text:
Tag Archives: comic book movies
March 19, 2018 Gordon Maples Leave a comment
Today, I'm going to explore the dark and ill-received 1997 superhero film, Spawn.
The plot of Spawn is summarized succinctly on IMDb as follows:
An elite mercenary is killed, but comes back from Hell as a reluctant soldier of the Devil.
The character of Spawn was originally created by comic icon and entrepreneur Todd McFarlane, and first appeared in Spawn #1 in May of 1992. Spawn was (and is) the face of Image comics, an independent comic book company that is creator-owned, and prides itself on treating artists fairly: most distinctly by allowing them to retain creative copyrights. The original founders (including McFarlane) primarily defected from Marvel comics, where they felt that they didn't get the credit or pay they deserved. The character of Spawn includes a handful of elements that trace back to McFarlane's time working on (and creating) Marvel properties, most notably the Spider-Man antagonist/antihero, Venom.
This film adaptation of Spawn was directed by Mark A.Z. Dippé, an experienced visual effects artist who previously worked on The Abyss, Ghost, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Back To The Future Part II, and Jurassic Park. However, he did not (and still doesn't) have much directing experience, outside of a handful of television movies and shorts that came years later.
The screenplay for the film was penned by Alan McElroy, who also wrote Halloween 4, Wrong Turn, The Marine, and Kirk Cameron's Left Behind: The Movie, and was also involved with Todd McFarlane in the creation of the subsequent Spawn animated series.
The cast of Spawn in primarily made up of Martin Sheen (Apocalypse Now, The Departed, The West Wing, Firestarter, The Dead Zone, Wall Street, Gettysburg), John Leguizamo (Super Mario Bros., The Happening, John Wick, The Pest, Carlito's Way), Michael Jai White (Black Dynamite, The Dark Knight), Theresa Randale (Space Jam, Bad Boys), Nicol Williamson (Excalibur, The Exorcist III), Melinda Clarke (The O.C., Nikita), and Miko Hughes (Pet Sematary, New Nightmare, Apollo 13).
The cinematographer for Spawn was Guillermo Navarro, who has also shot such films as Pan's Labyrinth, Pacific Rim, Jackie Brown, Hellboy, Hellboy II, Spy Kids, From Dusk Till Dawn, Desperado, and Night At The Museum.
The film required the work of two primary editors: Michael Knue (House, Night of the Creeps, A Nightmare On Elm Street 4, Rocky V, The Ring 2) and Todd Busch, an assistant and visual effects editor who has worked on movies like Spider-Man: Homecoming, Lake Placid, X-Men, Beowulf, and Terminator 3.
The music for Spawn was composed by Graeme Revell, whose credits include Sin City, Pitch Black, Daredevil, Red Planet, Tank Girl, Street Fighter, From Dusk Till Dawn, Hard Target, and the remakes of Assault on Precinct 13, Walking Tall, and The Fog.
Spawn was notably the first superhero movie with a black lead, as it predated the better-received Blade by a year. However, another property was even closer on its heels: Shaq's infamous Steel, which released in theaters just two weeks after Spawn, and to even less acclaim.
It reportedly took an entire 8 months of work, from storyboard to completion, to nail down the Clown to Violator transformation sequence. Like much of the effects work in the film, it was a hybrid of practical work and CGI imagery, though it leaned quite heavily on the CGI.
In a show of dedication to his craft, John Leguizamo actually ate the "maggots" during the sequence where Clown eats a pizza from the trash. However, this is only half-true: the on-screen maggots were, in fact, mealworms.
Spawn reportedly went through a lengthy battle in order to get its PG-13 rating from the MPAA, which required countless changes to dialogue and violent sequences to appease the notoriously fickle and conservative ratings board. However, in retrospect, the decision to pursue a PG-13 is now widely criticized, and often blamed for the film's poor reception by fans and casual audiences alike.
Spawn's cape, one of the character's most distinguishing features, is shown only sparingly throughout the film. However, when it does, it is an entire digital creation, with no mixed practical elements involved. This is in contrast to the previously mentioned Clown to Violator sequence, which hybridized practical effects with digital enhancements.
While Spawn hardly met with any critical praise, it did help launch a well-regarded animated series on HBO in the years after the film's release, which ultimately won two Emmys over its run.
In the past couple of years, much talk has been made of bringing the character of Spawn back to the big screen. Todd McFarlane in particular has taken on the task of reviving his creation, and is currently attached as both a writer and director on the project. In 2017, it was announced that he was working with Blumhouse Productions to produce a "low-budget" vision for the character on the big screen, but time will tell what exactly that will look like.
As mentioned previously, Spawn was anything but a critical success. The movie currently holds on IMDb user rating of 5.2/10, alongside Rotten Tomatoes scores of 18% from critics and 37% from audiences. Financially, it looks like the production took in an underwhelming profit, taking in $87 million in a lifetime international theatrical release on a $40 million production budget.
Perhaps the most divisive aspect of Spawn is the performance of John Leguizamo's Clown. While the character and portrayal is unarguably obnoxious, there is something to be said for the fact that he is certainly memorable. As much as I didn't find much entertainment value in the character, he lit up the screen more than anything else in the movie, and is more or less the only takeaway of the film I've held on to since my first viewing. On top of that, I have been led to understand that it is accurate to the source material. While that shouldn't automatically be considered a positive, I think it goes a long way to explaining why the character is played the way he is. It is also worth noting that Leguizamo was clearly 100% dedicated to the part, and is nearly unrecognizable in the role. All in all, his performance is almost as impressive as it is inexplicable: why would someone put so much effort into a role so bad? In any case, he is the highlight of the movie by a longshot, and is enough to make it or break it, depending on the person watching.
On the other end of the performance spectrum, however, is Martin Sheen. While Leguizamo chews scenery throughout the film and consistently goes above and beyond the needs for the role, Sheen appears to sleepwalk his way to a paycheck with his performance. I'm sure this was a case of a distinguished actor on tough times dealing with material he felt was beneath him, but there is something markedly dispassionate about it all the same. That is particularly a shame, because I'd be willing to bet that there are a ton of character actors who would have eaten up the chance to be a crooked, evil politician in league with the legions of Hell. Alas, an underperforming Sheen is what the world received.
Beyond the performances, the element of the film that most stuck with me were the effects. Unfortunatly, it was for all the wrong reasons. To put it succinctly: the effects just look bad. While I can certainly appreciate the attempt to blend practical work with digital work (in the vein of Jurassic Park), something clearly went wrong here. Whether it is Spawn's cape, his motorcycle, or the transformation sequence for Clown, every major sequence that required digital work looks and feels flubbed. Perhaps this is partly a product of how much time has passed, but I feel like there are plenty of contemporaneous films with similar effects that look far better. In any case, they make the movie hard to look back on positively.
One of the problems with characters like Spawn is that they require a lot of backstory. Unlike a character like Captain America or Spider-Man, who inhabit a world more-or-less like our own, Spawn has a complicated mythos woven into his backstory that is inherent to his character. Establishing that kind of mythos for an audience via a screenplay can be a daunting task: a bit too much exposition, and audiences will feel bored; not enough, and they will feel lost. In the case of Spawn, there was an attempt to cram as much information as possible into the opening narration, I'm sure in the hopes that it could be gotten out of the way for the rest of the film. However, that narration winds up feeling rushed, bloated, and overwhelming, to the point that the information doesn't get digested by the audience. Hopefully, in a future attempt at adapting the story, the screenplay will reveal information a bit more organically, and use Spawn as the audience's surrogate for revelations to unravel.
Overall, I think Spawn is hardly the worst movie ever produced, but it certainly belongs in a lower tier of superhero films. A combination of strategic production mistakes, some mediocre effects work, an unpolished screenplay, and a wide array of off-putting performances damned it in the public consciousness. While the movie has some defenders, I think its bad reputation is mostly deserved. I do think it is worth watching as a case study of method acting gone haywire with Leguizamo's clown, though. That said, it isn't enough for me to recommend it to people who don't already have it secured in a place of nostalgia.
bad moviescomic book adaptationcomic book moviecomic book moviesfilmmoviemoviesspawntodd mcfarlaneworst movies
Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
December 11, 2017 Gordon Maples Leave a comment
Today, I'm going to look at one of the most notorious pre-MCU Marvel comics adaptations: Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD, starring David Hasselhoff.
