As I mentioned in the previous Strange Log I mentioned that "The Twilight Zone" reboot had to be groundbreaking and remind everyone why "The Twilight Zone" is relevant in this day and age. Sadly after watching 2 episodes, I can say that this series is PAINFULLY bad and can't even hold a candle to the Forrest Whittaker remake, which again, wasn't bad. "The Twilight Zone's" first outing is actually "Nightmare At 30,000ft" but the release schedule was inverted and so what was the 2nd episode "The Comedian" was released first and served as the series pilot and MY GOODNESS was this an awful episode. I'll snapshot review it for you but for the sake of oncoming criticism, the episode being awful had nothing to do with it's "wokeness" and everything to do with the poor execution of a somewhat decent premise.
The premise is a woefully unfunny comedian Samir (who's constantly rambles about the 2nd Amendment and "a well regulated...") is met by a comedy legend J.C. Wheeler (a role which was a waste of Tracy Morgan's time) and given the ability to make people vanish with his comedy. Anything he jokes about on stage suddenly vanishes as if it never existed, so he uses this ability to vanish old high school bullies and people he doesn't like realizing he's changing existence itself and not caring until he erases his girlfriend's college professor and because of that she doesn't have a job and because of her lack of employment their relationship is in the pits. The thing is the ability to change existence with your words is a very interesting premise but that's the problem, Samir's ability makes them vanish, it doesn't exactly change things, and furthermore the connection between Samir's comedy and making people vanish is about as existent as the people he makes vanish.
What I mean is there's a line said by J.C. where he says "the audience owns it", implying that whatever Samir jokes about becomes apart of the audience in some fashion, which doesn't make much sense because why then do they vanish? Instead, what should have happened is everything Samir says becomes true and then he says the wrong thing thinking he's right and finds out that he's horribly wrong and has to live in a world he created. Furthermore the resolution to this episode is half-assed to say the least and Samir's girlfriend finding Samir's book of names doesn't connect to her conclusion about Samir because likewise, she herself was under Samir's spell of laughing hysterically at...oh wait, I haven't even touched on the fact that for an episode titled "The Comedian" there was nothing funny about this episode.
This wasn't the case of Samir being a horrible comedian and then suddenly becoming funny by actually being funny, he was still unfunny because he wasn't telling any jokes. And this isn't about having a preference about what I consider funny, he wasn't telling a joke, it wasn't even insult comedy, it was just him talking about people and then they go poof. The episode had a chance to showcase Kumail Nanjiani's (who actually is a comedian) stand up ability but instead gets lost in a premise that can't support itself after a closer examination and the episode DRAGS to a conclusion that we all saw coming since the first 5 minutes. Not the best outing. The subsequent episodes are likewise lengthy and unbearable, what made "The Twilight Zone" work in the past was that it was short, punchy and to the point. It didn't let the premise breathe for too long or give it any extra consideration, it's what worked about the Forrest Whittaker remake as well.
Because of Jordan Peele's name recognition (after all, he's only one of 3 developers) and because it's on CBS's streaming service I don't see this getting canceled anytime soon but thanks to things like "Black Mirror", I seriously don't see this living beyond Season 2. What this series needs to do is bolster the horror/sci-fi/fantasy elements that make "Twilight Zone" unique. "Black Mirror's" primary focus is technology and it impacts on the world and it's uses and abuses, "Twilight Zone" needs to do what "Black Mirror" cannot. So far it's just a mediocre series with stories that are at best a decent starting point.
And since we're on the topic of Jordan Peele (kinda) let's talk about his recent (although by now it's pretty old) comments about not casting White people as leads in his movies. For starters, no one really cares that he won't cast White people as leads in his own films. They're his films he can do as he pleases and I won't even play a Reverse Card and talk about the fallout a White director would get from saying he wouldn't cast a Black lead. Instead, I'll ask a more pressing question and that is the language of division. Why announce that you wouldn't cast a lead of a certain race? What's the reasoning behind such an announcement? I understand he was asked a question which leads his to that particular answer but still...
And furthermore, I just want to point out that again White people are acceptable targets for discrimination in this day and age and I find that disturbing. And again Jordan Peele can cast who he wants as leads but to specify White people just raises my eyebrow. What raises my eyebrow, even more, is the fact that there are Black people championing this as "Black power" a good thing for Black people. With my immediate reaction being, why is that Black people pretend other Black haven't made it somewhere? Jamie Foxx was a comedian doing mostly comedies before "Ray" changed his career and showed he actually has some chops aside from making funny faces but is there anyone Jamie Foxx helped create? Has Samuel L. Jackson or Will Smith or Denzel Washington or Spike Lee or any other big named Black actor created any new names? I don't think so...but I could be wrong.
After the Oscars So White Fiasco, you'd think you'd see established Black actors scrambling to give up and coming Black actors a leg up, but that hasn't exactly been the case. Michael B. Jordan got his start from "Chronicle" (2 White guys), Lupita got her start from a Black Guy ("12 Years A Slave"), so new Black stars are being created but here and there. My biggest issue is I don't like the concept of having to put others down to elevate ourselves and that seems to be the driving force behind this whole movement, putting White people down to embolden Black people and...you don't have to put anyone down. Just saying I wish we can get past the point where Black people have to talk about how "Black" they are.
