229 Candles
Jul. 4th, 2005 06:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinHappy Birthday, U.S.A.!
What better way to celebrate it than to post drawings done in Canada from a British book about pseudo-Australia?
Camel - How did camels end up in EcksEcksEcksEcks? By clinging to driftwood, of course.
Mad (a Dwarf) - One of the odder sequences in the book appears to be a reference to Mad Max (which I've never seen, so I can't be sure) ... here's the dwarf known as 'Mad.' He's shorter than he appears.
Mad's Cart - It should have horses but I wasn't sure what size to make them, and it would have just been their butts anyway.
Another Thing - A pre-industrial Mad Max does lead to more ingenious propulsion. I don't have the right feeling of speed here, but considering the effort it took to get everything to reach a compromise on perspective, I'd have to start over to get anything more out of it.
10:22 pm - The Day Ends, Batman Begins
I just got back from seeing Batman Begins...
The more interesting things (I think) I have to mention are personal reactions to the film rather than objective criticism, so I'll try to get that out of the way first.
To be fair, I need to state from the top that, to me, Batman is Bruce Timm's Batman. That was my first real introduction to him, and about 90% of what I have ever seen of the Batman mythology. So, fairly or unfairly, this movie was judged against the cartoon. Luckily there was no Joker – Batman can be who he likes, but the Joker has to look like a toon and has to be voiced by Mark Hammill. I am aware of the the differences bewteen film and animation, and it's been a few years since I've seen the cartoon, so I hope my judgement is sound, if not unbiased.
The movie is throroughly entertaining. At least, I was thoroughly entertained. There was plenty to keep my eyes busy, and ears, and the plot centre of my brain. There was a good sense of atmosphere, and the pacing was handled well. The only really basic flaw I could find, for me (and this is a weakness of mine, so it might just be me) was that, aside from Bruce, Alfred, and Rachel, all the characters were background. It wasn't until halfway through the movie that I realized the guy with the moustache was Seargant (to be Commissioner) Gordon, and everyone else... well, good luck. OK, there was Dr Crane... someone who puts a burlap sack over his head and sprays aerosol hallucinogens has a way of sticking in the mind. Anyway, though, besides the lead, I never really cared for any of the characters, and even Bruce Wayne was detatched from emotional involvement; as much as we follow his life story and rise to superherodom, I never felt like I could get inside his head. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
Acting was good, nonetheless. Christian Bale did a good job as Mr Angst while being more than just a pretty brooding face. Michael Caine was awesome as Alfred, and may possibly have been my favourite character (don't worry, he doesn't die) if only because he's the one I wanted to learn more about. Miss What's-Her-Name (heretofore known as 'Rachel') was better than I was expecting, because everyone was telling me what a bad job she did... meh, she was OK. There wasn't much for her to work with in the script; she seemed to be a flesh-and-blood embodiment of external motivation for Batman's actions, basically a breathing plot point carrier, like a plague rat of the screenwriting world. That was more annoying than any lack of acting talent on her part. But really, she's the attractive female lead in a superhero movie – what more is there to do? Perhaps it was because I didn't expect her that she feels tacked-on, to me ... I had never thought of Batman as having a 'girl.' This was part of why I like Batman best of all the superheroes... the others are all preoccupied with their love lives, with their Loises and Mary-Janes, but Batman's got his priotities straight and is all about beating up the bad guys. (There's also the relieving lack of 'magical' powers, but that's another subject.)
The effects were good, in an understated way that made them even better. It must have been a great temptation, with a script calling for mass hallucinations, to go all-out with the giant glowing multi-tentacled creatures from the dungeon dimensions, but the subtlety of the change from reality to hallucination made it all the more creepy. I've heard complaints about the Batmobile, but I liked it for its breaking from tradition: it may not look flash, but it certainly does look indestructible.