The plot of Nick Fury is summarized on IMDb as follows:
Marvel's hard-boiled hero is brought to TV. He is brought back to fight the menace of Hydra after exiling himself in the Yukon since the end of the Cold War. The children of the former Hydra head, Baron Von Stucker, have taken charge of the terrorist organization. Under the lead of his vicious daughter, Viper, Hydra has seized a deadly virus and threatens the destruction of America. The covert agency SHIELD brings Fury out of retirement to fight the terrorists.
The character of Nick Fury was created by the legendary Marvel comics duo of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. He first appeared in May 1963's Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos #1, a World War II war series. However, his modern incarnation as a SHIELD secret agent and spy began with Fantastic Four #21 in December of 1963.
Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD was written by David S. Goyer, who is now a proven blockbuster screenwriter with credits like Man of Steel, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, Dark City, and the Blade trilogy. Earlier in his career, however, he penned low budget flicks like The Substitute, Demonic Toys, Kickboxer 2, and The Puppet Masters.
Nick Fury was directed by Rod Hardy, who did a lot of television work over his career, including stints on The X-Files, JAG, Burn Notice, Supernatural, The Mentalist, and Leverage.
The central cast of the film is made up of television legend David Hasselhoff (Baywatch, Baywatch Nights, Knight Rider, Starcrash), Lisa Rinna (Days Of Our Lives), Sandra Hess (Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, Beastmaster 3), Neil Roberts (Charmed, The Second Civil War), and Ron Canada (Pinocchio's Revenge, National Treasure, Cinderella Man).
The editor for Nick Fury was Drake Silliman, who also cut Tremors 3, The Christmas Shoes, The Sisters, and did extensive editing work on television shows like Law & Order and Beauty & The Beast.
The musical score for the film was provided by Gary Lionelli (OJ: Made In America, Luck, Dexter's Laboratory, The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest) and Kevin Kiner (Star Wars: Rebels, Hell On Wheels, Jane The Virgin, Making A Murderer, Leprechaun, Carnosaur 3, Tremors 3). However, Lionelli's work is interestingly not credited.
A number of the prominent characters in Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD have since appeared in the modern Marvel Cinematic Universe: Arnim Zola has been played by Toby Jones (Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier), Baron Strucker has been played by Thomas Kretschmann (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: The Winter Soldier), and Nick Fury himself has been played by Samuel L. Jackson (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Agents of SHIELD, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor, Iron Man 2, Iron Man).
Nick Fury currently holds an unenviable IMDb user rating of 3.7/10, along with a 16% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, and stands as one of the least-seen and most-reviled Marvel comics adaptations.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why Nick Fury is so reviled. Particularly thanks to David Hasselhoff and Sandra Hess, who are having an absolute blast hamming up their respective roles, I found this film to be a cheesy but entertaining throwback to classic spy-centric action movies, kind of like Escape From New York and the Roger Moore James Bond years in a blender. The low budget might not have done it any favors, but the action is still palatable, if a bit hokey in its execution.
One of the odd strengths of Nick Fury is the consistently silly dialogue, which I think transcends the border into effective self-parody. I thought that this was a screenplay that was written with an awareness of its dated material, and used it to its advantage. Hess's accented one-liners and Hasselhoff's excessive "tough-guy" showboating all make a lot more sense if you look at the film through the lens of light parody and pastiche, rather than as an earnestly-constructed action flick. Likewise, the overly sentimental and unnecessary romantic subplot (acted out by a soap opera alum, no less) is hard to take seriously, specifically because it isn't supposed to be.
Nick Fury is without a doubt cheesy and cheap, but I also think that it is exactly what it should have been: a story aware of how misplaced in time it is, that revels in its genre cliches. From what I can tell, a whole lot more people dislike this movie than have actually seen it, which is a damn shame. It isn't a masterpiece by any means, but it is a fun send up of the sillier Cold War era spy thrillers. By today's Marvel standards, it would be a massive disappointment, but at the time, this was probably one of their better outings (next to 1989's The Punisher, of course, which is magnificent).
If you can get into a cheesy action flick, I think there is something to enjoy with Nick Fury (provided you take it all with a grain or two of salt). For bad movie aficionados, this is one that is worth digging up in my opinion, and is in dire need of popular re-appraisal.
agent of shieldbad moviescomic book movieshasselhoffmarvelmcunick furyS.H.I.E.L.D.shieldworst movies
September 4, 2017 Gordon Maples 1 Comment
Today, I'm going to dive into the infamously terrible 1997 superhero movie, Batman & Robin.
The plot of Batman & Robin is summarized on IMDb as follows:
Batman and Robin try to keep their relationship together even as they must stop Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy from freezing Gotham City.
Batman & Robin is, of course, based on the DC comics characters of Batman and Robin. Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27 in March of 1939, created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Robin came along the following year, in Detective Comics #38, and is credited to the same duo. The two have appeared in numerous television shows, video games, movies, and other mediums over the years, and are almost certainly the most iconic superhero duo.
The writer for the screenplay of Batman & Robin was Akiva Goldsman, who also penned screenplays for Winter's Tale, I Am Legend, I Robot, A Beautiful Mind, Lost In Space, and Batman Forever.
Batman & Robin was directed by Joel Schumacher, whose other credits include Phone Booth, The Number 23, 8MM, Batman Forever, Falling Down, Flatliners, and The Lost Boys, among others.
The cast for the film is headlined by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger (Predator, Last Action Hero, The Terminator, Commando, Hercules In New York), George Clooney (Michael Clayton, Solaris, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Burn After Reading, Intolerable Cruelty, Syriana, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind), Chris O'Donnell (Batman Forever, NCIS: Los Angeles, Scent of a Woman), Uma Thurman (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, The Producers, Gattaca), Alicia Silverstone (Clueless), Michael Gough (Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever), and John Glover (Gremlins 2, Smallville, In The Mouth of Madness).
The cinematographer for Batman & Robin was Stephen Goldblatt, who shot The Help, The Hunger, Charlie Wilson's War, Striptease, Batman Forever, The Pelican Brief, Lethal Weapon, Lethal Weapon 2, and The Cotton Club, among others.
Batman & Robin had two credited editors: Dennis Virkler (Daredevil, Under Siege, Xanadu, Freejack, Collateral Damage, Independence Day, Only The Strong, The Chronicles of Riddick, The Hunt For Red October) and Mark Stevens (Phone Booth, The Number 23, Freddy vs. Jason, Batman Forever, The Final Destination).
The musical score for the film was composed by Elliot Goldenthal, who is known for providing music for movies like Heat, Public Enemies, Sphere, Alien 3, Batman Forever, Pet Sematary, Titus, Frida, and Across The Universe.
Among the team of effects workers for Batman & Robin was John Dykstra, a legendary, award-winning effects guru is is known for being an original founder of Industrial Light and Magic, coming up with the visuals used for the space battles and light sabers in Star Wars, and working on films like The Hateful Eight, Spider-Man, Lifeforce, and Django: Unchained.
Batman & Robin was the fourth and final installment in the initial Warner Brothers Batman film franchise, which began with Tim Burton's 1989 Batman.
According to Joel Schumacher, previous Batman actor Val Kilmer left to do The Saint, so the role was recast to George Clooney. However, rumors have swirled that Val Kilmer was growing increasingly difficult to work with, such as was the case with The Island of Doctor Moreau, and wasn't asked to return.
Joel Schumacher claims that the production of Batman & Robin was under immense pressure from the studio and producers to be "toyetic": essentially, they were mandated to come up with devices that could be sold as merchandise and toys, because of how much money they add to the overhead profits.
Likewise, Schumacher says that they were under similar pressure to "make as kid-friendly a Batman as possible," because parents complained that Burton's Batman films were too scary for kids. So, they made it "lighter, brighter, [and] more family-friendly." However, Schumacher claims that he wanted to do a darker film based on the comic story Batman: Year One, which he attempted to pitch after the failure of Batman & Robin. Likewise, Darren Aronofsky and Frank Miller joined forces to try to make an iteration Batman: Year One as well, but were unsuccessful.
