Book Review - Geek Girls Unite: How Fangirls, Bookworms, Indie Chicks, and Other Misfits Are Taking Over the World

Today marks the release of a brand new book celebrating lady geeks of all kinds, Geek Girls Unite: How Fangirls, Bookworms, Indie Chicks, and Other Misfits Are Taking Over the World , by MTV.com editor (and author, natch) Leslie Simon. The book takes an in depth look at six different type of Geek Girls; the Fangirl, Literary Geek, Film Geek, Music Geek, Funny-Girl Geek, and Domestic Goddess Geek, and a cursory look at a few more, including geeks of the Tech, Fashionista, Political, Retro and Athletic variety. The purpose is to inspire geek girls everywhere to be proud of who they are, gain insight in other areas fellow women are geeking out over, and feel motivated to seek out like minded women. Despite some quibbles I may have had with certain sections, ultimately, the book succeeds.

First off, the book is an incredibly easy read. Each section features a quiz (spoiler alert: the answer is always C. The quiz functions more as a learning tool, less an actual quiz, so don't be dismayed by this reveal), describes the type of girl, provides a history of the subject at hand and the role of women in the field, provides examples of women who exemplify that type of geek, a list of qualities that represent the opposite of who we are, a list of qualities that represents what we might be looking for in a mate, website suggestions, book suggestions, song suggestions, film suggestions, and more fun tidbits, specific to the type of girl being described like book club suggestions, a Fangirl lexicon, modern day ettiquette ideas and more. It's quick, fun, informative, and strewn with simple yet delightful illustrations.

While the descriptions of the various geek girls in the book can at times be extremely generic (literary geeks wear jeans! funny girls are snarky!), there remains enough truth for it to not be written off completely. The sections where Simon is writing about the topics she truly knows about feel deeply personal and interesting. Simon is a self professed Music Geek and the section on gals that share this quality reflects that fact well. I particularly appreciated the list of ground breaking and acclaimed female rock journalists. I had never heard of any of these women, but should have, considering the impact they have made on the music scene.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Fangirl section, I'm somewhat conflicted. It's spunky and fun and I'm honored to be mentioned as a web suggestion, but I can't help but think this type of Fangirl isn't me. If the geeky things described in this section represent the author's type of Fangirl, then more power to her. I just happened to be disappointed by a couple things. I've never had an affinity for Hello Kitty, which is presented as something true fangirls geek out about, and I don't give two shits about Twilight, which a whole section is dedicated to, although not necessarily in a positive light. The worst offense? Olivia Munn is listed in the important geeks section. Olivia "I'm not a geek but I play one on TV - literally" Munn. Gets a shout out right alongside the truly worthy Bonnie Burton and Felicia Day. I would hate for aspiring Fangirls to open up the book, see Olivia Munn's name, and think she is a shining example of Geekdom.

But for every section that attempted to describe me, yet fell short of nailing the details, like the Fangirl Geek or Film Geek (I just don't understand what makes Zooey Deschenal or Maggie Gyllenhaal "Film Geeks"), came a section on something I didn't know much about, but that interested me enough to take copious notes and plan on researching further. I learned that Baroque Pop is a term for a style of music I quite enjoy, and that Julian Casablancas (whom I love) is responsible for plucking Regina Spektor (whom I also love) from obscurity. I learned that Tina Fey lost her virginity at 24. I learned about a dating website for bookworms at www.alikewise.com.  I learned about the "Church of Craft", Built by Wendy and the design style of Hollywood Regency. I learned about Girl Develop IT and am now desperately wishing for a Los Angeles chapter. Plus, any book that uses the word loquacious four times and gives a shout out to Kittens Inspired by Kittens is a book after my own heart. A high point is truly the website suggestions for each section, and I promise I'm not just saying that cause my own website made the cut. I can't wait to further explore these other areas of Geekdom and the bookmarks are a huge first step.

I'm glad a book is out there like this, saying it's okay to be a geek and making it fun. I wish it could have represented my type of geek a little bit more handily, but it's fun enough and accessible enough that I can definitely recommend it, especially as a gift for a girl, geek or not, with an open mind and willingness to expand her interests. But get it for a fellow geek girl, and you guys can read it together, complain about what Simon gets wrong, then learn more about what she gets right. Definitely one of the highlights of reading this book has been comparing notes with female friends on whether Jane Austen is given appropriate due or if the Domestic Goddess section should have put more of a focus on the culinary arts. And at the end of the day, that is precisely what this book is aiming to do. Get us chatting with other women, discover our friends' secret passions, or start a Geek Girls Guild and own our geekiness with pride. It's a sweet sentiment and an intention noble enough to let some mild pandering and ill advised choices (I repeat - Olivia Munn) slide.

Now if you don't mind, I have to check out The Style Rookie, order Sloane Crosley's How Did You Get This Number from Amazon, and look up when the next Renegade Craft Fair in Los Angeles is.

Geek Girls Unite
Author: Leslie Simon
Publisher: Harper Collins
Release Date: October 4th, 2011
Amazon Link

Read More

An Ode to My New Obsession, Downton Abbey

For pretty much forevers, the things that I have become obsessed with, like when you get that feeling in your gut that you simply need *more*, have been television shows like Buffy or Battlestar, movies like The Matrix, Star Wars or Starship Troopers (there were a lot of intense film obsessions in Middle School...) comics like Y: The Last Man or Fables and Video Games like Fable 2 or Bioshock. Fangirl stuff, through and through. But recently, I've been introduced to a television show that appeals to a totally different side of my geekdom. The one who loves period drama. And that show is the 2011 Emmy winner for Best Mini Series, Downton Abbey.

It took me no time at all to get hooked on to the show, and once I started, I finished all of season one in two days and spent the next two days getting my hands on the episodes of season 2 that have just aired in Britain. Through downloading, yes. I'm not ashamed. I normally don't approve of illegal downloading, taking money away from the creatives involved and not participating in the numbers that will help keep certain shows on the air, but I do think there are exceptions and this is one of them. I am buying the season 2 blu-ray, no one has to worry about that. But I CANNOT wait until January to watch these. Are you kidding me?!!?! If someone was like, oh yeah, you know, Lost season whatever just started in Britain, we are getting in six months, I would be like STFU, illegal downloading now, bye.

Wait, comparing Downton Abbey to Lost? Am I crazy?! YES CRAZY FOR MATTHEW CRAWLEY. And Maggie Smith. And frankly, Julian Fellowes. This thing is so damn well written, that it's not just one couple or one mystery that keeps me coming back, it's anticipation of the writing itself. It's so unpredictable, and with each season lasting only 6-8 hours, the show moves. Fast. It began in 1912 and we're already at 1917. If there is a season 3, god willing, could a crossover with Boardwalk Empire be that out of the question? I'd like to see any of those folks encounter gorgeous revolutionary in the making, Lady Sybil. Ah, wishful thinking.

I actually find myself craving a sparring scene between Maggie Smith's Violet Grantham and Penelope Wilton's Isobel Crawley. Every exchange of theirs is like Oscar Wilde and Jane Austen had a baby and that baby was two old, brilliant women. The Countess of Grantham in particular is a fascinating character. While old fashioned in many ways, she has the sharpest mind of the bunch (helps us see where Lady Mary gets it) and is seemingly a Fangirl! She is the only character on the show to regularly reference things like The Lost World, HG Wells, The Wind and the Willows, Greek Drama and more. This is a woman with a lot of time on her hands and a love for science fiction, fantasy and plays. Perhaps her love of the written word in all of its forms explains her wit? In any event, I dig it.

Another fascinating element of this show for me is I care about every character and every storyline. The pacing is such that we never get bored and although we see character development happen quickly, it's still completely believable. Season two has already hinted at the slightest bit of redemption for the darstardly Thomas and Mrs O'Brien and I can't wait to see how their glimmers of having a heart play out. As if I wasn't rooting for Lady Mary and Matthew Crawley enough, Season 2's developments have made my heart ache with every scene they have together. There was a confession of love in the first episode of Season 2 that I had hoped we would see eventually that made me squee with delight and although it cannot be reciprocated for now, I'm curious to see how Fellowe's characters, as true to the time period and traditions as I've ever seen, will eventually deal with it. With World War I almost ending, change is coming, but will we get deep enough into reform to see certain traditions truly blown apart?

If you have been on the fence about watching this series, jump off that fence and then tear the fence down and then stomp all over it. It's like long form freaking Austen, people! The costumes, the production design, the acting, MY GOD, the acting. The weakest link is Elizabeth McGovern and she still does a fine job as the lone American of the bunch. As I watch, I have trouble believing these are actors. How is Mrs Patmore an actor, not a cook?! It doesn't make sense! And how is Mrs Hughes anything but the woman in charge of this house?! How is Lady Edith anything but the snake of a middle sister in the Grantham family?! How is Mr Bates anything but the crippled ex-soldier with a heart of gold?1 HOW?! IT"S NOT POSSISLBLEELLEE MATTHEW CRAWLEY IS REAL AHHHHHH!!!