I must, unfortunately, bring up one thing. This is the second comic book movie to have done this to me, and it needs to stop. The villain's weapon of mass destruction has one crucial flaw in the logic of its implementation in the movie. In Spiderman 2, it was the idea that stars are just balls of fire – no one took into account the incredibly deadly radiation that pours out from what is, in actual fact (and song), a giant nuclear furnace. Not only would this cook anyone nearby and give the rest of the city radiation poisoning and/or cancer, but you can't just put it out by dunking it in water! It would evaporate the water and keep on going! In Batman, it's a sort of microwave ... cannon? I'm not sure if it was directional, though it was vaguely tube-like. [Skip to the next paragraph if you rabidly avoid spoilers!] Anyway, its purpose, in the hands of the villain, is to vapourise the city's water and thus release the hallucinogenic drugs contained therein. They start doing this, and all the puddles and dripping faucets and everything turn to steam ... but someone on the writing team seemed to forget that the human body is 65% water. There is a shot down a wet street with people fleeing in panic as the puddles all evaporate ... but the people are fleeing in panic, not, e.g., exploding like un-pricked potatoes. While being torn apart by your fellow citizens under the influence of hallucinogens and panic may be a terrible way to die, so is exploding when all the water in your body vapourises, or the alternative – if you have the foresight to stab yourself all over with a fork – cooking to death; and in these circumstances, you aren't even high enough to take your mind off the pain.
Now on to the personal reactions.
· I had always thought of Gotham as a surrogate New York, the way Superman's Metropolis is; New York because that city is recognized as the archetype of all modern cities. So here I was, watching the film, thinking New York, thinking Wayne Manor is somewhere on the Hudson River, and then – I see the bridge. The bridge from Road to Perdition. Suddenly we go from vaguely-New-Yorky miscellaneous big city to This Is Chicago. Kind of an odd feeling, to be forcibly smacked into place like that. The bridge kept turning up, as a major location, and every time it felt wrong, because it needed to look like this:
· Gotham has, in this movie at least, an area of town that is rife with crime and poverty. This is not uncommon in large cities. When referred to, it just seemed a natural thing. But when it appeared onscreen, in that aerial establishing shot, there was one thought and one thought alone in my mind: HELLO, SHADES!¹ The impression was so strong that the moment it appeared onscreen, my rommate and I leaned toward each other and said, simultaneously, 'The Shades!' It was imprinted on my mind in such a forceful manner that whenever they mentioned 'the Narrows' (its actual name) I had to think for a moment before I realised they meant The Shades.²
· The beginning, in the Tibetan 'monastery,' once again kindled a deep urge to see Thief of Time on the big screen. What ignited the fire the first time was the trailer for, I believe, Bulletproof Monk, which starts off in a corridor of saffron robes and Procrastinators (or, if you wish to believe so, prayer wheels). That would be such a great book for a movie ... it's got all the effects written in. Maybe they'll do it when playing with film speed à la Matrix and its followers ceases to be cliché (bad) and becomes retro (good).
· Speaking of the urge to see things on the big screen, the fire and related scenes made me want to see the later Snicket books done really seriously. (As seriously as they're written anyway. Part of the humour comes from the fact that they are written so seriously. But I digress.) And, my two cents: Christian Bale should play Jacques. If he's not old enough, bring out the age makeup. Sure, it's essentially a cameo role, but it's an important cameo.
· I never realized it before, but one of the guys at work looks exactly like Liam Neeson. Until I recognized him as a movie star, I thought Mysterious Shadowy Figure was played by Victor. I will never look at Victor the same way again. Especially because it would not stretch the limits of the imagination to see him involved in some secret organization.
· While on the topic of resemblances: it is without a doubt, now, that I conclude I have cast Michael Caine as Mad-Eye Moody from day one. Watching Goblet will be very odd, considering that who I consider to be the perfect casting choice is, in fact, a real human, alive, and was possibly even available for the role.
¹The Shades is the section of Ankh-Morpork that is rife with crime and poverty; it is also the oldest part of town, hodgepodge in its construction, and right by the river.
²Another Discworld connection: one of the principal themes of the plot was 'Personal is not the same as important.' They never quite say it word-for-word, but oooooh they get close.
Another thing: way way back, many centuries ago, I had a guestbook on my site. Well, now I do again! Do sign it, if you would be so kind... It's down at the bottom of the art page; anywhere else seemed too obtrusive.
What better way to celebrate it than to post drawings done in Canada from a British book about pseudo-Australia?
Camel - How did camels end up in EcksEcksEcksEcks? By clinging to driftwood, of course.
