Operation Hulk!

Being old school and stubbornly set in my ways I prefer the original Operation game that features the escaped nazi war criminals operating on the fat drunkard. But I can still appreciate the recent updates where kids can operate on Shrek and Homer. It's a creative way to keep the game fresh.

Now there's a Hulk version being released just in time to tie in with the new movie. Although I'm not sure if it's a direct tie-in. It uses Marvel's toddler friendly character designs, not the harsher film character design. So this is suitable for all ages even if it looks like Hulk is the victim of an alien chest-burster and wait oh god what's that teddy bear doing to Hulk's leg?

Visit Hasbro's site HERE to see the full array of new Hulk toys including the exciting board game Don't Wake The Hulk!

The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T

Now that your kids have seen Horton Hears A Who (two thumbs up from my daughters, btw) it's time to start building their indie cred by showing them the first Dr. Suess film. Long before Jim Carrey and Mike Myers created nightmare fuel for an entire generation, long before Grinch and Cat In The Hat were even written, Theodore Geisel wrote the script and songs for an original children's film. It's a bizarre little number, of course. So bizarre that the studio dumped it in 1953 with very little fanfare. I didn't even know it existed until a few weeks ago.

The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T is about a little boy who daydreams of being trapped in an enchanted castle run by his oppressive piano teacher Dr. Terwilliker. His mother is there, held in a hypnotic trance by the villainous Dr.T. There's no father in this boys life, so the paternal figure is a plumber named August Zabladowski who's been laying some pipe for his mom in out in the real waking world. In this boy's dream world he tries to set his mom up with the plumber because he's desperate for a father figure. So desperate he takes to calling the plumber Pa. But I'm getting ahead of myself. This sounds like a Spielberg movie when in fact it resembles what might happen if Salvador Dali adapted Roald Dahl.

The story follows the boy as he attempts to stop Dr. T's evil plan of wiping out every instrument from the planet, except the piano. This way he can impose his draconian piano lessons on the entire world. You see? The plumber is there to install sinks so the make-believe evil castle populated with dungeons, traps, and assorted mindless henchmen can pass a building code inspection. Got that? Basically the plot exists to take the boy from one strange scenario to the next. The sets and costumes are right out of Geisel's imagination. The place is full of large sharp angles, odd contraptions, and staircases that lead nowhere but "UP" as a big signpost says.

But what keeps things moving from scene to scene is radio veteran Hans Conried as the wicked Dr.T. Conried plays his character as the most cartoonishly evil foe ever filmed. If he had a long moustache he'd be twirling that thing like a motherfucker. Distorting his face into absurd expressions, shamelessly rolling his tongue over every syllable he utters- Dr.T is what you would get if Lost In Space's Dr. Smith and a post-stroke Kirk Douglas stepped into Seth Brundle's teleportation pod together.* We're talking some modern pop culture kabuki shit here.

For my money the film's show stopping number is the "whammy fight" between Dr. T and The Plumber. It's a fight that's half pantomime, half interpretive dance (and ALL fabulous!). The two circle each other as they swing and kick through the air, each reeling from the other's attack, but never making physical contact. This happens early on and unfortunately nothing that comes after matches it's sense of audacious silliness. A baritone singing elevator operator wearing an executioners mask and covered in black body paint comes close, though.

There's another genuinely charming moment when the plumber and the kid bond with some make believe fishing. Peter Lind Hayes, as Pa Plumber Zabladowski, lends this scene some sincerity and charm. As far as the bland-leading-man-a-son-tries-to-hook-up-with-their-single-mom type goes, Hayes is pretty good. He's got a few snarky lines (uncommon for the 50's) that he delivers with pitch perfect timing. Too bad the boy is so wooden I can't even remember his character's name. He brings with him the charisma of a grade school talent show.**

You can find Dr. T on DVD. I think Netflix might even have it in their streaming library. But will these jaded kids today like it? I suggest a primer course in more traditional old school kids movies first. If they like Mary Poppins and The Wizard of Oz, they should be ready to dig on this. Dr.T doesn't have the same budget as those classics, but it's got plenty of moxie. And it's 83% less likely than today's live action Suess movies to cause night terrors.