Why is there a camera there?! Isn't it 1917?! AHH!

I've also noticed that every episode seems to have a subtle theme that is spoken aloud at some point. The one I can think of most readily is season two premiere's "War has a way of distinguishing between the things that matter and the things that don’t." But every episode has an overarching thesis that ties everything together nicely and makes each episode feel complete.

So what have we learned?
1. If you haven't watched Downton season one, watch it. It's on Netflix Instant Watch or I will lend you my blu-ray if I know you.
2. If you've seen Downton season one, and you need season two right now, feel free to ask me.
3. If you've seen every episode possible for humans not working on the show to have seen, OMG HOW GOOD IS IT?!?!
4. Matthew Crawley's eyes
5. OMG!
6. Jessica Brown Findlay is stunning and is going to be a star
7. Some of these things I didn't mention until we got to this list
8. So many accents on display in one hour! It's music to the ears!

Okay. All for now. End of Fangirling. SQUEE!

Hat Tip: @xoxogg, the reason why I started watching in the first place!!!

Read More

Extreme Makeover Home Edition Celebrates 9th Season Premiere

Sunday night at a cathedral in downtown Los Angeles, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition celebrated the beginning of its ninth season with a party-meets-expo showcasing upwards of 60 brands, endless samples, food trucks, a dance floor, live music, a screening of the premiere episode, a raffle and more. Although a swag bag to hold all of the swag would have been nice, and I felt like I learned more about these brands than I did about the show, it was still a great evening. Any event that ends with me holding a giant bag of free coffee beans is an event that wins. Selection of photos below and even more can be found here.

More photos and highlights after the jump!

Activities included a photo booth, free makeovers, bike rides on the craziest bike I've ever seen, some sort of on the spot cellulite treatment, watching live art being created and free roses plus samples of wine, chocolate, coffee, sweets, sandwiches, food truck edibles, various kinds of water including Activate and an Alkalized option, beef jerkey, coconut water, dried fruit snacks, an acai spirit, Mama Chia, and more. My personal favorites were the chocolate infused wine and the antioxidant infused coffee. If things are infused with something, I will probably like it, is the conclusion I've drawn. Although food provided by Togos and Boston Market seemed to undercut the otherwise healthy tone of the evening, I was still mostly impressed with the brand selection. And although I've never seen the show, it was fascinating to see a giant cathedral full of people watching the new episode, discussing how much they love what the show does, excitedly meeting folks associated with the show and more. It seems to make a lot of people really happy, so even though it's not necessarily my bag, it was nice to see the effect is has on people for an evening.

Keep an eye out for a write-up of an extremely different kind of premiere party for a totally different kind of show from Eruditechick over in New York. Here's a clue: whiskey and a yacht were involved.

Read More

Pipeline's Maritime Merriment

Over the weekend, Pipeline Theatre Company premiered their new play Felix & the Diligence . It's an absurdly silly and fun show written by Colby Day and directed by Daniel Johnsen. Set on the Atlantic Ocean, against the backdrop of World War II, the play features a slew of ridiculous and comical characters thrown together under the guise of "high stakes cod fishing."

More about this seafaring show, after the jump!


I went into the play knowing very little about it and left pleased and smiling. I'll steer away from any detailed plot description, with the hope that you'll have a similar experience. Part Shakespeare, part Disney, all absurdly funny and crude, Felix & the Diligence takes the audience on a nautical adventure, narrated by an old blind sailor named Henley (a crew member on the Diligence). And of course, Henley is played by a young woman with perfect-vision. In addition to cross dressing and secret identities, the show includes singing, sword fighting, sea monsters, sailor mouthes, Nazis, and even Amelia freakin' Earhart, all on a perfectly constructed ship deck of a stage.



Set designer Andy Yanni does a great job creating a superb stage for the actors to use. Felix & the Diligence is definitely an ensemble piece, with every actor succeeding in bringing to life the detailed nuances and idiosyncrasies of writer Colby Day's crazy characters. While all the actors give solid performances in this tightly-acted and well-paced play, Nicole Spiezio was particularly hilarious as Henley. In a masochistic way, I totally loved her constant cursing at the audience! And kudos to Meagan Kensil for stepping in for Alastair Falk and being such a charming Captain Chapman (yeah, I fell for the understudy bit, and you will too despite this telling review).

Overall, Felix & the Diligence is just a fun, comically chaotic play on an awesomely designed stage. I've come to expect a good theater-going experience from the folks at Pipeline and I'm happy to say that they've delivered again. If you haven't seen one of their shows, Felix & the Diligence is a fine place to start.

Felix & The Diligence, Or A Play About Fisherman in the 1940's
Written by Colby Day
Directed by Daniel Johnsen
Produced by Burton T. Frey Jr.

Featuring: Willy Appelman, Samuel Chapin, Fernando Contreras, Glenn Apollo Hergenhahn, Nathaniel Katzman, Meagan Kensil, Katelyn Manfre, Brad Mielke, Benj Mirman, Edward Raube-Wilson, Arielle Siegel, Allison Smith, Nicole Spiezio, and Mike Steinmetz

Performance Schedule:
September 27, 28, 28, 30 at 8pm
September 25 at 3pm
October 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 at 8pm
October 1, 7, 8 at 10:30pm
 
Connelly Theater
220 E 4th Street (between Ave A & B)
New York, NY

$20 general, $15 for students (code STU15)
For tickets, please click here.

 

Read More

Taylor Lautner: Yay or Nay

Crossposted on and commissioned by Film.com

With Abduction coming out today, Taylor Lautner's first starring vehicle, we thought we should take this opportunity to evaluate the young actor's chances of making the jump from supporting cast member to leading man. Does he have what it takes or should he just stick to the sidelines? It's investigation time - Pros and Cons style.

The Cons

Lack of Acting Talent
The overarching problem with Lautner is the fact that he can't act. He tries to act. And occasionally is okay. But mostly, he is untrained, and not in that raw, interesting kind of way, but in the "doesn't know what he is doing at all even remotely" kind of way. The biggest offense and proof that he has no idea what is going on is that he is, and excuse the actorly term, CONSTANTLY off voice. The easiest way to spot a wannabe actor is when you notice what I call "gravely voice". It means the so called performer doesn't know how to warm up or use his voice, so he defaults to a gravely tone that is a combination of nerves and an attempt at naturalism. Taylor Lautner is so guilty of this, he was giving ME a sore throat during Abduction. Other "gravely voices" can be found hanging out on the CW. Lautner rarely feels honest, and always feels angsty-squinty. His default facial expression is smolder. And he has no idea how to listen, take his time with a moment, or allow something to truly happen on the inside, informing the choices he makes. He does what the script says and not very believably. Granted, the supposed acting lessons he took between Twilight films did make somewhat of a difference, but certainly not enough.

More after the jump




His Face
I don't like it. He doesn't have movie star looks, no matter how much you try to tell me he does. I'm all for unique looking people, but untalented weird looking muscle machines who think they are hot and think I should think so too? This industry isn't exactly screaming for any more of those, you know? Hollywood is trying to make him a star because of his connection to Twilight and his body. Those aren't good enough reasons. There are plenty of actors who this industry tries to make into a star simply because he is pretty and sometimes that girlie gene in me takes over and I'll even see a movie *just* for a boy. (Case in point: What's Your Number for Chris Evans. I'm not ashamed. He is TALENTED TOO.) But Lautner is not that boy. His face makes my face hurt. A lot like his voice makes my throat hurt! Taylor Lautner is bad for me.

Bad Taste = Poor Decision Making
The only movies he has done in his adult life are the Twilight films, Valentine's Day and Abduction. That's zero for five right there. It shows he has no barometer regarding what's actually good, as opposed to awful. Even "fine" or "not bad" would be an upgrade from awful. But no. A movie star needs to know how to pick his projects and Lautner has no discernible idea how to do that.

The Pros

The Brand

Yes, he does have a brand. He is Jacob Black. He has crazy abs. Girls and women and boys and men all over the world love him for this, no matter what. We'll see how Abduction does this weekend, but the thinking now is that his brand alone can open a movie. If Abduction is huge, despite the fact that it is one of the most incompetently made films I've ever seen, it will be because the Taylor faithful turned out en masse.

Boy Next Door Off Screen Persona

Whereas Robert Pattinson has always been displayed as the kind of odd, mysterious one, Lautner, throughout the Twilight process, has taken on more of the sweet, boy next door kind of attitude. I happen to think there's a massive ego underneath the palatable facade, but a lot of his adoring public does not, and being perceived as nice and genuine can go a long way. An even longer way if you can back it up in reality. But can he?