Mad (a Dwarf) - One of the odder sequences in the book appears to be a reference to Mad Max (which I've never seen, so I can't be sure) ... here's the dwarf known as 'Mad.' He's shorter than he appears.
Mad's Cart - It should have horses but I wasn't sure what size to make them, and it would have just been their butts anyway.
Another Thing - A pre-industrial Mad Max does lead to more ingenious propulsion. I don't have the right feeling of speed here, but considering the effort it took to get everything to reach a compromise on perspective, I'd have to start over to get anything more out of it.
10:22 pm - The Day Ends, Batman Begins
I just got back from seeing Batman Begins...
The more interesting things (I think) I have to mention are personal reactions to the film rather than objective criticism, so I'll try to get that out of the way first.
To be fair, I need to state from the top that, to me, Batman is Bruce Timm's Batman. That was my first real introduction to him, and about 90% of what I have ever seen of the Batman mythology. So, fairly or unfairly, this movie was judged against the cartoon. Luckily there was no Joker – Batman can be who he likes, but the Joker has to look like a toon and has to be voiced by Mark Hammill. I am aware of the the differences bewteen film and animation, and it's been a few years since I've seen the cartoon, so I hope my judgement is sound, if not unbiased.
The movie is throroughly entertaining. At least, I was thoroughly entertained. There was plenty to keep my eyes busy, and ears, and the plot centre of my brain. There was a good sense of atmosphere, and the pacing was handled well. The only really basic flaw I could find, for me (and this is a weakness of mine, so it might just be me) was that, aside from Bruce, Alfred, and Rachel, all the characters were background. It wasn't until halfway through the movie that I realized the guy with the moustache was Seargant (to be Commissioner) Gordon, and everyone else... well, good luck. OK, there was Dr Crane... someone who puts a burlap sack over his head and sprays aerosol hallucinogens has a way of sticking in the mind. Anyway, though, besides the lead, I never really cared for any of the characters, and even Bruce Wayne was detatched from emotional involvement; as much as we follow his life story and rise to superherodom, I never felt like I could get inside his head. Maybe I wasn't supposed to.
Acting was good, nonetheless. Christian Bale did a good job as Mr Angst while being more than just a pretty brooding face. Michael Caine was awesome as Alfred, and may possibly have been my favourite character (don't worry, he doesn't die) if only because he's the one I wanted to learn more about. Miss What's-Her-Name (heretofore known as 'Rachel') was better than I was expecting, because everyone was telling me what a bad job she did... meh, she was OK. There wasn't much for her to work with in the script; she seemed to be a flesh-and-blood embodiment of external motivation for Batman's actions, basically a breathing plot point carrier, like a plague rat of the screenwriting world. That was more annoying than any lack of acting talent on her part. But really, she's the attractive female lead in a superhero movie – what more is there to do? Perhaps it was because I didn't expect her that she feels tacked-on, to me ... I had never thought of Batman as having a 'girl.' This was part of why I like Batman best of all the superheroes... the others are all preoccupied with their love lives, with their Loises and Mary-Janes, but Batman's got his priotities straight and is all about beating up the bad guys. (There's also the relieving lack of 'magical' powers, but that's another subject.)
The effects were good, in an understated way that made them even better. It must have been a great temptation, with a script calling for mass hallucinations, to go all-out with the giant glowing multi-tentacled creatures from the dungeon dimensions, but the subtlety of the change from reality to hallucination made it all the more creepy. I've heard complaints about the Batmobile, but I liked it for its breaking from tradition: it may not look flash, but it certainly does look indestructible.
