BafflingBeerMan

I hope the Governator teams up with Stripperella.

They'd be unstoppable!

Between this and Bob's Burgers, I am overloaded with H. Jon Awesomeness. Been a fan of his since Dr. Katz.

Of course, the rest of the voice cast is as awesome. Jessica Walter and Judy Greer in particular.

Once you do a movie with Nolan, you are in for life. Even if you don't want to be!

Truth, Justice, and Tea and Crumpets!

Rewatching "LA X," I actually dug the flash-sideways more the second time than the first. Some of it is heavy handed (establishing Sun and Jin), but I think with the foreknowledge of what this universe actually is imbues some of the words and actions of the Losties in that universe with more meaning and significance.

But, get back to me when I rewatch "What Kate Does"

The Best Actor race is going to Jesse Eisenburg. He's been getting all the hype, most of the awards, and has been a shoo-in since The Social Network opened. Colin Firth may give him a run for the money (depending on the late surge The King's Speech is getting). Jeff Bridges is a longshot, especially since he already won last year and his role previously won an Oscar when John Wayne played him. However, True Grit, overall, did outperform expectations when it came to nominations. It received many more nominations than anticipated.

Portman is a shoo-in for Best Actress. Best Picture is probably going to be The Social Network, with Fincher winning Best Director and Sorkin picking up adapted screenplay. Inception will probably win for original screenplay.

UPDATE: The Matrix isn't real, like Keanu Reeves talking about sequel

I have always heard that the first movie incorporated many of the ideas the W Brothers had for sequels, but they crammed it all into one movie because they never knew if they would actually get a chance to do more movies.

The second and third movies are like the Star Wars prequel movies, now that I think about it. All action and flash, very little substance. The writing was even more hackneyed, it seemed like since everyone dug the philosophical questions of the first movie, they were cranked up to 11 in the sequels and all the new characters were lame and barely developed.

Yet, I ask myself "Will I see any sequels?" And I answer, "Sure!"

By the by, to bring Neo back, I think the best way would be to make him the villain. He was infected by Smith, has near-God powers, and it would allow some newer, fresher characters to come into the forefront.

It's been nearly a year since the last season of Lost started, so I am slowly going to go through and rewatch the episodes.

So far, my hindsight observations of the premiere, "LA X":

They really foreshadowed what the flash-sideways actually was. From Sayid's talk of what he will find on the "otherside" to Juliet's conversation that takes place both in the real world and the sideways world to Charlies "Am I alive?" and "I should have died," death and the consequences played a big role in the setup. Oh yeah, and Rose tells Jack to "Let Go" (obstenibly of the armrest) after the turbulence in the sideways 815.

I am convinced that Sayid's turn to the darkside was in part because he temporarily crossed over, saw his fate, and was confused or even angry (he doesn't get Nadia, but still gets to be near her. Not the punishment he was expecting, nor the heaven). We know Desmond crossed over and was aware (yet still mildly confused) about the two realities.

Rose and Bernard must have been immediately "awakened." Their conversation when Bernard returns from the Tail Section about missing each other smells like a "reunion" after a lifetime.

People complained about how useless the Temple was and from a storyline standpoint, I can't argue too much. It provided a little, but not much, background on the cult of Jacob. But I think from a symbolic standpoint, it is supposed to represent the dogma of following Jacob, like a traditional religion, as opposed to the Jacob-followers in the Dharma camp, which are symbolic of more modern religious tendencies. And if we remember the overarching theme of the Jacob/MiB conflict (in my mind) about how falliable God is, then these two camps represent how there is no right way to approach a deity.

I still don't know why the Temple folk drowned Sayid. Maybe they were aware of the "otherside" (Dogen did appear to Jack in his episode) and feared bringing him back. Or they knew who Sayid was in this life (a torturer) and did not want him to replace Jacob, really.

How did Josh Holloway not get nominated for an Emmy. Every scene where he deals with the aftermath of Juliet's demise is heartbreaking.

I follow The Stanley Hotel on Twitter.

It often tells me to kill. (Not really, it tells me about awesome deals to stay there though, that makes it like a killing).

The main difference between The Shining movie and The Shining TV miniseries, according to King himself and why he wanted to do the miniseries, is that Kubrick made Jack's insanity a result of supernatural aspect of the Overlook while in King's book, the crazies were more a result of his alcoholism (which mirrored what King himself felt he was going through at the time with his own alcohol problem and his family).

What? Not a single Fat Tony?

Isn't Alison Brie popping out of a trash can the cutest?

I believe the "Emma" in Wolverine is only called "Emma" within the movie and is credited as "Emma Frost" in the credits (and credits can easily be called in or out of canon). Add in the fact that she was whatsherface's sister in Wolverine, it is easy to discard that "Emma" for this one, especially since Wolverine Emma only showed The White Queen's secondary mutation...

...Which I think this one will as well, but hopefully also shows here telepathy as well.

But that is true of any movie, that it is ultimately the director's vision that gets placed on the screen, whether it be from an adapted or original screenplay (see Hollywood's use of the Alan Smithee pseudonym). Unless the screenwriter is also the director or producer, the final product on the screen is in the hands of the director, the ultimate interpreter (though the studio gets a lot of say as well). Which is why we get things like deleted scenes and alternate endings.

Also, a good counterpoint to Queen of the Damned travesty is the Fight Club triumph, where the author himself says David Fincher's and the screenwriter's ideas for the film, particularly the ending, are much better than what he could of thought himself.

You know Betty White's going to be playing the George Burns role in Oh, God is it gets made soon

Adaptations have been going on since the Greek tragedies. And with any form of entertainment, one's level of appreciation/dislike will vary.

Fight Club, the movie is way better than Fight Club, the book. Some of the superhero movies, while not following comic book continuity 100%, effectively boil down 40+ years worth of stories into a solid presentation that captures the hero's journey.

Some changes are done because what is described in a book can't be shown on screen, either because the lack of good enough SFX or the flourish of that scene just doesn't visually fit in with the story. Characters are changed or dropped because they would bog down the story and expand a two hour movie to a three hour movie. And while it would be nice to include the original author(s) in any adaptation, remember, writing a novel is a lot different than writing and making a movie.

So, bottom line? Adaptations are not inherently good or bad. They are what their creators make them to be. Like any other movie or TV show (or even book, like the novelization of movies we often see).