Martial Arts Ability

The best part about Abduction, well the best part about Abduction was Jason Isaacs, but the other not horrible part was anytime Lautner showed off his parkour and martial arts ability. He's actually pretty remarkable. And this is something he came to the table with, as the black belt has been studying karate since he was six years old, and has won three Junior World Championships. It's not something many other actors his age can boast and is incredibly impressive. Anytime he was jumping, punching or spinning, I actually sat up for a second, I took notice. This is where he needs to focus his attention, not on trying to be a leading man.

So what is the conclusion? I find it hard to believe that this kid is going to have a lasting career. Robert Pattinson did nothing for either Remember Me or Water for Elephants, box office wise or quality wise, and Lautner is even weaker than Pattinson is as an actor. Abduction might do okay, but will quickly vanish when anyone other than a 14 year old girl hears how insipid it is. For the most success, I do think Lautner should stray towards the action and more opportunities to do his own stunts and explore his physicality further, but I don't see how he could ever be a Matt Damon, Harrison Ford or even Jason Statham with such a limited acting ability. If he wants to be the star Abduction is trying to make us think he is, he has gotta take some time to really learn how to do this thing and learn the difference between a good script and a bad, really bad, like really REALLY bad one. So, sorry Taylor, for the time being, my answer is Nay. You have some potential hanging out in the depths of your being, but you have wise up, get over yourself, and be open to learning A LOT to do so.

Read More

Abduction. Where to Even Begin.

If you know me, which some of you do, you know it is extremely rare that I dislike a movie. I can recognize its flaws and still enjoy it, still defend it, as I have done with many films and will continue to do, I'm sure, for a long time to come. But this week I saw a movie that is simply so incompetent, amateurish, laughable and a slew of other disparaging words, that nothing can redeem it. That film is called Abduction.

I originally sought out seeing this film to write something on Taylor Lautner's rise as an action star and whether or not he succeeded in his first big outing. I was never planning on seeing the film otherwise, based on the trailer it seemed to me like a potentially awesome film that would be ruined by Lautner's lack of an acting ability. But what I ended up seeing was so beyond atrocious, I couldn't just sit idly by and ignore it.

Where do I even begin. From the opening line of "Yeah baby" to my pages and pages of notes reading phrases like "How would he know that?" and "That makes no sense." and "Why would you do that??!!?!", this film is, frankly, a colossal failure. Five minutes into it, you know you're in for 106 minutes of lame dialogue and underdeveloped characters. 10 minutes into the film and Lautner has already spent a good amount of time with his shirt off. 15 minutes into the film, the best scene has already happened in which Jason Isaacs' Kevin trains Lautner's Nathan by essentially beating the crap out of him. It was a glimmer of hope that was quickly dashed away.

It's difficult to get into just how awful this movie is without revealing some key plot points, but trust me when I say that logic did not play a role in the script, filmmaking, or acting. There is no connective tissue between anything that happens. It feels like it was written by a thirteen year old who LOVES action movies but has no clue how to write one. So he tries and shows it to his mom and his mom says "Aw, this is great honey!" and so that thirteen year old calls Taylor Lautner's dad (Dan Lautner, a producer on Abduction) and is like "my mom said this script is great so you should make it." and so he did. No, this isn't the story of how the film got made, but it might as well be.

First, the plot. The story here, sure, makes enough sense as like, a log line. As one sentence. A sentence I can't say because it's all spoilers. But when it got fleshed out, everything went wrong. None of the reveals pack a punch or make much sense, and the biggest reveal of all is completely underwhelming and makes you feel like you've been along for this "ride" if one could even call it that, for no actual reason. It feels unresolved, emotionless and so absurd, I have to wonder if it was intentional as a secret way to undermine the action film as an institution and subvert Lautner's potential as an action star, because I see no other explanation for how something so comically illogical got greenlit.

The dialogue and exchanges between characters are even worse. So often it seemed like a character was saying something completely unprompted by what the other character just said to him. Like everyone was in his or her own movie making up their own "action movie" lines.

One of my favorite moments was when some very "important" exposition is thrown Nathan's way. And the next scene is Nathan explaining EXACTLY what we just heard, almost verbatim, to Lily Collins' Karen. Why. Why would you do that. Why would you have two scenes with the exact same exposition one right after the other. THIS IS CALLED POOR SCREENWRITING. There is also a moment where we see Nathan and Karen run into the woods. Then follows what we will call Scene W. After Scene W, a bunch of characters are talking about how Nathan and Karen are in the woods. So please tell me why Scene W is necessary. Scene W features Nathan and Karen in the woods. Karen says "hang on I have to catch my breath." So they stop running for about thirty seconds. She does not catch her breath. And then they keep running. That was a scene. A whole scene. It was foreshadowing nothing, it was following up on nothing, it was just pointless. And I laughed out loud.

Moments like these happen pretty consistently for the entirety of the film. It was a never-ending barrage of things that didn't make sense, whether small and subtly incompetent or glaringly over the top examples of idiocy, it was incessant.

And poor Lily Collins. She was just so damn boring. She and Lautner had no chemistry (although their wannabe porn stars make out scene tries *really* hard to make you think they do) and nothing about her jumped out at me at all. I know people like her, so I have to assume it's the movie's fault, not her own. I don't believe Tarsem Singh would cast his Snow White with an actress who was this bland.

So what does work? Jason Isaacs is the best part of the movie. Easily. Unfortunately, the potential with his character is wasted. When the film ended, my movie going buddy and I discussed what changes could have made the film actually work, and we both thought it would involve Isaacs in a larger role. I kinda wish they made the movie we discussed instead of the one they did. It might have actually been interesting or had some modicum of dynamic.

Also, and how is this for bizarre. I saw this movie intending for Lautner to be the worst part of an otherwise awesome action movie. But no. The movie around him was terrible, and although he was pretty terrible for the most part as well, I gotta say that when he is fighting, I dig it. The kid has some serious martial arts skills and the only times I enjoyed myself watching this film were during his all too few (Seriously) action scenes. I would have been thrilled to see a third less nonsense attempting to be a movie and a third more pure action, stretching his boundaries as a fighter and pushing him more in that direction. Lautner is not a leading man. But he is a damn good martial artist.

It physically hurts me to talk about this movie so I'm going to stop now. If you want to, you know, drink and go see a stupid movie and yell at the screen everytime something doesn't make sense, this may be your preferred weekend viewing. If you like things that are good and value your time, STAY AWAY. Looking forward to chatting personally with any of you that have seen this movie so we can go over every single moment that laughed in the face of logic and then kicked logic in the balls.

Read More

The Gunstringer: Proving Kinect May Not Be Useless After All

Crossposted and commissioned by Gaming Blend

Earlier this week marked the release of The Gunstringer, the first Kinect title from studio Twisted Pixel. The Austin-based company was looking to create a game that went past the casual nature of most Kinect titles and appeal more to the core players. As someone who has generally been unimpressed with how games have been using this motion technology, I was curious to see if one could actually break out of the box and hold my interest longer than five minutes. So did it? Let's break it down.

The basic concept of The Gunstringer is that we are participating in a puppet show starring the titular marionette with no name. The game opens following a woman into Austin's Paramount Theater as she takes her seat in a packed audience. The camera takes us back stage, where we see the actual, wooden puppet and follow it and its puppeteer through the hustle and bustle of opening night, and up on to the stage for the start of the game. From then on, there are occasional cuts to reaction shots of the audience to remind us where we are and provide a bit of comedy. Some have complained that this reminder completely takes them out of the game, but it didn't bother me in the slightest.

This charming concept lends itself extremely well to the Kinect because of how it figures in to gameplay. You use your left hand as if you were holding a marionette, lifting it to make the Gunstringer jump and moving it from side to side to make the Gunstringer, well, move from side to side. You use your right hand to engage in combat, whether it be with a gun, sword, flame thrower or fist. Knowing that you are "controlling a puppet" makes the idea of holding your hands out for 4 hours much more tolerable. The mere fact that logic is backing up the gameplay goes a loooong way.

Full review after the jump



The tale being played out in this puppet show you are controlling is one of the classic Western variety. The Gunstringer used to be a part of a posse. The posse betrayed him. Now he is taking his revenge, going after them one by one. This is divided into a prologue, four "plays", each with four "acts" and a boss battle, and an epilogue. Each "play" has a different theme - the Old West (posse villain = big oil baron), the New Orleans Bayou (posse villain = brothel madam), the East (posse villain = elderly ninja), and the Land of the Dead (posse villain = voodoo priestess). Each section takes roughly 45 minutes, but be warned, 45 minutes is a long time to continuously move your right arm in what can only be referred to as a "shooting motion". I had Gunstringer elbow after a mere hour. To continue, I had to both enlist the help of someone else for co-op play *and* throw an ice pack on my elbow. Note: I'm a healthy, fit 25 year old. Effing Kinect.

