Walter White Wednesday 57

. . . which is an update on the progress of the Wanna Cook? project.  Since the final episodes don't air until August (August!!  What is AMC trying to do to us?), our deadlines had to change a bit from the original dates we had estimated with our publisher.  And no, it doesn't give us more time; we just start on these final eight a month later than we figured, so from August until November will be a two-month crunch.  Knowing that, we wanted to have everything else squared away as much as possible.

Enter the world of the copyedit.

You'll remember that we spent part of spring in the Great 30-Day Crunch, which I can assure you, was incredibly productive but also punctuated with a lot of random stress-related hollering (on my part, and not directed at my co-author, whose blog you should also be reading).  The result of the Crunch and post-Crunch tidying up was that the bulk of the book was drafted and line edited - yep, all 4.5 seasons, "extra ingredients," and sidebar material had been turned in, looked over, and edited for length and clarity.

Copyedits are the more delicate revisions.  Ensley and I worked hard (and anyone who says writing isn't "real work" around me had better be able to to outrun me) to turn in a clean, solid draft to ECW and judging from the number of items we needed to fix in the copyedit process, we accomplished our goal.  But.

Aspiring writers out there, get this through your skull.  Your baby won't be perfect.  Weird things will slip through that, although you know you wrote them, you'd be willing to swear had been added by gremlins.  They tend to be little things - an extra space here, a bullet point out of line there, maybe a bad verb tense. The bizarre thing is that, by this time, at least three intelligent people have looked at the same writing - and missed the same thing.  Will itsy errors more than likely remain in the final shelf copy?  Sigh.  Hopefully not, but probably.  I know my first book has a couple of freckles.

That being said, the copyedits have been completed, which means the bulk of the book is good to go.  We may have alterations to make depending on the events of the final eight episodes (won't that be a Tilt-A-Whirl of fun?), but we'll cross that bridge this fall.  We have a few "long pieces" to complete and we're still crossing our fingers that we can work out a few interviews with Breaking Bad cast and crew members.

What all that means is that we're in - well, not exactly a "lull," but we're not in the Crunch, either.  I have summer school classes to teach beginning next week and Ensley and I both have responsibilities galore associated with the upcoming Joss in June conference.  Before all that gets into full swing, we're headed down to Birmingham, Alabama to be guest professionals (I so wish we'd been titled "professional guests" that I think I'm going to call us that) professional guests at the Alabama Phoenix Festival.  We're part of the "Whedon track" and I'm very much looking forward to spreading the Whedon love down in the Deep South - not to mention checking out some of the other presentations and guests!

Look for updates from Alabama - including how our new promotional business cards (at the top of the post) are received!

To Boldly Go . . .

Star Trek Into Darkness has hit theaters and, boy - will this be one people talk about.  Please note that this post is NOT spoiler-free!  I'll post another reminder before I get all spoilery, but remember that you can't "unread" something, so proceed with caution.  Into Darkness is the film that made me realize how much of a Trek purist I apparently am.  I'd seen occasional episodes of the original series here and there, but didn't become a fan until college, at which time I watched late-night episodes the way some friends devoured afternoon soap operas.  I even read a slew of the novels (and let me tell you, those vary in quality!) and have been known to quote the opening line to show why splitting an infinitive isn't necessarily a bad thing.  But overall, I considered myself a rather casual fan.

Turns out I'm not.

This is J.J. Abrams' second film in the rebooted Star Trek universe which makes it a good place to talk about reboots.  Two British franchises have consistently shown how this can be successfully done - Doctor Who and the James Bond spy flicks have both gone through multiple actors in the main role and have had great success.  In a similar fashion, Star Trek has spawned multiple spin-off series (The "Picard or Kirk?" game is a perennial favorite amongst fans), but Abrams was given a different five-year mission, involving one of the trickiest problems to solve outside of the "Kobayashi Maru" simulation.  I think the comparison is apt - Abrams' task is to take these iconic characters and base them in their past incarnations while simultaneously freeing them from those interpretations.  It can be done, but there's a cost.  While parts of Into Darkness work well (I loved seeing a tribble again and Peter Weller is always worth the ticket price), the film could easily have had 15 minutes or so of actionacationaction trimmed from its heft.  (Further, the costume designer has an over-fondness for tweed that needs to be addressed.  I know - when I'm going on about costumes, it's usually to praise their creativity.  Take that as a sign of what's to come.)

