For Father's Day this year I bought my dad a DVD collection of the Star Trek series on TV. It's a compilation of fans' favorite episodes from all the series as well as from the actors who played all the captains. I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or
I really like getting lost in all the sci-fi elements: visiting alien planets, going back in time, intelligent machines, etc., but I also think there was great chemistry of acting going on as well. The three principle characters in the original series (Kirk, Spock, and Bones) are amazingly interesting archetypes. While the psychological underpinnings of Captain Picard and Data’s quest to be human are equally entertaining.
However, Star Trek has a way of braining up its dialogue (making it difficult for the uninitiated to follow), while dumbing down the plot (making it difficult for critics to get on board). I'm imaging that Abrams and co. are taking a cue from Battlestar Galactica: juicing up the action-adventure, while honing in on dramatic elements, like the friendship between Kirk and Spock for example. I liken this unto the reboot of the Bond movies that eerily mimicked the Bourne series as well as 24. Here's hoping the J.J. Abrams can bridge the gap between uber-talkative with intriguing plot, yet still action-packed.
Also, ew.com has posted some amazing pictures from his new reimagining:
Apparently the feud between J.J. Abrams and William Shatner hasn't really gone away. Here's an interview with J.J. trying to defend himself.
William "the Shat" Shatner has recently answered questions regarding his non-appearance in JJ Abrams new Star Trek movie. Personally, I think the man is an overacting genius and I'm disappointed that he's not gonna make an appearance. But then again he did die in Star Trek: Generations--however, didn't Spock die in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn? I'm just saying.
Are you telling me you wouldn't want this gutsy performance in your new Star Trek movie JJ?
Here's some beautifully bodacious bands that are coming out with new music!!
Sept 9
Okkervil River
Sept 23
Cold War Kids
Jenny Lewis
TV on the Radio
Sept 29
Travis
Sept 30
Ben Folds
Oct 6
Oasis
Oct 7
Of Montreal
Oct 13
Los Campesinos
Oct 14
The Cure
Kaiser Chiefs
Keane
Oct 21
Brett Dennen
Oct 28
Bloc Party
Deer Hunter
Snow Patrol
Nov 24
The Killers
Check it out!! Jack is back for a prequel to the upcoming season. This TV movie is set in Africa and is meant to bridge the gap between season 6 and 7!!
I'm prone to exposing my geekiness on this little ol' blog of mine from time to time and I'm sure that revealing my love for the geekiest of all sci-fi shows won't help my coolness factor, but here goes: Battlestar Galactica is amazing!! I know you are disgusted and wondering how any sane and normal person could love such a moronic, fanboy series. But I do--even to the chagrin of my wife, who tends to humiliate me whenever possible on this point. Oh and yes, that's the first time I've referred to my wife on this blog, because I was recently married! But most people who read this already know that.
Anyway, I like to think of myself as a critical thinker who doesn't waste his time with the majority of the popular dreck that passes for entertainment nowadays. For this reason, I've had to come up with a justification for addicting myself to this sci-fi, action, melodrama. I guess that by defining it as I did might explain my love for it.
Don't get me wrong, it is science fiction, which crosses the border into Dwight nerdom. But I've always been a fan of sci-fi since I was little. I remember watching Star Trek with my dad at a young age and wondering if man would boldly go to other planets. BSG is different from Star Trek in its approach, however, because it is a serialized drama, much like Lost. In other words, each episode connects to the previous and subsequent episode. I like to look at it like watching different chapters from a very riveting TV book or something.
It's action-packed. Sure, I'm a guy. I like those action sequences. The action is set in space, but unlike Star Trek, which takes everything on a future based on logic and almost gentlemen-like warfare. BSG takes the Star Wars approach (old ones), which is very messy and entertaining battle sequences that are found in almost every episode. Oh, yes they're always at war with robotic humans (Cylons)...come on that's cool!
It is melodramtic. I know this isn't the typical facet that most guys might like, but every episode hinges on personal relationships, deep character layering, religious symbols, current political bravado, and an intense cerebral mystery. My heart pumps a little when I watch it as it always keeps me guessing.
John McCain - Col. Tigh & Sarah Palin - Pres. Laura Roslin
Now, that you know why I love this little cable TV show I had to mention something else about it that I found funny. The recent revelation that Sarah Palin will be John McCain's running-mate has prompted people to notice an odd similarity with the would-be president and his vice with that of some major characters on BSG that I thought was pretty uncanny. Check it out.
I'm a total geek for Harry Potter, thanks to my little sister. Check out this trailer for the new movie. It reminds me of a prequel to the Silence of the Lambs or something. It's eerie.
The names of the guilty have been changed to protect their identities.
Brother #3: Some sad news for Aaron. http://tv.yahoo.com/show/30728/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20080722:obit_getty
Brother #1: She was actually really funny on that show, which I confess I watched repeatedly, since back in those days you were either watching sit-coms or nothing.
I believe Bea Arthur has purchased a burial plot in Arlington.
Brother #3: I confess an affinity to Bea Arthur's character--she was so wise, so patient; there is no better example of how, as we age, we move from innocence to experience--forged, if not new and attractive, then at least strong and true, by the refiner's fire.
Thankfully, ARAM still has the unholy trinity of Bob Saget, John Stamos, and, closest to his heart, Dave Coultier, aka "Uncle Joey."
Me: I'm still trying to fugue out how four senior citizen women managed to afford a home in Palm Beach on Social Security. You had the senile old woman, called "Maaahh" by Bea Arthur. You had the senile old religious woman, played by Betty White. Then you had Bea Arthur's central role. You also had the harlot-ish one lady that was always tramping around.