Robin's costume and logo used in the movie were modeled after the character of Nightwing, which is a later alias of Dick Grayson in the comics after he retires the moniker of Robin.
Even before the film was released, plans were in motion for a sequel to Batman & Robin, to be titled Batman Unchained. However, the overwhelmingly negative reception to the film tanked the plans, and the Batman property sat dormant until Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins in 2005.
The Smashing Pumpkins's song The End is The Beginning is The End was created specifically for the film, and ultimately won a Grammy for Best Hard Rock Performance.
Jeep Swenson, who portrayed Bane, unexpectedly died two months after the film's release at the age of 40, due to heart failure. He was a known professional wrestler for WCW, who also appeared in the Hulk Hogan movie No Holds Barred.
Batman & Robin was made on a production budget of $125 million, on which it took in a lifetime box office total of $238.2 million between international and domestic markets.
Despite the profits, the movie was a huge critical failure, and is often cited as one of the worst movies ever made. It currently holds a 3.7/10 IMDb user rating, alongside scores of 11% from critics and 16% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.
Batman & Robin is a rare case where a movie was a failure, in spite of succeeding in what it sought to do. Technically, Batman & Robin is a successful execution of a vision: a heavily-stylized, cartoony family movie. However, that successfully-executed vision was roundly rejected by audiences and critics. It wasn't short on talent, or money, or anything else: the product just wasn't what people wanted.
Personally, I kind of enjoy the movie. Yeah, the terrible cartoon sound effects and horrendous dialogue are painful to sit through, but I can definitely appreciate some over-the-top acting. Likewise, this is one of the most uniquely designed movies I can think of. It doesn't really look like anything else, and it contributes a lot to the hyper-reality of the content of the story and the characters. The vision here was to create a live-action cartoon, and the designs go a long way towards making that possible. I also kind of appreciate the extremely vivid color palette, and would generally take that over the sepia-drenched Batman Begins any day.
Looking back now, in a word inflicted with Zack Snyder's melodramatic DCEU, which avoids fun and vibrancy like the plague, you can sort of see the weird charm hidden inside of Batman & Robin. Likewise, the humor, style, and even dialogue on display here are far superior to that displayed in Suicide Squad, which is strung together with string and bubble gum. Say what you will about the product, but Batman & Robin is a complete movie: an executed vision with a coherent story behind. It may be a soulless capitalistic endeavor seeking to leech off of children, but it is at least a structured narrative. It may also be a goofy, anachronistic cartoon that is edited like a panic attack, but it has some tangible vitality to it.
People know what this movie is by now. If you haven't seen it, you've heard about it, or seen clips. You know what you are getting into if you are sitting down with it. Personally, I go back to this movie more often than most of the Batman flicks. It is genuinely, entertainingly terrible, but is also more visually interesting than a lot of similar bad movies. Not only that, but Joel Schumacher's commentary track, which is available on some DVD releases of the movie, is both insightful and hilarious, and adds a lot to a rewatch. For bad movie fans, this is mandatory viewing. For casual movie fans or folks looking for a laugh, this is a good option to take out. For all of the screenplay's issues, pacing is not one, and that is the most painful aspect of most bad movies.
akiva goldmanbad moviesbatmanbatman & robincomic book moviecomic book moviesdcfilmgeorge clooneyjoel schumachermoviemoviesrobinworst movies
August 21, 2017 Gordon Maples Leave a comment
Today, I'm going to dive into the 2007 Nicolas Cage superhero movie, Ghost Rider.
The plot of Ghost Rider is summarized on IMDb as follows:
Stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze gives up his soul to become a hellblazing vigilante, to fight against power hungry Blackheart, the son of the devil himself.
The modern incarnation of Ghost Rider first appeared in Marvel Spotlight #5 in August of 1972, created by Mike Ploog, Gary Friedrich, and Roy Thomas. The following year, the character received a standalone title, and has been a staple of the Marvel universe ever since.
Ghost Rider was written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson, who both wrote and directed the even less well-regarded Marvel film, Daredevil. He additionally wrote the screenplays for both of the comedies Grumpy Old Men and Grumpier Old Men.
The cast for Ghost Rider includes Nicolas Cage (Con Air, Face/Off, Vampire's Kiss, The Wicker Man, Left Behind, Snake Eyes, Bringing Out The Dead, Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation.), Peter Fonda (Easy Rider, The Trip, Boondock Saints II, Wild Hogs), Sam Elliott (Road House, Hulk, Tombstone, The Big Lebowski), Eva Mendes (The Spirit, The Other Guys, 2 Fast 2 Furious), Wes Bentley (Interstellar, Jonah Hex, American Beauty), and Donal Logue (Blade, Zodiac, Terriers, The Patriot).
The cinematographer for the movie was Russell Boyd, whose list of shooting credits includes Liar Liar, White Men Can't Jump, Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World, Crocodile Dundee 2, and Doctor Dolittle.
The editor on Ghost Rider was Richard Francis-Bruce, who also cut such films as The Green Mile, The Rock, Se7en, Sliver, The Shawshank Redemption, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, and Air Force One.
The musical score for the film was provided by Christopher Young, whose other credits include The Core, Spider-Man 3, Swordfish, Drag Me To Hell, Rounders, Species, Copycat, and A Nightmare On Elm Street 2.
The financial success of Ghost Rider led to a sequel in 2011: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, which once again starred Nicolas Cage in the lead role. However, in May of 2013, the film rights to the character reverted back to Marvel Studios, which effectively ended the franchise as it existed. There are no current plans for Marvel to bring the character back to the big screen, though an iteration has appeared on the television show Agents of SHIELD.
Nicolas Cage is apparently a huge fan of the Ghost Rider character, and actively lobbied for the part when he heard that it was casting. He even had to cover up a prominent Ghost Rider tattoo on his back in order to play the character.
Interestingly, Ghost Rider was the first time Cage played a comic book character, despite being an outspoken fan and collector of comic books (his stage name of Cage is taken from Marvel character Luke Cage). Famously, he almost played Superman in an ill-fated Tim Burton attempt to bring the character to the screen, which was recently chronicled in The Death of Superman Lives.
Sam Eliott's character in the film, The Caretaker, is based on the original incarnation of Ghost Rider, which is now referred to as The Phantom Rider. This character was more of a western hero: he distinctively rode a white horse, and wore a glowing, phosphorescent mask and uniform.
The pre-production for Ghost Rider surprisingly dates back to the mid-1990s. However, numerous delays and personnel changes kept the film from being completed for roughly a decade. An early screenplay treatment for the flick was apparently cooked up by David S. Goyer, who is known for films like The Dark Knight, Man of Steel, and Blade, and wound up getting credited for writing the film's 2011 sequel. In front of the camera, Eric Bana and Johnny Depp both nearly wound up filling the role of Ghost Rider over the years, and Jon Voight was attached at one point in a supporting role.
Nicolas Cage received a Golden Raspberry Award nomination for Worst Actor for his role in Ghost Rider, which he ultimately lost out on to Eddie Murphy's performance in Norbit.
In a strange move, part of the promotion of the film involved the character of Ghost Rider appearing in a Jackson Hewitt commercial, in which a representative helps him fill out his taxes.
The newfound attention brought to the character by the film's production led to a significant dispute over the ownership of the character. One of the original creators, Gary Friedrich, claimed that the rights to the character reverted to him in 2001, which led to a lawsuit and a long-running legal battle with Marvel and the studios involved in the film, which didn't formally resolve until September of 2013.
Ghost Rider was made on a production budget of $110 million, on which it took in a lifetime theatrical gross of roughly $228.7 million between domestic and international markets. While this made it a financial success, it didn't do nearly as well critically. Currently, it holds an IMDb user rating of 5.2/10, along with Rotten Tomatoes scores of 26% from critics and 48% from audiences.
There is no way to talk about Ghost Rider without first addressing the national treasure that is Nicolas Cage. It is hard to deny that Cage is consistently a barrel of fun with his over-the-top performances, but he took a lot of criticism for this role in particular. Not only did he take a lot of flak for being too old for the character, but much was made of a scene where he appears to have CGI abdominal muscles. While that sequence is definitely a bit suspicious, my biggest issue with Cage in this movie is that he isn't quite unchained enough for what I wanted. Outside of his initial transformation, Cage is really subdued in his performance for a man with his head on fire. He is still erratic and fun to watch, but not quite to the degree that I would have hoped for.
