Rogue Fun: A Star Wars Blog Post

If you've never seen the Star Wars movies, this probably isn't the post you're looking for.

The new Rogue One trailer is one of my new favorite things. It reignited my excitement for Star Wars that tends to wane in and out of my heart (or whatever it is that makes you feel things-- your brain, soul, or nerve endings).

Something about the cinematography, along with the music and surprisingly charming sirens in the trailer made me remember how much I miss romanticizing about the vastness of the Star Wars universe.

The pre-prequel games come to mind. Those games were GREAT! Playing games like Rogue Squadron, Rebel Assault, Shadows of the Empire... hell, even Yoda Stories were some of my best times as a kid.

Not a fan of the prequels, though. I recently played Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga and realized why so many hardcore fans are so anti-prequel. And I'll tell you: The prequels lack a true sense of creative freedom and adventure.

Imagine if Anakin started off as an adult in The Phantom Menace. He would have been like Luke, yearning for something greater, when Obi-Wan Kenobi would have found him helped free him and his mother from whatever Watto is.

Pretty sure he's a CGI Muppet, Gonzo's lost brother.

Seriously, why didn't Qui-Gon Jinn fight to free Anakin's mom? Because it wouldn't be right to liberate a person from her slave owner? He didn't even try! Is Qui-Gon Jinn pro-slavery? Why is he okay with separating children from their parents?

Things like this made the ten-year-old me scratch my head in theaters. That, and the fact that everything in Episode One had to deal with a war against the Trade Federation, which is like America waging war on the UPS.

So let's say Episode One took the time to think about those details. And let's say they didn't explain the force by saying there are microorganisms in force-attuned people called "midi-chlorians." That threw me off so much. I always saw the force as a mystical ghost energy, not a genetic syphilis of superpowers.

And why did Anakin's mom have a virgin birth? Is Darth Vader Jesus? I mean, Christ. Darth Vader's cool, but I don't remember him turning water into blue wine.

Anyway. My point is that the story should have been its own story. Anakin could have still been the protagonist, but it would have been so much better if there was a consistent villain throughout. Instead, we had to meet Anakin all over again in Episode Two when he was an adult and the plot started meandering as he started hanging out with Palpatine.

Why so much Palpatine? We didn't need to see every step that led to A New Hope. The prequels took place decades before that.

So here's what I propose. Darth Maul should have been the villain throughout the entire prequel trilogy. He was a cool villain with the potential to rival Vader in pop culture, if he had been given more story and screen time. He should have been a merciless killer that Anakin Skywalker genuinely wanted to stop. Anakin should have confronted him in every movie, just like Luke did with Vader. Anakin should have resorted to learning the ways of the dark side (along with the light) in order to defeat Maul. In the end, Padme should have left Anakin for becoming too ruthless, and he should have eventually defeated Maul. Having lost his love while gaining so much power, he should have given in to the dark side because the power was so seductive, not because he was having some weird dreams about his wife dying in labor. I mean, yeesh. I thought this was Star Wars.

But what do I know? I mean, I have no medi-chlorians, so... there's that.

Jurassic World

"CGI" is an acronym for "Computer-Generated Imagery", which is the weird, slime-like special effect used for almost every creature and far-fetched environment in modern cinema.

Bootleg Jurassic Park Jurassic World suffers from gross amounts of CGI, to the point where the entire movie is rendered meaningless.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. I did. Chris Pratt was hilarious as Andy Dwyer from "Parks and Rec", imagining a world of CGI dinosaurs chasing him and his wife April Ludgate, I mean Aubrey Plaza, I mean the obligatory love interest played by Jessica Chastain, I mean-- Bryce Howard!... Bryce! DALLAS! Howard!

See? Hollywood's not too confusing.

So, Star-Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy teams up with Lady in the Water and they run from slimy, weightless dinosaurs that look less realistic than the dinosaurs from 25 years ago. They do this for 2 hours and then they live happily ever after.

I'm not saying you shouldn't see it. I'm just saying Jurassic World lacked real moments of tension because the CGI made this "dinosaurs on the loose" story feel more like "Roger Rabbit" than a believable disaster scenario.

Yeah, that looks real.

Look at this rehearsal footage from the original film. They used real puppets and animatronics for a lot of the movie because those are things that can (and must) interact with the cast, crew. This translates well to the screen because they feel tangible. And they feel tangible because they are!

All I'm saying is this-- if you're going to make a movie, really make that movie. CGI is tough, and I respect that, but there is a time and place for everything. I'm well aware that the original Jurassic Park used CGI, but the level of obviously fake creatures in Jurassic World was way too over-the-top.

Anyway, what do I know? I've never made a Jurassic movie. 