Even though the mimed act of shooting a gun can get painful, it was my favorite mechanic of the game. You move your hand over a total of six targets at a time, then pull your arm back, as if to fire, then you watch all six targets go down in one fell swoop. You really feel the force behind the shots you take. Which is why it was a damn shame when the physical act of doing it began to hurt too much to go on. I highly recommend taking your time with this game, as with *any* Kinect title. Elbow fatigue is infinitely more unpleasant than thumb fatigue.

Luckily, a Player Two came to the rescue. The co-op in this game is an interesting cat, equal parts necessary and pointless, exciting and boring. This is because the only function player two can serve is to assist in shooting. This is great on the one hand, because shooting is hands down the most fun aspect of the game, and not having to worry about moving around and dodging boulders, trees, bombs, sheep, walls, spikes, death (seriously, why the hell is there so much crap to dodge constantly), all you have to focus on is aiming and shooting. But this is simultaneously bad because it means when *anything* else is going on, such as punching (the focus of a few "acts") or the endless levels that involve nothing but jumping and dodging, player two just stands around, bored. But, as I said earlier, my elbow simply said no at a certain point, so having someone to focus on the shooting while I just worried about the Gunstringer's movement was essential to my enjoyment of the game. And as long as your player one stays the same, you can switch different friends in and out as player two.

Normally, one of my main frustrations with Kinect games is how inaccurate they can be, being either way too sensitive to movement, or not able to pick up on movement nearly fast enough. But the game engine for The Gunstringer all but eliminated that concern. Sure, once or twice the undead cowboy didn't jump when I lifted my hand, but for the most part, he did exactly what I wanted him to. Pro tip: When dodging things aiming to kill you, keep an eye on the wooden control handle where the Gunstringer's strings come from, as opposed to keeping an eye on the Gunstringer himself. Focusing on the location of the handle will help you navigate more smoothly.

Unfortunately, no amount of precise movement could help the "jump and dodge" levels from feeling repetitive and shoehorned in to an otherwise fluidly fun game. These frustrating levels seem like they only exist because they feature something the Kinect can do, as opposed to providing a fresh new angle to the story or gameplay. The variations I *did* enjoy were when the act of "pulling the trigger" was eliminated and you simply held your hand over what you wanted to shoot while the Gunstringer fired madly away, and the more classic arcade style of play, where you didn't have to worry about movement at all, as the screen moved for you, and you only had to wait for enemies to pop up so you could shoot them down.

But aside from certain frustrating elements (And to be honest, the "jump and dodge" element to video games always bothers me. Let me shoot something, come on.) and my Gunstringer elbow, the gameplay was a huge step up for Kinect. I felt in control, I felt powerful, and I felt the need to keep coming back, to see if I could do better.

One of my favorite elements to the game was the ever important (especially for any game that bridges on the redundant) death-not-meaning-you-must-replay. If you die, you simply select continue and pick up right where you left off. You lose all your points from that level as punishment, but that is a punishment I would GLADLY take over having to replay a level I didn't get through the first time. I have mentioned how much I hate jumping and dodging, right? I was very grateful for this element - many points to the game developers for knowing not to push their luck. They also get points for allowing the shooting of civilians to be counted toward your score, not against it. Just a side note.

The story and elements were surprisingly strong as well. Narrated by voice actor R. Bruce Elliot in an exaggerated Western style, The Gunstringer struck me as the perfect gaming companion piece to the surreal animated film Rango, another subversive 2011 spin on Western tropes. The humor in The Gunstringer is exceedingly bizarre, some of it way off the mark, some of it chuckle-worthy (at one point a bilboard within the game reads "All your land are belong to us"), all of it in weirdo territory. Some of this is explained when all of a sudden quotes from Troma's Lloyd Kaufman start popping up. Soon thereafter, it becomes very clear that these game developers have a soft spot for Troma (an entire subplot of the Bayou level involves a lumberjack-alligator love child), but just how much of an influence Troma had on this project would give away something I'd like you to discover for yourselves.

The design too, is top notch. Since this world is one of a puppet on stage, the other characters and items are created to look handmade as well, with stuffed enemies, cattle made of beer cans, push pins, paper dolls, card board cut outs and more. And every so often a hand comes down from the sky to manipulate something on the screen, either helping or hurting the Gunstringer in his journey. He becomes increasingly aware of this mysterious hand, which leads to a fantastically meta ending that must be seen to be believed. It had our whole participating group laughing out loud. The ending alone is almost worth the entire price of the game.

Additionally, The Gunstringer is rather fleshed out for a Kinect title. I'm not used to multiple menus and options, 50 potential achievements, DLC, "Hardcore Mode" and more. There are even optional commentary tracks you can unlock if you play enough of the game, that you can choose to listen to as you replay levels.

Overall, The Gunstringer is easily one of the most original, seamless and entertaining uses of the Kinect technology to date. The whole thing only took a few hours to play, in which 34 achievements were unlocked fairly naturally (leaving 16 slightly more challenging ones to go back and conquer if I ever felt the need) and I had a pretty damn good time doing it. Throw in the free DLC and code for Fruit Ninja, and it's not a bad buy. If you own a Kinect, here's your chance to own a game you may actually play. Fingers crossed other studios developing games for Kinect step it up the way Twisted Pixel has. Lionhead and Fable: The Journey, I'm looking at you. Don't let me down.

Players: 1-2
Platform(s): Xbox 360
Developer: Twisted Pixel Games
Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios
ESRB: Teen
Rating: B+

Read More

The Highs and Lows of The 2011 Emmys

Another Emmys telecast has come and gone, once again filled with awkward presenters, repeat awards, an okay opening musical number, some emotional acceptance speeches and an inexplicable amount of promotion for Two and a Half Men.

Wait. One of those things is not like other.


Anyway.

Here are the highs and lows.

High

Jane Lynch
Aside from one bit that went completely over my head (see below. way below.), host Jane Lynch nailed every single joke during the Emmys telecast. Favorites in particular included her "gay agenda," exchange with the Mad Men group during the opening, and intro to the men of Entourage. Her musical number wasn't aces, but that wasn't her fault. Never offensive (which I don't actually mind, but still it was nice to not have that Awards-show-cringey-feeling for once) always hilarious, she was a fantastic pick.

Low

Lea Michele
Meanwhile, a very different Glee actress didn't nail any joke, not the ones written for her, not her improvised one, nothing. To make things even more awkward, co-presenter Ian Somerhalder seemed pissed to be paired with her and when the teleprompted joke about actresses being divas came up, I know I was not the only one half expecting the camera to zoom in on Lea Michele herself. It certainly would have the saved the bit to have a moment of self effacing truth. What, being honest about yourself is good enough for Paula Abdul and Charlie Sheen, but not Lea Michele?

High

Lonely Island
It was utterly absurd and nothing about it was not fun. Plus, they freaked Bill Macy. Bill Macy! Love it.

Low

The Emmytones

I feel AWFUL saying this because individually, all six of these actors (Zachary Levi, Cobie Smulders, Taraji P Hensen, Kate Flanney, Wilder Valmerema nd Joel McHale) are wonderful (Okay not Wilder Valderama so much), but together, they created a bit of a train wreck. Not because anyone did a bad job per se, but rather because the bit was completely unnecessary. It added nothing except for a few chuckles thanks to Cobie Smulder's facial expressions after LL Cool J popped in to rap. Jeff Winger would so not approve.

High

Comedians Presenting
The Jimmys wrastling, Sofia Vergara having fun with her accent, Melissa McCarthy & Amy Poehler bringing it as usual, and Hugh Laurie making dry material work prove that when you want people to bring the funny, you should ask the funny people. (Yes, Hugh Laurie is on House now, but you guys, Blackadder.)

Low

Anyone Else Presenting
Or at least you know, if they don't know how to be funny, don't force them to try, okay? There is nothing worse than seeing someone crashing and burning on live television. Okay, there are lots of things worse than that, but still. There was way too much awkwardness on stage tonight. Poor Anna Torv not knowing how to react to David Boreanez going off script, Kerry Washington looking like she was about to die if someone didn't give her a sandwich....I know you'll get this presenter thing right one day, Emmys. One day.

More after the jump!

High

Actress in a Comedy
Perfection. Great idea, impeccable execution, and to top it off, a genuinely surprising and meaningful ending with Melissa McCarthy pulling an upset over favorite to win, Laura Linney. I vaguely recall there being a bit in this category last year and can only hope these ladies keep up the trend.

