas and I would never suggest you jettison them. But maybe hire in some folks with proven track records when it comes to telling Star Wars stories. Have Timothy Zahn take a pass at Lucas's ideas. Hire Michael Stackpole to flesh out the stories. Bring Drew Karpyshyn in, especially if these movies are set in the Old Republic period. There are plenty of talented writers who know this universe who could be used to help get this project off the ground and make it a classic. Speaking of which . . .

3) Don't confuse flash for substance. I think one of the chief problems with the prequels was the fact that so much of it was focused on the visual effects. Don't get me wrong, the effects were awesome and made the movies a lot of fun. But it was clear that Lucas's focus was on the sizzle, not the steak. The story is full of plotholes (which are fun to exploit at times), the characters are lackluster, and overall its disappointing. Make sure that whoever writes the script an craft a good story. Make sure whoever sits in the director's chair can say more than just, "Faster, more intense." Definitely don't get rid of the visual effects. Just use them to support the story, not overwhelm it.

4) Whatever you do . . . don't include Gungans, midichlorians, or characters from the original trilogy as children. That's just a bad idea all around.

But hey, what do I know? It's just a thought.

The Dark Knight Rises

Let's start right off the bat (pun not intended) by saying that this post is not about what happened in Aurora. That is an unspeakable and, in some ways, unexplainable tragedy. It's never wise to start pointing fingers and assigning blame so quickly (as some people have felt the need to do). I suspect that the shooter's motivation is a lot more complex than a simple, one-word answer, such as "guns" or "Hollywood" or whatever. For those of us on the outside looking in, the best thing we can do is offer support to those in need and join the ancient prayer of "Kyrie, eleison." Lord, have mercy.

With that out of the way, let's talk about The Dark Knight Rises.

I went to see it Thursday night as part of a movie marathon. I got to the theater at 6:00 so I could watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight before the final movie kicked off at 12:01 am. As much as I'm paying for that now (I got to bed at 3:30; not a wise choice), I think that helped keep the other two movies fresh in my mind.

So what's the plot of this one? Well, it's several years after the events of The Dark Knight. Inspired by the legend of Harvey Dent (and blissfully kept in the dark about the monster he eventually became), the citizens of Gotham City have cleaned up their act. Crime is down, people are feeling more prosperous, and everything is coming up roses. For the most part. Sure, there are still the poor and downtrodden, but they're mostly out of sight.

Not everything has gone well for Bruce Wayne, however. He's become something of a recluse, hiding in the rebuilt Wayne Manor, his body slowly falling apart from his time as a vigilante. It would take something major for him to rejoin society and don the cape and cowl once again.

That something is Bane, a terrorist with a very odd mask. Bane is the leader of a mercenary group, one that is suicidally loyal to him. He comes to Gotham armed with a complex plan with a simple goal: level the playing field for everyone. And then kill everyone.

Thrown into the mix is a cat burglar named Selina Kyle and you've got a great movie, one that kept my attention all the way through.

Were there bad parts? Yeah, a few. I wasn't entirely enamored with Bane and his headgear. It wasn't just the fact that he sounded like he had a Darth Vader noise machine wired in there. Tom Hardy's choice of accent (whatever it was) threw me off for a while and there were times when his voice was hard to understand. And while I get Christopher Nolan's decision to not mention the Joker out of respect for Heath Ledger, that silence didn't fit the story all that well. That's my grubby little opinion, but there you go.

But there were plenty of surprises in the movie. I, for one, was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway. I seem to have something of a blind spot for her. When I heard she was playing Selina Kyle, my immediate reaction was, "Really? The girl from The Princess Diaries?" But I think Hathaway did an excellent job. She captured Selina Kyle's playfulness, cleverness, and ferocity in a way that worked.

There were also two surprise twists that I didn't see coming, although I should have seen the first one. I mean, I know the Batman mythos fairly well. I should have seen through the smokescreen that Nolan set up around some of the characters to realize what was truly going on. But instead, I swallowed the deception and chalked it up to "artistic license," which made the reveal a lot more fun. The second twist, I didn't see it coming and laughed out loud when it happened. If you've seen the movie, it's the one that happened right before the ending.

And can I say how much I loved Joseph Gordon-Levitt in this too? Simply awesome.

