Zaki Hasan's Open Salon Blog

G.I. Joe Déjà Vu?

Wed, 30 May 2012 18:05:31 -0400

"I'm still alive, y'alls! I'm all around you!" Last week I evinced some (okay, a lot of) frustration at Paramount's decision to jettison its highly-anticipated (by me) G.I. Joe: Retaliation from its summer perch and swap it out for a lower-profile late-March release. The stated reason offered up by the studio at the time was that they wanted to pony up the necessary bucks and time to apply the dreaded post-converted 3D process to the completed film. As it turns out, however, while 3D did indeed play a part in the decision, there may have been more to it than just that, and it brings to mind a serious case of G.I Joe déjà vu.

Back in the mid-'80s, when Marvel and Sunbow were producing the very popular syndicated Transformers and G.I. Joe animated TV series, they decided to take the plunge and put out full-length, theatrical animated features based on the properties. The first to start development was G.I. Joe: The Movie. Tasked with introducing the new year's batch of figures and vehicles into its storyline and transitioning out the old, the movie's creatives decided to weave a key plot point out of the death of Joe field leader Duke, who would take a stake through the heart after hand-to-hand combat with lead baddie Serpentor.

So enamored were they of this idea that they decided to repeat the same trick with their upcoming Transformers: The Movie, the first act of which would culminate in the death of heroic Autobot leader Optimus Prime. Various production delays eventually forced the Joe movie to fall behind, and Transformers hit theaters first, where the tragic death of Optimus Prime led to several kids and their parents completely losing their minds. The ensuing backlash prompted Hasbro to nix the impending death of Duke in the forthcoming G.I. Joe movie (which skipped a theatrical window entirely and went straight to video). Thus, moments after this fight sequence...

...there's an off-camera voiceover as Duke sinks into unconsciousness to helpfully tell us that "he's gone into a coma." Bear in mind, this is just after he's been STABBED THROUGH THE FREAKING HEART. Then, just as the movie is about to end, there's another off-camera voiceover to let us know that Duke has pulled through and everything is going to be okay. Yo Joe! Well, it looks like the sudden popularity of actor Channing Tatum at the turnstile this year (thanks to solid returns from both 21 Jump Street and The Vow) may have granted Duke a similar reprieve in the big screen wing off the franchise.

In what has to be one of the worst kept secrets of the year, Tatum's Duke was scheduled to meet his maker early in Act I of Retaliation, prompting Dwayne Johnson's Roadblock character to take over the tattered remains of the G.I. Joe team and dish out some full metal payback. This is a plot point that was essentially spoiled in trailers and interviews, so it's not like they were too worried about playing it close to the chest. Well, per Deadline, it appears that Tatum's sudden visibility in the public eye coupled with his sudden disappearance from the film didn't play well with test auds. Stupid, stupid test auds.

Now, granted, the suits are still being dodgy about whether that particular plot point will remain in place after bringing back Tatum for reshoots, but while Duke's sudden death would have been the big surprise in the film's initial configuration, the bigger surprise following the tinkering will be if he still dies. Of course, it wasn't just the need for more of that sweet, sweet Channing that prompted the release date shift. As a piece over at The Hollywood Reporter mentions, the prospect of going toe-to-toe with The Amazing Spider-Man just a week later may also have made the studio skittish.

And who knows, the way big tentpole projects have been dropping like flies this past month in The Avengers' wake, Paramount may well have been right to worry. I'm not sure what form or of what quality G.I. Joe: Retaliation's final release will be when it finally debuts next March, but if they do end up giving Tatum's Duke a stay of execution, I really hope they explain his near-death experience with the old "He's gone into a coma" standby. You know, for old time's sake. Failing that, there's always this approach, courtesy of Brian Hall (told you he's not going anywhere!):

I'd be down for the Tatum/coma idea if it meant he'd spend the movie as a wandering spirit like Obi-Wan Kenobi. Oh man, I would love that. Wandering Spirit Channing Tatum: "Watch your six y'alls..."

Zombie Apocalypse Now!

Wed, 30 May 2012 17:05:20 -0400

This past weekend, a story hit the web and quickly went viral about a guy going nuts in Florida and getting shot multiple times by cops after they found him naked and eating another guy's face. Perfectly normal, perfectly healthy. I, being the forward-thinking type that I am, immediately pegged this as the leading edge of that zombie apocalypse I live in abject terror of. Seriously, it feels like the news story you see playing in the background at the beginning of every zombie flick ever, that all the characters either ignore or tsk-tsk, and then, next thing you know, everyone is holed up in a shopping mall clutching baseball bats and shotguns. Anyway, in what amounts to proof of everyone else being either ahead of the curve (like me) or out of their minds (also like me), I wasn't the only one who made that inevitable linkage between "Naked Face Eater" and "Zombie Apocalypse." And as this compilation from Gawker shows, it's just the latest in a string of recent incidents that surely signal the impending onslaught. Better keep that copy of the Zombie Survival Guide handy! Don't say I didn't warn you!