High

Emmy Winner Fun Facts
I enjoyed these last year and tonight was no exception. No matter how true or false the commentary might be, it's always entertaining and provides a nice filler as the winners make their way to the stage. Granted, this guy was nowhere near as good as the Hogdman, but enjoyable nonetheless. Or maybe I just liked it compared to -

Low

Network Announcer Lady
Okay seriously, who wrote this shit? "Will Friday Night Lights stop Dexter on its way to Emmy stardom?" Huh? What does that even mean? Or how about when she proposed that the Best Actor in a Comedy race was only between Jim Parsons and Steve Carrell? That one might even be worse because it was kind of true. Can she just say what is coming next without getting into the ridiculous and kind of offensive area of "this race is between only two entities"? I get bothered by weird things.

High

"The Office" Spoof
I always enjoy bits that feature people in character and this was one that did it in style. Featuring various characters from all over the TV-verse talking about their jobs, the highlight involved Aaron Paul making a visit to Dunder-Mifflin to drop off some meth to resident weirdo, Creed. How is he so brilliant even in a 45 second comedy bit?!

Low

Jersey Bit
Forgive me, actually don't, cause it''s not a crime, but I've never seen an episode of anything referenced in this episode, except for like, Boardwalk Empire. But Jersey Shore? Jersey Wives? Jerseylicious? Jersey Jersey Jersey what what? No. I don't have time for that shit. I mean, yes, the point of this bit was to make fun of the abundance of Jersey-centric shows, but still, I'd rather we just pretended they didn't exist.

High

Friday Night Lights Love
I've somehow still never watched this show, but I have enough friends whose opinions I trust that LOVE this show and were THRILLED with the awards it won, to appreciate the long awaited acknowledgment of this beloved drama. I was definitely upset that Jon Hamm didn't get his much deserved Emmy (The Suitcase! Come on, people!), but apparently Kyle Chandler is long overdue as well and this really was his last chance, so it's all good with me.

High

Mad Men's Fourth Win
Yes. I'm serious. Mad Men's fourth season was its best so far, and since it won Best Drama seasons 1-3, how would it not winning for its best season yet make any sense at all? I know people were upset that Friday Night Lights didn't pull it out for its last season, but honestly, when a show as universally ignored as Friday Night Lights even gets *nominated*, and not only that, but wins Best Actor and Writing? That's enough to be happy about. I sat through zip zero nothing for Buffy, Gilmore Girls and Battlestar Galactica and I'm still waiting on one effing nomination for Fringe, guys, so I can only be SO sympathetic. As for Game of Thrones, while it reached unmatched levels of amazingness at the end of its first season, the first half was all exposition. Now is not the time for Game of Thrones to win best show, but that time will come at some point, no doubt. Mad Men season four was bridging on perfection and NOBODY should be begruging it the win.

Low

Jim Parsons' Second Win
Not that he isn't fantastic. He is. Really. You guys shouldn't hate on this show as much as you do. But this was Steve Carrell's last chance for years of top notch work that reached its peak in his last season on The Office. The disappointment filled the whole room and was felt even by Parsons himself, which just made the whole award a bit of a downer.

High

Sofia Vergara
There's like, not much more to say on the matter. She just manifests a "high" in every way possible.

Low

Katie Holmes
The opposite of Sofia Vergara

High

Ed O'Neill To The Rescue!
Margo Martindale almost took a spill before delivering one of the most heartfelt, wonderful speeches of the night, but luckily, superhero Ed O'Neill was sitting nearby and lept to her rescue.

Low

Mixing Variety and Reality
I don't want to see The Daily Show mixed it with The Real Housewives of wherever the fuck. I really don't.

High

Peter Dinklage
DDIINNKKLLAAAGGEEE!! LANNISSSTTEEERRR!!!! You know what I'm saying? Plus, his speech was humble and sweet. Has anyone ever rattled off the names of his fellow nominees with that much confidence, that much ease? He's a fuckin pro. And he thanked his dog sister. His DOG SITTER. Only cool people do that. As a frequent sitter of other people's animals, I was a big fan of this choice.

High

Montages
I LOVE CLIPS. MOAAAAR CLIPS!

Low

Montage Omissions
No Fringe. Seriously? Like, are you serious, The Emmys? This isn't a joke? Fringe is the best Science Fiction show on television. And it's on FOX. The network AIRING THE EMMYS. I was gonna let It's Always Sunny not being included in the Comedy montage pass, sure, even though it's weird, (FX OWNED BY FOX PS,) but bypassing Fringe is nothing but unacceptable. If you are gonna go out of your way to make montages based on genre, but not specific to what's nominated, you should really try to include some of the shows that have been majorly overlooked, you stupids.

Best

The Path To EGOT
Tonight, we were reminded that with her second Emmy, Maggie Smith just needs a Grammy (anyone know a book she should record herself reading?) and with her first Emmy, Kate Winslet just needs a Tony (this shouldn't be that difficult to pull off, can it?). Justin Timberlake and Gwenyth Paltrow also got closer with their guest star wins, but if Justin Timberlake ever becomes an EGOT, I'll ram my head into my wall. But overall, a good Emmys for potential EGOTs.

Low

All Two And A Half Men All The Time!
Why was this damn show being promoted so damn much during the Emmys?! Barely a mention of Fringe but Two and Half Men gets like four dedicated bits?! Really?!

That about does it for me. A perfectly fine show with a few great moments that has successfully gotten me jazzed for this season of television to begin. Especially Fringe. Yeah, that's right, by ignoring Fringe, you just made me think of Fringe all night. So if that was the plan, Fox, then good work, but I don't think you're that smart. Anyway. Moral of the story: Watch Fringe. Not Two and a Half Men.

Read More

Leave Christina Hendrick's Breasts Alone: A Rant

Just happened to catch part of the local news just now doing a "wrap-up" on Emmy's fashion. I say wrap-up with quotes because no one appearing on the local news knows shit about shit, I've decided, based on this segment at least.

The woman who will henceforth known as Skinny Bitch Guest Correspondent had the audacity to place Christina Hendricks in the Worst Dressed category, not because the dress was ugly, not because the dress didn't fit her, not because she looked bad, but because she had too much cleavage. Seem like a reasonable criticism? Well, clearly you don't have large breasts or understand the mechanics of large breasts.

I get the criticism that some dresses may be in poor taste like the one Gwenyth Paltrow wore that one time. I don't need to tell you which dress I'm referring to, because we all remember it. It was a little trashy and had a lot of nip. I also get criticisms about, you know, a dress looking like a plastic cup with a bunch of holes in it like Juliana Margulies' was tonight, sure, yes, when your job is to critique fashion, I get shit like that.

But Christina Hendricks looked stunning. Yes, she had a lot of cleavage. But NEWSFLASH, SKINNY BITCH GUEST CORRESPONDENT, CHRISTINA HENDRICKS HAS CLEAVAGE BECAUSE CHRISTINA HENDRICKS HAS BOOBS. BREASTS. SHE HAS THEM. SHE HAS ACTUAL BREASTS OF AN ACTUAL LARGE SIZE. SHE POSSESSES LARGE BREASTS. DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN? HER BREASTS ARE HUGE.

For those of you still asking "But why does she need to have cleavage?", allow me to explain a little something to you. When you are born with large breasts, like I was, like Christina Hendricks was, like countless women are, the only way to NOT have cleavage is to cover them up completely. Is to wear a boatneck or turtleneck. Are you trying to say that because I am a D cup, I am forbidden from wearing a dress or shirt with a v neck?

A couple years ago, I got some shit from a male employer for "showing too much cleavage" at work. Was I wearing low cut tops? No. Sure, some were lower cut than others I wore, I guess, I own a lot of shirts. But I wasn't trying to be provocative. I wasn't trying to look sexy. I was wearing clothes. Clothes just like anyone else in the office. But because my breasts happened to be large, it was "distracting" and from then on, I had to make a point of trying to own more uncomfortably high necked shirts. Needless to say, he wasn't my boss for long.

But even if I understand having to dress extra conservatively for the workplace, this isn't going to the office. This is going to the Emmys. This is dressing to the nines to celebrate your hard work and the hard work of everyone else in your field. When you work in television, this is your party of the year, your time to go all out and look amazing. And you, Skinny Bitch Guest Correspondent, is saying that Christina Hendricks should have thought about how distracting her NATURALLY LARGE BREASTS BECAUSE SHE HAS NATURALLY LARGE BREASTS CAN I BE ANY CLEARER ABOUT THAT are and dressed more conservatively? Really? Julie Bowen and Heather Morris waere practically not wearing a front to their dresses, but oh, they're really skinny, so it's okay.

It's hard enough for me to find dresses that work with D breasts, let alone whatever Hendricks is sporting. Add to that her gorgeous slightly fuller figure than most Hollywood designers are regrettably not used to designing for, and you get someone who probably has a hard time finding the perfect thing to wear for these kinds of events. The size 0/A cup women she is surrounded by can more or less get away with wearing any sort of design they want. Hendricks has a harder time mostly because she needs major support for her chest. Her options are limited.