So I'd say that this is a film worth watching, a great non-superhero superhero flick that really wrapped up Nolan's trilogy well. I've read rumors that Warner Brothers is already starting plans for a Batman reboot. I would not want to work on that movie, because Nolan has left some mighty huge shoes to fill.

Mass Effect 3 Ending: Choices and Theme

A few weeks ago, I posted a video here about the controversy surrounding the Mass Effect 3 ending. Well, it looked like so much fun, I decided to make one of my own.

A Gritty Hunger Games Adaptation?

I spotted an open letter to the presumed director of the Hunger Games adaptation on the Entertainment Weekly website. I just read it through, and I couldn't agree more. So I thought I'd pass it on.

What do you think? Have moviemakers gone off the deep end with the grit?

Glenn Beck to Jesus: "Drop Dead"

You know, I'm fairly apolitical. I don't get into rabid policy debates by and large. As a result, I don't have a lot of time or interest for the bloviating talking heads on any news network. But Glenn Beck really needs to knock it off. He clearly doesn't understand what Christianity is really all about.

Now I'm not saying that the Church should become just another political organization of lobbyists out to change the world for the disadvantaged. Doing so would be a betrayal of our mandate to go out and make disciples of all nations. But at the same time, we should pay attention to what the Old Testament prophets had to say about social justice. We should remember what Jesus commended people for in Matthew 25. We should follow Paul's example, someone who worked to not only spread the faith but to take up a collection for the poor in Jerusalem. We should remember that James says Christianity is a faith that works.

Glenn Beck, I've seen in the past, claims to be a Christian. Perhaps he should take some time off the air and take some courses on basic Christianity. He clearly needs them.

Oh, please, NO!

Dear Hollywood;

Enough already.

Sincerely,
The People You Expect to Watch This Nonsense

Armin Shimmerman is the man

I've kind of been prepping myself. Sort of. In a weird sort of way.

See, I'm (hopefully) going to have my grubby little hands on two video game sequels soon. Both Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 2 came out recently and I've heard nothing but good things about both. I had been intending to get Dragon Age: Origins before that, but I'm thinking I can wait for the latter.

The original Bioshock was an incredible game. If you haven't played it, well . . . why not? Yes, it's a first person shooter, but the writers did an absolutely fantastic job with that game. Rapture, the underwater city setting for the game, is a sick and twisted place where society has basically been run off its rails. Picking through the rubble is fascinating. And the twist. The twist in the middle of the game. Such an awesome, awesome thing.

While I loved Bioshock right away, I wasn't totally enamored with Mass Effect. I think I picked it up on the cheap several months, maybe even a year or two, after it came out. But again, I've heard such great things about the sequel, I pulled it off the shelf and replayed it. Twice. The story is pretty good, but the twisting morality of the game kept me hooked.

But here's the crazy thing I learned recently: Armin Shimmerman is the voice of Andrew Ryan in Bioshock. I was absolutely stunned when I learned this. Mr. Shimmerman is best known to me as Quark on Deep Space Nine. Playing Bioshock tonight, when I heard Andrew Ryan's voice, I had to remind myself of Shimmerman's involvement.

And the heck of it is, as I was perusing Mr. Shimmerman's IMDB page, I noticed he also played the voice of Fai Dan in the original Mass Effect. I just played through Mass Effect recently and had no idea. None!

I doubt Mr. Shimmerman will ever stumble upon my little corner of the Internet, but if he ever does . . . Mr. Shimmerman, my hat is off to you. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Puts It All in Perspective, Doesn't It?

First, watch this:



Now read this.

Whoa.

The Promised Letter

Okay, so I promised to post this letter from the honorable Gil Gutknecht a few days ago. Sue me. I just bought The Sims 2 University expansion pack and I've been constructing Simcordia University in honor of my alma mater.

Anyway, if you'll remember, I suggested that people write to their Congress-people and urge them to ban prescription drugs from advertising on television. I cited the costs of such ads and how that must drive up the prices; this past weekend, I ran across the Stephen King article that said drug companies were pushing dangerous drugs onto the market.

At any rate, I followed my own advice and wrote to my Representative and my Senators, plus "W" himself. So far, only Representative Gil Gutknecht has written back. I got this letter a month ago. Sorry I didn't share it sooner:

Dear Reverend Otte:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns over the rising cost of health care. I appreciate learning your views.