So sad that I know so much about that show. So very sad.
Brother #2: "purchased a burial plot in Arlington"?
More like Uncle Sam begged her to accept a burial plot in Arlington
There are hundreds of thousands of people buried in Arlington, who, were they able to speak, would utter these words: "I give up my spot for Bea Arthur, please undig me"
Bea is rough yet polished on the exterior and delicate and charismatic on the inside, like a cigarette
My wife and I watch that show regularly. It's on the Lifetime Channel (46) at 11:00 with back-to-back episodes. My favorite character is Rose (the one who is supposed to be naive). Their apartment is huge ... they each have their own bedroom and the condo has a giant living room attached to a giant dining room and then there's a huge private patio in back and the kitchen is giant, roughly three times the size of a normal kitchen. On one episode they show the interior of the bathroom which was about 20 x 20, three or four times as large as any normal bathroom. And supposedly they all work at these volunteer-type jobs.
Me: Brother #2 ….
I'll have to ask you to turn in your gun and your badge. That you know what channel Lifetime is numbered AND what time Golden Girls is on .... it's too much.
I was digging out my basement this week, looking for stuff to sell on E-Bay. Underneath a mountain of pogs and unicorn sketches, I found a yellowed copy of a movie script that I wrote up in high school. At the time, I had dreams of becoming a film producer. Those dreams have long since faded, just like the yellowed copy of the movie script.
While the script is too long to post, I will include a draft copy for the theatrical trailer of the film.
(camera is zoomed in on hands working at a grill, the hands are somewhat worn, somewhat large, and are skilled in the arts of the grill. The hands are slicing peppers and dicing onions with knives, flipping meats over with spatulas, and using a blow torch to light up a Cherries Jubilee cream dessert).
Narrator Voice: "Jack Parcetti was just an ordinary man. He had his ordinary job, doing ordinary things."
(Camera zooms out, we see Steven Seagal in a lab coat and hair net at the grill. He weighs at least 275 pounds.)
Guy in a navy blue suit with five o'clock shadow and aviator sunglasses who is obviously a cop or agent of some kind: "Jack, we really need your help on this one. These guys are coming in, and they're coming strong."
Parcetti, played by Seagal: "I'm just a cook ...."
Guy in a navy blue suit with five o'clock shadow and aviator sunglasses who is obviously a cop or agent of some kind: "You're just a sissy, that's all."
Woman in a black pant suit probably purchased at Dress Barn or other low budget store because she is obviously a cop: "That's not the Parcetti I knew. What happened to you?"
Narrator: "But then Jack Parcetti's ordinary life blew up in his face."
(Scene shows an Asian woman in her 20's being escorted off a playground by masked thugs in Karate uniforms. Asian woman is put in the back of a black sedan. The sedan is parked inside of a garage. Daylight shot of garage from exterior, camera zooms out to show that the garage is attached to a modern looking house up in the hills of California wine country, with a rock garden, Asian sculptures, and zebras in the massive yard. Camera than shows a stop watch clicking backwards, when it hits one, camera zooms out to show the house, garden, zebras, sculptures, and vineyards blown up with a massive fire bomb. Fade to black ....
Later that night, police tape is surrounding the once peaceful area. We see the blue and red flashing lights of police cars, small fires are still spewing here and there, including a shot of a zebra carcass being consumed by fire. We see the guy in a navy blue suit and the woman in a pant suit looking over the crime scene. The navy blue suit man throws up, the woman is crying. We see a photo on the ground, edges burnt by fire. It's a photo of the Asian woman that was blown up .................... she is with someone in the photo, but the face of the other person is covered by dirt. The wind blows, revealing the face of the person with the Asian woman ..................... it's Jack Parcetti.
Shot goes back out to show the yellow crime tape, we see those skilled hands of the grill man, they rip the tape right in half. Parcetti walks up to the cops.)
Parcetti: "Was it them?"
Guy in navy blue suit, still wearing sunglasses even though it's dark: "Yeah. It was them sickos. Those thugs make me sick." (Man barfs again.)
Woman cop in sensible pant suit: "Jack, this is real bad."
Parcetti: "Bad? It's only gonna' be bad for those monsters who killed my wife and zebras."
Narrator voice: "And Jack Parcetti will prove that he is no ordinary man at all."
(camera zooms in on the skilled hands of Jack Parcetti. They wipe the food off the knives, then sharpen the knives. The hands take the spatula and flip the last of the pancakes on the grill. Then those hands wipe off the spatula and sharpen the edges of the spatula. The hands rip off the lab coat, revealing a black trench coat and camouflage pants with tactical belts and straps. The knives are affixed to the belts and straps. The spatula is put into a shoulder holster. We see a full view of Jack Parcetti, he pulls of the hair net. Then, those skilled hand reach down and grab a pancake. Parcetti puts the pancake in his mouth. The whole friggin' pancake.)
Parcetti, still chewing the pancake, begins to talk right at the camera, spewing pancake bits right at the camera: "I'm coming for you, Mr. Chang."
(Parcetti than takes a stack of pancakes and puts them in his coat. Foggy mist arises from the ground. Parcetti disappears into the mist. The mist fills the screen, and blood red calligraphy lettering shows up on screen, revealing the name of the movie)
This fall, Steven Seagal is Jack Parcetti, Vincent D'Onofrio is Detective Tommy McHammond, and Toni Collette is Agent Susan Harper. With Maggie Cheung as the Asian wife of Parcetti and David Carradine as Mr. Chang.
Apparently, Michael Bay wrote an unsolicited script for The Dark Knight that was ultimately rejected by Warner Bros. Though this is the first I’ve heard of it, I have the exclusive leaked images to back it up. Here are some choice excerpts.