And if you REALLY want to have fun with Kirk, click here.

SPOILERS BEGIN AFTER THE JUMP!

I enjoy Chris Pine in the role of Kirk and I think he's found his footing, although this Kirk still bugs me with his "damn the torpedoes" (an apt phrase in this one, by the way) attitude that his mentor is right about - eventually, that fickle tart Lady Luck casts her eye elsewhere and people start dying.  Follow the rules, Jim, which include obeying the Prime Directive.  Nah, Kirk sneers.  There was a perfectly good ocean to hide the Enterprise beneath (yeah, makes for a cool shot as the starship rises from the waves but that giant fish that swims by the submerged porthole?  That's the shark Abrams jumps with this movie) and hey, Spock was saved from certain fiery volcanic death - which he never would have been in danger from if Kirk had followed the Prime Directive in the first place.

The casting of up-and-coming Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch was both brilliant (really - he's fabulous in the role) and troubling (an English guy playing the Indian Khan?  Isn't that more than a little Brit-centric?).  That reveal is one of the best things about the movie and the filmmakers have done a good job of keeping it under wraps.  Cumberbatch has perfected the low-volume snarl and he makes a wonderful villain and foil for Kirk in this film as his Khan provides the darkness into which the characters will walk and face themselves.

That said - good grief, how I hate alternate storyline movies.  If you're going down that rabbit hole, go watch the Buffy episode "The Wish."  Now go watch it again.  See, the only way to make alternate storylines work is to alter the characters in dramatic, life-changing ways.  No fair keeping them about half the same, then telling viewers (like me) who howl at the inconsistencies, "Well, this is a different universe.  I told you that!"  So here goes . . . 

If you 're going to steal, I've often heard that the best plan is to steal from the best.  (Hey, it worked for Shakespeare who never had an original plot in his career.)  So Abrams & Co. pilfered from the Holy Grail of Trek scripts, lifting the villain Khan Noonien Singh and plot elements from "Space Seed" and Star Trek 2:  The Wrath of Khan.  An understandable choice - Kahn is a fantastic villain - but ultimately, an unsatisfactory one for me.  Too much is borrowed and, for me, there was a boomerang effect.  I howled - literally slid down my seat laughing uncontrollably and I apologize to the people behind me - at Qinto-Spock's animal cry of, "KHANNNNNN!"  I mean - really?  Really?  You're ripping off one of the most recognizable torn-from-the-heart anguished cries?

But then again, I'd been set up for it before the opening credits with "The needs of the many . . . " bit.  The radiation chamber flip-flop was telegraphed, telephoned, and text-messaged by this stroll down Memory Trek Lane.  I was not emotionally engaged, although I liked catching names here and there (Christine Chapel is referenced and Carol Marcus, who plays such a major role in Star Trek 2 shows up here, albeit once in her underwear for reasons that seem divorced from the plot.)  And I'm annoyed at the critics who are telling me to take it easy, that this is different and I need to keep an open mind.  No, I really don't.  If I want to see the Kirk/Khan dynamic, I have the DVD on my shelf already.   (And this doesn't even get into the Uhura/Spock romance).  Just create something new - set it on the starship Sturgeon and get on with it already, but quit slapping a fresh coat of paint on what worked and telling me it's like new.  (That's it - someone needs to run the Carfax on this movie!)

All of which brings me to my second point, which has nothing to do with the movie itself.  Trust your own taste.  Many critics love this movie and good on them.  I certainly don't think they're morons or idiots or any other form of mental incompetent.  We just don't share the same opinion.  Art's like that.  Take painting as an example.  I happen to love, adore, and crave Van Gogh's landscapes (not so much his portraits, though).  The Starry Night alone is proof that the human race is worth saving.  At the same time, I really don't care for the work of his contemporary Paul Gauguin, whose work I find slightly condescending.  That doesn't make me wrong, and it doesn't make me right.  