And before you ask, yeah, I'm excited for Jurassic World 2.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Every fan of the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones films has their grievances with the new content. I'm not excluded from that group. But I can't say much about the prequels and "Crystal Skull" that you probably haven't heard already. Let me just say the main reason hardcore fans don't approve of them is because they were clearly rushed and needed instead to be well-thought-out.

Obviously, brand awareness sells tickets. It's the reason why the Star Wars prequels and fourth Jones movie feel nothing like the originals, but they are still seen by the entire world and considered "canon". People accept them because they're called "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones".

Name recognition is also why Walt Disney Studios called the most recent "Alice" movie "Alice in Wonderland", even though it's nothing at all like the original book or classic Disney film. People feel comfortable buying tickets for something new because it legitimizes a purchase. At the same time, they also want to feel like they're already connected to that thing because familiarity makes people feel safe and at ease. Is it okay for filmmakers to give only 5% of their imagination to the continuation of a saga adored by millions? It's not ideal, but it works for the studios. I'd say it's a bad business decision, but we would have seen "Crystal Skull" even if it was called Indiana Jones and the Cold Shower (which it oddly ended up being).

Below is a photo of what it felt like watching "Crystal Skull" in theaters. It almost feels like the nuke is being detonated right on Jones' original trilogy. It's still good, it's just got some awkward fallout from its successor... maybe "successor" sounds too much like a compliment. "Remnants." Yeah, that's good.

The Purge

The premise: The country is flourishing because all crime is legal for one night, every year-- especially murder. This is idiotic because the people in this movie spend all year planning murders, which makes them premeditated, which means if the purge was real, the first purge night would make us all extinct, leaving no one left in the country but sociopathic savages. I reckon if you told this to the filmmakers while they were making the movie, they would have made this face:

"...F*&#."

Why would congress even approve of a night where all crime is legal? The movie tries to paint their society as "ok" with that idea because it "purges" America of the poor and the sick, allowing everyone to "release their pent-up anger for the year". I don't get it-- is this a fictional society made of Hitlers? This would do so much more harm than good, and not just annually, but socially and psychologically. They try and justify it by claiming unemployment is at 1%.  How would you like to go to work everyday knowing that, for whatever reason, you can be added to someone's shit list for purge day? It could range from reasons like being bad at your new job, or because you're awesome and everyone else at work loves you. Did the filmmakers take this into account?

I like the main actors. Ethan Hawke is naturally talented (he really shines in Richard Linklater movies), and Lena Headey is... well, she's English, so her American accent isn't really convincing. I like that about her, ironically. It's the same reason we all love watching Liam Neeson and the cast of The Walking Dead try to speak American English-- it's just funny. Sentences like "I don't know who you are" end up sounding like "Ay dun't noe whu yu arrrr."

It's a shame, though, because the actors really gave it their all. It's just that the script, and the tone set by the director wasn't strong enough to justify their performances. It became too hard to care about anything that happened to anyone because they kept naively splitting up which, in a horror movie, is just too comedic a trope. Just stay together and remain vigilant.

This is a movie still, not part of an NSA recruitment ad.

That's my time. I'm going to go stare at a wall until it moves.

Whiplash

What a fantastic movie! I was skeptical at first, assuming it was nothing more than a flick about some little drummer kid with a bald music teacher. And his head is SHINY. He must stick it in whatever they use to polish bowling balls because I could swear I saw the Big Dipper on his baldness.

There's a lot more to the movie, though. It's a modern classic, one of those movies that keeps surprising you with every choice a character makes, luring you in deeper with its twists and turns (even if you don't want the characters to make those turns). The best part is, it all pays off in the ending during the final boss battle. And who doesn't love a good boss battle?

J.K. Simmons says: "Boss battles are A-Ok."

If I had to compare it to another movie, it's a drumming-based Full Metal Jacket... mixed with the groovy swagger of Curtis Mayfield. J.K. Simmons' character torments the hell out of his music students, exactly like R. Lee Ermey with his platoon. The music is hypnotic, to the point that if you watch the movie and don't smile, you're probably a Dalek.

The film also made me wonder what J.K. Simmons is like in real life. Maybe he's nice. Or maybe he's just like the character he plays-- an idealist, endlessly cruel on his path to perfection. After all, the guy called his kids "above average" in his Golden Globe and Oscar acceptance speeches. He was probably just kidding Simmons, but how are we ever going to find out?

I'll tell you how. We won't.

Maybe he's a saint. I heard he covered lunch for three cops at a restaurant a few days ago. Is that kindness? Could be. But getting on powerful people's good sides sounds more like something Kevin Spacey would do in House of Cards.