By Andrew O’Hehir
All winter and spring, people in the independent-film business have been murmuring politely behind their hands and pretending not to see the 800-pound walrus in the corner of the room: The indie industry is undergoing a sudden and largely unexpected meltdown, or in the business-speak recently employed by Sony Pictures Classics co-president Tom Bernard, "a periodic market adjustment."
Nobody's ignoring it anymore, not after Saturday's address to a Los Angeles Film Festival conference by Mark Gill, CEO of the independent production and financing outfit the Film Department and former president of Miramax and Warner Independent. Gill's speech, entitled "Yes, the Sky Really Is Falling," was followed by a thoughtful Sunday column from the Philadelphia Inquirer's Carrie Rickey, cataloging everything that has gone wrong for small films, and the companies that make them, in the last six months.
It's a short but bloody history: Warner Bros. shut down its Picturehouse and Warner Independent subsidiaries and slashed the staff of New Line Cinema by 90 percent. Paramount Vantage, another "studio specialty division" that was born just two years ago, is being reabsorbed by Paramount Pictures. ThinkFilm, a true independent distributor, is being sued by vendors who say they haven't been paid and is under fire from documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney, who claims the company botched the release of his Oscar-winning "Taxi to the Dark Side." Think's future is in doubt, as is that of Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, which has reportedly downsized itself by half. According to Gill, who ought to know, at least five other indie distributors "are in serious financial peril." (I could probably guess who three or four of those are, but it's indecent to speculate about other people's livelihoods.)
At the big winter-spring marketplaces of Sundance, Berlin and Cannes, the apparent indie boom of the last few years turned awfully tepid, awfully fast. There were lots of terrific smaller-scale films at those festivals, but hardly anything that looked or felt like an international art-house hit on the scale of "Pan's Labyrinth" or "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" -- the movies that enable indie distributors like IFC or Miramax or Sony Classics to take chances on riskier fare. And as Rickey details, it's been a relatively weak year at the box office, with expected hits like "The Counterfeiters," "The Visitor," "In Bruges" and "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" failing to cross over to mainstream moviegoers (or at least not in sufficient numbers).
Perhaps your heart does not bleed overmuch, amid the general economic and spiritual turmoil of our country, for a few middle-sized motion pictures that failed to meet expectations -- or for a few dozen movie-industry executives forcibly ejected from the corporate suites of Manhattan and Burbank. First of all this isn't really about them, although most of them are decent and knowledgeable people who care more about movies than about money (or they wouldn't be working on the weedy intellectual fringe of the entertainment industry). It's also insufficient to retreat to some 2002-style panegyric about how a digital democracy is dawning and these old-school gatekeepers must perish in the tar pits of economic history for a new model to emerge.
That argument has a pseudo-Marxist ring of historical inevitability about it, but it's mostly wrong. Nobody in the film business questions that the current mode of distribution for independent film -- in Rickey's article, Emerging Pictures CEO Ira Deutchman calls it the "post-studio, pre-Internet era" -- is somewhere between transitional and dysfunctional, and that some version of electronic home delivery is likely to dominate the marketplace within five to 15 years. But as God is my witness, we need gatekeepers! If anything, we need them in the digital era more than ever. At least in the short term, the current marketplace implosion is likely to have a highly undemocratic effect on both filmmakers and film lovers, delivering still more practical control over what we watch and when to a shrinking group of ever-larger entertainment conglomerates.
Even as the potential moviegoing public has become distracted by an explosion of electronic options and devices unimagined a generation ago, the marketplace has been swamped by a poisonous glut of new movies. As Gill explains, in 1993, the Sundance Film Festival received roughly 500 submissions. For 2008, that number had swollen to more than 5,000. The reasons for that are various: The cost of producing a small-budget motion picture has fallen sharply in the digital age, and the success of a handful of indies in the late '90s and early 2000s drew investors large and small to pour countless billions of dollars into filmmaking.
It hasn't turned out to be a sensible investment. Gill calculates the odds of losing all your money on an independent film at 99.95 percent. Most of those 5,000 movies, in his words, are "pre-ordained flops," made by people "who forgot that their odds would have been better if they'd converted their money into quarters and taken the all-night party bus to Vegas." First of all, there's the simple fact that the market can't support more than 10 percent of those movies in a given year, and probably a much lower ratio than that. In 2007 a reported 603 films were released theatrically in the United States, the vast majority of them coming and going almost unnoticed. Everyone in the business agrees that number is unsustainably high; a more reasonable level might be 250 to 300.
Then there's the fact that while enthusiasm, access to technology and an eagerness to become famous may be widespread, talent and craftsmanship are not. As anybody who's ever served on a film-festival selection committee learns the hard way, most of those movies should never have been made in the first place and definitely should not be inflicted upon the public. There has indeed been an explosion of ultra-low-budget filmmaking -- just try to wade through the self-produced movies available on YouTube -- but so far it has not revealed a nation full of unheralded Orson Welleses in embryo. If anything, it has produced a deluge of abysmal crap that makes the genuine discoveries harder to see. As Gill acidly observed: "The digital revolution is here, and boy does it suck."
Is he just an old-economy pterosaur cynically trying to fend off the evolutionary trend that will make him obsolete? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't make him wrong. However independent films will be distributed in the future, I suspect a two-tier economy will be involved. There will still be a professional film industry that produces and distributes a relatively small number of movies that cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, whether they reach you in theaters, through a cable box, on your computer or iPod or through some other pipeline not yet devised. There will also be a purely digital universe of films that cost almost nothing to make and almost nothing to watch -- sort of a purified, film-school version of YouTube, minus any dreams of media stardom or celebrity coke parties.
