Sauron is an incredibly interesting character and I'm glad Rings of Power is exploring him in depth.

With the return of Rings of Power today with three episodes on Prime, I want to talk about the thing that I liked the most from the first season: the portrayal of Sauron. Peter Jackson's Sauron is much the same as what you get when you read the books. He's this menacing ancient foe that is more of a force of nature than anything else. But any of us that read deeper and took on the other writings know that Sauron was a person. This is even hinted at with his alliance that got struck between Isengard and Mordor. Saruman talked to someone on the other end of the palantir, and whomever he talked to wasn't scary enough to make Saruman hang up the phone. Additionally, that person made sense, and thus was Saruman deceived.

Now, in Rings of Power...we got a pretty smokin' hot Sauron (not gonna lie on this). At least that was my interpretation by the end of season one. I'm sure he shall become a lot more menacing as time progresses (and probably a lot less pretty), but for now color me intrigued. In the Silmarillion, I'm pretty sure that Sauron takes on the forms of vampires and werewolves. But, he's still a person, admittedly a powerful one. He was Galadriel's friend, and it's so telling that he deceived her (because that is what he does). Sauron deceives, he lies, and he tells people what they want to hear so that he can manipulate him. If you're being that kind of a sycophant, you can't really be all that menacing because you don't want your audience to be scared of you. So, I'm on board with this very human take on Sauron. The menacing guy in armor that we see at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring is probably way down the road.

And that's just the thing, right? By the time The Lord of the Rings story unfolds, Sauron is just a faceless, reclusive, oppressive entity who is holed up in his fort doing who knows what. He doesn't even ride into battles anymore or interact much with his subjects. He only showed up once during the peak battle of the last alliance, and that is after ignoring the whole skirmish for seven years or so. In the third age, no one really saw him save for Gollum when Sauron tortured him. Everyone else who had interactions with him only spoke to him through the palantir. He never came out or showed his face. His looks were left to the imagination.

The great thing about Amazon's first season (I think) is it got people thinking about Sauron as he could have been. He saved Galadriel from the ocean. He's a talented smith and craftsman capable of great beauty. He's charismatic and persuasive. It makes what he becomes all the more evil knowing that he didn't have to be that way. It was a choice he made. From the books:

"[Sauron] repents in fear when the First Enemy is utterly defeated, but in the end does not do as was commanded, return to the judgment of the gods. He lingers in Middle-Earth. Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganizing and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-Earth, 'neglected by the gods', he becomes a reincarnation of Evil, and a thing lusting for Complete Power--and so consumed ever more fiercely with hate (especially of gods and Elves)."

All in all, Sauron is an incredibly interesting character, and you just don't get any of that in either The Lord of the Rings or in the film adaptations. But in Rings of Power, we are getting it. And thus far, I'm really liking this exploration of who Sauron really was, and I'm definitely looking forward to more this week.

Are movies obsolete?

I never thought that I'd be saying this, but here we are. Do we actually need movies anymore? I went to the theater three times thus far this year. The first was to see the Dune sequel. The second time was to see Deadpool & Wolverine. And the third movie I saw on the big screen was Alien: Romulus. I used to love going to the theater and seeing movies. However, now it just seems more comfortable to watch them at home. At least there, I can control the subtitles and when I want to go and use the bathroom. I guess I might be showing my age here too. But...here me out.

Let's take a look at my beloved Star Trek. First off, Star Trek TV looks amazing, and it borders on movie quality. If I didn't know that I wasn't watching a movie, I'd assume that an episode was a movie. That's how good it looks. The same goes for Star Wars, Foundation on Apple TV, and Game of Thrones as well as its spinoff, House of the Dragon. All of these shows look ridiculously good, and by having a greater length (cut up into bite-size snippets of one-hour), you end up with a much larger canvas on which to tell your story. By contrast, it almost feels like "movies" with a run-time of two hours have become...obsolete...is it cruel to say that?

Anyway, I'd like to pose that question to you, if you want to answer it in the comments. Do you think movies have become obsolete? What was the last movie you saw in a theater, and was it worth the experience and the expense? What do we lose as a culture if we all agree that the common experience of attending movies in a theater is no longer worth it?

Furiosa does a great job to set up the events of Mad Max Fury Road.