Movies are the same way.  When I was in college, I tried hard to like the "right films."  I'd seek out critics I respected and see what they thought.  When my opinion was in line with theirs, aha! I thought.  I was "right." Not so much.  Criticism is about being able to put into words what worked, what didn't, and why. Yes, your answers and feelings may change (sometimes dramatically) as you grow and learn, but that really is what it's all about. And look - independent films aren't inherently "better" than Hollywood blockbusters (less money doesn't automatically make your work more "true") and an 80% rating on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't automatically make your film a good one in my book.

Taste.  Develop it.  Then trust it.

Walter White Wednesday 56

. . . which is a post NOT about Breaking Bad!  I know, I know - this is a departure from the norm for me, but this Wednesday is also a departure from the norm.  Here at my college, we've just wrapped up the Spring 2013 semester and commencement is scheduled for tonight.  Between the usual end-of-semester madness and Wanna Cook? responsibilities, I'm a bit behind and will probably stay there for a week as I regain my calm.

So, no Breaking Bad news or speculation this week.  Instead, let me go down a different path for this post.

I co-host a movie show on my College's TV station - often we cover new releases, although we sometimes go "into the vaults" to discuss classics, particular genres or directors, and so forth.  With summer movie season in full swing, our most recent pick was Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby and I wanted to put in my two cents.

I've been a Luhrmann fan since Strictly Ballroom, which I highly recommend.  His films (which include Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge) are characterized by excess.  (Seriously, the man never met a swooping camera he didn't like.)  Gatsby is not getting universal love and that's okay.  It's based on a novel that's been called "unfilmable" and previous versions didn't work all that well.  It's a tricky path to walk - you want to be faithful to the novel, but novels and films are inherently different ways to tell a story, so how do you render prose into visuals?  Hmmm.

In Luhrmann's case, you do it with the character of Nick framing the story through voice-overs.  I think that mostly worked, but I understand the criticism leveled at the technique.  I think Leonardo DiCaprio (who was Romeo in Luhrmann's adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy) is pitch-perfect here and I'm willing to forgive him a couple of iffy movies for his introduction of himself as Gatsby to Tobey Maguire's Nick - yes, for that tiny bit alone.  Couple that with the vulnerability he shows when he first re-meets his muse and moneyed damsel Daisy, and I'll forgive him much, much more.

Is it a perfect movie?  No.  In places, the CGI looks off and the swooping camera, while it evokes Busby Berkeley dance pictures, can be a little much.  But the excess of the pre-crash, Prohibition-is-for-other-people 1920s has never looked better.  Gatsby is full of people who have plenty of money, but little to anchor them, so they drift.  Some towards momentary excitement, some towards flash and glitz, and some towards a green light on a dock across the bay.

And, since it is Commencement for my college tonight - Baz Luhrmann's 1999 graduation speech.

Walter White Wednesday 55

Soon, my pretties.  Soon.

Woof!  It's Crunch Week here at my college (teaching is my day job, remember?) so it's a bit hectic, as my understated British friends might say.  I think it's more like a circus, with me trying to feed the lions while simultaneously learning how to walk the tightrope.  Still, a student last night turned in his exam and shook my hand, which always makes me feel like it just might have been worth sixteen weeks' worth of psychic wear and tear.

In the midst of that, Breaking Bad fans, I am thrilled to report that Wanna Cook has taken another step forward.  I completed the "sidebar" pieces this past week - both the original drafts and the edits after our Intrepid Editor cleaned things up.  These are bits that will be featured outside of the regular episode guide portions that will focus on a particular theme in the show - Junior's breakfast consumption or Marie's obsession with purple, for example - with a list of episodes where the theme shows up.  It's a little tricky to write these and keep them spoiler-free yet provide enough information to be useful and fun even in the first season.  (Otherwise, everything was going to be lumped in with Season 5.)  Again, this is why you work with an editor who is smart, sharp, and has done this sort of thing before!