There are two contradictory ways of looking at the current crisis, and as is customary with these things, they're both partly accurate without quite grasping the big picture. On one hand, this rapidly snowballing market crash seemed to come out of nowhere. Indiewood movies, meaning those distributed by the studios' specialty divisions, have dominated the Oscar nominations for the last three or four years. Just last fall, Miramax and the now-defunct Paramount Vantage shared the production and distribution of "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood," the year's two most acclaimed American films. You might have heard about a little Fox Searchlight release called "Juno," which approximately everyone in the country saw twice. It looked as if the mid-level quasi-independent film was conquering the adult moviegoing market, turning the big studios into teen-oriented sequel factories and driving smaller, more adventurous art-house cinema to the margins of the margins.
On the other hand, even if nobody saw this coming, we should have seen something coming. The national economy has slipped into what looks like a protracted recession, the supply pipeline is clogged with crap, the future of film distribution is literally up in the air and the audience is distracted, distraught and fragmented. Newspapers, broadcast TV, the music industry and other media have suffered precipitous downturns. What a great moment for dark and quirky motion pictures! Seen in that light, a market crash was an enormous duh, and perhaps a necessary correction, as they say in business school. Maybe all that stock-market money had to go down the toilet to get the industry focused on making fewer and better films, a solution that would make many of these problems go away.
Of course my judgment, like that of Mark Gill and Carrie Rickey, may be clouded by my desire to make a living: If independent film disappears as an economically viable industry, I'll have to find something else to write about. Be that as it may, I'll sign on with their guarded optimism; as the president always tells Congress during the State of the Union address, the "economic fundamentals" beneath the whole enterprise remain strong, and down cycles give way to up cycles just as surely as rain produces flowers. Gill cites marketing data suggesting that 10 percent of the public tell pollsters they prefer independent films to mainstream fare, which if anything is a historic increase. (Indies traditionally account for 5 or 6 percent of ticket sales.)
Does that polling data actually mean that one in 10 Americans would rather see Werner Herzog's new Antarctica documentary (doing very well in limited release, thank you), or revisit Kieslowski's "Three Colors" than stand in line for Christopher Nolan's latest Batman flick? Or does it just reflect a momentary semiotic uptick in the number of people who want to appear hip and sophisticated? I think we know the answer to that question, but there's a trickier one out there: How does the economic, social and cultural climate surrounding filmmaking affect the work? And in the age of the iPhone and the Wii and the whatever else, are there still budding Fellinis and Tarantinos interested in creating spellbinding visual narratives that demand your full attention for 90-plus minutes?
Sure there are. Sony's Tom Bernard told Rickey that the obituary for art-house movies "appears every 17 years, like the locust." The indie booms of the '80s and '90s crested and collapsed in their turn, but the best filmmakers always survived -- and without fail every year moviegoers turn some totally unlikely release into a big hit. As far as the old-fashioned movie experience is concerned, Gill is probably right that in a few years we'll have half as many films released in half as many theaters. This will be a sad transition for many of us, sure. But the movies weren't killed by television, they weren't killed by VHS and DVD, and they can't be killed by whatever's happening now.
Link
We took engagement photos last weekend and they're now online for your viewing pleasure. I must warn you that they're not your typical engagement photos. In case you're wondering where we got some of our inspiration, check out the stuff below. Also, thanks to Leo Patrone for taking such amazing photos.
Emma and Jed's Engagments
Leo Patrone Photography
First of all, Emma and I are keen on 50s and 60s sensibilities: we both love the Beatles, Beach Boys, and very 60s movies like Breakfast at Tiffany's. (That should be pretty obvious in our photos.) Also, we love indie rock: The Killers, Jenny Lewis (Rilo Kiley), Arcade Fire, etc. So basically, we just stole elements of photos, movies, music videos that we liked and applied them to our little photo shoot. Questions?
The Bealtes
Jenny Lewis 
The Killers
The Umbrellas de Cherbourg
American Gothic 
Amelie
The Beach Boys
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Buddy Holly
Arcade Fire
Kate Nash
Grease
Beck
Lily Allen
Challengers
'To Sir with Love'
Here's more evidence that MTV is decidedly pointless and the internet is the only way to really view music videos nowadays. This new Weezer video showcases some of YouTube's most famous stars. See if you can spot them:
If you don't recognize all of these "famous" internet stars, this link catalogues all of them.
Duane, feel free to have your little coup...for now. I've got some errant posts running around my head that need to put down to rest on JedBoy--it's just finding the time has been difficult. So, Duane, seriously, write as much as you want. And in an effort to add something to this blog, I've decided to add an email that I get weekly from the one, the only, Hayley. Most of you probably don't know her, but she's got the goods when it comes to pop culture, so I thought I would interject one of her many analyses of my favorite TV show to this humble little blog. With her permission of course:
Upon Jedboy making his return to explain his absence, I decided that I would take advantage of his busy schedule to perform a coup d'etat and reign in my dark power over this blog. To ensure my success, I am asking for donations so that I my purchase these monkeys who control robotic arms with their brain waves.
Come on Jed, how hard can the PC budget be. I'm over here fixing a $2.2 billion revenue shortfall, but I still have time for the peoples...and professional baseball...and watching Arrested Development online. Funny, has anyone seen my wife and kids around....?
Indiana is finally here. Iron Man has come and gone. The Office season finale sits without comment. The Chili Peppers are disbanded. The Jazz are out. USA Today's pop blog has a subtitle eerily similar.