*For the horror fans- I also thought he bore an uncanny resemblance to Bob from Fulci's Gates Of Hell.

** I hate busting on kid actors because you know they got pushed into show business by their parents. But he's an adult now, so the gloves are off.

The Incredible Ed Norton! An Ed Norton Production of an Ed Norton Film

The first trailer for The Incredible Hulk finally hit the net. Click it HERE to smash.

There are a lot of rumors going around that star Ed Norton is clashing with the producers over the final cut. Ed's got a history of fighting for creative control of his movies. Director Tony Kaye famously removed his own name from American History X after Norton recut it in post production. Last year Norton took the Bruce Banner role on the condition that he be allowed to rework the script. Now the word is he's unhappy with the amount of control he has over the finished film.
That sure doesn't look to be a problem with the trailer. Ed Norton's all over the damn thing- posturing, emoting, even providing the voice over narrative as he solemnly falls from a helicopter as if he were Jesus sent back to earth to fight The Abomination. Oh and the Hulk shows up at the end. Yay!

This would have been a good trailer a year ago. It plays out as if we don't know what to expect, as if the appearance of the Hulk is a big HOLY SHIT reveal. Too late. Maybe it'll surprise folks in the fly over states. But this is 2008 and (sadly enough) when a movie is less than three months from release the hardcore nerds have already seen it's ass coming down the pike for a year. Worse yet, we are so accustomed to having stills and trailers thrown at us early we get suspicious when a film takes it's sweet time to promote itself.

But kids don't give a shit about that stuff (yet). As soon as they see Hulk smash the big ol' Roth Monster on TV they'll want to see the movie right away. I'm hoping The Incredible Hulk will be this Summer's Rise of The Silver Surfer. A good superhero movie that enters without a lot of fanfare, entertains the kids and leaves. Unless Norton fucks it up.

Monsters Vs Aliens in ULTIMATE 3D!

Here's the latest ULTIMATE pic from Dreamworks' 2009 release Monsters Vs Aliens. And the film is in ULTIMATE 3D. That's right, they're seriously calling it ULTIMATE 3D. Jeff Katzenberg told USA Today, "This isn't our father's 3-D." Which is ironic since USA Today happens to be my grandfather's favorite newspaper. He can't get enough of those weather maps. Now there are a few more 3D animated flicks slated for next year and beyond (A Christmas Carol, Ice Age 3, Toy Story 3), but no word yet on whether or not they are ULTIMATE 3D projects. Also no word on which project will be the first to call itself "Part 3D".

BTW- Those monster designs don't quite live up to the awesomeness of this movie's title. Except that big Marty Feldman looking dude. He's pretty cool. The other guys? Yawwwwwn.

Gary Gygax's Legacy

I was never much for Dungeons & Dragons or any RPG's. I played D&D a few times with some friends who were more zealous than I and that was it. Didn't even have a character or own a single die (Okay, I liked the Saturday morning cartoon- that redhead with the invisibility cloak had some smokin' hot boots). So when D&D creator Gary Gygax died last week I really had nothing to say on the matter. But since D&D is such an integral part of nerd culture and has lead directly to the online gaming these crazy kids love so much today, I'm compelled to mark Mr. Gygax's passing somehow.

In that spirit, I present a Point/Counterpoint of sorts. First up is a Slate.com article that dares to launch the inevitable D&D backlash. A week of respectful mourning is actually pretty good in today's media culture. From Erik Sofge's article, Orc Holocaust-

Here's the narrative arithmetic that Gygax came up with: You come across a family of sleeping orcs, huddled around their overflowing chest of gold coins and magical weapons. Why do orcs and other monsters horde gold when they can't buy anything from the local "shoppes," or share a jug of mead in the tavern, or do anything but gnash their teeth in the darkness and wait for someone to show up and fight them? Who knows, but there they are, and you now have a choice. You can let sleeping orcs lie and get on with the task at hand—saving a damsel, recovering some ancient scepter, whatever. Or you can start slitting throats—after all, mercy doesn't have an experience point value in D&D. It's the kind of atrocity that commits itself.