I understand that rising health care costs are an increasing concern for all Americans. That's why I am a strong proponent of tort reform, and believe it will have a remarkable impace on the price of health care. The cost of the U.S. tort system for 1994 was $152 billion, a number that has grown by 125% over the last ten years.

American consumers pay 30-300% more for their prescription drugs as our friends in Canada and Europe. That's why I authored and the U.S. House passed H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. The bill allows American consumers access to FDA-approved prescription drugs from FDA-approved facilities in 25 industrialized countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on the bill during the 108th Congress. In the very near future, I will be introducing this legislation once again with the intention of allowing American access to affordable prescription drug [sic] via the free market.

I am also a strong supporter of health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs give workers the opportunity to save tax-free for routine expenses, the security of insurance against major illness and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. These accounts can reduce health insurance premiums for families by thousands of dollars annually while giving them control over their own health care.

I believe that these measures will go a long way toward reducing the cost of health care. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Gil
Gil Gutknecht


Okay, now, I know, my solution of banning prescription drug ads might not be politically possible. It might be construed as restraint of trade or even a violation of the First Amendment. But does anybody else get the feeling that Mr. Gutknecht didn't read my letter? Not a word about banning ads. Just "Thanks for the idea, now this is what the grown-ups are doing."

It's not that I expected him to jump up and down with joy at my idea or enthusiastically adopt it as his own. It would have been fine if he had written back and said, in essence, "This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard in my life. You obviously don't have a grasp of reality, dork-face. Don't waste my time or postage on this idea." But instead, I get this "wonderful" letter that makes me feel like I haven't been heard.

Oh well. I'll just have to keep this in mind if Mr. Gutknecht runs again, won't I? ;)

I'm not the only one!

Okay, if you aren't subscribed to Entertainment Weekly, go out and find a current issue (by current, I mean the one dated March 4, 2005). Don't worry. I'll wait.

Now, turn to the back page and read Mr. Stephen King's essay on prescription drug ads. I have to say, my hat is off to Mr. King. My rant about prescription drugs only factored in the economic aspects of these ludicrous ads. Mr. King brings up a much more important point: the health factor.

Mr. King cites the fact that drugs like Vioxx are causing heart attacks, something that probably should have been tested and researched before the drug companies went on a mad spending spree in TV land (not to be confused with the Nickolodeon spin-off channel). I can picture what the executive boardroom must have been like:

EXEC #1 -- So, are we ready to start up a new ad campaign for our latest product?

EXEC #2 -- Oh yeah. We secured the rights to a Beatles song and found a bunch of models who don't actually use our product to swear that it changed their lives.

EXEC #3 -- But what about these results that came in from our testing facility? Shouldn't we make sure this product is as safe as possible before we start to mass market it?

At this point, I suspect the other two execs stared at their colleague in stunned silence while the CEO of the drug company fantasized about reenacting the Al Capone baseball bat scene from The Untouchables.

Okay, so maybe I have an overactive imagination, but enough is enough! Have you written your representative yet? These drug companies are clearly out of control, especially if people are dying from drugs that they're trying to shove down our throats.

In a related matter, I did hear from my representative, the honorable Gil Gutknecht. I suspect that Mr. Gutknecht didn't even read my letter. He claims to have, but he....

Well, wait, I'll just post the letter here on the blog and let you judge for yourselves.

Condescension can save the environment!

So I want to make a big Hollywood blockbuster. Let's see if I have everything I need:

• Either a big name star and/or star of indie movies hoping to break into the mainstream --- Check!
• Computer generated special effects that will never top those found in The Lord of the Rings --- Check!
• A tacked-on romantic sub-plot (or several squishy sub-sub-plots that involve dying children, lost animals, or soon-to-be-reconciled divorcees) that's really unnecessary but is included to tug at the heart strings of any women trapped in the audience by their men --- Check!
• Questionable science and plots that have holes in them so big you can drive a truck through them --- Check!
• A healthy level of condescension for mainstream America, including the belief that I know better than everyone else ....

Uh oh. I might be in trouble there.