Dementus riding a chariot towed by motorcycles was awesome.

I saw Furiosa this weekend by watching it on Max. I'm a casual fan of the "Mad Max" apocalyptic universe. This post will have some spoilers in it, so here is your official "spoiler warning."

First off, Chris Hemsworth is fantastic in this movie. I'd like to say that Anya Taylor Joy was also fantastic. But even though she occupied a lot of the scenes and it was her story, she had no dialogue. Most of the movie, people just thought she was mute. What she did do was act like an angry woman nearly all of the time. But just to be fair, she had a lot to be angry about in this story.

I think what Furiosa tried to do was to set up the struggle that we saw in Mad Max: Fury Road, and it did this really well. The movie runs right up to the exact moment when Furiosa hits the "Fury Road" to try and save some women from the death cult of Immortan Joe. Leading up to these events was a wild ride, and the most important player in this was the character of Dementus, played by Chris Hemsworth. Chris was so damned goofy, but in a dangerous "cult of personality" way.  I loved how there was a sort of crumminess to him compared to the other warlords. The peevish little whine in his voice, always having to spin failures.... When he finally got a face-to-face with Immortan Joe (who had made himself a god in his own death cult), watching Dementus's bravado falter before Joe's war boys was fantastic.

George Miller has a unique perspective when it comes to the post-apocalyptic world. The road wars, the violence, the raiders...places like "Gas Town" and "The Citadel" are unique and striking locations. The world breeds its own kind of crazy, and you get these cultish types like Dementus and you see that they are really good at destroying things, but they have no ability to rule. It turns out that ruling is much different than just conquering. With Immortan Joe, you see something different. He used a bunch of religious rhetoric to manipulate his people, yes, and his motivations were cruel and utterly self-serving. But, he found and built an empire in the wasteland, because he controlled a freshwater aquifer and he was using it to produce food, grow green things, and had some sort of bizarre nightmare breeding program going to try and have "full life" offspring. Gross, yes. But a civilization of sorts?

In a way, I also think that Chris Hemsworth has a bit of Kurt Russell in him. If they ever do a remake of Big Trouble in Little China, I think Chris Hemsworth would be a natural fit in the role of Jack Burton. He's got just enough goofiness and self-awareness that I think he could really pull off a "Jack Burton" well.

All in all, I loved Furiosa. It does have its issues of course. For one, the world portrayed is way too barren to have the amount of people it has living in it. I just can't make the story work. I mean...it's obvious that there are plenty of cannibals feasting on human flesh as we saw in the maggot bunker (and eating maggots as well). So, I guess people did what they had to do to survive. But even with all of that, the population didn't make sense. And the second thing that doesn't make sense is how these people can be so stupid, yet they build things like the War Rig or they create prosthetic limbs. And by "stupid" I mean things like using flame throwers around petroleum or gasoline (guzzolene in the movie) and other such nonsense. I don't know how you go from being that dumb to being able to build these incredible machines. However, these kinds of questions don't serve Furiosa well. I think what you should do is just sit back and enjoy it. Honestly, this is the most metal movie I've seen in a good long while. 

 

Rings of Power returns for season two in less than seven days.

Let's talk about Rings of Power which is returning next week on Amazon.

I watched the first season, and I enjoyed it quite a bit, and this is despite things like Galadriel having physical invincibility and for diversity to be injected into a story that (for the most part) has no diversity in it at all. None of these things bothered me, and I eagerly consumed the episodes and the songs, and by season's end I wanted more. Fantasy shows and movies like Rings of Power are a great way to pretend that we don't actually live in a world where everyday human beings are actually cruel and even revel in their cruelty to others. We don't like that part, and we try to hide it. But sometimes we cannot deny this thing, because it is at the core of what it means to be human. People (including our "leaders) want to remind us to be "better than." Better than what, exactly? I got no answers.

Well this next week, I get my wish because Rings of Power is returning with more beautiful episodes, and it's my guess that the story is building toward the war of the elves with Sauron. There are also (probably) some real world parallels to this particular tale. As powerful and wonderful as the elf civilization was, this evil literally came out from underneath their noses and just kind of blossomed in a devastating way. You can see what I mean, right? If not, that's okay...I'll move on.