Come back to us Jedboy. You can have love and a blog! (or so I would think...)
I know that Jedboy's blog tends to be about movies and television, but I hope that you might allow me to steer this vehicle in a different direction today.
If you, like me and a great many other people, read sports blogs, there is a gigantic nerd fight taking place across the interwebs today.
Over the last few years, and especially in the last months, journalists from established newspaper, radio, and television outlets have been criticizing bloggers for being uneducated, uninformed, and, essentially, dumbing down America because of bad sports writing. In addition, a great number of very well-known sports personalities such as Bob Costas have the perception that bloggers, particularly those that write about sports, live in their mom's basement.
Last night, Bob Costas attempted to have Will Leitch, the editor of Deadspin.com, the most popular sports blog on the Internet in terms of page views, and a sports journalist named H.G. Bissinger on to discuss the state of the internet in sports media. (Bissinger, by the way, is the guy that wrote the book Friday Night Lights, the basis for the movie of the same name, which was the inspiration for the movie of the same name. Everybody with me so far?)
Costas asked Leitch some question, like "Is what you're doing news?", to which Leitch began to offer an answer. Leitch got in no more than fifteen seconds before Bissinger tore into him about how poorly written blogs are and how blogs are essentially tearing the journalist universe apart.
So, this is all a long way of me introducing my point for today's post -- why I, and many others, blog about sports, movies, TV, music, or whatever. While I tend to focus my energies on sports and TV, you can essentially substitute your favorites subject in and the essence is the same.
Sports are consumed by masses of people all at once. Although I may watch a Jazz game by myself or one or two friends, I know that thousands of people saw that same game at the arena and millions more saw that game at their homes. Those masses of people then talk about that game.
"Did you see that?"
"How awesome (or how bad) was our team last night?"
So millions of people are watching and talking about any given sports event. However, for all of those people, there are only a handful of journalists reporting about that event. I used to work for a university athletic department. During an extremely successful football season, there were maybe fifty reporters at most, from local and national outlets, covering a game. Millions of people watching with a small number of people with published opinions or recaps of those games.
What blogging gives me the chance to go is to discuss and digest a game (or movie) in the same environment in which I consume it. Rather than read one sports writers opinion from my local new source, I can get online, post my opinion, read opinions of others, and then discuss and comment on those opinions. Sounds great to me. Do like that idea?
When Guillermo del Toro was officially announced as the director of "The Hobbit" and a second, transitional film last week, it became The Day Middle-earth Stood Still for every J.R.R. Tolkien fan.
How would the visionary director of "Pan's Labyrinth" and "Hellboy" approach hobbits and dwarves, riddles and Rivendell, the Battle of Five Armies and the great dragon Smaug? And perhaps most important, just what is that second film going to be about, anyway?
For his part, Del Toro is more than happy to discuss what he's got in his pocketses — and up his sleeve as well — revealing to MTV News his vision for the second film, his views on heroic fantasy (and how they've changed), his dream cast, the look and feel of "The Hobbit," his favorite scenes and more.
(For more on whether you can expect to see your favorite "Lord of the Rings" castmembers in "The Hobbit," check out the MTV Movies Blog.)
MTV: Peter Jackson created a defined film vocabulary for the look and feel of Middle-earth. How will you make it your own? Will you have to subvert yourself?
Guillermo del Toro: We are not attempting to do an exact replication. "The Hobbit" occurs a little over a half-century before the events of "Lord of the Rings." It transverses areas of Middle-earth that Peter did touch on [but also] many others he did not. There are many creatures he did not touch. I am expecting to create a large portion that is very new.
On the other hand, I am very comfortable living within the walls of the world he created during the second half of the second film. It's a world I absolutely love, visually. When you come to a film with a lot of precedents, you have to come to it with a lot of humility and a lot of enthusiasm. No matter what, you end up putting your stamp on it. Everything feels right to me. I don't worry about subverting myself.
MTV: Just two years ago, you were quoted as saying, "I was never into heroic fantasy." Did your views change?
Del Toro: I wasn't. I completely gravitated towards horror. For whatever reason, I never hooked into sword and sorcery. I really rediscovered fantasy through my love of filmmakers as a filmmaker. Something kind of popped and jelled. I now can empathize with one side of the fantasy genre without ever wandering into lubricated musclemen with giant swords. "The Hobbit" occupies a particular seat in fantasy that is irreplaceable. They can dredge up old cadavers in my closet. I'm not running for president. I'm a f---ing filmmaker! I'm just trying to make the movie I want to.
MTV: How do you view the transition period of the second film within the context of the larger "legendarium"?
Del Toro: [The intervening years between "The Hobbit" and "LOTR"] is the transition from the golden years to the rise of Sauron. It's essentially the beginning of civil war and uprisings. It's a very interesting time.
MTV: How much of that film, then, will be based on Tolkien's writings?
Del Toro: We're going to start with "The Hobbit," in the writing process. We'll see if we can fully contain it in one movie, which I think is perfectly possible. We'll take it from there. We just outlined what we want out of [the second film]. We outlined what we expect to tell. It's just plans and ideas right now.
MTV: Do you know who your protagonist would be in the second one? Gollum, perhaps? Or Aragorn? Gandalf?
Del Toro: [It's much more about] trying to reconcile the facts of the first movie with a slightly different point of view. You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first film [like driving the Necromancer from Mirkwood]. You would come to them in a roundabout way.
MTV: Do you view "The Hobbit" as a children's story?