My wife and I watched The Day After Tomorrow the other night. It was a good Hollywood blockbuster (by which, I was entertained by the special effects. The story, which has long been acknowledged as being completely unscientific, is another story), but at the end, I was a bit miffed at Roland Emmerich.

Why? Well, Mr. Emmerich seems to think that everyone who watched the movie he produced, directed, and wrote is some kind of idiot. See, The Day After Tomorrow has a moral to its story:

GLOBAL WARMING CAN HURT OUR ENVIRONMENT!

No kidding. I kind of knew that already. But Mr. Emmerich felt the best way to pass this information along to us was by making this movie. Fair enough. He did an adequate job of setting up his premise at the environmental summit set in New Dehli. When our hero Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) explains things to the good people at NOAA, Mr. Emmerich was pushing the boundary. But then, when the Vice President delivers his little speech at the end of the movie, I wanted to scream, "I get it! I'm not stupid! Global warming is bad!"

Apparently Mr. Emmerich thought that the majority of the people watching his flick would be so brain dead, we wouldn't catch that moral within the first half-hour. So he had to pull out the "moral stick" and beat us over the head with it at the end of the film.

Here's an idea, Mr. Emmerich: give your audience a little credit. While we may be sucked into your shoddy storytelling by all the eye-candy and killer frost, we can pick up on what message you're trying to send us without your condescending help.

It's a problem that seems to afflict Hollywood and those in charge of producing entertainment. Those of us who are "out there" (read, people who don't get their names in TV or movie credits for some reason or another) are stupid and need to be talked down to at every moment.

The same thing happens in TV. TV execs keep shoveling the same tired stereotypes and hackneyed storylines at us, and then they're shocked when an innovative show like Desperate Housewives or Lost captures our attention.

Here's a message for any Hollywood type who may have stumbled into the Least Read Blog: Give us some credit. Maybe we'll take you more seriously then.

How do I know I'm sick? My TV told me!

Okay, so Jill (my darling wife) and I are doing dishes this evening and we have "King of the Hill" on in the background. Toward the end of the show, a commercial comes on for a prescription drug that people can take for their asthma.

Toward the end of the commercial, the voice-over guy starts listing off the reasons why you wouldn't want to take this drug, the possible side-effects, and something about not taking it if you're going in for surgery anytime soon.

And I thought, Oh, for crying out loud! When will it end?

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of all these prescription drug commercials on TV and in the magazine. I think these drug commercials are bad news, and here's the reason why:

1) It encourages people to self-diagnose. These commercials describe conditions that you might or might not have, describing the symptoms, and then suggesting a treatment plan (which always involves their product, naturally). If I were a doctor, I would be sick of conversations that involve my patient diagnosing him- or herself based on commercials.

PATIENT: Doctor, I believe I have Sorvidalertan Syndrome, and I believe the proper course of treatment is a healthy dose of chlormydioxyhydrate-D, or "Chlori-O," as it's also called. I understand that the possible side effects include dizziness, constipation, and bleeding from the armpits, but I'm just so worried about the SS, I have to take it now!

DOCTOR: Really? You think you have SS? What makes you think that?

PATIENT: Well, my TV told me that's what it means when I can't breathe and my face turns purple.

DOCTOR: No, that means that your collar is two sizes too small. Next patient!

Now, I ask you, who should be deciding a patient's treatment regimen? A doctor, who has spent years training to make such decisions, diagnoses, and prescriptions? Or an untrained layman whose only source of info is a commercial featuring cartoon characters watching badly drawn neurons misfiring?

2) It drives up the drug prices. Why do you think our drug prices are so high? It's not for the orange, semi-transparent bottles, I'll tell you that much. I mean, this is basic, common sense.

Let's say that it costs $2.5 million to produce a given drug for a year. Then let's say that you spend $2.5 million on an ad campaign that includes a spot on the Superbowl. Suddenly, it's going to take twice as much money to turn a profit. And how are you going to make the extra money? Hmmmmm .... let me think about it!

So what's the solution? I think I have an idea. For the common good, to help rein in the rampant drug prices, let's ban prescription drug advertising from television, kind of like what we do with cigarettes. That way, the drug companies don't have to pump untold millions into ridiculous advertising, and they can pass the savings on to us.

Use the links below to find and write to your Representatives and Senators and urge them to ban drug advertising from TV. I already have:

Write your Representative

Write your Senators