Even if you believe that the casting of Nicolas Cage was a bit off-base, it is hard to argue that the casting of Sam Elliott as his predecessor wasn't pitch perfect. For the role of a lone-retired vengeful ghost cowboy, Sam Elliott couldn't have been a more apt choice to play the part. In fact, one of the biggest weaknesses of the film is how little screen time his character gets. In most films like this, his role would have been as a trainer and guide for the protagonist. Instead, he is more of an informant than anything else, and doesn't do much direct teaching. It is unfortunate, because it would have been cool to watch their relationship develop in spite of their clashing personalities, but that was not to be.
Perhaps the biggest criticism widely leveled at Ghost Rider is its extensive use of CGI, which was less that stellar at the time, and has aged very poorly. Unfortunately, I think the nature of the characters that the story was dealing with didn't allow practical effects to be much of an option. However, the CGI didn't have to be quite so ubiquitous: the fact that it is seemingly present in every scene makes the movie as a whole look cheaper and more artificial. CGI is best used as a background tool, but it has a more prominent place in this movie than most of the performers.
One of my personal gripes about this film is its unimaginative and paint-by-numbers screenplay. Nearly everything that happens is predictable, in a way that is even more flagrant than your average blockbuster screenplay. Not only that, but some of the dialogue borders on sounding like genre self-parody, like the mugger saying "give me your damn purse, lady!".
Overall, Ghost Rider is a fun enough little blockbuster that it doesn't feel like a waste of time, but it is certainly not good by any means. The character design and his bike are both fun to see on screen, but the effects spoil a lot of the coolness factor there. I still think it is worth catching for Cage and Elliott, but the film as a whole isn't much to write home about.
As far as a recommendation goes, I think Ghost Rider is worth sitting through if you see it pop up on cable, or you just need some background noise to occupy your time. Apart from that, this isn't something that should specifically seek out, unless you are a die-hard Nic Cage completionist.
bad moviescomic book moviecomic book moviesfilmghost riderjohnny blazemarvelmoviemoviesnicolas cageworst movies
The Fantastic Four (1994)
Today, I'm going to delve into the infamous first attempt to bring the comic book team The Fantastic Four to the big screen: 1994's The Fantastic Four.
The plot of The Fantastic Four is described on IMDb as follows:
When an experimental space voyage goes awry, four people are forever changed by cosmic rays: Reed Richards, inventor and leader of the group gains the ability to stretch his body and takes the name Mr. Fantastic. His girlfriend, Sue Storm, gains the ability to turn invisible and create force fields becoming The Invisible Girl. Her little brother, Johnny Storm, becomes The Human Torch with the ability to control fire, including covering his own body with flame. The pilot Ben Grimm is turned into the super-strong, super-tough Thing. Together they become a team of super-heroes and use their unique powers to foil the evil plans of villains
The superhero team The Fantastic Four was created by famed comic book masters Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and first appeared in The Fantastic Four #1 in November of 1961. Since then, the team has been a mainstay of Marvel comics, and has made the jump to cartoons, video games, and a number of movies.
The screenplay for this film adaptation was credited to Craig J. Nevius (Black Scorpion) and Kevin Rock (Howling VI, The Philadelphia Experiment II).
The director for The Fantastic Four was Oley Sassone, who helmed numerous episodes of the television shows Xena: Warrior Princess and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.
The cast of The Fantastic Four includes Jay Underwood (The Boy Who Could Fly, Uncle Buck), Rebecca Staab (The Substitute 3, Love Potion No. 9), Michael Bailey Smith (Men In Black II, The Hills Have Eyes), Joseph Culp (Mad Men), and Alex Hyde-White (Pretty Woman).
The editor for The Fantastic Four was Glenn Garland, who has gone on to become Rob Zombie's go-to film cutter. His credits include 31, The Lords of Salem, Bunraku, The Devil's Rejects, Retroactive, and both of Rob Zombie's Halloween movies.
One of the executive producers for the film was Roger Corman, the legendary b-movie producer and director. As legend has it, he was given a small budget, and the job of throwing together a Fantastic Four movie as quickly and cheaply as possible, so that the rights to the property could be retained for another ten years. Thus, in many ways, The Fantastic Four is considered his creation, and is often referred to as Roger Corman's Fantastic Four.
One of the special effects makeup artists for the movie was Everett Burrell, whose other credits include Castle Freak, Re-Animator, Troll, Ghoulies, DeepStar Six, Harry and the Hendersons, Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, and Creepshow 2, among others.
The production designer for The Fantastic Four was Mick Strawn, who has served as a designer and art director on such movies as A Nightmare On Elm Street 4, Kazaam, The Hidden, and Candyman.
In 2015, a documentary by the name of Doomed! The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four was released, which detailed the story of the movie's bizarre production, non-release, and ultimate cult status.
Including this iteration, The Fantastic Four has been put to film four times. The other attempts, 2015's Fantastic Four, 2005's Fantastic Four, and 2007's Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, all met with mixed to negative receptions, leading to a popular belief that there is no way to make a Fantastic Four film work in this day and age.
The hit comedy television show Arrested Development has a recurring, thinly veiled reference to the production of this film that runs throughout the show's fourth season. One of the main character creates a musical adaptation of an unfinished Fantastic Four movie from the 1990s, in an attempt to circumvent rights issues with Marvel.
Because the movie was never formally released, people only managed to hear about it through word of mouth, and see it on unfinished bootleg tapes. Still, the film's reputation got around. Currently, it holds an IMDb user rating of 3.9/10, alongside Rotten Tomatoes scores of 29% from critics and 27% from audiences.
Personally, I think that there are a whole lot of things to like about this flicks. The costumes, for instance, look pretty great, and are delightfully faithful to the group's comic book origins. They may be cheesy and somewhat goofy, but that sort of gels with what this particular hero team has always been.
Likewise, the performances and writing are generally pretty good here. All of the key players put in performances that suit their characters, are there aren't any weak links among them. In particular, I'm a big fan of Dr. Doom in this movie: he way be an over-the-top mustache-twirler, but that is exactly what I wanted from the villain in this movie.
The biggest issues with the film relate to its financial limitations and time constrictions. The effects, for instance, are inarguably cheesy and cheap. Likewise, the audio isn't great for some of the dialogue, which isn't so strange for a movie that was never quite finished, and not meant for consumption. Regardless, I think these issues give the movie an added, curious charm, so it hard to fault the movie for them.
The Fantastic Four is certainly no masterpiece, but it may be the most loyal and genuine Fantastic Four movie that the world will ever see. For fans of the property, it is worth checking out. More importantly, though, this is an absolute gem of a feature for bad movie fans: the performances are goofy, the costumes and effects are cheap, and there's a great behind-the-scenes story to tie the whole thing together.
bad moviescomic book moviesfantastic fourfilmmarvelmoviemoviesroger cormanworst movies
June 26, 2017 Gordon Maples Leave a comment
Today, I'm going to dive into an obscure, straight-to-video Marvel movie: 2005's Man-Thing.
The plot of Man-Thing is summarized on IMDb as follows:
Agents of an oil tycoon vanish while exploring a swamp marked for drilling. The local sheriff investigates and faces a Seminole legend come to life: Man-Thing, a shambling swamp-monster whose touch burns those who feel fear.
The screenplay for Man-Thing was written by Hans Rodionoff, who also penned the films The Skulls II, Lost Boys: The Tribe, Lost Boys: The Thirst, and National Lampoon's Bagboy.
The eponymous character of Man-Thing is credited to Steve Gerber, a veteran comic book writer who might be best known for creating the somewhat infamous character of Howard The Duck. He wrote a lauded 39-issue series that brought Man-Thing to wider prominence and fleshed out the story, but he interestingly did not create the character. The first appearance of the swampy creature was in Savage Tales #1 in May of 1971, and was initially conceived of by four notable comics figures: Stan Lee, Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas, and Gray Morrow.
This film adaptation of Man-Thing was directed by Brett Leonard, who is best known for movies like The Lawnmower Man and Virtuosity.
