E.R. Torre's Blog, page 154

Lockout vs. Escape From New York…

The movie Lockout, starring Guy Pearce and Maggie Gracce was released back in 2012.

When it reached home video, I reviewed it (you can read the full review here) and noted how the film appeared to be producer/writer Luc Besson’s updating/remake of another, very famous sci-fi film:

When I first saw the trailer for Lockout I was intrigued.  My younger, more strident self (as opposed to the more mellow person I’ve since become) might have been furious that Mr. Besson (who is also listed in the credits as having the “original idea” of this film!!!!) would so cavalierly rip off another person’s concept.

“Another person’s concept” referred to the fact that Lockout was essentially an outer space version of John Carpenter’s 1981 film Escape From New York.

Anyway, the film came and went and I thought, for the most part, was forgotten.

Not so.

It would appear someone involved/has right to Escape From New York sued the producers of Lockout for copyright infringement in a French court (Luc Besson and his production company hails from France)…and they won the case:

French Court Rules Luc Besson’s Lockout Ripped Off Escape From New York

What’s fascinating in today’s day and age is seeing the various comments below the above article.  Many, many people seem to acknowledge Lockout does indeed rip off Escape From New York’s (and its sequel, L.A., for that matter) yet do not feel the court ruling is appropriate because so many stories out there could be interpreted as being derivative of other stories.

To which I say yeah…but…

As a writer, I most certainly draw inspiration from the works of others and would never claim to create things “in a vacuum”.  The fourth novel in my Corrosive Knights series, Nox, has a plot that was inspired by my having watched, for the first time since seeing it in theaters, what I still consider one of the worst James Bond films ever made, Moonraker.

And yet, if you were to watch Moonraker and then read Nox (or vice-versa), I seriously doubt you’d see any major similarities between either works.  Indeed, had I not admitted I was inspired by the Moonraker movie, I seriously doubt anyone, even my most dedicated fans (you’re out there somewhere, right?!), would have ever linked the two works together.

But with Lockout vs. Escape From New York, there is very little doubt that one inspired (or, as the French court ruled, “ripped off”) the other.  Whatever you may think of Lockout, good or bad, if you’re familiar with John Carpenter’s film, you instantly see the similarities…and they are quite significant.

You have a rogue anti-hero who gets incarcerated and, at the same time, a high level official (in Escape From New York its the President of the United States, in Escape From L.A. it’s the President’s daughter.  In Lockout, its the President’s daughter) is trapped inside a highly fortified prison “city” (New York, L.A., and in Lockout’s case, a Prison satellite) where the inmates run the asylum (after a fashion they do so in Lockout) and our hero is forced to get inside this highly dangerous setting and rescue the high level official before time runs out.

Sure, individual elements are seen in many films/books/stories.  You have thousands of stories involving a rouge anti-hero.  You may have thousands of stories involving breaking someone out of a “impenetrable” prison.  You have thousands of stories involving tight deadlines and dangerous missions, where failure to fulfill the mission in time means death.

But what makes the case of Lockout vs. Escape From New York so obvious, to my eyes, is in the fact that all these individual elements were put together in virtually the same manner with one major exception: One movie took place in a space station while the other took place in a dystopic Manhattan.

Otherwise, you’ve got the same story.

The producers of Lockout were ordered to pay €80,000 for their infringement, but they are appealing the ruling.

Interesting stuff.  I’ll be curious to see how this all shakes out.

16 Times The Onion Masterfully Trolled American Politics

I love The Onion.  For those who have no idea what The Onion is, it is a satirical pseudo-newspaper that skewers the way newspapers present information and offer humorous, at times pointed takes on politics and society.

They can also offer some really in your face humor…

Over at Salon.com, Kali Holloway examines…

16 Times The Onion Masterfully Trolled American Politics

Of the sixteen items mentioned, my favorite remains the one they show graphics to…

Bear in mind, this satirical article by The Onion was published January 17, 2001, three days before George W. Bush was inaugurated into his first term of office.

The article -perhaps too eerily- predicts what was to happen in the Bush presidency.