There is one frustrating thing about Rings of Power that I don't like, and that is its online community. It's next to impossible to have a discussion about the show because the weirdest nerds alive decided years before it came out that they'd hate it no matter what. It's a good show with its problems, but a nuanced take like this is next to impossible online. I sum up nearly all of the grievances I've seen as, "preconceived notions of what the show would be like did not meet expectations." Part of the problem is that Tolkien has become a sacred thing to many people. But why do humans keep putting things on a pedestal? Why has Tolkien become sacred. The truth is that he's a long dead author who made his family rich and who was as flawed as all people are in what they like and what they hate.

However...and here's the weird thing...I bet a lot of nerds who hated the show will tune in for season 2. Now, think about that for a moment. People who hated the show will probably "hate watch" the show so that they can continue to be mad about it. That's gotta be weird, right? I mean...what kind of person would do that?

Maybe you have some answers for me. But if not (and if you're reading my words) will you let me know if you're excited for season 2? Or are you going to pass?

Herein is my spoiler free review of Alien Romulus

Here is my spoiler free review of Alien: Romulus.

First off, I really liked it. There was a lot of reference to previous films and there were some amazing visuals throughout the story. The musical score was a nice blend of what we heard on the older films kind of cutting in with this new iteration. And I was impressed in how Disney (which now owns 20th Century Fox) was able to thread this line of grossness and gore in a way that didn't seem "overwhelming." Alien at its most basic "boiled down" point, is a singular creation of H.R. Giger, who was an artist perhaps a little too obsessed...can I say that?...with body horror.

Where the movie might have failed (I think) is pacing. But this is a small nitpick. Events seemed rushed at certain points, and some of the horror didn't feel earned because it literally happened too quickly (in my opinion). For example, there were several times when I thought to myself: does the xenomorph grow that quickly? And maybe it does, but I just thought that it took longer in previous iterations of where we have seen the creature.

The world-building in the movie also took a leap forward as far as the Alien verse goes. We got introduced to another world whose atmosphere is so polluted and cloud covered that there is no daylight at all from the planet's sun. However, people toil on this world, mining things for Weyland-Yutani (which is the corporation of all things evil in the Alien-verse).

In Alien: Romulus, the theme was "dynastic decay." Allow me to elaborate. In the 2090's (Prometheus timeline), Weyland Corporation is an upscale organization that seems to consist mostly of white collar information workers researching cutting-edge technologies. Its ships are streamlined, shiny, and full of advanced equipment.

Fifty years later, Weyland-Yutani's revenue appears to come mostly from extractive industries, and most of its employees appear to be little more than slaves trapped on dead-end colony worlds. It's as if Apple morphed into Haliburton. Weyland (the man in Prometheus) wanted to find alien life in the hopes of discovering immortality. But his company mainly wants to use alien life to create new product lines. It ends up being an interesting commentary on the public's disenchantment with big tech.

I want to finish my observations by saying that the final act of the movie will put you on the edge of your seat. This is a big-budget blockbuster despite the fact that it came out so close to the end of August (where a lot of movies go to die from the summer release). Alien: Romulus was a delightful end to a lackluster movie season that (I think) started really strong with Dune but had that saggy middle that all novelists fear will happen to their magnum opus.

Alien: Romulus also gave me an insight to a previous scene in Prometheus that never made sense to me. For those of you who have seen Prometheus, do you remember that big room that had all of the jars containing the black goo all placed in rows in front of the huge stone face? I think that the stone face was the creator of the black goo...a statue of one of the engineers...and that room of cannisters was a testimony to that person's failure to find the correct formula that the engineers needed. Anyway...those are my thoughts on the Alien verse and its latest movie.

I just finished the Boys season 4 and I gotta say that this show is gross lol.

Let's talk about season four of The Boys. There are spoilers ahead.

I finished watching the fourth season of Amazon Prime's The Boys this week. First observation, if there are any conservatives out there who watch this show and don't get that this is blatantly about them...about the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green, Trump, and InfoWars...then they are utterly stupid. This show is about as subtle as a jackhammer outside your window in the middle of the night. I'm not completely certain, but I bet they used real quotes pulled from Alex Jones (and other folks) to write their script. It's a fascinating and terrifying tour de force of the fascism that is swamping the country.