The cast of Man-Thing includes Matthew Le Nevez (Feed, Offspring), Rachael Taylor (Transformers, Jessica Jones), Jack Thompson (Australia, Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil), Steve Bastoni (The Matrix Reloaded, The Water Diviner), and Conan Stevens (Game of Thrones, Son of God).
The cinematographer for Man-Thing was Steve Arnold, who also shot the films Feed, Highlander: The Source, and Last Cab To Darwin, along with a handful of shorts, documentaries, and television series.
Man-Thing was cut by editor Martin Connor, whose other credits include The Hard Word, The Railway Man, and Burning Man, along with a good number of Australian television series.
The production of Man-Thing had two lead designers: Tim Ferrier, who is best known for doing the design work for the cult favorite science-fiction television FarScape, and Peter Pound, a storyboard and concept artist who has worked on films like Ghost Rider, Mad Max: Fury Road, Dark City, and The Crow.
The initial plan was apparently to have Man-Thing film in New Orleans, essentially on-location for the Louisiana setting of the story. However, budget limitations led to a change of plans, and Australia ultimately served for the backdrop for the production.
While Man-Thing didn't reach a very wide audience with its television debut and subsequent DVD release, those that did see it didn't much care for what they saw. Currently, it holds an IMDb user rating of 4.1/10, alongside Rotten Tomatoes scores of 17% from critics and 12% from audiences.
The first thing that I noticed about Man-Thing is that the color grading is absolutely out of control. Most of the sequences are absolutely drowned in green tones, to the point that the whole movie looks like an overdone CSI episode. During the handful of daylight sequences, yellows take over with very much the same effect. However, no matter what, every sequence is unreasonably over-saturated with one color or another, which makes the movie look and feel cheaper than it needs to.
Man-Thing features a handful of unique scene transitions in the form of rapid montages of gore, pollution, and swamp imagery juxtaposed together. While I thought this was pretty interesting the first time it happened, it gets far too overused over the course of the film, to the point that it loses its potency. The same could be said for the whole movie, to be honest: there is a lot of rapid cutting whenever the action picks up, which gets really tiring after a while. When the same gimmick happens over and over again, it becomes predictable and uniform, as opposed to novel.
One of the most common complaints that I have read about Man-Thing is that it is not loyal to the source material of the comics, wherein Man-Thing is more of a heroic avenger than a murderous terror. While I am sure this was frustrating for die-hard fans, I can totally understand why the production went in the direction of a horror movie: honestly, it just makes more sense for the setting and concept, particularly for a one-off story. If this were going to be a television pilot or a franchise-builder, having Man-Thing as a protagonist would have made sense. However, I think that is a lot to ask for in a single movie. Unlike Swamp Thing, Man-Thing is not very humanoid in design, and it would be really hard to get an audience to back him.
One of the most impressive aspects of Man-Thing is surprisingly its use of gore, which I really didn't expect. A number of key scenes in the movie take place either during autopsies or at crime scenes, where the bodies play an important role in building up the anticipation and fear of the monster's full reveal. The fact that these corpses are done well adds a lot of power to the movie if you ask me. Honestly, most of the effects look good, which is more than a little unusual for a modern b-movie. This was likely due to the dark lighting concealing CGI issues, but if it works, it works. The portrayal of Man Thing himself is also notably cool and intimidating, and gives a distinct sense of size that does a lot for making the character imposing when fully realized on screen.
As far as the performances go, I think that all of the players are perfectly serviceable for a b-movie, particularly considering that almost the entire cast was filled in regionally on location. Even the comic relief characters, which can easily wreck the tone of a horror movie when done poorly, work like a charm.
As with seemingly every b-movie of the past 30-odd years, there is a sequence in Man-Thing with completely unnecessary nudity and sexual content that adds nothing to the story or characters. However, unlike most b-movies, it only happens once, and stands in sharp contrast with the rest of the film. While I haven't read anything to attest to this, I have a suspicion that this brief sequence towards the beginning of the film may have been added in at some point, probably to help in selling the film to a distributor. I do know that the movie struggled for distribution before SyFy took it on, and this seems like just the sort of move that would be made to try and lure a sleazy distributor off of the fence.
It is worth noting that I have watched a ton of SyFy originals and straight-to-DVD features over the years, and typically, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel in quality. Man-Thing, when you stack it up against these cohorts, stands out from the bunch. Compare this film to any given Lake Placid sequel, or any of the litany of Mega Shark or Sharknado features, and you would come out with a much greater appreciation for it than if you compared it to Marvel Studios outings. I think that people often see this film, and compare it unfairly to movies far outside of its league.
Overall, I think that Man-Thing is a half-decent b-level flick, though definitely flawed. It clearly turned off fans due to the significant deviations taken from the source material, but as someone who isn't familiar with the comics: this is totally ok. In a lot of ways, it feels like a modernized swamp monster movie, more so than most of the remakes and homages I've seen over the years.
As far as a recommendation goes, I would say to give it a shot. There are way worse entries in the early days of Marvel movies, and if you can handle any SyFy Original, you can certainly deal with the negative aspects of Man-Thing. If you go in with no expectations, and leave any prior comic book knowledge of the character at the door, you might just have a half-decent time with this flick.
bad moviebad moviescomic book adaptationcomic book moviecomic book moviesfilmman-thingmarvelmoviemoviesworst movies
Today, I'm going to be taking a look at Wes Craven's comic book film adaptation: Swamp Thing.
The plot of Swamp Thing is summarized on IMDb as follows:
After a violent incident with a special chemical, a research scientist is turned into a swamp plant monster.
Swamp Thing was written and directed by acclaimed horror master Wes Craven. Craven is without a doubt one of the most influential horror filmmakers of all time, having been behind such films and franchises as Last House On The Left, Scream, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and The Hills Have Eyes. That said, Swamp Thing marked his first and only foray into the science fiction genre.
Swamp Thing is based on the comic series and character of the same name created by Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson. The character first appeared in House of Secrets #92 in July of 1971, which was intended as a standalone story. However, the character's popularity led to an initial 24 issue solo series that ran throughout the mid-1970s. Since then, Swamp Thing has been a mainstay of DC comics.
The cast for Swamp Thing was primarily made up of Louis Jourdan (Octopussy, The Return of the Swamp Thing), Adrienne Barbeau (The Fog, Creepshow, Batman: The Animated Series), Ray Wise (Dallas, RoboCop, Twin Peaks), and David Hess (The Last House on the Left, Zombie Nation).
The cinematographer for the film was Robbie Greenberg, who also shot the films Free Willy, Under Siege 2: Dark Territory, and Wild Hogs. The editor for Swamp Thing was Richard Bracken, whose credits include The Hills Have Eyes Part II, numerous episodes of the television shows Ironside and Columbo, and work on six different Power Rangers series.
The musical score for Swamp Thing was provided by Harry Manfredini, who is best known for his work on the Friday the 13th franchise. However, he has plenty of other films to his credit, including A Talking Cat!?!, The Omega Code, DeepStar Six, and House.
Two of the producers for Swamp Thing were Michael Uslan (The Dark Knight, Batman, The Spirit, The Lego Movie) and Benjiman Melniker (Mitchell, Constantine, National Treasure, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice).
The makeup effects team for the film included Tonga Knight (Cosmos), Steve LaPorte (Van Helsing, Deep Blue Sea, Caddyshack II, The Howling), Ken Horn (Battle Beyond The Stars, The Hills Have Eyes), David Miller (Batman & Robin, The Mangler), and William Munns (Return of the Living Dead, The Beastmaster).
Swamp Thing was filmed primarily on Johns Island, which is located near Charleston, South Carolina. The island measures 84 square miles, and its marsh-y environment made it a perfect backdrop for the story.
Interestingly, Swamp Thing received a sequel many years later in 1989: The Return of Swamp Thing, which featured a handful of returning cast and crew members. However, it wasn't received terribly well, and currently holds an IMDb user rating of 4.5/10.
The production budget for Swamp Thing was estimated to be $3 million. While I wasn't able to dig up any box office numbers for the film, I suspect it made a profit due to its low price tag, and the fact that it received a sequel.