Another favorite, though this one is equally tragic as it is pointedly humorous, is this article concerning gun violence perpetrated by mass shooters:

“No Way To Prevent This” Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Sad yet so damn true.

Worst Selling Cars in September 2015

The headline says it all:

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/worst-selling-cars/#slide-3659595

It isn’t terribly surprising to realize you’re not terribly familiar with any of the cars in the slide show above.  What is depressing is the realization that a few of the cars that aren’t selling are attempts by car makers to create energy efficient vehicles…and because of the lower gas prices, these vehicles aren’t in as high demand of late.

I say this is a depressing realization because I’ve seen this story before.  We clamor for energy efficient vehicles whenever gas prices are really high but when they drop, we rush right back to larger, less energy efficient (and higher polluting) cars.

I can just imagine the frustration of working in the auto industry and trying to meet people’s demands for vehicles.  You spend time and money designing an energy efficient vehicle but by the time it reaches the showroom and based on the price of gas at that moment, your product might be a failure.

Ah well.

James Bond on my mind…

Between the upcoming release of Spectre, the latest James Bond film, to Daniel Craig’s ill-advised (though I’m sure from the heart, unless he was misquoted) comments regarding making more Bond films to getting all my Bond films -so far minus the Dalton ones, have to work on that!- on UV, it appears I’ve been wallowing in all things James Bond for the past couple of weeks.

And I will continue to do so here.

From Daniel Dockery and presented on the usually hilarious Cracked.com…

5 Ways James Bond Was WAY More Insane In The Books

I have the James Bond books but simply haven’t had the time to read them despite recommendations -and admonitions- from others.  Of course the novels movies are based on will often be different, sometimes radically so, from the movies made from them and James Bond is no different.

However, of the five differences mentioned the one that struck me the most was probably #4, the manner in which Dr. No dies in the novel.

Without giving it away, reading this makes me feel his death was so very…anti-climactic.  Silly even.  However, one has to remember the novel was originally published in March of 1958 and, let’s face it, that was an awful long time ago.  People people back then might have found some dark humor in the novelization death versus what I think about this villain’s death today.

Regardless, read the list, it is quite fascinating!

Tesla Autopilot system…

The latest Tesla vehicles have an Autopilot feature which appears to be one more step toward where I think all vehicles are going: Self-driving.

Here we see someone using this feature and finding it a little scary…

I’m not surprised by the driver’s reaction.  As much as I’m all in favor of self-driving vehicles and, further, believe that’s the future of cars in general, I imagine if I were in his place I’d be doing exactly the same.

It isn’t easy ceding control over something you’ve had all along.  Especially when -at this moment anyway- the roads are filled with people who are NOT driving automated vehicles.

Is there someone out there…?

As a writer who delves in the fantastic, articles like these get my blood pumping.  Written by Ross Anderson for theAtlantic.com, the article explores…

The Most Mysterious Star in Our Galaxy

In a nutshell, there’s a star, KIC 8462852, which displays some strange -mysterious even- fluctuations in the amount of light emitted by it.

It would appear something quite massive -more massive than a planet the size of Jupiter- is blocking the star’s light and scientists are at the moment at somewhat of a loss to explain what exactly is doing this.  It could be some kind of massive asteroid belt, but that appears unlikely given the star’s age.  It could also be some recent “event”, perhaps involving comets or planets crashing into each other, that caused a vast field of rocks to orbit the star and block her light.

Or…

(Forgive me, I’ve always wanted to use that image!)

Seriously, though, the fact of the matter is that the dips in starlight emerging from KIC 8462852 might (and I can’t help but stress the word might) be evidence of an alien culture.

How?  It is possible that what blocks the star’s light is some kind of massive solar array designed to capture the star’s light and convert it to energy.

Again, this is nothing more than a highly speculative theory and one that could quite likely be proven wrong.  But I have only scratched the surface as to why this theory is even in consideration versus other more natural explanations.  I highly recommend reading the above article as well as this one, by Phil Plait for Slate.com, which also examines this star’s mysterious light emissions:

Did Astronomers Find Evidence of An Alien Civilization?  (Probably Not.  But Still Cool.)