But taking a step back from the fascist messaging of the show (and its obvious satire), I thought that this season stepped into the grossness a lot more than previous seasons did. Now, there was always blood and gore. That's just part of The Boys. But in this season we got farting on cakes, gross web hole pus, amputations, people being ripped apart, and obvious sexual things that devolved into some pretty disgusting stuff. In fact, every single person in The Boys seems to exhibit the worst kind of grossness that is common among the human condition. This show just puts it under a magnifying glass for all the world to see. And of course whenever Compound V is used to make a new superhero in this season, the body horror was on full display.

I also wasn't completely on board with Sister Sage's powers. I kept wanting her to impress me with her powers (she's the smartest person in the world), but the Machiavellian manipulations that she supposedly had a hand in all seemed coincidental. Like...I'm not sure that she could have controlled the outcome like she says she did. But whatever...it's a show. I did find her character entertaining even if she needed to literally lobotomize herself with a spike before she could have fun (again...this show is gross).

I'm not sure what to expect going forward with The Boys storyline. My roommate (who watched it with me) says that the character of Butcher is figuratively dead. If you've seen the season, then you know he isn't physically dead, but that he was fighting a part of himself that was really evil and just wanted to commit genocide on all of the Supes in the world. He was holding that part of himself back, putting faith in his stepson Ryan (Homelander's kid) to do the right thing. When it became apparent that Ryan didn't have it in him to do the right thing, Butcher made up his mind to accept that evil part of himself and go through with the plan. So that's what I think season five will be about: Butcher embracing total evil for the sake of a better world and killing every supe in the world including himself and Ryan (whom he obviously cared about).

Is The Boys a kind of modern Starship Troopers? That question pops into my mind a lot as I watch this show. I mean...obviously there are differences. But Starship Troopers was satire too. Anyone care to weigh in on this? 

If you are a fan of old sci-fi movies you should check out the ad-free Internet Archive.

I'm going to label this as my first "Life Hack" themed post, as I do think it is a Lifehack...at least for people with certain tastes in old media. I recently discovered that there's a website called "Internet Archive" that has (among many things) a fine selection of old science fiction movies from the 1950's era on it. I've used it to watch It Came from Beneath the Sea, The Deadly Mantis, and Tarantula. I plan on giving Creature from the Black Lagoon a watch soon. But it doesn't stop there.

I kind of miss old cartoons from when I was a kid, and I've found all of these on Internet Archive as well. Some of the titles are Space Ghost, Thundarr the Barbarian, Black Star, and Dungeons & Dragons. I might also give the Road Runner show a watch. Now, don't get me wrong. A lot of these things have aged poorly or they were just flat out bad. Sometimes though...it is kind of nice to ride the nostalgia train and see the truly weird science that was on display in much of the 1950's movies. Radiation fear was everywhere back then, and giant monsters seemed to be the norm. The effects look bad unless you want to see some old Harryhausen type special effects with stop motion clay work (which I think is pretty nice). But you can definitely see how Hollywood back then wanted/desired better and better effects. It was just unreachable with the kind of technology that they had at their fingertips.

If you watch a bunch of these 50's era sci-fi movies in a row, you also become aware of a formula that the writers used for these productions. It begins with some kind of opening montage to pave the way for the weird science. Then some kind of tragedy that draws the attention of the military who then goes to a scientist group that always consists of one man and one woman. The military is always stupefied as to what's going on, and the scientists have to unravel everything using their weird techniques. Then enters "the monster" and there is usually lots of death and destruction that eventually ends in the monster being killed. The last bit of the movie usually has some excuse to see the female lead in the movie getting together with the male lead while some big moral lesson about the "dangers of the unknown" is said before the credits roll.

It got me to thinking of how different storytelling in movies is today. In the time between then and now, people have discovered that you need to make each individual character shine so that the audience can feel invested in them. The monster then becomes kind of secondary, similar to how Alien handles things. I mean...the monster still gets top billing. But you go to these kinds of movies to watch people die to the monster. And in order to make that effective, you want people to be invested in that character so that you can experience the fear and heightened emotions associated with survival and pending demise. The 1950's movies didn't do this (at all) very well. The story (the whole story) was just "the monster."

