A Competent Addition to Summer Reading

My dear husband recently bought me a present for being a super supportive wife (I didn't realize it was anything spectacular, but he apparently thought it was). The present was something that he swears I told him about, and probably did; although I don't remember having the conversation. Anywho, he bought me the trilogy of The Hunger Games. I had no clue what the books were about and didn't remember hearing/talking about them.

The hubby thought that he had bought me a vampire series, and he couldn't be more wrong! And I couldn't be happier about it! (I know, anyone who knows me is shocked and a little disoriented by that statement, but hear me out.) In a world where summer reading lists now include Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series, Suzanne Collins The Hunger Games are a breath of fresh air and needed intelligence.

That last bit of information (the summer reading list) came from a very smart and spunky lady I know. We were both appalled to find out that Meyer's series was considered educational. Upon that conversation, I decided I would do a comparison for my blog.

The Hunger Games vs Twilight (A Non-Teeny Bopper Weighs in):
The Heroine:
HG: Katniss Everdeen. Truthfully, there aren't enough nice things to say about Katniss. She is strong, pragmatic, fierce, sarcastic, and not driven by some sappy romance. She, despite being from a post-apocalyptic world, is what teenage girls use to be before there were bombarded with sex and the "need" for relationships everywhere; she doesn't even want to get married or have kids. Katniss isn't defined by a man/idea/family, but--whether she likes it or not--her actions. This makes her a wonderful role model for people her age where they seem to often be taught that there are no consequences in this world. 

Twilight: Bella Swan. For me, Bella is the exact opposite; she's weak, sniveling, and destructive. She isn't a role model by any means. She isn't a fighter until the final book, and at that point it's only because she herself is supernatural. Bella is constantly defined by what relationship she is or isn't in. She never really stands on her own two feet, which as a female audience member is infuriating. I want to shake her or throw something at her.

The Setting:
HG: Post-apocalyptic. Sounds depressing; right? But oddly enough, it's not. Collins was brilliant to use what was once the United States without exactly saying so. Plus, I was so enmeshed with her world, I was hurt there wasn't a map in any of the books... I'm still not entirely sure where all of the Districts fall.

Twilight: A rainy, dreary town in Washington State. Sounds depressing; right? Exactly. The setting completely matches the love-sick Bella. If I were here I'd want the curse of immortality and watching all my family and friends dying too. Oh wait, that's supposed to be romantic isn't?

The Love Story:
HG: A triangle with two boys--one from a poor family, one from a not so poor family. There's absolutely nothing forced about either love interest here. One is a best friend, who Katniss hasn't realized could be more. The other a boy who noticed her at a time (which seems to be most of her life) that Katniss is worried about survival. I enjoy the fact that the love story in this book is secondary. There are bigger priorities than an obsessive love.

Twilight: A triangle with a vampire and werewolf. Please don't misunderstand from this post, I am a vampire FAN (yes, in all caps). But this idea of a triangle isn't new or different, I hate to tell all you Meyer fans out there. It's been done more times than I can count, and done infinitely better to boot (check out the Anita Blake series by Laurell K. Hamilton). Also the love story in Twilight isn't healthy! It's obsessive, possessive and destructive to the point that the main character DIES... wait, I mean becomes immortal.

The Writing:
HG: Suzanne Collins. She writes in first person narrative, which I love.  She is also a former television writer, which means her understanding of how a story lays out and is viewed is impeccable. She gives the reader just enough detail for their imagination to still play. Her writing still is active, and I'm not just talking about all the action in the story (which there is TONS of). The other, most important part of her writing, is you can tell it was written by an adult.

Twilight: Stephanie Meyer. For me, Meyer's writing style is mediocre at best. She also writes first person narrative which, despite not being a fan of Bella, I still love. But Meyer often reminds me of a high school student who writes, and writes, and writes and doesn't understand commas. Nor does she understand that you can say the same thing in three separate sentences and have the same, if not more, power in it.

The Educational Value:
HG: High. The Hunger Games, in my opinion, will eventually be taught along with Orwell's 1984, Connell's The Most Dangerous Game, and Jackson's The Lottery. It delves into what freedom, sacrifice, self-esteem and so much more means. It also talks about government and philosophy. In college the biggest debate in my philosophy class was always, "is it better to kill a few to save a thousand, or should you try to save everyone even knowing that you can't?" Collins centers around that constantly through out all three books.

Twilight: None. Twilight doesn't really teach anything. I suppose at the end of the day maybe it teaches to accept all people whatever their differences (despite glitter or turning furry). But beyond that I think the most valuable lesson it shows is a "what not to be" to girls.

Now here's a few disclaimers: I have read both series, despite being almost 30. I am also well aware that the plots and stories of both books are very different; my comparison is based on the fact they share the same target audience.