10 More Really Fun Movie Mistakes…

…That Made It Into The Final Film:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/10-more-really-fun-movie-mistakes-that-made-it-into-the-1736092161

If you’re not interested in clicking on the link, here’s the video:

Fun stuff!

This ‘n that…

Couple of interesting article from io9.com I found.

First up, a review of the first episode of Ash vs Evil Dead, a cable series (it will be presented on Starz starting on Halloween night) continuation of the saga of Ash from the Evil Dead movies…

We Saw The First Episode of Ash vs. Evil Dead And It Blew Us Away

If you haven’t seen any of the Evil Dead films (the original 1981 Evil Dead, Evil Dead II, and Army of Darkness.  IMHO, you can skip the not very good -other than a certain cameo appearance at the very end- 2013 remake), you should at the very least give the last two a look (the first film is more of a horror film while the last two hilariously straddle a fine line between horror and comedy and beloved actor Bruce Campbell gives a hilarious performance as an “anti-hero”…a man who, if he didn’t do so much good fighting the forces of the Evil Dead, would be looked upon as nothing more than a total jerk!).

So, after far, far too many years (Army of Darkness came out way back in 1992), the gang behind the original trilogy are back together again and, if the above review is accurate, we’re in for a treat.  Certainly looks like it based on the trailer!

Next up…

Furiosa Won’t Be In George Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road Sequel

Although reading the article it doesn’t sound like the article’s headline is quite as strongly written in stone as presented.

Mr. Miller himself notes that there is a chance she may appear in some kind of (possible) cameo or something of the character.  However, taking all the quotes provided by Mr. Miller, what I came away with was that the sequel to MMFR its still a long way away and while there are concepts (and even possibly full scripts to at least two movies) ready, much is in flux.

I enjoyed MMFR quite a bit but, as I noted in my review, the film might have been better had it not included the character of Max within it.  Why?  Because as a fan of the previous three films 1) Even though I like Tom Hardy a lot as an actor, I missed Mel Gibson and 2) I expected Max to be the central character just as he was in the previous three films yet the movie’s protagonist was Furiosa and, with very little tinkering, MMFR would have worked equally well -maybe even better!- without the Max character in it.

Having said all that, I can see a new Mad Max film being made which, like the others, doesn’t necessarily tie into what we’ve seen before.  MMFR presented a “soft” reboot of the world of Max as well as things that nixed continuity with the other films.  Chief among them was a certain car Max was driving at the beginning of the film which would have been impossible given what happened in Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior.

Having said all that, you know what I’d like to see?

I’d like to see a new Mad Max film that features…Mel Gibson.

I know, I know, he’s older now and Hollywood still has him on a blacklist and, yes, Tom Hardy may be better known to audiences now as the character versus Mr. Gibson…

…but…

If Mr. Miller makes another Mad Max film and it doesn’t necessarily tie in to MMFR just as that film didn’t necessarily tie into the others before, wouldn’t it be cool to have Mr. Gibson return in the role as an older, though just as fearsome, version of Max, a la Batman in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns?

Why not?

If they were to make another Mad Max film and Mr. Gibson was willing to star in it, you can most certainly count me in!

Daniel Craig and James Bond and other musings…

This past week, just as the publicity blitz for the soon-to-be-released (it comes out November 9th) James Bond film Spectre was ramping up, actor Daniel Craig, the man who plays the world’s most famous super-spy, provided some…uh…interesting thoughts on whether he was up to playing the character in another film:

Daniel Craig is so done with James Bond

and…

Daniel Craig: I’d rather “slash my wrists” than play James Bond again

When I presented the first linked article, found on io9, to someone I knew, their reaction to it was, I suspect, what the vast majority of people may feel.  This person opined that Daniel Craig needed to “get over himself” and not bite the hand that feeds him.  That working on these James Bond films has surely made him a ton of money while elevating awareness of him as an actor around the entire world.