Even further still we have Brie Larson decrying White people explain why she doesn't need to hear from a 40-year-old White dude about why "A Wrinkle In Time" didn't work for them. How is one supposed to hear that and not be insulted? She's saying their opinion on a film is invalid because they're the wrong skin color, how is that not blatantly racist? And again why is this allowed? I hate racism in all of its forms, I don't find any of it acceptable and the fact that these actors made these statements with relative impunity is shocking to me. What's even worse is that the people who say these things believe they're doing so on behalf of minorities, which is why someone who is White can decry White people...as if they themselves are not White or somehow better than the people they decry, which actually makes them worse. How? Because they expect us (minorities) to clap like trained seals for their benevolence in their own self-hatred and I think that's disgusting. Anyway, on to new business.
"Mortal Kombat 11" is almost here and already the game looks INSANE! I can say I am pretty disappointed by the few new characters we got and the complete absence of old new characters (the characters from "Deadly Alliance" to "Deception"). While I appreciate that there is actually a canon storyline, I'm still wanting A Treat From Elsewhere, and while Kronika is from elsewhere, she's still a being we've seen. I'd love to see Hotaru or Havik come back as big bosses reping for their realms respectively. Havik has made a canon appearance but has not been a character and none of the Order Realm characters made an appearance at all. But stepping back a bit I'd like to discuss the story at large, and ultimately I think Onaga is coming back. If Kronika has been in control since day one and basically established the entire "Mortal Kombat" cannon up until "Mortal Kombat 9", then Onaga HAS to come back.
 |
| The Dragon King stay gettin' bitches! |
I can't say I'm exactly thrilled with Onaga coming back, but he's better than Blaze and at least in this game he can be a much bigger threat because we know what he's about. Man, I freakin' love "Mortal Kombat" and now with a fully established lore, they can take the story in some weird places. Cetrion is by far the most interesting new character because she's the sister of Shinnok (who knew?) and Kronika's daughter, so what role will she play in the game? Is she for or against our heroes? Furthermore, what role will our heroes play and who will be for maintaining the current timeline and who will be for restoring the original timeline? Liu Kang is a confusing one because either way he ends up dead just one timeline takes a little longer than the other. I can't wait to play this game, I'm excited to see what happens.
For all of you nerds, it's that time again...yep, "Star Wars: Rise Of The Skywalker" episode 9 has been announced with a teaser, everyone's favorite hate-sink Rose Tico is coming back, and oddly enough and the most unusual thing is Ian McDiarmid, Emperor freakin' Sheev Palpatine is coming back. How, why and when is the major question, or I should say one of the major questions, the biggest begin IS this a good idea or not? The answer is probably no because it undoes the entire "Star Wars" cannon and basically makes Luke & Vader ineffectual if the Emperor is found alive. If Palpatine returns as a force ghost, I'll have mixed feelings, in the Extended Universe many Sith Lords have returned as Force ghosts, Freedon Nadd, the big bad booty daddy himself Naga Saddow and of course my main man Exar Kun, but that's the extended universe and unfortunately not canon.
 |
| Of course we all wanna see this pretty face back in the franchise |
"Star Wars" is such a strange animal these days because it's an amazing and beloved franchise but any chance at reviving it beyond the original trilogy has been met with scorn, BUT the extended universe is beloved by a great many fans, so having a new Star Wars isn't difficult but these new films are failing to capture what made the originals so damn good and I'm wondering why that's so damn hard for execs to figure out. I have a feeling that the pressure of working on a "Star Wars" movie made them forget that they're working on a movie and while the name recognition of "Star Wars" will equal fans, the quality of the work is the most important thing. I don't know, after "The Last Jedi" I think I'll just wait for it to come out and read the spoilers on Wikipedia.
Moving along, let's talk about the "Joker" Trailer. Since it's announcement I've been none too excited to say the least. I stand by my previous statements in saying this movie doesn't need to exist and shouldn't exist. To give The Joker a solid origin story is to strip The Joker of his power completely. The Joker's power has been his chaotic and unpredictable nature, it's this nature that befuddles Batman. You see unlike all the other Batman villains who have an origin or an exact moment where they broke bad, The Joker doesn't have one, one day he just was and that was that. The Joker has never been about money, or revenge or anything tangible, he just wants to screw with people. And while the origins of The Joker has always involved him falling into a vat of nondescript chemicals and emerging literally white and insane, the exact story behind how or why he ended up in said chemicals has evolved from his being a failed stand up comedian who was framed to him actually being a member of a gang to many others.
In recent incarnations of The Joker his general origins have been multiple choice as in you (the reader and whoever he's speaking to) choose which ever origin you believe. This was even hinted at in the Animated Series episode "Mad Love" where Batman taunted Harley by bringing to attention the various origins Joker told his previous psychiatrist. So to make it crystal clear, I am 100% against giving The Joker a definitive origin story. That being said, this film will feature a character named Arthur Fleck, the common understanding is that The Joker's real name is Jack, so already we're not dealing with The Joker we all know and love and furthermore this film is set to take place in 1981, which is before Batman as a Young Bruce Wayne has been set to appear in the film. So what does this all mean? It means the movie will be better than "Gotham" (SHOTS FIRED!!). No, in all seriousness, this movie is nothing more than an obvious cash grab from DC/Warner Bros., despite it being a cash grab it looks good and Joaquin Phoenix is going to murder the role of The Joker without question. Will I see it? I doubt it, such a film doesn't tickle my fancy but I might check it out in the future.
That'll do it for me for now, writing these have been difficult to say the least and job hours and home life have not been friendly to working on blogs. I'll hopefully have a special project to announce sometime soon but until then keep your eyes tuned to this blog. Until next time ya'll here's a GIF of The Joker giving his approval of the "Joker" trailer. Catch ya'll later!
No comments:
Post a Comment