RSS

Category Archives: movies

Vampire popularity: it’s technology’s fault

I’ve been developing a bit of a weekly ritual in the months since I struck out on my own, a tradition I’ve taken to calling Terrible Movie Tuesdays. As the name implies, it’s the day I go to the theatre and see terrible movies or, generally speaking, films my fiance has no intention of seeing. Me? I just like going. The lower admission charge on Tuesdays and the fact that theatres are usually deserted during the middle of the day adds up to a bit of fun solo time, even if that time is usually spent having my intelligence insulted by bad cinema.

Yesterday I checked out Priest, a movie that was ultimately as bad as it looked (you know it’s going to suck when there aren’t any advance screenings for critics). The premise, such as it was: humans and vampires have been at war for time immemorial. But, with the help of ninja-like priests, the Church has beaten back the blood-sucking hordes and imprisoned them on reservations. That leaves the holy folks free to run the world. I know – talk about a horror film!

The less said about the movie the better, but it did get me thinking about vampires. I’ve come to bloody well hate them (pun intended) just because they’re so overdone and oversaturated. If it’s not bad vampire TV shows – ahem, True Blood – then it’s bad vampire movies like Priest and bad vampire novels, which in turn get turned into bad vampire movies (yup, the one and only Twilight series).

I used to love vampires – my favourite TV show of all time remains Buffy the Vampire Slayer while one of my fave books is the original Dracula – but that was when they appeared sparingly. The amount of vamp-lore out there today, however, is getting out of hand. Knowing that the entertainment world works in cycles – where a genre is hot one minute and gone the next – I’ve been waiting for the eventual wane of vampires. But it just doesn’t seem to be coming.

So I’m wondering: is there something more to this vampire thing, other than it’s the current craze of the entertainment business?

The answer, I think, may be yes and – as always – it may be because of technology.

Vampires come in many different shapes and sizes – the ones in Priest were similar to the aliens in Aliens, thereby indicating that the “script” (and I shudder to call it that) may have originally starred some other kinds of monsters, but was then rewritten to suit the current flavour. All the different vampires do, however, generally have a couple things in common, most notably the need to continually drink blood and the ability to live forever if they do so.

Here’s where technology comes in. Thanks to science improving food, medicine and general prosperity in the world, people are living longer and longer, particularly in the developed world. Over the past half century, life spans have increased about 10 years to around 80 in such countries. In the nineteenth century, the life expectancy was under 40. Even when those numbers are tempered somewhat by a decline in infant mortality, a typical 21st century human would probably seem nearly immortal to someone living two centuries ago.

Moreover, we’re on the cusp of a significant further expansion in life spans, which are topics I’ll be getting into in book #2. Biotechnology, robotics, nanotechnology, computing and discoveries in neurology are all going to provide the keys to first slowing aging and then reversing it. It sounds like science fiction but some of it is already possible. Where big advancements need to happen is not so much in the science but rather in our attitudes toward it.

I wonder if this trend of longer life is something people are subconsciously aware of, hence the popularity of vampire fiction: we want insight into the effects of immortality – and as much of it as possible. Will it make us better people, like Angel; will it make us sexier, like those Twlight dudes; will it make us annoying, like most of the vampires on True Blood; or will it make us giant douches, like Anne Rice’s Lestat? (Tom Cruise evidently has a head start.) In a nutshell: perhaps we’re curious about what longer life means, so we want to see it dramatized in entertainment from as many different angles as possible.

Then there’s the fact that the whole mythos of the vampire is based on a Faustian trade-off: eternal life in exchange for eternal killing and drinking of blood. Does the popularity of vampires reflect some sort of angst over a similar real-world trade-off, that science’s continual life extension is coming at a cost? Is our headlong pursuit of technology somehow costing us our humanity, which is a theme that’s been explored in countless science-fiction stories from Frankenstein onwards?

I’m not sure, but obviously Terrible Movie Tuesdays have some merit to them. Being bored by what’s happening on screen provides a lot of time to ponder such questions and I surely can’t explain the continual popularity of vampires any other way.

Anyone else have any ideas?

 
3 Comments

Posted by on May 18, 2011 in health, immortality, movies

 

M. Night: It’s Over, Mon

Being a film buff, I see a lot of movies. It was with great interest, then, that I sat in a theater recently and watched a trailer for a new horror thriller that takes place largely in an elevator. An interesting concept, I thought, as did most of the audience… until a set of words popped up onto the screen that inspired howls of laughter: “From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan.”

Seriously. The audience broke out in laughter as soon as the director/writer’s name appeared. What’s even funnier is that I’ve now seen the trailer before a couple of movies, and every time it’s been the same reaction: steady interest until his name appeared, then laughter.

You don’t need to be a film critic to know that’s not good. It seems pretty clear that Shyamalan, who first burst onto the scene in 1999 with The Sixth Sense – a movie about a kid who sees dead people – has by now lost all credibility. The abominable Last Airbender, which got an astonishing 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a whopping average critic score of 20 out of a 100 on Metacritic, looks to have been the final nail in his dwindling career.

Up until now! Oh yes, as if Shyamalan doesn’t have enough trouble being taken seriously, he’s gone and done a spoof of the upcoming elevator movie that he wrote – unimaginatively called Devil, by the way – with MTV’s Josh Horowitz and Penthouse Pet Ryan Keely (her inclusion thereby tangentially qualifying the movie for discussion on this blog). Here’s the spoof, equally imaginatively named Escalation.

As you can see, the only thing worse than a man who isn’t being taken seriously spoofing himself, is a man spoofing himself in something that isn’t even funny. Yikes.