Del Toro: I view it as such generally. It belongs on that shelf on the bookshelf. But what is quite touching and miraculous to me about it is that it also reflects the transition from innocence to the loss of innocence. It is a story about a beautifully carefree creature who learns about war and violence. The movie turns darker as it progresses. Don't expect me to do "The Neverending Story." I feel that my zone of comfort is perfectly met with this film — otherwise I wouldn't do it.
MTV: Will Ian Holm return as Bilbo?
Del Toro: [Holm] certainly is the paragon we aspire to. He will be involved in some manner, I'm sure. But at his age ... it's too early to tell. We are just in the early stages. It's too early to make commitments of that sort. We prefer to let the screenplay and the way the character comes to life guide us in the casting. I have many people in mind. Anything [else] I say will be used against me in a court of law. [Laughs.]
MTV: Andy Serkis [Gollum] and Ian McKellan [Gandalf] are involved though, yes?
Del Toro: We can be pretty sure that we're getting back Andy, Ian, [composer] Howard Shore and [conceptual designer] John Howe. I am going to supplement the team of designers with other choices. People that come from the comic book worlds, not in the superhero sense, but the darker, more European type of comics. We're going to enhance the team of artists that conceptualized the first trilogy to create this earlier, more golden time and the way it starts to get tarnished.
MTV: Is there a scene in "The Hobbit" you're most excited to bring to life?
Del Toro: The most beautiful scene in the book, I believe, is [the chapter] "Riddles in the Dark." I truly love it from a literary point of view and from an atmospheric point of view. It is my hope that when "The Hobbit" gets scary, it will get really scary. Peter is a master of the macabre, but I think these scary moments will have a tonal distinction from the original trilogy.
[But] the thing I've been most excited about are the spiders in Mirkwood. Smaug is one of my favorite characters in literature. It's such a beautiful and symbolic creature, totemic in what it represents and the power it has. My favorite creature in all of fantasy would be the dragon because of that book.
MTV: Do you have an idea for how you want Smaug to appear?
Del Toro: Well, yeah, but why spoil it? I do. One of the first things I discussed with Peter was that and the look and feel of the spiders, how they move. Those are the flavors that you will not enjoy until the plate is served.
MTV: You are treading on very sacred ground. Do you have a message to the fans to reassure them?
Del Toro: If you [go] deep enough you will find people that hate any depiction of Tolkien. They dislike any Tolkien that is not Tolkien. The people that are going to like it are going to like it because I come from a genuine place. And the people that are going to dislike it are going to dislike it because I'm coming from a genuine place. There's no two ways about it. You have to follow your instincts. My message is simple: If you don't think [Peter] did a fabulous job, very likely you won't think I will. If you think he did, I will do my best to make you proud of me.
Check out everything we've got on "The Hobbit."
...I'm officially engaged. These are pictures of Emma and Jed or if you like Emma Lee and Jedediah (good pioneer names). Some people like JedBoy and EmmaGirl. Other people like 'Jemma.' We just like each other. We're extremely happy and excited...just thought everyone would like to know.
Who will win it all? The numbers speak
By John HollingerESPN Insider
Updated: April 18, 2008
Has there ever been an NBA playoff season that had this much excitement leading into it? Very doubtful, and I have the inbox to prove it. The Western Conference playoffs in particular are generating all kinds of debate, with fans of all eight teams absolutely convinced they can make a deep playoff run.
If that isn't enough, two teams face first-round series that are essentially referenda on giant gambles they took with midseason trades. And at least two teams that won 54 games (or more) will be at the golf course within the next fortnight.
Back in the East things are a bit more clear-cut, yet plenty of wild cards abound even here -- from Agent Zero to the Pistons' hot temper to what the heck we're supposed to think about the Magic.
Today, we dive in and, either try to make some sense of things ... or point out things that make some sense. With that in mind, here are eight big playoff questions -- one for every seed -- and my answers:
1. How tight are things in the West?
To make the point, let's look at the 1 versus 8 battle, which appears to be a dogfight in the making -- we're talking about 57 wins versus 50 wins (62 versus 52 in terms of expected wins). The Lakers are the favorites, obviously, but Denver trailed by only 2.2 points in the final edition of the Power Rankings.
For some perspective, consider that in the past four Eastern Conference Finals we had a 50-win team beating a 53-win team, 52 beating 64, 54 beating 59, and 54 beating 61. Seen in that light rather than in terms of a 1 versus 8 matchup, Denver's beating the Lakers would be fairly unremarkable. It goes deeper than that -- it's quite possible to have something like a Suns-Nuggets or Mavs-Rockets conference finals, and not in a 0.000001 percent kind of way either.
In fact, let's put some odds behind this. The Nuggets have an 5.1 percent chance of making the Finals, according to the Playoff Odds tool -- that's about a 1-in-20 shot. That's pretty darn good for the eighth team in an eight-team pool -- almost half as good as the 1-in-8 shot (12.5 percent) held by the "average" West playoff team.Things get even crazier if we play out the first two rounds statistically. The teams with the best odds of making it out of the first round are Utah and the Lakers -- the Jazz, despite not having home court, are over 80 percent, while the Lakers are a shade under 75 percent. Relative to previous years, those aren't great odds, with even the best team having a 1-in-5 shot of going home.
In other words, this is an NCAA tournament-esque crapshoot. No. 1 and No. 2 seeds are a combined 89-7 since the playoffs expanded in 1983-84, for a .928 winning percentage. But in this year's West, the odds for the top two seeds are of the type we usually see in a 3-6 series.
Want some more crazy stuff? How about:
• Between Utah, Denver and Dallas, there's about a two-in-five chance that a Western team will make the Finals without having home court in any round.
• There's a 3.4 percent chance that all four lower seeds will win in the first round.