Anyway, my "lifehack" for you then is to explore Internet Archive. It's free and has a huge movie database with no commercials, and the quality is actually as good as you'd get were these to air on TCM or something like that. You'll find all kinds of offerings from old cartoons to monster movies to old Sinbad movies...whatever it is that you might miss from that era (or if you are curious). I have a list I'm compiling on my phone, and that I plan to watch when I have the time.

I think a Channing Tatum Gambit movie will be laughably bad.

I saw the Deadpool & Wolverine movie like much of America during its opening weekend. In it, we get to see a multiverse appearance of Channing Tatum playing Gambit from the X-Men. I honestly hated this. I realize that Tatum has wanted to play this character for a long time. It's been his dream even. But, I think he's a bad fit for the character. For one, the costume he wore made him look like his face was squished into Gambit's cowl. That...wasn't a good look. Channing Tatum is a bit too beefy for Gambit (personal take).

Additionally, his accent was terrible. I'm not sure if that was a joke in a movie that is full of jokes, but I've never had trouble understanding Gambit in the X-Men cartoons. But I had trouble understanding what Tatum was saying as he was playing the character. So, maybe Marvel in its cinematic universe is resetting to a goofy era as opposed to the era in which we got movies like Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. If this is true (I hope that it isn't), I question the choices that the executives at Marvel are making.

In X Men Origins: Wolverine we got a cool, suave, mysterious, powerful rogue who was holding his own against both Sabretooth and Logan. This is not what we got with Deadpool & Wolverine. Now, there is the argument online that Tatum was bad on purpose. But there are also a lot of fans out there who think that Tatum did a great job as a comic accurate Gambit, and they want this version of Gambit in the future. Hmmm. I'm not sold. However, there have been plenty of points made that Gambit is not meant to be taken seriously. I of course, disagree. I cannot imagine sitting through an entire movie based on a mumbling and almost incoherent hero.

I do wonder if Ryan Reynolds is baiting people like me by having this cameo in the movie. You see, Channing Tatum was going to star as Gambit but his movie got scrapped, and he's spent a decade or more basically trying to get it on track again. What I think Ryan Reynolds may be doing in Deadpool and Wolverine is showing us just how bad a Channing Tatum Gambit movie might actually be. So this cameo in the movie is an homage to Tatum's dedication while also making a joke of it because Reynolds is using the same cameo to show why a Channing Tatum Gambit film is going to be laughably bad.

Anyway, this post is mostly why I don't think Channing Tatum would make a good Gambit. Please, comic book nerds out there, weigh in on why I'm wrong or validate me if you so choose. I'm eager to read your thoughts on the matter.

What would the Alien universe look like if there was no main character similar to how Game of Thrones is told?

With Alien: Romulus on its way to theaters (yes, I'm going to see it), I think that it is curious that storytelling has changed so much since that first Alien film so many decades ago. Back then, what George R.R. Martin did in his story (by removing a protagonist in favor of point-of-view characters) was unheard of. Alien and its sequels are very much "old school storytelling." For example, the first four movies in the franchise are pinned on Ripley (Sigourney Weaver). You always knew that Ripley was going to be the main character, and that she was going to survive. Even after they killed her off, they brought her back, because it was probably assumed that there was no Alien series without its star.

But what if they hadn't made this decision? What kinds of possibilities might there have been for the directions that the movies could have made? If after say Aliens we had gotten an Alien 3 that instead followed Newt around, I think that would have been great. There could have been more exploration of people doing things in different parts of the universe rather than just on LV-426 (the doomed planet). This kind of thing could have played very well into Alien's natural storytelling, because Ripley doesn't emerge as the protagonist until the first movie is two-thirds over. She doesn't have a "hero's journey." She survives through luck and tenacity. You get the feeling that had things gone a little differently, it might have been Dallas on that shuttle at the end, or Parker, or maybe even poor Lambert.

Instead what we got was 1) competent professional Ripley, 2) mama-bear Ripley, 3) hardened survivor Ripley, and 4) Whedon-esque Super Ripley. But maybe abandoning the lead was just too much of a progressive idea for studios to do in the era in which Alien emerged. It certainly turned Sigourney Weaver into a household name. Predator 2 is an example of a sci-fi franchise that abandoned its lead, and it got a lot of flack and wasn't as popular because of the lack of Arnold (from the first movie). But it was ahead of its time in this respect, I think.