For decades, gamers have argued that since D&D came first, its lame, morally repulsive experience system can be forgiven. But the damage is still being done: New generations of players are introduced to RPGs as little more than a collective fantasy of massacre and greed. If the multiplayer online game World of Warcraft is the direct descendant of D&D, then what, exactly, has Gygax bequeathed to us unwashed, nerdy masses? The notion that emotionally complex story lines are window dressing for an endless series of hack-and-slash encounters? There's a reason so many players are turned off after a brush with D&D. It promises something great—a lively (if dorky) bit of performance art—but delivers a small-minded and ignorant fantasy of rage, distilled to a bunch of arcane charts and die rolls. Dungeons & Dragons strips the "role-playing" out of RPGs; it's a videogame without the graphics, and a pretty boring one, at that.

All salient points, to be sure. But as the aforementioned counterpoint, I present this bit of video. The simple joy of D&D- the way it can bridge any social gap- as envisioned by Judd Apatow-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJAGxAeV7YU

Celebrity Voice Talent- The Scourge of Animation?

Dreamworks Animation has always stood in the shadow of Pixar. Oh sure, they've had quite a few successes over the years. But their overall quality is second best. Not to mention the fact that their earliest efforts were clearly derivative. If Pixar is Nirvana, Dreamworks is Hole.

But even if Dreamworks has yet to raise the animation bar creatively, they can take the credit for another modern innovation. Their formula for voice talent was a marketing masterstroke that quickly became an industry standard.


Their first feature, Antz, was a poorly written, shoddily animated rip-off of Pixar's A Bug's Life. But it managed to open big thanks to the celebrity cache of Woody Allen, Sharon Stone and Sylvester Stallone (were the 90's really that long ago?). By marketing to the parents rather than the kids Dreamworks was able to bankroll it's animation studios. They later tweaked this formula to perfection with Shrek. Of course this has now led to folks like Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis headlining major animated releases. Because those guys are famous for their golden pipes, right? The stable of old school voice actors who now see their prospects drying up are, naturally, pissed. Billy West, from an Onion AV Club interview-

The minute they mention a CGI film, they're already looking to see what Renée Zellweger is doing. They're already looking to see what Billy Crystal is doing. This doesn't make sense, to do what they do—spend zillions on visuals, and then have this totally fucking flat-lining voice track. You know, "Hey, I'm Will Smith, I'm a clam! I'm Will Smith, I'm a kangaroo!" All you bring to the performance is your own ego. They're just being themselves. Let's put it this way: Cameron Diaz is the highest paid voice actress in history: $20 million for Shrek. Why? Because she has a 9-foot mouth? That works somewhere else, but not on tape.

Stimpy makes an excellent point there. But the fact is Cameron Diaz can get on The Tonight Show and promote Shrek 4: Welcome To The Suck. Whereas outside of Nerdville the name Billy West just doesn't put asses in the seats. But last year Dreamworks learned that name recognition is not always enough. Bee Movie is hitting the shelves next week following a lackluster theatrical run. Jerry Seinfeld pimped the shit out of this thing. Live action trailers, talk show appearances every day of the week, billboards and posters in every outlet. They even hung gigantic fucking bees from buildings in the major cities. Jerry's name was everywhere you looked. But guess what? It turns out kids could give a rat's ass for Jerry Seinfeld. Wow, who could have seen that coming? According to CHUD.com's own box office expert Andre Dellamorte, Bee Movie pulled a profit but failed to live up to investor expectations (who surely had visions of Shrek receipts dancing in their heads)-

It was considered a successful disappointment, if that makes sense. It will be profitable through ancillaries because parents will buy the DVD, but it's theatrical run was not out of the park.

