TRAZALCA'S HOVEL

Do I really NEED to own it on DVD?

After visiting the IMDB website, I noticed a banner advertising
the film for Charlie Wilson's War, just released on DVD, with the statement at the bottom
reading "OWN IT NOW ON DVD". I think to myself, why? Why own it now?
I haven't seen the film. A quick look at RottenTomatoes.com confirms
it's been reviewed highly. Heck. Even Hoffman got an Oscar nod for his work in it.
I'm sure all signs point to it being worth seeing. But do I really need to own it?

This rant is by no means a slam to the film. Quite the contrary, I truly
believe that if I do take the opportunity to see it, I'll like it very much.
I see no reason to think otherwise. However, this introduces the idea of what
DVDs are worth owning, versus a one-time rental. What is off-putting to me
is the statement the ad makes. First of all, why should I bother to come to
the conclusion that I should own this DVD? Second, why do I have to own this
DVD now]?

On the first point, I would want to own a DVD if I know for a fact that it's
a film I would love to see again and again, and relive the experience it may give
to me, the simple moviegoer. Lately, not a lot of movies have given me that kind
of experience, or deliver on it enough to warrant me wanting to relive anything.
Another reason would be if I was a true fan of a particular actor/actress/director.
For example, if it's a Woody Allen film, and a really good one, I'd like to own it.
I own quite a few already. Not all, mind you, as I'd like to stick to the good
stuff...at least to the ones that work for me. I'm a fan, but not die hard.
I'm more casual, but I like what I like.

With that said, there are many films that I've seen once, enjoyed them,
but never cared to see them again. As good as Charlie Wilson's War may be,
I'm afraid that one would be as such. I can easily imagine that I'd get a kick
out of it, but unless it gives me an experience that really challenges me,
or makes me wish for more, my expectations remain neutral.
One that comes to mind is Quiz Show. A brilliant film I saw in the theater.
It was thought provoking, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again.
But I don't feel the need to own it. True, it was good. But it didn't leave me
feeling a desire to run out and see it again.
So I think for the most part, it's my own personal preference.

On the second point, the marketing demand that I own a DVD now is ludicrous.
Once it is out, that's all I need to know. There's a short list of movies I do want to own,
but the need to do it right now is not feasible. At the moment, I need gas money,
so first things first. I'm a patient person when it comes to owning movies. My need to get
it once it hits the shelves is rare.
It's not like for a comic book, which is different all together.

I used to be a serious collector, with the understanding that if a comic book hits the shelf
that I know will be in high demand, I had better be there the day it touches that shelf,
or I can forget about it, (unless I go to ebay, and pay far more than original retail. Yuck.)
To this day, I have yet to own Green Lantern #47, which is hard to find. It's from the
story arc of when Hal Jordan loses his mind. It's a comic book I'd love to own NOW.
But outside of paying a few bucks, I'll wait. If the marketing demand to "own it now" were
applied to comic books, as I think they should to a more realistic extent, I'd be more
apt to agree. Once it's gone from the shelves, it's gone, and then your left chasing
websites, online bids, collectors that might sell, blah-blah-blah.

But back to DVDs: should I follow my former comic book M.O. for them? I don't think so.
Example: I'm a big fan of Sweeney Todd the Musical. Having heard it on cassette
countless times, seen the broadway production on TV, and experienced the Tim Burton
film on the last day it was shown in a dollar-theater I go to, the DVD is a must have.
I want it. I would love to have it.

I will one day get this DVD. I just don't see the need to have it right now.
That's a lie marketing wants you to swallow. If it's got a popular
name or rep to it, it has to be something I should buy right now.
Another example: I have yet to see the movie 300. I want to see it.
I kick myself for not seeing it in the theater. I've seen enough to know that I'd even
want to own it. However, I do know if I wait a couple of years, a sale will come by,
and then I'll get it. Just like the sale I came across a few weeks ago for a video
store going out of business. DVDs were marked down to seven bucks a pop.
VHS? A mere buck-fifty. I walked out of there with a box load of movies, rich
with titles I was curious about, and a few I wanted to own. A couple that I've
seen so far are set to be thrown in the trash.
Others, like Shaun of the Dead, I'm keeping. I loved that one.