What I might have wanted was more things like Prometheus that dared to explore the larger universe of Alien. The irony of my statement is that I think I'm going to get just that with Noah Hawley's in-verse series that has just wrapped filming and will be coming out some time in 2025? I believe it is called Alien: Earth. I wonder if there will be a protagonist, or if there (instead) will be point of view characters that we can all kind of root for and latch onto as the greater story progresses. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Leave me a comment below if you do.

Let's talk about A.I. for the August 2024 Insecure Writer's Support Group post.

Hello everyone. It is time once again to air the insecurities and fears that we all have that comes from writing. But first, a little housekeeping with regard to the Insecure Writer's Support Group. This is a monthly blogfest that was started by best-selling science fiction author Alex Cavanaugh over a decade ago. It is a popular touchstone with writers, and if you are interested in participating in it, you can go HERE to sign up. And now, to answer a few questions that you might have....

What is the purpose of the IWSG?: It is to share and encourage. Writers can express doubts and concerns without fear of appearing foolish or weak. Those who have been through the fire can offer assistance and guidance.  In other words, it’s a safe space for insecure writers of all kinds.

When do you post?: The first Wednesday of every month is officially Insecure Writer’s Support Group day. On this day, you should post your thoughts on your own blog. Some ideas include 1) talking about your doubts and the fears you have conquered, 2) discussing your struggles and triumphs, and 3) offering a word of encouragement for others who are struggling.

To get the most out of your participation in the IWSG, you should plan on visiting others in the group so that you can connect with your fellow writer. A good rule is to aim for a dozen new people each time, and you should comment on those blogs and return any comments you get on your blog. This group is all about connecting. Be sure to link to this page and display the badge in your post. And please be sure your avatar links back to your blog. Otherwise, when you leave a comment, people can't find you to comment back.

The X (Twitter) handle that is used by the group is @TheIWSG and the hashtag is #IWSG.

The awesome co-hosts for the August 7 posting of the IWSG are Feather Stone, Kim Lajevardi, Diedre Knight, C. Lee McKenzie, and Sarah - The Faux Fountain Pen!

Every month, the IWSG announces a question that members can answer in their IWSG post. These questions may prompt you to share advice, insight, a personal experience or story. Include your answer to the question in your IWSG post or let it inspire your post if you are struggling with something to say.

Remember, the question is optional!

August 7 question - Do you use AI in your writing and if so how? Do you use it for your posts? Incorporate it into your stories? Use it for research? Audio?

I don't think that I use any a.i. in my writing. However, I'm not so sure anymore as it has infused just about everything that I research online or look at online. But I certainly don't cut and paste from one thing to another. Now, where I have used it is for short snippets that I read out loud in my D&D game that runs on Saturdays. This is not something I consider writing. One such example might be a dream sequence that one of my player's wants for their character. Usually, I'm not too interested in the weird character choices that other people make, so pretending to have interest and just have a.i. write it up so I can read it out loud is a good way to make them happy and to make me happy at the same time. For example, I have one player who is a furry in my game (she has a fursona) and wants to have a romance with another rabbit person. 

That's not my cup of tea. But a.i. doesn't care, so I prompted it to write three paragraphs of a nice clean dream of the two rabbits chasing each other and being all rabbit like. I read it out loud and she really liked it. Cost me nothing, and I moved on with the game. I could give you a dozen or more examples of this kind of thing where I'm not interested at all. But, in 2024 I don't have to be interested. It takes ten seconds through ChatGPT and it sounds "good enough." I think that this is really where a.i. shines: it allows you to generate content that you would find exceptionally boring or uninteresting that another person really wants.

Artists have always been at the whim of their patrons in many ways. I imagine that quite a few artists over the years and centuries have needed to draw and/or paint things that they didn't find interesting at all just to get the money that they needed to be able to work on the projects that they really wanted to see to fruition. This is kinda what I'm talking about here. Artists no longer have to do that. A.I. is there to pick up the slack whenever there's a need for something that no one wants to do. That is its true strength. But yeah, I have never used it for my official writing.

Thanks for visiting my blog.