Swamp Thing wasn't exactly embraced by audiences and critics. Currently, it holds an IMDb user rating of 5.4/10, along with Rotten Tomatoes scores of 64% from critics and 34% from audiences, all of which are less than stellar marks.
One critic who was a fan of the movie was Roger Ebert, who gave Swamp Thing a solid 4/5 stars, citing that it is "one of those movies that fall somewhere between buried treasures and guilty pleasures."
Swamp Thing is as much a throwback to earlier monster flicks as it is a comic book movie. There are definitely plenty of moments that conjure memories of flicks like Creature From The Black Lagoon, as you might expect. The fact that the movie is very low budget and small scale really helps keep it grounded, which makes it feel all the more nostalgia-inducing. On top of that, there is no lighting trickery to be found here: the eponymous Swamp Thing is always in full light and in the open, much like the rubber suit monsters of olden days.
This is where things get complicated, though. The Swamp Thing suit straight-up looks terrible. However, maybe that is part of the homage, and the greater vision for the film? It is hard to say. Even Roger Ebert, who was a fan of the movie, referred to the creature as looking like "a bug-eyed spinach souffle." Personally, I don't think he is even as interesting as that: I think he just looks like a big, wrinkly dude caked in mud. Similarly, there are some hilariously terrible scene transitions (stylistic wipes, particularly) that stand out a whole lot over the course of the movie. While they definitely look like shit, maybe they were supposed to look like shit? It is an interesting boundary to consider, as many movies straddle the delicate line between faithful homage and honest craftsmanship.
As you can gather from the name of the creature, the setting is pretty important for Swamp Thing. And, honestly, I think that they absolutely nailed that aspect of the production. It is hard not to like the South Carolina lowlands in this movie: it has the exact sort of look that you would want and expect for a movie about a swamp monster. I have no idea how or why they decided on this obscure location, but it is fantastic.
Something that I have seen written quite a bit is that this movie is supposed to be a comedy. Personally, outside of a few lines, I didn't see comedy in this at all: it is a pretty straight sort of monster movie, with the modification of the monster being the good guy. I think it is pretty earnest about what it is: I suspect Craven was a big fan of the classic monster flicks, and wanted to do a little throwback.
Overall, Swamp Thing can be summed up as unremarkable. I've seen this movie a few times now, and every time, I have forgotten pretty significant details as soon as I finished watching it. I know that the movie has its proponents, but I've always found it a bit boring. It might be a tad too faithful to those old monster flicks for its own good.
For Wes Craven completists, fans of the source material, or just fans of comic book movies in general, it is worth giving Swamp Thing a shot. It is not so bad that it needs to be actively avoided, but I wouldn't advise that anyone go out of their way to watch it.
bad moviescomic book adaptationcomic book moviecomic book moviesdc comicsfilmmoviemoviesswamp thingwes cravenworst movies
November 7, 2016 Gordon Maples Leave a comment
In honor of the big budget Marvel release this past weekend, today I want to take a look at one of the most overlooked Marvel movies of the past: 1978's Dr. Strange.
The plot of Dr. Strange is summarized on IMDb as follows:
A psychiatrist becomes the new Sorcerer Supreme of the Earth in order to battle an evil Sorceress from the past.
This television movie incarnation of Dr. Strange was written, directed, produced, and generally conjured up by Philip DeGuere Jr., who was a career television writer and director who had assorted credits on shows like JAG, NCIS, The Dead Zone, and the 1980s incarnation of The Twilight Zone.
The film was shot by Enzo Martinelli, who provided cinematography work on a handful of television shows throughout his career, including Battlestar Galactica, The Six Million Dollar Man, and The Munsters.
Dr. Strange was edited by Christopher Nelson, who has had a long career editing acclaimed television shows like Lost, House, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, Hill Street Blues, The Incredible Hulk, Nash Bridges, and Bates Motel, among others.
Beyond DeGuere, the other producers for Dr. Strange were Gregory Hoblit, who went on to direct movies like Frequency, Fallen, and Primal Fear, and Alex Beaton, who produced the Doctor Who movie, The Greatest American Hero, and Kung Fu.
The music for Dr. Strange was composed by Paul Chihara, who also provided scores for Death Race 2000, The Bad News Bears Go To Japan, The Killing Time, The Morning After, Prince of the City, and the television series China Beach.
The cast of Dr. Strange is made up most notably of Peter Hooten (Orca, The Inglorious Bastards) and Jessica Walter (Arrested Development, Archer), with the rest of the cast filled out by television regulars.
In 2016, a big budget Marvel film focused on the Doctor Strange character was released. It stars the much-beloved actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, in the role of Hugo Strange, and an accessory cast that boasts the likes of Tilda Swinton and Mads Mikkelson.
Dr. Strange was meant to serve as a backdoor pilot for a network TV series, which would have given CBS three live action Marvel properties, including the already running The Incredible Hulk and The Amazing Spider Man. However, CBS ultimately decided against creating a series around Dr. Strange due to low ratings.
Morgan Le Fay, the antagonist in Dr. Strange, made her appearance in the Marvel comics universe shortly after the film released, but interestingly wouldn't encounter the character of Dr. Strange for another 6 years in that medium.
The character in the movie known as Thomas Lindmer is a substitute for Dr. Strange's mentor in the comic book source material: the Ancient One, who would later be controversially portrayed by Tilda Swinton in the 2016 film.
The character of Dr. Strange was created by Steve Ditko, who is best known as the initial artist and co-creator of Spider-Man. Strange first appeared in a Marvel comics series called Strange Tales in July of 1963.
Stan Lee, the long time public face of Marvel comics, has stated that he had the most input on Dr. Strange of any of the early Marvel television adaptations. He attributes the popular failure of the movie to its time slot, which put it up against the wildly popular Roots.
Currently, Dr. Strange holds a 5.4/10 user rating on IMDb, which reflects its significant lack of popularity and acclaim. However, the new 2016 film is bound to bring more attention to it, and it even just got a DVD release this year after years of being relegated to dusty VHS copies as a result.
If you ask me, Dr. Strange plays out like a pretty decent pilot for a television drama, if not much of an actual movie. Most of the story centers on Dr. Strange as a Doctor, working in his hospital and dealing with patients. Of course, this ultimately intersects with the supernatural, but the story eases its way to that point, like you would expect a pilot origin story to do. I kind of like the portrayal of the character, and he even has a couple of decently witty lines. The thing that really stood out to me, though, was the score: it is pure 1970s chaos, and is absolutely beautiful in its weirdness. I was reminded of Dracula AD 1972 a bit, which I'm not going to count as a bad thing. The costuming and effects will take you on a trip back in time as well, but the music is really what ties it all together.
I don't think Dr. Strange is nearly as mind-blowing or essential as the 1989 Punisher when it comes to early Marvel adaptations, but it is certainly more watchable than the 1990 Captain America when you consider the context of its time. I kind of wish this had actually gone to series, because I assume the result would have been Garth Merenghi's DarkPlace with wizards and some rockin' 70s music.
if you are into old television or Marvel comics history, this is totally worth digging up. In the past, this was incredibly hard to come by, but with the new movie out, and an official dvd release of this flick on its tail, this movie is as readily available as it will ever be.
1978bad moviescbscomic book moviecomic book moviesdoctor strangedr strangefilmmarvelmoviesworst movies
(Plot)opsy Podcast, Uncategorized
Plotopsy Podcast #23 – Green Lantern
May 23, 2016 Gordon Maples Leave a comment
https://misantropey.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/23-green-lantern.mp3
bad moviescomic book moviecomic book moviesdcdc cinematic universedeadpoolfilmgreen lanternmoviemovie podcastmoviespodcastryan reynoldsworst movies
Given the recent success of the Ryan Reynolds-led Deadpool film, as well as the true kickoff of the DC cinematic universe with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I have decided that it is high time to take a look at one of the most loathed comic book movies of the modern era: Green Lantern.
Green Lantern was directed by Martin Campbell, whose credits include both of the Antonio Banderas Zorro adaptations, as well as two notable James Bond films (Casino Royale and GoldenEye).