Unless those brilliant-minded money marketers can deliver a way to reduce the price
per gallon at the local gas station, my money spent will go where it has to.
And unfortunately, with priorities in tow, when I pull up to the gas station,
look at the cost per gallon risen to $3.60, I'll cringe, take a deep breath, and
unscrew the gas cap. The needs of my livelihood, for the sake of getting
to work and back, demands that I get these several gallons to
add to my tank right now. No marketing is necessary for me
to come to that point, because sadly, it sells itself.

(If this blog entry looks warped, don't blame me. I tried to make it look presentable. I really did!)

Signs Of The Apocalypse Upon Us - AGREED!

I had to respond to the well-written Mania article "The Mania Manifesto: Five Signs the Apocalypse is Upon Us" from Damon Brown. And in the end, it proved to be a decent rant, so I've added it here:

These signs couldn't be more apt, but I think it ought to be far bigger than it is. I'm just too tired think of them. Long story worth blogging later about...eh. Maybe not. There's only so many interesting blogs that can be entered concerning one's sleep deprivation. Unless it's the Altered States kind, then that'd be kinda cool. Anyways....:

Reason 5: Yahoo! owned by Microsoft simply scares me. I see nothing good in it. It's only another step in Microsoft's attempt to ruling the world. I own a few accounts on Yahoo, and the idea of Microsoft touching them sends ice water down my spine.

Reason 4: "Chevron gas is made of people." Genius!

Reason 3: I'm kind of glad Mr. Petersen is getting the kind of moolah he's signed up for. But no matter how many times I see him, his acting just doesn't warrant it for me. It always seems just enough for the job. The question I have is where's Keifer Sutherland's money? I mean, come on! His acting chops are da bomb, yo.
Seriously.

Reason 2: Church-goers are a social lot. That said, the Wii fits them to a tee. However, the idea of using technology or a game to draw people in seems terribly gimmicky. The idea may sound great on paper, but the reality may prove something else entirely. It raises the level of being disingenuous to such a high glare, the threat of ruptured corneas would abound. It's just not a good idea.

Reason 1: When I read about this, I nearly gagged on a Pringles chip. And in kind, I would love nothing more than for DiCrapio to go choke on that Heart of the Ocean sapphire ala Titanic. Leonardo producing Akira???? And what city pray tell is he going to place this in? Manhattan. Oh yeah. That will make a WHOLE lot of sense. As if we need yet another movie to crash through and blow up New York City to smithereens. What is it with this love/hate relationship with NYC that it has to be so abused by SO many movies??? Cloverfield was the latest one, and the hits just keep on coming. There is just simply no let up. I've lost count on how many sci-fi/action/thriller/disaster movies to come out with an all out cinematic epic-scale abuse of that city. With all the other cities to choose from, that's the only one worth demolishing in a special effects studio? Sure, I can hear other people across the country in their city saying "Hey! You leave my city out of this. Don't you DARE mention my neck-o-the-woods buster." But still. It's getting old. And the American version of Akira can only wind up being wrong on SO many levels. I see nothing right about it at all. And I blame the Wachowski brothers for that. They set the stage for the floodgates to bust open on live-action based on oriental plots to the insane degree it's at. Do we really need a live action version for EVERY ANIME/MANGA ever RELEASED??? The best line in that whole article summed it up for me:
"Hollywood is pimping the hell out of our childhoods."

Sad, but true.

You know, when I was a kid, I loved the heck out of my Micronauts collection. They were awesome, with interchangeable parts that Lego hadn't the idea-machine to dream up of yet. How cool was it to turn a working, battery-powered engine that could act to turn parts for a spaceship AND a submarine that actually worked under water? And shoot missiles? It was too sweet.
[sarcasm]So, where's my movie? Where's my mega-million franchise for them? And for that matter, from the bowels of that forlorn arcade era, what about a TV mini-series for Tempest? I know I plunked down more than a few bills of quarters for that one. And for that matter, Hollywood is taking WAYYYY too long for kicking Discs of Tron out of pre-production hell. I mean, really. They need to get on the ball.[/sarcasm]

STOP UWE BOLL - What the heck are you waiting for???

The madness must end. It MUST!

Here's an article on what transpired a few days ago:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2271690,00.html

It is time ladies and gentlemen. Time to UNITE and DEFEAT the scourge that has plagued our film going community for far too long. The incompetent that is Uwe Boll must be stopped forever.

Stop reading this blog and GO TO THE petition website:

http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html

GO NOW!!!!

And when you finish, share this link with your friends, and then let those friends tell their friends, and so on, and so on, and so on...