Speaking of Kevin Spacey, is he a nice guy? Seems sketchy, but maybe he's secretly a good guy. Like an incognito postman or something, always dedicated to delivering packages earlier than Amazon says they should arrive.

Then there's Sam Rockwell, Matt Dillon, and Ty Burrell. Just look at their expressions. Villains, obviously. I'm basing these accusations on absolutely nothing, so don't quote me on this.

And go see Whiplash. It does a great job of not relying on "good" or "bad" guys, but just "guys"... albeit extreme guys. Its ethical debate goes into such a grey area, it makes 50 Shades of Grey look like "Some Grey Window Shades from Walmart".

Miami Vice

You've heard about it. It's the most 80s show to have ever 80s'd. But have you seen it?

Supercops Crockett and Tubbs

Miami Vice is addicting in a lot of ways with its iconic 80s music, expensive action scenes, colorful costumes and lighting, but it has its flaws. The stories are convoluted, while the dialogue is watered down for network t.v. The pacing can be slow and as drawn out as this run-on sentence and just when you think the episode you're watching will pick up its pace, it doesn't and reading this sentence is what it feels like to watch the show. Then there's the editing, which is more of an endurance test than anything else. Here's the intro via YouTube (thanks, NBC!). I broke it down in the paragraph below.

...What the hell was that? You just filmed a bunch of palm trees before showing a nauseating bird's-eye view of the ocean. Why did you do that? What is this?-- Pelican Vice? But I'll keep watching to make sense of this psychological experiment. Maybe we can piece this intro together and relate it back to the show. Okay, flamingos, yes-- wait, what!? The bird's point of view again? I'm getting woozy, man. Don't show me that view anymore. Okay, yes, now you're showing us jai alai, that's a fine sport, underrated. Cars, yes. Thank you. Nice pool. Guy's on his phone in the water, cheating death, yes. Dogs are racing, very good-- hey... WHAT THE F*CK DID I JUST SAY ABOUT THE BIRD'S POINT OF VIEW!? It's making me nauseous! I TOLD you this twice, already! Jesus Christ, NBC, didn't you test this intro with an audience to see if it is or isn't tolerable? Okay, a building, yes. Girl windsurfing, very good. Nice hair dip, let's see if that has anything to do with any of the upcoming investigations. Okay, a federal building, thank you for that view, yes. Horse racing, very good for the Miami economy... what!?--GODDAMN THAT BIRD'S EYE VIEW! ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE ME FEEL HUNGOVER, MIAMI VICE!? BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB OF THAT!!! Ah, yes. Valet is parking a car. Okay, a sailboat, very stylish. I guess that final shot of a rippling wave is important, thank you for showing me that.

Despite the fact that one viewing of the intro will cause incurable PTSD, what we love about Miami Vice is the sense of wonder we get when thinking about all those possible Miami nights. It's a fantasy. Who doesn't want to cruise around a neon-lit beach in a custom sports car or a fast boat, solving crimes with your buddy cop? Everyone wants that. Especially the unseen bird from the intro.

Breaking Bad

You're probably expecting a rundown of the series: The premise, the acclaim, and why you should watch it. But you know it, already-- nice guy becomes cancer guy becomes drug guy. There's also a chicken guy that he fights for a while. No need to be ashamed for not watching it, yet. Take your time.

This is the most common "You've never seen Breaking Bad?" response.

Instead of spoiling the plot or redirecting you season one on Netflix, I'm going to tell you how many similarities the show happens to have with a critically acclaimed book. It can be found in paperback or on the Apple app store and is simply called the Bible.

• In the Bible's New Testament, heavily whiskered Jesus Christ is introduced as a man who turns water into wine. In Breaking Bad, mustachioed Walter White turns methylamine into methamphetamine. Coincidence?
• Then in Breaking Bad, Walter White's brother-in-law Hank Schrader often gets vexed with his wife, Marie. Her shenanigans, sometimes even illegal, usually prompt him to respond "Jesus Christ, Marie!" Is it a coincidence that Hank referenced Jesus Christ out of all of Earth's historical figures? He could have just as easily cried "Herbert Hoover, Marie!" or "Benedict Cumberbatch, Marie!" Why didn't he?
• Walter's wife, Skyler, eventually has a baby on the show. However, her character was already pregnant when the show began, so the audience still has no idea if that baby is the biological daughter of Walter White, or if God granted them a free baby without the two of them having to "know" each other. Baby Jesus was born to Virgin Mary without her "knowing" anyone, so it begs the question-- is Breaking Bad's baby, Holly, going to grow up to be a prophetic character? Maybe we'll find out in the spin-off series: Better Call Saul!

This review was satirical. Before you riot, I'm not pro or anti anything. I also don't wear a tin foil hat.