I must, unfortunately, bring up one thing. This is the second comic book movie to have done this to me, and it needs to stop. The villain's weapon of mass destruction has one crucial flaw in the logic of its implementation in the movie. In Spiderman 2, it was the idea that stars are just balls of fire – no one took into account the incredibly deadly radiation that pours out from what is, in actual fact (and song), a giant nuclear furnace. Not only would this cook anyone nearby and give the rest of the city radiation poisoning and/or cancer, but you can't just put it out by dunking it in water! It would evaporate the water and keep on going! In Batman, it's a sort of microwave ... cannon? I'm not sure if it was directional, though it was vaguely tube-like. [Skip to the next paragraph if you rabidly avoid spoilers!] Anyway, its purpose, in the hands of the villain, is to vapourise the city's water and thus release the hallucinogenic drugs contained therein. They start doing this, and all the puddles and dripping faucets and everything turn to steam ... but someone on the writing team seemed to forget that the human body is 65% water. There is a shot down a wet street with people fleeing in panic as the puddles all evaporate ... but the people are fleeing in panic, not, e.g., exploding like un-pricked potatoes. While being torn apart by your fellow citizens under the influence of hallucinogens and panic may be a terrible way to die, so is exploding when all the water in your body vapourises, or the alternative – if you have the foresight to stab yourself all over with a fork – cooking to death; and in these circumstances, you aren't even high enough to take your mind off the pain.
Now on to the personal reactions.
· I had always thought of Gotham as a surrogate New York, the way Superman's Metropolis is; New York because that city is recognized as the archetype of all modern cities. So here I was, watching the film, thinking New York, thinking Wayne Manor is somewhere on the Hudson River, and then – I see the bridge. The bridge from Road to Perdition. Suddenly we go from vaguely-New-Yorky miscellaneous big city to This Is Chicago. Kind of an odd feeling, to be forcibly smacked into place like that. The bridge kept turning up, as a major location, and every time it felt wrong, because it needed to look like this:
· Gotham has, in this movie at least, an area of town that is rife with crime and poverty. This is not uncommon in large cities. When referred to, it just seemed a natural thing. But when it appeared onscreen, in that aerial establishing shot, there was one thought and one thought alone in my mind: HELLO, SHADES!¹ The impression was so strong that the moment it appeared onscreen, my rommate and I leaned toward each other and said, simultaneously, 'The Shades!' It was imprinted on my mind in such a forceful manner that whenever they mentioned 'the Narrows' (its actual name) I had to think for a moment before I realised they meant The Shades.²
· The beginning, in the Tibetan 'monastery,' once again kindled a deep urge to see Thief of Time on the big screen. What ignited the fire the first time was the trailer for, I believe, Bulletproof Monk, which starts off in a corridor of saffron robes and Procrastinators (or, if you wish to believe so, prayer wheels). That would be such a great book for a movie ... it's got all the effects written in. Maybe they'll do it when playing with film speed à la Matrix and its followers ceases to be cliché (bad) and becomes retro (good).
· Speaking of the urge to see things on the big screen, the fire and related scenes made me want to see the later Snicket books done really seriously. (As seriously as they're written anyway. Part of the humour comes from the fact that they are written so seriously. But I digress.) And, my two cents: Christian Bale should play Jacques. If he's not old enough, bring out the age makeup. Sure, it's essentially a cameo role, but it's an important cameo.
· I never realized it before, but one of the guys at work looks exactly like Liam Neeson. Until I recognized him as a movie star, I thought Mysterious Shadowy Figure was played by Victor. I will never look at Victor the same way again. Especially because it would not stretch the limits of the imagination to see him involved in some secret organization.
· While on the topic of resemblances: it is without a doubt, now, that I conclude I have cast Michael Caine as Mad-Eye Moody from day one. Watching Goblet will be very odd, considering that who I consider to be the perfect casting choice is, in fact, a real human, alive, and was possibly even available for the role.
¹The Shades is the section of Ankh-Morpork that is rife with crime and poverty; it is also the oldest part of town, hodgepodge in its construction, and right by the river.
²Another Discworld connection: one of the principal themes of the plot was 'Personal is not the same as important.' They never quite say it word-for-word, but oooooh they get close.
Another thing: way way back, many centuries ago, I had a guestbook on my site. Well, now I do again! Do sign it, if you would be so kind... It's down at the bottom of the art page; anywhere else seemed too obtrusive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-12 05:18 pm (UTC)I haven't read nearly that many. I started when my dad got me The Last Hero. That one was amazing, so when I learned he had a whole lot more I thought, why I'll read them too!
Um, so far i've read the Bromliad trilogy, Maurice ect., adn of course A Hat Full Of Sky. I hope to start on Johnny Maxwell soon..If I can get to the library.