When you look at Hendricks' dress, it is in fact gorgeous and incredibly tasteful. As far as necklines go at this sort of thing, the dress isn't even *that* low cut. The only way for Hendricks to not have cleavage is to dress as she does on the show, and on her special night out, I think she should have the freedom to, you know, not dress like she is a secretary in a repressed 1962 environment. If *any* other woman had worn that dress, there would be no complaints.

It really bothers me that if Hendricks looks up anything relating to "fashion police" she will see one article after another (E! and AOL are guilty as well. EW thankfully understands what women are) saying she "needs to try a new look instead of this same old silhouette." or "it was just too much." To me, it sounds like a bunch of women intimidated by the confidence of a truly feminine woman, unafraid of her body, even if it doesn't fit the stupid mold the media wants it to fit and they want to make Christina feel bad about it and stop showing off her god-given assets, which she happens to pull off by doing nothing but wearing a pretty dress. Fuck em, Christina. Your breasts are beautiful, your body is beautiful, and you should wear whatever makes you comfortable and happy.

Oh, and be sure to head here for @eruditechick's thoughts on the matter, as well as some awesome photographic evidence

Read More

cARTel's Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY

Fearful of clowns? Or just plain annoyed by them? Me too. But I think it's time we stopped being so prejudice against such a misunderstood group (because they're not all John Wayne Gacy, Jr.). That's why this Friday night I'm seeing Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY, a show about a group of clowns trying to make it big in New York City.

cARTel, a LA based theatre company, is premiering their clown troupe in New York this Friday and Saturday. The show is an extension of the troupe's clown workshop, where actors create and develop their own miming clown persona. Set against the backdrop of a Broadway audition, this weekend's show will feature some brand new New York clowns. So come join me as we work together to get over our unnecessary fear and annoyance, by seeing cARTel's Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY.

Everybody Nose Working Actors in NY
September 16th & 17th, 9 PM
Yoga Agora
33-02 Broadway
2nd Floor
Queens, NY 11106
$7 presale, $10 at the door
(very limited seating, buy your tickets in advance)

Read More

On The Scene: Raiders of the Lost Ark 30th Anniversary

Cross-posted on Film.com

One of my all time favorite movies and probably one of yours too, Raiders of the Lost Ark, screened in downtown Los Angeles last night to celebrate its 30th anniversary. I have an interesting past with Indiana Jones - in elementary school I watched Temple of Doom constantly, without even realizing, despite having seen them as a child, that there were other films in the series (blame TBS or its early 90s equivalent). Then shortly after graduating college, I finally experienced Raiders for the first time for real, on a big screen, at a theater my friend managed, where roughly ten of us watched, drank and yelled things at the screen like "Life magazine is for Nazis."

But last night was my first experience watching any Indiana Jones film with a packed crowd. It was my first experience with an audience laughing when I laughed, gasping when I gasped, and hiding their eyes in anticipation of what is to come right along with me. Watching the stunning print (being prepped for Blu-Ray release - more on that below) with an audience filled with fans, including those of the famous variety like Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright, Damon Lindelof, and minor characters from both Glee and Cougar Town (no, really), felt like a gift in many ways. And if the screening alone wasn't enough, on hand to discuss the film in a post-screening Q&A were Steven Spielberg and surprise guest Harrison Ford. Never before had the two talked about Raiders together in front of an audience, and we could tell it was as special for them to be doing this as it was for us to be witnessing it.

Geoff Boucher of the LA Times, the man responsible for the event, introduced Spielberg by going through a long list of his best films (sadly omitted? Two of my modern favorites, Catch Me If You Can and Minority Report), reminding us, as if re-watching Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't already, what a genius the man is that we were about to hear speak. What followed was a wonderful 45 minutes, filled with honestly, surprises, old stories, new stories and insightful thoughts on film and its industry. To find out how the infamous swordsman scene came to be, what the friendship between Spielberg and George Lucas is like, how Spielberg feels about Lucas changing Star Wars for Blu-Ray, Spielberg's favorite Indy films, details on the blu-rays for both Indy and ET, and a whole lot more, read on. Full transcript below.

On the beautiful print we had just watched,

Steven Spielberg: This is the best it's ever looked because in preparation for the eventual release on Blu-Ray (applause), we had to go and correct the print again and get the original negative out of the salt mines (laughter) and then we had to do the separations and basically, the files which were just amazing with all the technology today, without changing any of the movie materially, like we haven't removed anything (applause) we haven't added CGI...This is the movie that some of you may remember from 1981, looking at the age of the audience, most of you don't remember it from 1981 (laughter). But it is THE movie, it just looks so much better.

On the difference between Steven Spielberg before Raiders compared to after,

SS: Well before Raiders I needed a job because I just made 1941 and no one would hire me (laughter). Except George Lucas, my friend. So yeah, I needed the eggs, you know? And this was sort of right up my alley because I had been a tremendous fan of the B Movie Republic serials and certainly so was George Lucas, so when, you know, it's an old story, but maybe bears repeating, that I was in Hawaii with George cause he was terrified of the opening of Star Wars so he called me and said, do you want to go to Hawaii with me and we'll sit there and just build a lucky sand castle cause you know, Star Wars was about to open, this was May of 1977. It opened and it was a huge success. In those days you knew it was going to be a success when all the 10am shows were sold out and they were, across the entire nation, and George came back, more relieved than I had ever seen him and started planning his next opus and he brought me this concept he had to me called Raiders of the Lost Ark about this intrepid sort of gravedigger archeologist going after somewhat paranormal antiquities from all over the world and he did not have the story...but he had the genre, he had had the idea and the homage it would be to the B Republic material. Right away I was intrigued and we made this deal...to make this movie.

On his friendship (described as "best friends") with George Lucas,

SS: George doesn't do text or email ever, I've never received a text or email from George and he's never received one from me. He's a phoner you know, it's all over the telephone or it's in person. So it's either eyes on or it's a telephone call, but it's never texting...You know, you get a phone call and it's like here, (Spielberg slips into George Lucas impression) "Hey Steve. (laughter) What are you doing?" "Oh I'm just sort of sitting around working George, making ten pictures a year as a producer, what are you doing?" "Oh. I don't know." (laughter)...The thing with George, when George and I get on the telephone, I have to clear my morning or my afternoon because we talk for a long long time. The only person I've ever talked to at the length I talk to George, believe it or not, was Stanley Kubrick, back when we were friends in the 80s, but George, you know, we talk about everything, we talk about movies, his projects, my projects, we talk about our families and our friendship and it's an enduring friendship. I met George when he premiered THX at the Royce Hall UCLA/USC Film Festival in 1967 I think it was, so we've known each other for a long time.

Geoff Boucher: Do you ever talk about another Indiana Jones movie? (one audience member says WOO!)

SS: One person! One person wants to see another Indiana Jones movie. (laughter) The ONLY person in the audience

GB: It was Shia! (laughter)

SS: No, I think that was the only bridge we didn't burn because of Indy 4. We talk about it, yes. And we're hoping, we're hopeful. (lots of applause this time!)

More, including Harrison Ford making a surprise appearance, after the jump




GB: I've heard so many different versions of how [the swordsman shot by Indy's gun] scene got into this movie. Could you clarify for us, exactly how that happened?

SS: Okay, well, the truth is, that the morning we were supposed to shoot this three page long sword vs whip fight between the swordsman and Indy, and Harrison came to me in the morning and he said, he always called me "Pal", he said "Listen Pal, (laughter), I went into like, Señor Barfies and I had something that didn't agree with me last night and you've got about an hour with me and then I'm going back to the hotel cause I'm really sick, so what do you wanna do?" And I think I said, "Well we have a few pages to shoot, but if you pull out your gun and kill the swordsman, you can go back to the hotel."

(Over the mic, a voice from the distance) No, no (audience starts going nuts. Out walks Harrison Ford. Standing O commences.)

Harrison Ford: That was an approximation. (laughter). What happened was that I was -

GB: Harrison Ford, by the way (laughter and applause)

HF: I had chosen to eat the native food unlike Steven who went to Tunisia with a steamer trunk full of spaghetteos (laughter) and I had suffered mightily for my - for that. And I was no longer capable of staying out of my trailer for really more than it took to expose a roll of film, which was ten minutes (laughter) and then I would have to flee back there for some, uh, sanitary (laughter) facilities. It was really horrible and we had rehearsed the night before what was to be a three day scene. There was a certain logic to my plea the next morning. It was a bout a forty five minute to an hour drive from our hotel to the set and during that period of time, it came to me that there might be a way out of this (laughter) and it came out of the logic, you know, an interest in the film, we had just shot a lengthy scene in which their was a duel between the uh, the bad guys with swords and things -

SS: - (is amused) bad guys!