I also feel the need to tell you that my disdain for the Twilight  series and Meyer has nothing to do with the fact that I'm bitter she made vampires popular, which I readily admit that I am. I do want to say that I am grateful that both sets of books inspire kids to read in our ADD, a 1,000 TV channels world.

Another One(s) Bites the Dust

I was going to wait until the television upfronts were done next week before I talked about shows that are/have been cancelled; but Fox's hatchet job yesterday forced my hand. I'm not sure what the stranger part of the announcement was: 1. They cancelled at least two shows with above mediocre ratings (not stellar but decent) or 2. The announcement came less than a week before they present their schedule for the fall season.

I love television upfronts. The anticipation of a new season, figuring out my DVR's schedule, and finding out which bubbles last or get popped is one of my favorite things. 9 times out of 10 there is inevitably one show that gets cancelled that makes me angry or puts me in despair. It doesn't surprise me that Fox is responsible for that show this season, because it's not the first time. Fox is notorious for not giving their audience enough credit to stick with a show or putting crap reality on instead of quality shows because it's cheaper.

I'd love to say that Fox is the only network responsible for breaking my heart in recent years... but that would be a lie. Every network as done it at least once. Here's my list of the most heartbreaking cancellations for me in recent years; each show's run varies, but all were taken before their time:

1. Breaking In.
The Culprit: Fox
Run Time: Half of a normal season (7 episodes)
This is one of the two shows Fox announced they were cancelling yesterday. The cast is amazing (Christian Slater, hello?)! It's clever, geeky, action packed. It's a waste to have been cancelled. It makes me think that Fox just needed a seat filler for the spring and had no intention on keeping it to begin with.

2. Veronica Mars.
The Culprit: The CW
Run Time: Three Seasons
Veronica Mars was a cult classic. It never had through the roof ratings (but really what CW show does?). But what VM lacked in numbers, it made up in quality and talent. Kristen Bell was an unbelievable heroine with flaws and her own set of problems. She was a female character that every teenage girl on some level could relate to and admire. Not to mention the father/daughter relationship has never been so enviable on TV. I firmly believe the ultimate cancellation of this show was because the execs at the CW forced Rob Thomas to dumb down part of season 3, and to take away the one thing that made VM different from other teen shows--an overall arc/mystery for the entire season.

3. Mercy.
The Culprit: NBC
Run Time: One Season
Mercy was by far my FAVORITE show of the 2009-2010 television season. I have to admit, I only tuned in at first to watch Buffy-alum Michelle Trachtenberg. But within one episode, I was swooning over the writing and Taylor Schilling--she is one of the most relatable characters for me in a very long time (possibly because I watch a lot of supernatural/science fiction/fantasy stuff). This show had talent, a big heart, and amazing drama that I couldn't turn off. Unfortunately, NBC didn't feel the same way.

Taylor Schilling as Nurse Veronica.

4. Eli Stone.

The Culprit: ABC

Run Time: Two seasons (sort of; 26 episodes)

For me, Eli Stone wasn't a great show, but it was unbelievably endearing and just made me happy. It included musical numbers before Glee arrived. It's cast--Jonny Lee Miller, Victor Garber, Loretta Devine, Julie Gonzalo--always seemed to be having a fantastic time, which in turn made me have a fantastic time.

5. Tru Calling/Dollhouse.
The Culprit: Fox
Run Time: Two seasons (sort of ; 26 episodes)/ Two seasons (sort of; 27 episodes)
I know this is two shows, but I thought I should do them together because: what is Fox's problem with my girl Eliza Dushku? Can't they give her a steady time slot so that fans know when to tune in? Fox consistently (in both cases) changed time slots--in Tru Calling's case days and start dates. Fans want to watch her, no matter what she's in; but it's very difficult if you don't tell us when she's on!

I should add some (very) honorable mentions: Firefly (Joss Whedon & Nathan Fillion, enough said); Lie to Me (teaches you how to spot a liar); Lipstick Jungle (a somewhat more believable Sex in the City); Chicago Code (Shawn Ryan is a genius); Studio 60 (another show Execs thought needed to be dumbed down to it's detriment); My So-Called Life (teen angst has never been shown this well since); and Saving Grace (Holly Hunter is a bad ass). 

One last thought: Does any body else remember when a television season meant 22 episodes, 2 seasons meant 44 episodes and so on?

A Person's Heroes

A while back I wrote a post about my mom, who is my hero in so many ways. But a couple of weeks ago my husband got to meet his guitar hero--Mark Tremonti. Tremonti is the reason my husband started playing guitar. The hubby was beyond excited, and even now--weeks later--I think, at least a foot is still on Cloud 9. I was beyond excited for my husband, and relieved that Tremonti seemed every bit the guy that my hubby had pictured him to be. (I doubt Tremonti will ever read this, but just in case: Thank you, Mark!)