Dreamworks used it's A-list talent to sell to the adults and ended up losing out on a big demographic. It looks as though the studio is cutting it's losses by serving it up as a nice gift to drop in the kids' Easter basket this year. According to Andre the DVD will be able to rake in the dough without much additional marketing-

The film made over 100 at the box office, so Best Buy and Target and Wallmart (etc.) will do the full order, have the display box announcing who's in it and they'll probably move a lot of discs. Just as Madagascar and Shark's Tale did as well, though I'm sure those titles have dust on them in most collections. Would nerds with kids buy it? Probably not, cause I'm guessing better kids films (Miyazaki, Brad Bird, etc.) are watched only slightly more by the kids than the parents. But for an audience that treats a movie like a babysitter, hotcakes.

It looks like they're returning to the proven game plan. Kung Fu Panda, their summer release, follows the same formula of putting celebrities behind the mic*. But the film's star, Jack Black, is definitely a lot more kid friendly. They're also making sure his visage gets out there to the under twelve demographic by putting it on shows kids, not their parents, watch. A very important distinction in the wake of Seinfeld's late night talk show campaign. He's hosting this year's Kids Choice Awards. The commercials running 24/7 on Nick are selling him more than the show itself. And I'm sure it'll help that Kung Fu Panda is chock full of slapstick humor, as opposed to Bee Movie's hilarious plot involving a lawsuit.

Like Antz before it, Bee Movie was basically a movie for adults that also tried to appeal to kids. And like Antz, it ultimately disappointed on both counts. Maybe Dreamworks should just take a creative leap and fully commit to an animated film for adults. Beowulf has already shown American audiences it can be done (European and Asian audiences have known it for years). Or at the very least, just stay the hell away from talking bug movies.


*To the point of absurdity. Jackie Chan?! The guy's name is synonymous with kung fu because he built a career on stunt work, not emoting. His most successful films, the Rush Hour trilogy, were based on the premise that his wacky American partner can't "understand a word comin' outta his mouth!"

Indiana Jones Digs Up Some Ancient Marketing Ploys

There's an Associated Press fluff piece out today about what a sensation the new Indiana Jones trailer is. Sensation? That's news to me. I guess the title- New 'Indiana Jones' Trailer Is Smash Hit- has a grain of truth in it. For 24 hours it was the talk of Nerdville. But then, as it is known to do, the internet moved on to other things (like that superwickedawesome Iron Man trailer). "Smash hit" certainly implies a bigger buzz than that. So I read through the whole article (That's right, the whole thing. Who says my generation has a short attention span?!) looking for evidence to the contrary. But all I found was empty generalizations and a quote from hyperbolic fanboy Harry Knowles.

Then I read this bit and had to choke back my righteous indignation-

"Older audiences certainly remember Indy, but that's not the prime ticket-buying demographic. Thus the aggressive online campaign, which included what Paramount says is a record 4.1 million views on the Yahoo movie site in the first week and 2.6 million on the official IndianaJones.com site, the most ever for the studio. "

Sure, those stats sound great for Paramount, but in a world where videos of talking cats pull in the same numbers... well let's just say there's more to enduring quality than can be measured in raw data. I also take issue with the AP's definition of an aggressive online campaign. A few stills and one trailer is aggressive? Bullshit. That's par for the course. The viral campaigns of Cloverfield and Dark Knight, utilizing multiple websites and real world scavenger hunts to encourage an online whisper campaign, that's aggressive. I get the feeling this article was written for all the old ladies and squares who aren't savvy to the kind of media blitzkrieg the internet is capable of. The writer assumes that online trailers are some revolutionary new form of promotion and Lucasfilm is spearheading the movement.

The fact is this article is just an example of the old, tired form of viral marketing. It's nothing more than advertising thinly veiled as news. Let's hope the movie itself has some new tricks up it's sleeve because it's campaign sure doesn't.