 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 31, 2010 in movies, penthouse

 

Ebert gives online porn two thumbs up

On occasion, I still come across the occasional person who doubts that porn has indeed played a massive role in technological advancement and development. “It’s a myth,” or “it’s overblown,” I hear. (Of course, none of these doubting Thomases has read my book, otherwise they’d be fully convinced otherwise, wink wink.)

In a similar vein, I occasionally come across an irrefutable nugget that proves such people don’t really know what they’re talking about. The latest such example comes from the world’s most renowned and respected film critic: Roger Ebert.

Ebert, long-time reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times and the man who – along with his deceased partner Gene Siskel – made famous the “two thumbs up” method of review, has started a new online venture called The Ebert Club. Full details are here but briefly, for $5 a year members get all of Ebert’s movie reviews as well as a whole bunch of extras, like access to exclusive pages and an invitation to a meet-and-greet with the critic at his annual film festival.

Ebert’s rationale: “Most web sites generate less income than they cost to maintain. Mine is no exception. Because I want to preserve free access to the site, I’ve come up with an idea I’d like to run by you. I’m announcing The Ebert Club, which will offer a group of additional attractions and conveniences for members.”

What’s interesting, though, is how he got the idea. In a blog post explaining the club, Ebert gives credit to a chance meeting 13 years ago with Bert Manzari, a senior vice-president of the Landmark theatre chain. Ebert and some friends were talking about how no one had figured out how to make money on the web when Manzari chimed in: “My wife has.” It turns out his wife was the famous Danni Ashe, of Danni’s Hard Drive, a porn website that made money hands over fist in the nineties.

Ebert ended up having dinner with Danni, who turned him onto a book called Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte, which explained the idea of micropayments. As the concept goes, micropayments involve internet users paying a couple of pennies to view certain web pages – like movie reviews. The end result is a small cost to the user, but with enough volume the content producer can earn a tidy living. It’s an idea that is being tested in various forms by various producers, including the New York Times. The Ebert Club, as its creator explains, is itself a variation on the concept.

As the title of Ebert’s post indicates, he has no idea if the plan will work. But there you have it: the best-known movie critic around is taking cues from the porn world. While it’s true that porn companies don’t spend billions developing new technologies, they are certainly the first ones to try out new advances and often the first to figure out how to monetize them, which influences people in the mainstream. There’s quite a few examples of this in my book, so eat it, doubters!

That said, Ebert’s got one hell of a porn pedigree. He got his start writing screenplays for Russ Meyer with films such as Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. If you don’t know Meyer (who’s covered in my book), he’s essentially the godfather of porno films. His 1959 film The Immoral Mr. Teas, about a door-to-door salesman who has a knack for running into naked women, revolutionized what sort of nudity and sexual content was allowed in mainstream film. While they were fairly soft-core by today’s measures, Meyer’s films kickstarted the whole sexploitation trend, which led to more and more hard-core on-screen action.

(Thanks to CBC colleague and film dude Eli Glasner for alerting me to Ebert’s endeavour.)

 
Comments Off

Posted by on March 4, 2010 in internet, movies, sex

 

The science of Avatar

It’s a little bit of a departure today from the usual sex, bombs and burgers fare, but I had to take the opportunity to rave about Avatar, James Cameron’s new science-fiction movie. You’ve probably heard all of the critical praise already, but if I could add my humble two cents worth: it may just be the best movie ever made.

Oh yeah. I said it. I saw Avatar on Friday and, during parts of it, I couldn’t help but think that I was watching a magic show rather than a movie. While leaving the theatre, I had that “I just witnessed something important” feeling, which I can’t say I remember having after any other movie. Like the ads say, Avatar is going to change movies. However, I think it can be compared to Apple’s iPhone – it’s so far ahead of the game, it’s going to take others a long time to make anything comparable. It makes Star Wars and Lord of the Rings look like they created in some garage by a pair of a hobbyists.

So what makes Avatar so amazing? It’s Pandora, the alien world that is so fully realized that it immerses the viewer and makes them really feel like they’re there. The luscious planet teems with plant and animal life that is on the one hand utterly fantastical, but at the same time incredibly realistic. And of course, the big bonus is that it’s all in 3D – those crazy alien tigers and rhinos seem amazingly lifelike, and there’s amazing depth as the characters run and fly through the jungles.

The Discovery Channel has a short report on some of the science that went into the movie, with Cameron talking about the effort that went into making the planet real:

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 21, 2009 in 3D, movies

 

The truth is out there

A quick follow-up to Friday’s post on porn parodies – a reader brought to my attention that not every mainstream producer is allowing porn companies to riff off their intellectual property. 20th Century Fox has issued a cease-and-desist letter against porn producer New Sensations over its upcoming spoof of The X-Files.

The film features everybody’s two favourite paranormal investigators and promises to, as Examiner.com put it, fill “in some of the blanks many X-Files fans had previously left to the imagination.”

New Sensations decided last week that discretion was the better part of valour and said it “does not believe that its intended product infringes on the rights of Fox. However, in the spirit of cooperation, the company has decided to respond to Fox’s concerns by adapting the title to The Sex Files: A Dark XXX Parody.”

The characters names have also been changed although viewers shouldn’t have any trouble figuring out who’s who. Judging from her picture at right, porn star Kimberley Kane is pretty much the spitting image of Scully.

I wonder if they tried to cast David Duchovny to star in the parody? The guy certainly has the resume for it – not only did he get his start on Red Shoe Diaries, a soft-core cable show, he’s also a well-known sex addict.

 
Comments Off

Posted by on August 31, 2009 in copyright, movies, sex

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,144 other followers