The hubs with Tremonti 4/27/11!

However, this wonderful encounter got me thinking... Do I have a hero that would be like that for me? I ran through people I admired and people who inspired me. Quite a few (my mom, Lisa, Gina, Linda (x2), Carla, Kathy, Juliette, Heather, Gail, Edna, Kristen, et al) are a part of my every day life or were at one point. Reflecting on that it made me both happy and sad. I was elated to look back and realize how fortunate I was to have such A-M-A-Z-I-N-G women in my life who supported, pushed, believed and corrected me.

But it made me feel like I'm not the dreamer I always thought I was. I always thought I had lofty aspirations and no goal was too high for me, which IS true. Just because I didn't have a hero I could name at a moment's notice, didn't mean that I didn't dream.

Now, after thinking about it for a few weeks, I do have a list of women that I would like to meet for a variety of reasons. Below are my Top 10 and why I would want to meet them:

10. Idina Menzel. No one's voice in musical theatre has moved me quite the way that hers did in Wicked.

9. Mary Lou Retton. In my youth, she was my hero. I always eagerly looked forward to the Summer Olympics because of her.

8. Eve Ensler. She created The Vagina Monologues--isn't that enough said? If not, then let me add this: she gave female issues a voice that was unique and loud enough to not be ignored.

7. Loretta Lynn. When she started in country music, it was still mainly a man's genre. She was one of the first women in the world to not just croon over a man. Instead she spoke her mind and didn't care what people thought. She is an inspiration in character and strength.

6. Anne Rice. I enjoyed vampires before I read Anne Rice, but her portrayal and humanizing of Lestat made me fall in LOVE. To this day vampires are still some of my favorite creatures.

5. Jane Espenson. She is my television writing goddess. She has had a hand in every supernatural or science fiction show I have watched the last decade and then some. She's hysterical on twitter and I can't wait to see her playing with Captain Jack on Torchwood.

4. Kristen Bell. This is one I admire. She is truly selfless in her causes (invisible children, clean water, etc). I would also love to have her incredible timing for sarcastic, ironic, dark humor. "Did that surprise you?"

3. Reese Witherspoon. I have been told more times than I can count that I look and sound like her, and I have to admit that is a large part of why I would want to meet her. But beyond that, I respect her work and her fantastic ability to keep her private life just that.

2.  Reba. If I had to say that one woman inspired me in all walks, it would be the red-headed country queen. She can do it all--sing, act, produce.

1. Laurell K. Hamilton. In my adult life she's probably the most inspirational celeb-ish woman for me. I literally stumbled upon her Anita Blake novels. The more books I read, I chose to learn more about her. She encouraged me to play with my own imaginary friends on paper without even knowing it--for that I will always be grateful.

Studio Deserves a (Expletive) Slap!

So, during all of my excitement last week over Scream 4, I ignored (or maybe hoped I hallucinated) that Relativity Media was remaking The Crow. First of all, I'm not a fan of the idea of  remakes (reboots) in general. I've found that in most cases, non-creative people take a film I loved and turn it into a mindless drivel with popular stars of no substance. Harsh; huh? But true.

The Crow remake/hack job is just the most recent announcement of Hollywood trying to ruin my adolescence and teenage years.  (On this note, I don't understand why it seems to be the "cult" classics being remade... No one wants to blatantly rip-off Pretty in Pink I guess.) I could go on and on about the remake craze, and probably will at a later date; but for today I want to focus on this one.

The Crow for me is one of the world's most perfect movies. It has special meaning for me because it helped me cope with death, and became a staple for Christmas Eve for my mom and I. It was also just amazingly well done; and starred a man, that I think most of my generation will agree, was taken from our movie screens way too soon.

I read a blog by Annette Bourdeau about the 20 reasons why Bradley Cooper should not be Eric Draven. Annette inspired me to come up with a list of my own... The 10 reasons why a remake/reinvention/butchering just SHOULDN'T happen:

10. A remake without the original cast will likely be met by the same ill-fate as it's 3 sequels and one television show.

9. Casting is clearly already heading downhill (and I'm a Bradley Cooper fan way back to Alias, but I just can't be behind this). While I don't think anyone should reprise the role of Eric, it should at the very least be someone with a similar (not same, because there isn't anyone) presence.

8. I don't know how the music will play in this one. At the time true rock and heavy metal were still extremely popular if not mainstream. I would hate for a studio to do to The Crow what another person (::muffled cough voice:: Howard Stern) was trying to do to Rock-n-Roll High School without the Ramones (i.e. can't/shouldn't be done).