• And, my favorite: There's only an 11.6 percent chance that the top two seeds will meet in the conference finals ... but an 18.8 percent chance that a team seeded sixth or lower will have home-court advantage for that round.
(By the way, this exercise isn't nearly as fun in the East because the Celtics are total killjoys -- more on that in a minute.)
And remember, this is without any allowance for the possibility of injuries or suspensions or sudden lineup changes or whatnot. So get out the dartboard and hurl away. For all the predictions we're all making in the West, this is the first playoffs I can remember where there's a real risk of going 0-for-7 on the three rounds in the conference.
2. Why are the Playoff Odds so high on Utah?
There's a tendency to overreact to What Just Happened, so Utah's stinker against San Antonio on Wednesday night probably increased everyone's doubts about this team.
Nonetheless, the Power Rankings have Utah as the league's second-best team, and the Playoff Odds give them the best chance of winning the West at 31.0 perecnt.
The Jazz played extremely well down the stretch. Even with the meltdown in San Antonio included, over the last quarter of the season the Jazz had an offensive efficiency rating of 116.0 -- that dwarfs the Suns' league-leading mark of 111.2. To put that into context, if they had done it for a full season, the Jazz would have been by far the best offensive team of all time.
Utah went 37-12 after Jan. 1, and the number of blowout wins over quality teams is staggering. The Jazz beat the Celtics by 18 in Boston -- the Celtics' worst loss of the season anywhere. The Jazz beat New Orleans by 28, and then again by 22 -- two of the Hornets' three worst defeats of the year. They beat San Antonio by 26 and the Lakers by 24 -- for each, their worst loss of the season. They beat Phoenix by 22 and beat Denver by 27 ... twice.
Overall, Utah won an astounding 18 games by more than 20 points. In contrast, the Jazz didn't lose a single game by more than 20 points all season ... until Wednesday night in San Antonio. And given their questionable motivation in that game and Deron Williams' trouble with a bruised buttock, it's hard for me to hold that against them much when we have 81 games of evidence that they're the best pick in a compacted Western pack.
3. Why are the Playoff Odds so down on Detroit?
Detroit is barely ahead of Orlando in the Power Rankings, and the Playoff Odds give Orlando nearly the same odds of winning the conference. Since that doesn't seem possible, let me explain.
When I first saw this, I presumed it was because the Pistons have been biding their time playing their scrubs for the past month and a half. That sounds plausible, but actually Detroit played really well over the final three weeks -- the Pistons went 10-3 with a scoring margin of 8.7 points per game in their final 13 games. The real problem was what they did in the month prior to that, when they went 11-8 and got waxed by 18 by the Magic in their own building.
The other half of this equation is the Magic, who had a scoring margin of 10.0 points per game in the final quarter of the season. That's truly impressive, even if it came against a bunch of bad teams, and it's why Orlando is a surprising seventh in the Power Rankings.
Nobody really paid attention to the Magic's finishing kick because their playoff spot was sealed -- and because it wasn't accompanied by a great win-loss record (they lost three times by a single point). But check this out: All 15 of their wins after February were by double figures. It was a total non-story, but Orlando played as well as any team in the league over the final quarter of the season.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that I think the second-round series between the Magic and Piston will be much, much better than anticipated. I wouldn't bet on Orlando, but should we expect a hard-fought, nail-biting series? Yes.
4. How good is Boston, really?
A lot better than you might think. Most observers look at the East and see the Celtics as a really good team who may or may not get past Detroit in the conference finals.
Wake up, folks -- this is one of the best teams of all time, and you might be surprised how easily they roll through the playoffs. I realize this is raining on the parade a bit since everybody is so jacked up about the competition in store this postseason, but I have to warn you there's a chance the Celtics are just going to flat-out destroy everybody.
Boston went 66-16, one of the best marks in league history, but even that mark sells the Celtics short. At 10.3 points per game, they had the scoring margin of a 70-win team. That scoring margin is better than all but three teams since the ABA-NBA merger, and those teams all had Michael Jordan. By contrast, last season the Spurs had a scoring margin of 7.8 ppg, and that was easily the best mark in the league.
Here's the real crazy part: their numbers were this good even though they coasted the final month and a half! Kevin Garnett didn't play 40 minutes in a game after March 5; he averaged 31.9 minutes in March and 25.4 in April. For Paul Pierce, it was 32.6 and 27.4; for Ray Allen, it was 31.2 and 29.0. Plus, each of them skipped two April games just to freshen up.
They have the three stars, yes, but they also play suffocating defense -- the Celts had one of best defensive seasons of all time, in fact (we'll get into that more as we get deeper into the playoffs). Meanwhile, a bench that was supposed to be a liability has instead kicked some serious butt, and the late-season addition of Sam Cassell added a crunch-time scorer to the mix.
The Western Conference is where all of the excitement and most of the quality resides, but I'd be very surprised if the West champs can beat Boston in the Finals ... and even more surprised if somebody besides Boston was their opponent.
5. San Antonio ... 8th? Really?
Yes, really. The Power Rankings seemed like raging Spurs fanatics a year ago, keeping them No. 1 even while Dallas won 67 games. But this year the Rankings have soured on San Antonio, putting them No. 8 in the league heading into the postseason.
We tend to look at the players and the uniforms and think these are the same Spurs, especially because they won only two games fewer than they did last season. But in a lot of ways they're not the same.
For one thing, the tiny drop in wins conceals a much larger difference in average scoring margin -- San Antonio outscored opponents by 7.8 points per game a year ago, but posted only a +4.8 mark this season. That difference of three points is normally worth eight wins, but San Antonio was much more fortunate in close games this year than it was a year earlier.