Between that task and getting classes ready for Exam Week, it's been busybusybusy, so this must be short, sweet, and to the point today.

Iron Man 3

He's big in Asia!

With the U.S. release of Iron Man 3, the 2013 summer blockbuster season has officially kicked off.  Iron Man 3 is doing gangbusters on the international market, who got it before we here in the States did, and I predict it's going to do very well here, too.  Which isn't exactly a shame, but this movie could be better.  Much, much better.

Look, I can already tell that this is a movie I'm going to return to for a far lengthier examination in another forum (seriously - how IM3 grinds against the edges of the previous two movies in its handling of disability cries out to be discussed), but for now, I'm going to Play Nice and keep this spoiler-free (mostly) as I discuss some of the larger problems of the film.

Iron Man 3 has a lot to handle.  It's the first Marvel-which-is-now-owned-by-the-Happy-Mouse movie to come out after the juggernaut that was Avengers.  It has to acknowledge the events of that film, which fortunately, provide the characters with plenty of room to grow and develop.  Now, Marvel has said over and over that the movie universe is different from the comics universe, and boy howdy, are they right on that score in this movie!  The problem with that stance is that it's an argument I've always found cowardly to the extreme - the comics are what brought people to the movies in the first place, genius.  Accept that.  Embrace that.  And, for the love of Stan Lee, be respectful of that.

So let me say this.  Iron Man 3 is a fine action flick.  It received a huge incentive to be filmed largely in my home state of North Carolina, and I like that.  It's a fun movie for buttered popcorn.  Things blow up.  Bad guys lose.  Good guys win.  The effects are slick, Tony Stark says snarky things, and at the end of the day, the world is saved.  Yay.

I'm just disappointed that Marvel lacked the spine to carry the story down the road that it was set on oh-so-very-carefully in the first two movies.  (Just a hint - click here to look up Justin Hammer [the character played by the criminally-underrated Sam Rockwell in Iron Man 2] and consider the possibilities.)  I know people will argue with me on this - which is fine, art involves differences in taste by its very nature - but this movie is the beginning of the end of the current wave of superhero movies, because with Iron Man 3, we're at #2 on this brilliant blueprint of why the superhero bubble must and will burst.  Oh, they will continue to be made - too much money is already in the pipeline - but the quality will begin to suffer, due in large part to the vicious circle at the heart of the conundrum of "it costs money to make money."  If you make your money by people buying tickets to (1) movies and (2) stuff that ties in to those movies, you want to make movies that everyone wants to go see.  So you can't offend your markets.  So you begin to tweak the story.  The problem there is that you inevitably slice out the very parts that make the stories interesting and edgy.

There was major Chinese money involved in making Iron Man 3, which meant certain things needed to be (ahem) toned down for the Chinese audience.  (Entire scenes are in the Chinese release that are not in the American release, by the way.)  That meant gutting a central character but, you know, throw in enough explosions and maybe no one will notice.  Have really cool shots of dozens of suits flying independently and maybe the fangirls won't point out that THAT NEVER HAPPENS in the original text.  Then say over and over, "Well, the movies are different from the comics" and hope people buy it.  And hope people buy the inevitable tie-in merchandise.  And when you get called on your failure to follow through, claim that you're just giving the viewers what they want.

Such a philosophy belongs to the raw, untamed capitalism of the Stark Industries of the original Iron Man.  There, Stark's strategy was simple - make it, market it, sell it, and pocket the profits without a thought about its ultimate use (or message).  Tony grew beyond such a limited worldview and, in so doing, he became a hero.  (Incidentally, he lost none of his wealth by "privatizing peace.")  Hollywood has not done the same, so tired stories get trotted out with a flashy paint job and Michael Bay seizure-inducing jump cuts and we're supposed to be breathlessly thrilled.

I'm not.  Iron Man 3 is a fine action flick.  It's nothing more, which is a shame.