The Nature of Spoilers

Since I've gotten my iPhone, with the miracles of streaming Netflix and HBO Go, I have been stripping entire TV series before I go to bed instead of reading myself to sleep. I have gotten to see some pretty cool programs, stuff like "Oz," "Avatar the Last Airbender," "Nip/Tuck," "Sons of Anarchy," "Big Love" and "Deadwood." Great stuff, just amazing television. And also through apps like Miso and GetGlue, I'm able to let folks know what I'm watching.

My most recent project has been "Six Feet Under," and a friend of mine saw I was watching it and offered his opinion that the first season was great (of which I'm only almost done), the second was only okay and that the third and fourth seasons jumped the shark. Now I know that "Six Feet Under" is more than a handful of years old, but it got me thinking about spoilers, and when is it safe to talk about something after it happens without spoiling it?

I would think that news and sports would have the absolute shortest shelf life. News travels at the speed of light nowadays with Twitter. Sports would be only as long as you can keep a secret I suppose. I have a friend, seriously not into sports, who used to make it a game to see how long he could go without knowing who was playing in the Super Bowl each year. He used to do quite well, but this was back in the days before the Super Bowl was about more than football. Now it's more about middle-aged women exposing themselves or which ancient rocker was going to break a hip in stage this year.

In my tiny world of comic books, where the new titles come out on Wednesdays and most folks don't buy them until Friday, mid-weekend seems to be safe harbor to talk without spoilers. For TV, even in the age of DVRs and OnDemand, it seems a good idea to avoid the water cooler and not speak until at least the next episode airs.

Movies are a little different and I think fall into my "Six Feet Under" problem. Everyone knows Rosebud is a sled, but how many folks know the calls are coming from inside the house, Deckard might be a replicant, and that Bruce Willis is really dead - or do they?

Should it just come down to a matter of courtesy? If you know someone hasn't seen something, just be cool and don't spoil it, or should there be a statute of limitations on entertainment? What are the rules for spoilers?

The Muppets

The Muppets ~ After a summer of sneaky and wonderful previews and preview parodies, the Muppets are finally back. Absent from movie theaters for over a decade, this is a welcome return for those who remember them and grew up with them - and hopefully an introduction for those new to the Muppets.

Writer/producer/star Jason Segel brings us a surprising film filled with nostalgia, heart, and most of all, fun. The plot has Jason and his brother, Walter, a rather annoying new Muppet who steals screen time from the more established and much more entertaining Muppets, 'getting the band back together' so the Muppets can save their old theater from an evil oil tycoon. Yes, it sounds predictable, and is at times, but it is filled with the same magic and fun that made these characters do wonderful over the years on television and in films.

My favorite part of The Muppets, besides the whimsy and adult humor that made the past shows and movies so great, is that it's a self-aware movie musical. That whole wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude disarms and informs the silliness of the convention and makes the flick for me. As much as I love musicals there's always that weird awkwardness of folks spontaneously breaking into song. Here I loved it.

Of course the problem of a big franchise like the Muppets is fitting in everyone's favorite. It's one of the reasons I dislike the bland Walter here. That said, I wanted to see more of Fozzie's tribute cover band, the Muppets' evil counterparts, the Moopets - great fodder there. This is great fun, recommended.

Thor & Loki: Blood Brothers

Thor & Loki: Blood Brothers ~ This Marvel Knights motion comics disc production is based on the miniseries of the same name written by Robert Rodi and beautifully rendered by Esad Ribic. It's an amazing comic, perhaps Rodi's best, and he's a man who not only knows comics but is a terrific talent as well. The words and images are pure brilliance on the page, however, unfortunately, it does not translate well to this format in my opinion.

What works on the static page doesn't come across in the same way in motion. Loki's monologues are long and tedious here, some of the art almost ugly in movement as it was beautiful still. What was a luxurious and entertaining read is a slow and boring watch. So much so that after a while all I wanted was for Thor to hit something, anything, as long as it made Loki shut up.

Two thumbs down on this motion comic, but two solidly thumbs up for the real comic. This is proof that sometimes the source material in its original form is superior. Check out the comic, forget the motion.



The motion comic is nowhere near as cool as the above trailer...

Happy Feet Two

Happy Feet Two ~ I read a synopsis in the newspaper of this movie well after I had seen it. The synopsis made sense, a hell of a lot more sense than the film itself, and I wish I'd read it beforehand. Maybe Happy Feet Two should have had a narrator, or one of those long scrolling intros like in Star Wars - if only to remind the writers what it was about, because it felt like they were forgetting every ten minutes.

This was a sore disappointment as the original was so good and so emotional. It's almost as if director and co-writer George Miller had forgotten everything about the first Happy Feet. When the film is on point, it's about Mumble (Elijah Wood) having fatherhood troubles, but oddly enough, based on his coloring, as opposed to his size, Mumble isn't even an adult yet. I guess it's a trademark thing, but it was very distracting.

I liked the addition of P!nk and Common, but couldn't help wondering where Hugh Jackman and Brittany Murphy were. Hank Azaria manages to be more annoying than Robin Williams here, a feat to be sure. Although, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon come very close to taking the annoying crown as krill who have very little to do with any of the plots, sub or otherwise.

There are several other annoying and seemingly pointless subplots thrown in as well as a baseball bat beating of ecological messaging, which even the thoroughly green first film didn't do. The music and the CGI animation are still top rate and worth seeing, but all the other little irritating stuff ruined the flick for me. I also didn't care for the original songs. I couldn't help but think that when "Glee" started doing new music over covers, they jumped the shark.

Wait for DVD or free TV, it's not worth the theatre experience. Except if you want to see the cartoon before the movie, then definitely put out the cash. It's a Warner Bros. Looney Tunes classic, "I Tawt I Taw A Puddy Tat," featuring Sylvester and Tweety, that was originally done for a record back in the 1940s - so it has Mel Blanc and June Foray's voice work - and animated with today's technology. This is amazing, the movie not so much.

Giant from the Unknown

Giant from the Unknown ~ This 1958 'cult classic' should be bait for "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if it already isn't. Even the title is the stuff of bad filmmaking. It's not a giant, and they know exactly where he came from.

Now that's not to say that the flick isn't entertaining, from both an unintentional and dated point of view. It's got all the hallmarks of a 1950s horror flick. Sexism abundant and teenagers that aren't listened to, as well as the well meaning scientist and the anti-youth police, it's all here, along with a big old conquistador frozen in suspended animation. Bad writing and bad acting, yes, but good for an evening of Ed Woodiness in the best way possible.