Pegg on Cumberbatch: Not Khan

Wed, 30 May 2012 13:05:23 -0400

Got a little bit of clean-up to do this morning vis-a-vis a post from earlier this month. Based on several assured sources populating the web, I did a short piece about actor Benedict Cumberbatch playing the role of Star Trek villain Khan Noonian Singh in the upcoming sequel to J.J. Abrams' 2009 Trek reboot. Based on my assumption that Cumberbatch was indeed playing the role, I noted my mixed feelings about it, feeling that he could certainly act the hell out of the part, but that it was altogether unnecessary for this leg of the franchise to resurrect Khan. Well, if recent news is anything to go by, it would appear that my concern is for naught.

While the current Star Trek braintrust from Abrams on down has played typically coy about the new movie's inner-workings, actor Simon "Scotty" Pegg left little room for doubt when he told the UK's Telegraph (as cited at TrekMovie) of Cumberbatch's role, "It’s not Khan...That’s a myth. Everyone’s saying it is, but it’s not.” I suppose Pegg's phrasing doesn't entirely leave out the possibility that Khan is still in the movie, albeit played by someone else, but I feel like that starts taking us into X-Files-Cancer Man territory where we're parsing every syllable of every word for some heretofore hidden meaning. I think in this case a spade's a spade. No Khan.

Now we can go back to not knowing anything about the movie, just like before.

Bookmark Brian's Blog!

Tue, 29 May 2012 15:05:49 -0400

*sigh*

It's always sad when they leave the nest. After many years of nudging, prodding, and pleading from me, my longtime chum Brian Hall, whose musings on various bits of pop culture arcana (usually Simpsons-related) have been a semi-regular feature on this site for awhile now, has set up a slice of the web all his own to dispense with his trademark witticisms and wisdomisms. That's right world, ready or not, Everything's Coming up Brian! Adjust your bookmarks accordingly.

(And don't worry, by no means does this signal the end of Brian's wit and wisdom over here at Zaki's Corner. He doesn't get off that easy.)

Mass Hysteria!

Sat, 26 May 2012 13:05:42 -0400

It seems that, even after becoming a national punchline and getting soundly schooled by President Obama himself at last year's White House Correspondents' Dinner, Donald Trump has yet to give up on the right wing fever dream that the President wasn't born in this country. Of course, Trump being Trump, we kind of know the score with him. With an ego that big, the idea of admitting a mistake isn't really on the table, especially after the way he went all-in and crowned himself Birther King, so the only path forward was to double-down, which he dutifully did in an interview with The Daily Beast yesterday.

For me, with Trump, as with Limbaugh, as with Beck, as with Hannity, and as with all of their ilk, it's really less about what they're saying than the fact that people are listening. Most of the talking head spectrum, right or left, has an investment in portraying themselves as the last bastons of the One Great Truth. That's how ratings work. I get it. But what about the politicians whose job isn't to rile people up against each other, but rather to actually work with folks they disagree with and get stuff done? What's their excuse? That's what came to mind when I saw that (presumed) Republican nominee Mitt Romney is attending Trump's fundraiser, passing up yet another chance to take a principled stand against his party's fringiest fringe.

"Obama is Kenyan." "Obama is Muslim." "Obama is a Socialist." Obama is anything that can cast him -- and, by extension, those who supported him -- as the "other," so they can cling to the idea that no, we didn't elect a president they disagree with, we elected an illegitimate president. The system is wrong, not them. It's reactionism instead of reason. When we're able to shut out and "otherize" people, putting them and their views in a little box we don't have to acknowledge, the less compelled we are to solve our problems together. When the starting point of a conversation is calling the other side "demons" or "traitors" or "Communists," how can understanding even enter into the equation?

And yes, for the sake of fairness here, a lot of hot air does come from some in the so-called professional left. But let's also not kid ourselves about which side of the parisan divide the vast majority of vitriol emanates from. This is the same conclusion that Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein reached in a piece I linked to earlier this month, and it's also the conclusion arrived at by Michael Fumento, a Republican and former Reagan official now ostracized by his own party (much the same way former Bush speechwriter David Frum, another erudite and nuanced voice for the right has been) thanks to its ever-increasing emphasis on hysterics and hysteria:

Civility and respect for order – nay, demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.

All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming “J’accuse! J’accuse!” Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.

What we've seen in the last few years is the gradual and systematic transformation of the far right 's pundit class into the mainstream right's elected class. Congressional representatives like Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Joe "You lie!" Wilson, and far too many others to properly enumerate, all of whom promote a kind of hysterical, fact-free dogmatism, have led us down the path to a kind of gridlock that's unprecedented in our system of governance. When you see the way things are now, and start looking at how things might get down the road, it gets pretty freaking terrifying. Worse, I don't know what the solution is. As Fumento says later in his article:

...the right-wing mass hysteria is what sociologists call a “moral panic.” It occurs when a society is undergoing a wrenching transformation. Somebody then comes along and creates a “folk devil” both to provide an explanation for bad conditions, real or imagined, and a target. Kill the devil; eliminate the bad conditions. But the right has no serious incentive to help solve or ameliorate these problems. Indeed, as with the reelection of Obama, it will benefit from their continuation or worsening.

In other words, strap yourself in, hold on tight, and expect to get some slop on you, because things are likely to get a whole lot worse before they have even a prayer of getting better. Great.

(Make sure you read all of Fumento's excellent post here.)