HF: - the bad guys, and the whip and we were about to shoot another scene that would take us at least three days to shoot and the ultimate, the sad thing is that the guy who was playing the black swordsman had won the part, probably the greatest contest for any part in the film was over this because Steven and George were convinced that you could throw a salami in the air and slice it into wafer thin slices, so this guy had trained and trained and trained and we had to tell him that he was going to die. (laughter) My logic was that we really didn't want to see another [fight]...we wanted to get to Marion who was captured, so I said 'Hey Pal, why don't we just shoot the sonofabitch?" And Steven said "I was just thinking that." (laughter) And that's all there is to it. But the poor guy. When the news was broken to him that he was not going to get the chance to show any of the skills he had spent the last three months acquiring with a sword...

SS: Yeah, but he became the most famous swordsman ever to die by Indy's gun

HF: The first time I shot him, it took about three weeks for him to die, because he had been robbed of the drama, that was his due, so he did a very elaborate death scene -

SS: First he dropped the sword, then he stumbled backward, then he came forward again, ...started to weave, and then ... he stood there on his knees and went face down. That was take one.

HF: Yeah. And then I said to Steven, "Steven, watch this".. and before he had the chance to say action, I pulled the trigger and he went (impression of what the swordsman does in the film), and fell down, and that's what's in the movie.

GB: So Tunisia was a rough time for you guys?

SS: I never got sick there because I ate the...canned food - spaghetteos, pork and beans...I just packed a steamers trunk of food because I had heard that you get a little bit of indigestion there and you needed to take care of yourself, so Doug Slocombe, the DP, and I were the only ones who didn't get sick over a 6 month shooting period.

On Doug, the DP

SS: Well Dougie, now, he's still with us, but he's like 101

GB: 98

SS: 98. Woah. ... And Dougie was older then and I had really loved Dougie's work in a number of movies he made.Oone was the movie Julia, I loved his work in that and he was just a supreme camera man and what I liked about him was he wasn't afraid to use fill light, and I wanted this movie to look like an old fashioned Hollywood Saturday matinee movie, which meant instead of having a lot of abstract, Noirish lighting, where it's really bright on one side and really dark on the other, I wanted the faces to be seen, and I didn't want someone to flatly light the movie, I wanted somebody to know how to give it an elegant style, you know, let me see the faces but also the use the sun, use back light, the characters needed to stand out from the background. He already came to the party with that style and he was kind of known for that and I cast him for that reason. And Dougie was amazing, he was, if I wanted to put the camera up on a small mountain and I said lets get the camera up there, I'd tun around and ten minutes later, Dougie was halfway up the mountain already, ahead of the cameraman, ahead of the dolly grip, ahead of the focus pull, ahead of everybody. And he was just this rugged, yet funny individual, he told me a story one day and this is sort of the quintessential Dougie Slocombe, he said he had a few pints at the local pub one night and he had divorced his first wife or she had divorced him about 20 years before, and he was a little tipsy and got home and he took his keys out of his pocket and he started to look for his key and found the right key and put it in the lock and it wouldn't go, he went to the second key and it worked, and he opened the door, he went upstairs, and there was wife of 20 years ago, in bed with her husband of 20 years and he had gone to the wrong house (laughter). That was just Dougie! He was the absent minded director of photography.

HF: Dougie never used a light meter. He would just read the density of the shadow by the shadow of his thumb against his palm and he would give a light reading to the cameraman with that method

SS: He also stuttered, and it was kind of a beautiful stutter because his gaffer's name was Martin and of course it was hard for him to pronounce Martin... The M was difficult for him and then it would always be "Martin, umumum 11 5." and he was always right. Or he would look around and say "Martin umum um 5 6. "and then we'd move out of the shadow - "8 11" - and he was just spot on. I never worked with a DP before or since that didnt use a light meter.

On getting cast as Indiana Jones,

HF: I got a call from George Lucas saying that he wanted me to meet Steven Spielberg and that he was sending a a script over that he wanted me to read in preparation for that and I read the script and thought it was an incredible opportunity and about two hours later, I was at Steven's house talking about it. And of course it was because, oh whats his name, um, uh, um, Tom. Selleck? Tom? Tom? Tom had to drop out, Tom Selleck, because of an overlying commitment to do Magnum PI, so I hadnt heard the name Indiana Jones until about four hours before I had the part.

SS: What happened was after Tom [had to drop out]...,George asked me to come up north to see a cut of Empire Striesk Back...when it was over I walked over to George and said "We have our Indiana Jones" and he said, "Who?" and I said "That guy, Han Solo, that's Indiana Jones", and George said "Well yeah hes a great actor, but you know, but he's identified now with this characer in Star Wars" and I was like "Yes, but he's an actor, he can be identified with other characters as well!" (laughter) and George had never thought about Harrison in that context but he immediately, at that point he said yeah... and said it would be great amd he called Harrison a couple days later.

On revisiting the character of Indy,

HF: Maybe a fifth. But I ain't going to Mars. (loud applause and cheers)

SS: Well I ain't going to Mars with you

HF: What was the question?.. (laughter) It's an absolute delight to revisit this character and the chance to work with Steven again, who only hires me for Indiana Jones. I'm an actor, you know? (lots of applause and laugher). I guess I have to wait for Tom Hanks to take a series. (lots of laughter)

TH: You know who I offered Jurassic Park to? This guy. Alan Grant. First offer to Harrison.

HF: ...It was a lot like going to Mars

SS: What really scared Harrison was I had the art department, and I still have the patining, the art department made a paintg of Alan Grant and the kids Lex and Tim in each hand running toward camera with a huge T-Rex chasing after them and i told him to put Harrison's face on the character, I think that night have done the trick

HF: Next time we get a script for Indy, I would be delighted to play the character again. We both had an ambition for the character and the series.... each time we meet Indiana Jones, we have an occasion to... we wanted to advance the audience's understanding of, and experience with, the character not just by putting him into adventures, but by learning something new about him, something about what made him what he is and that led to meeting his father in the person of Sean Connery and his son in the person of Shia and bringing back Karen all for those things, which are to me what makes the character so interesting.

Boucher starts to talk about Spielberg's upcoming projects and points out Simon Pegg in the audience

SS: Hey Simon! Now I forgot, were you the twin with the P or without the P? All right, and Nick Frost is the other one.

On Raiders' link to Tin Tin,

GB: You hadn't really heard of Tin Tin til Raiders was released, is that right?

SS: I hadn't heard of Tin Tin at all, when Raiders came out, my assistant came over and said French newspapers ...kept mentioning Indiana Jones in reference to Tin Tin and .... Indiana Jones spelled out and next to it, Tin Tin, all over the place. [I got it] translated and it said Indiana Jones owed a lot to Tin Tin and so I got my hands on a book which was not easy to get in 1981 in the United States, but I got book and I could see that there were a lot of similarities, adventure stories especially the globetrotting aspect, but thought they were different enough that they could both coexist in the same world at the same time , so I tried to get the rights to Tin Tin back in 1983, when I was directing Harrison in London on temple of doom and I had the chance to talk to Herge and he invited me to Belgium and we had the chance to talk about making a movie out of his work and sadly he died a few weeks later but I was invited back about a moth later by his family....so this movie has spent what, almost 30 years in the planing stages.

On the making of Raiders,

HF: It was arduous, but I was young and dumb (laughter) and I really enjoyed it. And the thing about the action that I think was original was that we had the notion to show Indiana Jones' fear in a way that hadn't been often expressed before and so we got the opportunity to complicate that a bit with character, I thought that was interesting. But it was fun to do, it was arduous and it became more arduous as the years went on, I don't think I made it through one of the movies without a major injury. I was run over by the flying wing in this one and tore an ACL in the middle of Tunisia, and in the second one I shut the whole movie down for about a month and a half while I got my back operated on.

On Indy's fear,

SS: That was Harrison's contribution, his approach to the whole character wasn't something I was going to do with the movie, and that was to let this hero be afraid i thought he was going to be this great movie idol, this great movie hero, with many iconic possibilities, but Harrison said "if you want the audience to believe that I'm real and not just some guy in a cape, you better let me show that I'm afraid and I'll recover from it okay but I need to show that fear." Harrison brought that entire tapestry to the entire part. That transformed the movie for me.