I completely see this person’s point and yet… and yet…

Being an “artist”, be it a writer, musician, actor, etc. etc. is a very tough gig.  You can devote considerable time and effort to your projects only to see them fail to catch on.  You can labor for years and years in the shadows only to one day hit it big…on something you don’t have all that much love for at all.  You could even spend your entire life slaving over your artistic works and die a poor wo/man…and afterwards these works that were so stubbornly ignored by everyone during your lifetime become popular well after you’re able to enjoy the attention and financial gain from their later success.

If one looks at Daniel Craig’s IMDB page (), you may be surprised to find that while Mr. Craig hit the big time with his first appearance as James Bond in 2006’s Casino Royale, he nonetheless has a wide variety of credits in various roles for both movies and TV shows dating all the way back to 1992.

Clearly this is an actor who has taken on many roles and while the success of his James Bond made him better known and most likely better paid, after spending nearly ten years of your life working on the same character in four movies it is obvious, based on the interviews he’s given, that he’s grown very tired of the role.

Daniel Craig’s laments, though, are not a particularly new development.

Who many consider the “best” James Bond, , also felt the drag of the role.  He left the series he made a world-wide success with his fifth James Bond film, 1967’s You Only Live Twice, and was so done with playing the character that they brought in George Lazenby to replace him in 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.  The replacement actor in that case didn’t work all that well, especially for the producers of the franchise, and they lured Mr. Connery back, apparently thanks to a very big paycheck, for the 1971 Bond film Diamonds Are Forever.

But even with the better pay Sean Connery again left the series, famously stating “never again” in interviews and Roger Moore would take over the role starting with 1973’s Live and Let Die.  Interestingly, Sean Connery returned one last time to play James Bond in 1983’s “non-canonical” Never Say Never Again (yes, the title was a pun which referenced Mr. Connery’s “never again” statement).  The movie was a thinly veiled remake of Thunderball and is “non-canonical” because the producers of the other James Bond films were not involved in this movie’s production, which may be part of the reason why Mr. Connery agreed to come back to the role.  Regardless, it would mark the last time -canonical or not (some, including myself, feel that the 1996 movie The Rock had Sean Connery essentially playing James Bond again)- he would play the James Bond character.

So Daniel Craig is in good company regarding his current negative feelings toward the James Bond character and his work to create him.

And it is work.

Yes, the pay is far better than what most will ever make in our jobs but it is an investment in one’s time and, as someone who is currently engaged in a project that has taken nearly a decade to complete (and still requires at the very least 2-3 years), I can tell you from experience doing something for this long can be exhausting.

So despite everything, I do feel sympathy for Mr. Craig.  Yes, I envy the money he no doubt makes and I also wonder if its smart to make these comments at this particular time.  On the other hand, I can appreciate his candor, even if it might lead to negative feelings in others.

I also hope Spectre winds up being a great Bond film.  I always welcome them.

Now this story is rather…weird…

From Ben Mathis-Lilley for Salon.com comes this intriguing -though tragic- story involving…

The Weird Case of Three Florida Teens Who Died After Being Hypnotized

Briefly, this story involves a High School Principle in Florida who had a deep interest in hypnosis and allegedly used it on many of his students.  Three of them, as stated above, died…at least two of which were suicides while a third drove off a highway.  All this happened in the span of two months.

The article notes that a settlement was reached between the school and the parents of the deceased children.  The Principle, who no longer works in any school system, was ultimately…

..convicted of two misdemeanors for practicing therapeutic hypnosis without a license, for which he was sentenced to probation and community service

What bothers me the most about this article is that clearly a boundary that should have existed between this man and his students (and staff!) was crossed.  There is no indication the Principle was engaged in anything malicious…but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

While the article notes one basketball player claimed the hypnosis offered to him was relatively innocent and intended to help with his “concentration”, the fact is that the Principle was engaging in a form of therapy and as such, not all issues dealt with might be as innocent as this one.

Again, I have no reason to believe the Principle was acting maliciously and somehow tried to hurt those three students, but it is clear the conviction he ultimately faced was appropriate.

Leave therapy to the professionals.