The screenplay for Green Lantern went through a number of iterations over the years, but the final writing credits were given to Michael Goldenberg (Contact), Marc Guggenheim (Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters, Arrow), Michael Green (Heroes, Smallville), and Greg Berlanti (Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl). Interestingly, Greg Berlanti officially signed on to direct Green Lantern as well, but stepped down to instead direct This Is Where I Leave You, and left directing duties to Campbell.
Green Lantern was edited by Stuart Baird, a proficient and long-tenured cutter whose credits include , Tommy, The Omen, Superman, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard 2, and Skyfall, among many others.
The cinematographer for the movie was Dion Beebe, a well-regarded director of photography who is best known for movies like Collateral, Memoirs of a Geisha, Chicago, and Edge of Tomorrow.
The score for Green Lantern was provided by James Newton Howard, an 8-time Academy Award nominee who has worked on films such as Nightcrawler, Michael Clayton, The Dark Knight, Lady In The Water, The Hunger Games, Falling Down, The Sixth Sense, Collateral, Waterworld, King Ralph, and Flatliners, among many others.
The cast of Green Lantern is led by Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, who would later get married in 2012. The accessory cast is rounded out by such notables as Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech), Michael Clarke Duncan (Daredevil), Mark Strong (Kingsman: The Secret Service), Tim Robbins (Jacob's Ladder), Angela Bassett (Malcolm X), and Peter Sarsgaard (Black Mass).
The critical response to Green Lantern was overwhelmingly negative. It currently holds an IMDb user rating of 5.6/10, alongside Rotten Tomatoes scores of 26% from critics and 45% from audiences. Commercially, the movie was ultimately profitable, but failed to come anywhere near its expectations. In total, it raked in just under $220 million on a lofty budget of $200 million.
There was a long history of trying to get a Green Lantern movie made prior to the culmination of this 2011 product. Kevin Smith was apparently approached to write a treatment in the late 1990s, and one of the film's producers (and DC's Chief Creative Officer) Geoff Johns was working on pitching the idea to studios as early as 2000.
Given the high profile of the film, the central roles went through a significant casting process. Some other actors considered for the lead included Sam Worthington, Bradley Cooper, Chris Pine, and Jared Leto. Many fans passionately campaigned on behalf of cult favorite star Nathan Fillion, who endeared himself to Green Lantern loyalists through a number of voice acting gigs as Hal Jordan. Likewise, the role of Sinestro could have easily gone to any one of Hugo Weaving, Jackie Earle Haley, or Geoffrey Rush, the last of whom stuck with the project in a tertiary role after Mark Strong was ultimately cast.
Zack Snyder was apparently approached at some point to direct the film, but decided to hold to his commitment on Watchmen instead. Of course, he would eventually become entwined with DC and Warner Brothers to create Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
In the IMDb trivia section for Green Lantern, there is a quote attributed to an anonymous insider, which indicates that the film faced significant interference from Warner Bros:
"[Green Lantern] is not Martin Campbell's cut of the film, but the studio's. I live in New Orleans where it was shot, I read the shooting script, all of which was painstakingly filmed with intense research, and all of that was left on the cutting room floor…character development sacrificed for CG, scenes made irrelevant by removing their setup. The movie in the theater starts with an explanation of mythos that is made redundant by the more natural, scripted questions from Hal when he gets the ring. Ten minutes of childhood Hal, Carol, and Hector that sets up Hal's first ring construct is reduced to an awkwardly placed flashback in the middle of another scene. The training with the ring is almost completely excised except for one minor scene. Most appallingly, the ending completely deletes the fact that Kilowog, Sinestro, and Toma-Re arrive at the end and help Hal defeat Parallax. Not to mention Parallax was supposed to be a 3rd act reveal after we spend the film worried about Hammond going evil, not the main villain for the entire film. I sincerely hope we get a director's cut or at least all the deleted scenes on the video release".
Martin Campbell is apparently in agreement with the above statements, and has publicly stated his displeasure with the studio's editing of the film. However, there has never been an official director's cut of the movie released.
While most of the filming for Green Lantern was done in New Orleans, most of the exteriors and identifiable landmarks are taken from San Diego. The DC comics setting for the events is the fictional Coast City, which is located on the west coast of the United States.
This film was originally supposed to kick-off a Justice League series of films. Some early iterations of the script even included a Clark Kent cameo, which hints at a future film. However, after the negative reaction to the movie, this idea was delayed until 2013, when Man of Steel was designated to start the DC cinematic universe.
According to director Martin Campbell, Parallax's design in the movie was inspired by the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
"The images of those massive dust clouds coming down the streets from the collapsing World Trade Center are directly associated with terror"
The line "I've seen you naked! You think I wouldn't recognize you because you covered your cheekbones!" was an ad-lib by Blake Lively, and is one of only a few widely-remembered aspects of the film.
Reportedly, Ryan Reynolds and director Martin Campbell clashed repeatedly on set. Campbell has stated in interviews that his first and only choice for the lead was Bradley Cooper, and Reynolds was cast behind his back. This lead to an uncomfortable experience on set for Reynolds, who's performance was harshly critiqued by Campbell. Reynolds stated in a Variety interview that the failure of this film was a huge relief, and that he "dreaded doing it again."
Personally, my issues with Green Lantern are numerous, even as someone not invested in the source material. I managed to avoid it when it first hit theaters, and just saw it for the first time prior to writing this review, so a lot of my thoughts on it are still pretty fresh.
The first notable issue with the movie is the character of Hal Jordan, who is written as an unlikable ego-case. If not for Reynolds having an undeniable natural charm, he would be an insufferable character to get behind. To boot, he doesn't really improve as a result of the events of the movie, and is basically the same person at the conclusion that he is at the outset of the story.
In relation to this, the human aspect of the plot is really hard to care about. Partially, this is due to a bloated cast and a general lack of chemistry between the performers. However, the way the film is written and cut doesn't emphasize the characters themselves, instead focusing on action, which makes it hard to get invested in anyone.
In spite of it all, there are some decent performances to be found in Green Lantern, primarily from Strong and Sarsgaard. However, both men receive very little screen time to develop, and don't get the necessary room to create compelling villains. Played out well, the obsessive nature of Sarsgaard's character might have worked out, but his infatuations and eccentricities are mostly glossed over by the film.
Perhaps the most criticized aspect of the film is the extensive use of computer generated enhancements. Not only do countless alien creatures appear in fully CGI forms, but the Green Lantern suit itself has no practical elements, and all of the effects of the ring are digitally rendered. Worse than all of that, however, are the CGI modifications made to Strong and Sarsgaard, which are cartoonishly ridiculous. Despite being mostly accurate to the source material, Sinestro still looks like a pink elf-demon when depicted in live action.
I think the filmmakers was just a wee bit overconfident in the abilities of CGI on the whole, and placed a burden upon it that the technology could really handle. This also contributed to the movie's budget rising significantly, which surely irked Warner Brothers, and contributed to their less-than-generous editing treatment for the film.
The plot itself for Green Lantern isn't terribly interesting: primarily, it only serves as an origin story, and provides a brief setup for a follow up. While it is necessary to introduce the characters and concepts in some way, origin stories for superheroes are always a bit formulaic, and audiences have started to fatigue on them quite a bit. I think this, as much as anything, contributed to the movie's critical failure: the story was just too familiar.
The positives of Green Lantern are few and far between, but they aren't totally nonexistent. However, the movie is boring above all else, and is very difficult to honestly recommend to anyone. Unless someone has a curiosity about the film or is a die hard fan of the character, there isn't much to recommend here. It is, however, quite a compelling paragon of how not to make a modern superhero movie.
bad moviescomic book moviecomic book moviesdcfilmgreen lanternmoviesryan reynoldsworst movies


text:
911 was an Inside Job
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/9089896/London-based-oil-executive-linked-to-911-hijackers.html
Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife Anoud left three cars at their luxurious home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida — one of them new — and flew to Saudi Arabia in August 2001. The refrigerator was full of food; furniture and clothing were left behind; and the swimming pool water was still circulating.
Security records of cars passing through a checkpoint at the Prestancia gated community indicated that Mr al-Hijji's home, 4224 Escondito Circle, had been visited a number of times by Mohamed Atta, the leader of the
19-strong hijack team, who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre in 2001.