7. Why does a cult classic that had good box office numbers the first time need to be another cash cow for someone else? And, truthfully, based on the buzz thus far who is going to buy a ticket to even see that happen?

6. If you do a remake, shouldn't you employ the same rules as the original. In other words, no mega-names to be cast? The script and story are soulful and shouldn't be outshined by anyone.

5. The closest thing to a truly tortured soul character Hollywood has presented (won't say pulled off) in recent years is Edward from the Twilight series. This does NOT bode well for our generation's dark dream hero of Draven.

4. The other problem with a remake of this caliber is the outrage from the fanbase. We weren't behind sequels, despite new characters, because there was no Brandon Lee. Now Relativity wants to retry the original without him? This will denigrate and possibly piss off past Cooper fans and anyone else cast in the film.

3. According to IMDB they have already slated a new screen writer (and it's no longer Nick Cave, who I actually may have liked). Granted David J. Schow hasn't done much of note since the original; he's still out there in the world...unattached to the new re-hashing.

2. Hollywood can't do intense love stories anymore; and at the bare bones of The Crow, that's what it is.

1. To have the character Eric Draven on the big screen without Brandon Lee is sacrilege. It's a slap in his face over his death. At least the other three sequels (if not the television series) were aware of that.

All of this being said, I'm sure my blog won't put a wrench in this butc-er, remake. They should cast appropriately. I'm not sure who this would be because I don't think anyone can be Eric Draven with Brandon Lee in the ground. But a tan frat boy with baby blues doesn't come close. I just ask that Relativity Media give Draven fans the respect they deserve for wearing out our VHS' and memorabilia. Despite what travesty comes from this, we should all remember it "can't rain all the time."

15 Years? Really!?!

If you look by the year alone, yes, it's been 15 years since the original Scream. But technically, it's not quite 15 years because the original came out in the December of 1996. Yes, I know, I'm splitting hairs; but it makes me not feel quite as old. To avoid putting spoilers in here, to the best of my ability, I thought I'd reflect on what I thought about Scream 4 and what's changed during these 14 1/2 years...

Midnight Showings
Then: I was at both midnight showings for Scream 2 & Scream 3. (I was underage for the original.)
Now: You couldn't pay me to go to a midnight showing (the only exception would be if an Anita Blake movie is ever made). Over the years I found out that there are typically rude, obnoxious teenagers at these that ruin the experience for me.

Woodsboro
Then: The original was filmed entirely in CA, and the houses were spread far apart. I don't know why but there is something far scarier about surrounding woods than 10 feet from your neighbor.
Now: The fourth installment was filmed entirely in MI. Woodsboro is now much more suburban and the high school and the town look completely different. With all the time that's passed this isn't a huge leap, except to people like me who pay way too much attention to details. I do appreciate the production trying to help stimulate the economy in Motor City though.

Sarcasm
Then: It was the perfect amount and not distracting.
Now: I wouldn't call this one perfect, but I understand why it was more over the top. I would expound on this but I want to avoid spoilers...So, let's just say in a post-Columbine, post-Virginia Tech world the tongue has to be farther into the cheek.

Suspense
Then: The first Scream was brilliant in this department. The MPAA was stricter at the time; so the gore was less. This made Craven concentrate on simple shoe shots, deserted hallways, creepy noises, etc.
Now: This is probably my biggest complaint of the new movie. The suspense wasn't any where close to as good. They could now show gorier kill scenes (which they did); that apparently also meant they sparsely used the classic, simple, amazing tricks that build the suspense. (I think I only saw one shoe shot!)

The Killer(s)
Then:  I didn't see the reveal coming in the first one. Craven and Williamson duped me into thinking it was the dad the first time I saw it.
Now: I didn't see the reveal again. This time I think there were too many possibilities to pin it down. In other words Craven and Williamson are still fully capable, although this time they didn't have a clear misdirect to one specific character.

The Soundtrack
Then: I LOVED the first soundtrack. I was addicted to Nick Cave's "Red Right Hand" (which made cameos in the other two films). I also loved "Whisper to a Scream," "Youth of America," "Don't Fear the Reaper," et al. I over played the soundtrack so much, it was my first CD to tear up strictly over how much it was played.
Now: Honestly, there's no nice way to say this: The soundtrack BLOWS, and is distracting at parts. While the rest of the film paid respect to it's legacy, the soundtrack showed no history. I realize it had to appeal to a younger audience, but "Red Right Hand" strategically placed somewhere would have gone a long way with me.

Overall, though, I truly enjoyed the hell out of the film; I jumped 3 times. Craven and Williamson are still two of my favorites and I love them together (despite the fact that the doofus from Scream 3 did rewrites on the new one). I did enjoy the new cast immensely, despite the fact that Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan and Jamie Kennedy hold a very special place in this horror geek's heart.