Boucher then brought up the controversy surrounding George Lucas changing Star Wars - cue audience groan - and asked if Spielberg feels the need to go back and change things,

SS: That's a little hot topic, isn't it? (laughter) Let me put it this way. George does what he does cause there is only one George Lucas and thank god for that. He's the greatest person I've ever worked with as a filmmaker and collaborator, he is a conceptual genius, he puts together these amazing stories and he is great at what he does. And my feeling is he can do whatever he wants with his movies because those are his movies. We wouldn't have been raised with Star Wars or Indiana Jones had it not been for George, so what he does with his films is great. Speaking for myself, you know, I tried this once and I lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but simply because I was disappointed in myself. I was overly sensitive to some of the criticism ET got from parent groups when it was first released in '82 having to do with Eliot saying "Penis Breath" or the guns...and then there were certain brilliant, but rough around the edges close ups of ET that I always felt, if technology ever evolves to the point where I can do some facial enhancement for ET, I'd like to. So I did an ET pass for like the third release of the movie and it was okay for a while, but then I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET. And I regretted that. (massive applause) And the only contrition that I could possibly do because I felt bad about that was, the only contrition that I really performed was when ET came out on DVD for the first time, I asked Universal, I didn't ask Universal, I said you're gonna do this, when you release this on DVD you have to come out for the same price of one DVD, you have to put two movies in the box and one movie will be the 1982 version and the other will be the digitally enhanced version. I'd like to ask you this, let's do a little poll here, cause I know we're coming out with the blu-ray of ET, if I just came out with one ET on blu-ray, 1982, would anyone object to that? (loud NO from the audience). Okay then, so be it. (huge applause)

Boucher points out that they should do a 30th anniversary screening of ET next year - there is wild applause in response

The questioning then turned to Ford. Boucher noted the last time they saw each other was at Cowboys and Aliens (which received healthy applause from the audience, much to my surprise), pointed out Damon Lindelof in the audience, then asked Ford to elaborate on what he said on set, which is that he finds that most films heavy on the digital don't have a soul.

HF: Well, what I think I was struggling to talk about properly was, the potential that filmmakers have with computer created graphics is wonderful and can be wonderfully creative, but it can also lead to a failure to attend to a human scale, to go so far beyond our experience and our imaginations as an audience, to remind us that we are watching a digital effect, rather than some subtle extension of our experience, which makes us feel like it's humanly possible and this leads to a vast field of computer created images as far as thee I can see and beyond, you know, against one or two humans, and this kind of potential I think often robs movies of a degree of soul. (applause) However. (laughter) That's just me.

SS: No, I think it's a tool. The digital tools available to all of us are simply that, tools, and we either make a movie that celebrates digital era or we throw away story for a bunch of crazy wonderful special effects that keep us entertained but don't give us anything to remember beyond the fact that we spent two hours watching all of these special effects, or we could continue to write good stories, original stories, real strong narratives where the digital components are simply going to if not enhance the experience, create another way to have an experience. Like, I couldn't have made Jurassic Park that anyone would have believed in this audience, even back in 1993, you wouldn't have believed that movie if the dinosaurs were stop motion animation or clay-mation, you wouldn't have believed it. That was a digital tool. That was the first movie ever to use digital technology to create an entire character, as a matter of fact, a whole bunch of characters in the animals. So there's a time and place for it. In The Abyss, that digital tool where Mary Elisabeth Mastrantonio, her face is on the end of that water snake, was awesome it was phenomenal, we hadn't seen anything like it before, and that stands out when it's used because the story needs it to be used at that exact moment. It's when everything is just a special effect that we start to lose our way. (applause)

On Tin Tin making Spielberg feel like a painter more than ever,

SS: Well only because I could do it over and over again til I liked it, so I could get it right. Usually with a live action movie, we take the shot...the shots tell a story, you get involved, you look at it it makes you laugh it makes you think, gets you excited, in this case we do the same thing, but we can perfect it, we can actually bring it to a point of tremendous satisfaction without any extra cost...and you get it where it's right, so I had the chance to affect color, I was able to help light the movie, I certainly collaborated on all my live action films with all my DPs, but on this one I really got to light the picture, decide what time of day or night the scene took place in...and I did it quietly and privately, I didn't have 200 people waiting around me to make a decision, I could do it just with a couple of animators...between New Zealand and Los Angeles and it was a really intimate experience.

Then the Twitter questions began. Someone from the LA Times brought out the card with questions to give to Geoff, but it was comically intercepted by Spielberg who looked at the card and said "Who won the Republican debate?" then passed it to Harrison Ford who looked at it and said "Michelle Bachmann? Really?" It was an improvised bit that didn't perhaps make a ton of sense (why would the answer be on the card too?) but was delightful nonetheless and the audience loved it.

On a date for the Raiders Blu-Ray,

SS: We don't know. Soon. It's true that we don't know when soon is. Soon in my world would be about six months, soon in George's world is later than six months, but probably, I don't know, cause he's coming out with Star Wars first and then after that he's going to position Raiders, we're just not sure if it's gonna be Raiders, Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade , 1 -2 -3 separately or if they're all gonna be together, they haven't decided yet.

On what is harder and what is easier about making movies now compared to thirty years ago,

HF: Well, you know there's been a lot of changes in the business. Maybe the hardest thing is - you know, I was very lucky to come up in the hey-day of the movie business, it was a very lucky time, when more people went to the movies than ever, when show business was a good business to be in. That's less the case now, so it's hard to see a film that might find an audience or be a success ten years ago go down the drain now because the audience is so fragmented and because [of the business climate]. There are [fewer] chances being taken in some cases, there's less diversity in movie projects...

On how they feel about film today,

SS: I look at today as much more diverse than ever before in history, there's more independent film being made now than ever before, you got filmmakers, older filmmakers, artists coming out of different mediums that are able to make pictures, that are able to make You Tube movies, that are able to make movies for limited release on shoestring budgets and they have film festivals and small, kind of niche studios that are willing to make these pictures, so there's much more of a vocal presence, there's a tremendous variety in the kind of movies being made today. By that same token, when I was making pictures in the 70s and 80s, the directors made all the decisions about the genres and what films they wanted to make. Today it seems the studios are in control of the genres and what kind of films *they* want to make and they go out and they hire the directors that they think would be appropriate....Back in the 80s, 70s, the big studios relied on the filmmakers to have all the answers and today, big studios I think presume to have all the answers... I'm [at a] film studio right now, I don't presume to have all the answers, but I know what it feels like to think maybe once in a while that I do, and it sort of undercuts the filmmakers you really depend on to bring good stories to you. But I think it's always going to be a writer/director initiated medium, and it's always going to be carried home by the actors.

HF: That's what I meant (uproarious laughter and applause)

The Twitter question "What are you most excited about?" is met with hilarious silence from the guests

SS: Well you know, right here, talking to Harrison, we haven't done this before, this is amazing talking about - you know we haven't talked about this movie together in front of people before, this is a first for me, so that would be my answer

GB: (To Ford) I guess you gotta say the same thing now, don't you?

HF: (pause) Yeah. (pause) (pause) (laughter) (pause)

GB: This is from Todd (laughter), this is him speaking, I think Raiders is as close to perfect as a movie gets, (applause), is there anything in it you wish you could change?

SS: No, nothing, of all the movies I've ever made, this is maybe the only movie that I can actually bear watching from beginning to end and watch it like an audience, not like someone who knows what's coming next. I can get lost watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. And I also get lost watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, those are my two favorite of the four movies. I can't say that about every movie I've made, but this movie was very special to me in that way. (applause)

More on making Raiders,

SS: I was coming off of an extravaganza called 1941...it was really a long picture. And I made everything up on 1941 as it went along...it was an out of control production, completely because of me, and George and I sat down and George gave a big sort of big brother lecture to me and he said to me "I know you can do it, go back to your tv movie days...and I'll bet you anything, you need this movie Raiders to bring you back to a kind of responsible form" And he was right, he was right, so I storyboarded the hell out of this picture, I storyboarded every scene, I storyboarded scenes when it was just two heads talking to each other that had nothing else going on. And we made a documentary on the making of this movie...and there's a scene which is so typical of Harrison's relationship with me during the whole shoot, but I was so excited every morning to show Harrison the storyboards, I would walk him through his day, so I'd be there with my big book open of storyboards, and I would be explaining what's gonna happen next, we would do this, then Harrison said "Excuse me" and he gets up and he walks away, (laughter) ... and he doesn't come back, so you know...he didn't always listen, but I had the storyboards, so we finished the movie 14 days ahead of schedule because of those damn storyboards. (applause).

HF: Steven was very fast, very fluid, it was effortless to make the film. He was wonderfully open and collaborative and generous and it was really a fantastic experience. (applause)

And with that the men said their goodbyes and headed back stage, not before Spielberg took the time to sign an Indy poster for a fan in the front row though. Overall, a wonderful, insightful, exciting evening in celebration of one of the best movies of all time turning 30. And be sure to keep an eye on this website for video highlights from the evening - some of the moments between Ford and Spielberg cannot truly be captured in mere text.

Read More