Additionally, there's the matter of peaking at the right time. Last year San Antonio was pretty good in the first half but went bonkers over the final two months. This year it's the opposite case -- San Antonio started the year 17-3, but finished it 13-9. In the Spurs' final 29 games they cleared 100 points only nine times and, as I discussed in a recent blog item, their offense has had a disturbing pattern of going off the rails after halftime.
That's the biggest difference between this year's Spurs and last year's. San Antonio ranked only 13th in offensive efficiency this season; last season the Spurs were fourth. If they can't find a way to generate more offense, they could be headed for a very quick exit.
6. What do we make of the Cavs?
Not much.
Let me put it this way: Last year the defending Eastern Conference champion Miami Heat limped through the season with 44 wins while giving up more points than they scored, and lots of folks said not to count them out -- and then they lost in four depressing games in the first round.
This year, the defending Eastern Conference champions limped through the season with 45 wins while giving up more points than they scored. You figure out the ending.
The only difference for Cleveland is that Washington, the Cavs' first-round opponent, also had a negative scoring margin ("The NBA: Where the league's 15th- and 16th-best teams' meeting in the Eastern Conference playoffs happens"). But one can argue the Wizards are better than they've shown because Caron Butler missed 24 games and Gilbert Arenas hardly played at all. With those two and Antawn Jamison, Washington is an offensive force -- and unlike last year, the Wizards occasionally play defense now.
7. How important is New Orleans' lack of experience?
Less important than you might think.
We're looking at a small sample here, but check out the out-of-nowhere teams to get a high seed in the playoffs over the past decade, and you'll see they didn't suddenly start gagging once the calendar hit May:
• Phoenix needed only 10 games to reach the conference finals after taking the league by storm in 2005 before falling to a superior Spurs team. The same year, upstart Seattle crushed Sacramento and then took eventual champ San Antonio to six tough games before succumbing.
• New Jersey won the conference in 2002 after rocketing to the top seed; the Nets' opponent in the conference finals that year was Boston, which had made a similar rise from the ashes.
• Milwaukee went from a forgettable mediocrity to division champ in 2001; the Bucks made the conference finals and were a missed Glenn Robinson bunny away from upsetting the Sixers.
But what is important for New Orleans is another issue that I don't hear anybody talking about: fatigue. I was shocked the Hornets played their starters in Dallas on Wednesday night, because if any team needed the rest it's this one.
New Orleans played the most back-loaded schedule in the league, with 10 games in the final 16 days and 18 in the final month. Eleven of those were on the road, including a six-game Eastern road trip at the end of March and a tough three-games-in-four-nights trip out West the final week.
They won some games on pure determination, most notably their 98-97 theft in Orlando on April 1, but check out the numbers the past couple of weeks. They went 2-4 in the final six games, including a 66-point clunker at home against Utah, and Chris Paul in particular saw his numbers dive: in 10 April games he averaged 17.6 points per game and shot 43.9 percent, even though six of the 10 opponents were terrible defensive teams (Minnesota, Golden State, New York, Miami, Sacramento and the Clippers).
Hornets coach Byron Scott is with these guys every day and presumably has a feel for their fatigue level, but it sure seemed to me the rest issue was more important to this particular team than the incremental improvement in its odds it would have had by facing Denver instead of Dallas ... especially because New Orleans couldn't guarantee that result even by playing its stars.
8. Enough with the numbers -- who's going to be there in the end?
OK, now for the fun part. Here's how it will all go down -- and remember, I gave you Chicago as your Eastern Conference champion before the season, so you know you can take these picks to the bank.
You might have seen my first-round picks plastered elsewhere on this site, but for those who haven't, I like Boston in 4, Detroit in 5, Orlando in 6 and Washington in 6 in the East, and the Lakers in 5, New Orleans in 7, Utah in 6 and Phoenix in 6 out West.
My reasoning on Phoenix, by the way, is mainly that the Suns built their team to face the Spurs. Shaquille O'Neal has done extremely well defending Tim Duncan over the years. Somehow, San Antonio has to figure out how to make Shaq a liability on D and not an asset.
In the second round, I see Utah and the Lakers meeting in what should be the true conference finals -- which is why I was so disappointed the Jazz lost to San Antonio on Wednesday and missed out on the No. 3 seed. I have Utah beating L.A. in a six-game barn burner that's about as close to a coin-flip as any pairing you can come up with. (Note: I generally pick the road team to win in six and the home team in either five or seven, since the odds say that's how it's most likely to end. I made an exception for Orlando because it was so strong on the road.)
The Hornets-Suns second-round matchup should be a doozy, too. New Orleans might be even more exhausted after going seven against Dallas, but Phoenix doesn't match up nearly as well with the Hornets -- and New Orleans has home court. Thus, I'll take the Hornets in seven again, in another series that looks to be about dead even.
That sets up Chris Paul versus Deron Williams in the conference finals, which is a matchup we all want to see (well, unless you happen to walk around town in a gold "24" jersey). I think Paul might finally get the better of the matchup individually, but Williams has better teammates -- so Utah rolls to the Finals in six.
Back East, I already gave away my Pistons-Magic projection -- Detroit in a grueling seven. Meanwhile, the Boston juggernaut will dismiss Washington in four. That sets up a much-awaited conference finals battle between Boston and Detroit. But I think Boston will win in five easier-than-expected games.
The Finals? Utah versus Boston.
The 2-3-2 format and Utah's dominance at home will keep things interesting for a while, but mostly it will allow the Celtics to celebrate a title on their home court after knocking off the Jazz in six.
Well, that's what the odds say, anyway. Now let's see what really happens.
John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider.