The logs also indicated that Marwan Al-Shehhi, who crashed United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower, and Ziad Jarrah, who was at the controls of United Airlines Flight 93 when it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, had visited the house.
All three men had trained to fly at Venice Airport, which is 19 miles from Sarasota.
9/11: a lasting legacy for the Ground Zero victims
Cancer rates triple among 9/11 police officers
Karzai: we failed to provide security
A US counter-terrorist agent told The Daily Telegraph: "The registration numbers of vehicles that had passed through the Prestancia community's north gate in the months before 9/11, coupled with the identification documents shown by incoming drivers on request, showed that Mohamed Atta and several of his fellow hijackers, and another Saudi suspect still at large, had visited 4224 Escondito Circle."
The suspect was Adnan Shukrijumah, an al-Qaeda operative who is on the FBI's Most Wanted list, with a $5 million bounty on his head.A decade after the world's worst terrorist attack, which claimed the lives of 3,000 people, Mr al-Hijji is resident in London, working for the European subsidiary of Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's state oil company. Described as a career counsellor, he is based in the offices of Aramco Overseas Company UK Limited and lives in an expensive flat in central London.
In email correspondence with the Telegraph, Mr al-Hijji strongly denied any involvement in the plot, writing: "I have neither relation nor association with any of those bad people/criminals and the awful crime they did. 9/11 is a crime against the USA and all humankind and I'm very saddened and oppressed by these false allegations.
"I love the USA. My kids were born there, I went to college and university there, I spent a good portion of my life there and I love it."
Mr al-Hijji's account is supported by the FBI, which has stated: "At no time did the FBI develop evidence that connected the family members to any of the 9/11 hijackers … and there was no connection found to the 9/11 plot.''
Bob Graham, a former US senator who, in addition to co-chairing the congressional inquiry into 9/11, was chairman of the US senate intelligence committee at the time, disputes the FBI denials. He has long believed that there was Saudi support for the 19 terrorists, 15 of whom were subjects of the kingdom. He cites two secret documents to which he has recently had access.
The first document, Graham says, is "not consistent with the public statements of the FBI that there was no connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudis at the Sarasota home. Both documents indicate that the investigation was not the robust inquiry claimed by the FBI."
Mr al-Hijji, 38, moved with his family to Britain in 2003, setting up home in a rented four-bedroom detached house in the Southampton suburb of Totton. His stay there appears to have been uneventful.
The al-Hijjis' abrupt departure from Sarasota aroused the suspicion of their next-door neighbour, Patrick Gallagher. He emailed the FBI within two days of 9/11 to report the disappearance of the couple and their young children.
Reports released recently by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement refer to the "suspicious manner and timing" of the family's departure.
One document states: "In mid-August 2001 the above subjects purchased a new vehicle and renewed the registration on several other vehicles. On Aug 27 2001 a moving truck appeared and moved the subjects out of the house. Left behind were the vehicles and numerous personal belongings, including food, medicine, bills, baby clothing etc."
The document goes on to state that Mr al-Hijji and Esam Ghazzawi, his father-in-law and the owner of the Escondito Circle house, had been "on the FBI watch list" prior to 9/11.
Mr al-Hijji described the allegations against him as "just cheap talk" and denied having abandoned his home in undue haste, explaining: "No, no, no. Absolutely not true. We were trying to secure the [Aramco] job. It was a good opportunity."
He said his wife and children followed him out to Saudi Arabia a few weeks after he left. She and his American-born mother-in-law had been questioned by the FBI when they returned to the United States to settle the family's affairs.
But he was not questioned when he returned to America for a two-month period in 2005.
Amazing how the West allows Saudi Arabia to do pretty much as they please, we get their oil they get to run the terror networks, trained by MI6, the CIA and possibly Mossad.
Thanks (sarc) to the Saudis and their "terror" network Western forces are now controlling the Middle East and African nations in the name of "the war on terror" and wars for "humanitarianism".
Couple that with the soft fascist draconian surveillance laws in the West, brought about by these false flag events, we are pretty much living in a bogus free Democratic society.
We really never did leave the Victorian ages.
Ade said...
I forget the details but Atta and others were allowed in, Cybil Edmunds was hearing CIA Al queda chatter showing them working together.
Lt Col Anthony Shaffer and his team picked up Att in surveillence, when he asked for permission to arrest, this was denied.
I think Shaffers team was deliberately put on the false scent but held back so Al Queda could be blamed afterwards.
Meanwhile the real perps get away.
The Great Betrayal
Two Race Cases Won In One Day
Enoch Powell Was Right !
Pakistan to Support Iran
Syria and Mossad
WW3 DEFINED
NPD and Liberal Fascism
Nationalism Rises - Liberals Embrace Fascism
The BNP and the EU
Media Censor Pat Buchanan
Latest Thought Criminal Exposed
The Anti-Fa Get Owned
Section From My New Novel
The Farce Of British Nationalism
DEATH TO PSEUDO-DEMOCRACY
Iran - FALSE FLAGS
Donal McIntrye & The PC Police
The Death Of The Nationalist Dinosaurs
Nationalist Strategy
Govt To Nerve Gas Rioters
Fascism Returns
FALSE FLAG ALERT !
Life After Death and Physics
The Real Reason For Attack On Iran
Waco & Syria
North West Infidels Rochdale Demonstration
The New Spirituality
Black On White Crime - Liberalism Dirty Little Sec...
The Knoxville Race Crime
South Africa Genocide Of Whites
White History Month
The Real Slave Trade

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Christian Dache AFC
Christian Daché loves hanging around paths with all his senses wide awake and therefore his work is heavily influenced by the surrounding nature. He was born in 1948 in Chitry les mines in France..
His eyes are constantly in waiting for the slightest movement on the ground or in the air. He can immediately perceive a fox pounce with its lithe grace, the deer or even the smallest beetle, and stand still for hours of observation. He finds an interest in every element, every animal can form the subject of a study, and the smallest or the most common one can be as fascinating as the most unusual. It was in his early childhood spent in Alsace (east of France) and Morvan (center of France) that the artist fell deeply in love with wild spaces and felt the urgent need of living close to nature.
The rivers and lakes of the Morvan region were his first playgrounds. There he developed the art of patience and contemplation. Since he was fairly good at sketching, he soon started to draw the animals he had come across while rambling.
When the time of choosing a career came, he obviously thought of something in connection with the arts but became a physical education teacher. He now works in a Lycée (high school) in Brittany where he is fond of outdoors sports, turning his students into trappers !
Christian Daché is an expressionist artist ; in his paintings the animals sweep into the foreground and the landscape merely stands in ecstasy. There are not many colours and monochrome paintings are frequent. He likes drawing the animal on the move either running down a mountain or bolting out of a bush, the violence of male fights during the mating season or else the furtive or surprised animal.
The water with its mysteries and magic spells is also present in the works showing waterbirds. He always looks for a poetic atmosphere, often harmonizing cold colours as he particularly enjoys the colours of winter. The animal is depicted with a naturalistic realism but surroundings look abstract. The artist has naturally chosen watercolours for their fluidity, limpidity and the possibility they offer to create fantasy. He is fascinated by the uncontrollable side of that medium as painting regurlarly brings surprises. He always starts his work observing, sketching, taking notes and photos. The study is very accurate, every detail is drawn and the preliminary drawing can sometimes end up in the painting itself. After laying drawing gum the artist use watercolour on wet or dry paper. These two technics could be used in the same work.
Christian Daché particularly appreciates artists such as R.Bateman, L.Jonsson, R.Poortvliet, F.Pompon and M.Solberg.
Support for Conservation:
Member of VIVARMOR Nature Association Saint Brieuc France
Member of SNAA Société Nationale des Artistes Animaliers France
Nature sensible en Poitou-Charentes (2009)
Illustrator - Voyage à travers les espaces naturels de la région Poitou-Charentes
Author: Collectifs
Published by: Editions Pique-Prune
Le Monde de la Rivière (2002)
Illustrator - Cet ouvrage est un parcours pédagogique au fil de l'eau.
Author: Didier Durand
Published by: CRDP
La Rance de Saint Malo à Dinan (2000)
Illustrator - L'ouvrage se veut le reflet de l'envoûtante splendeur d'un des plus beaux estuaires de Bretagne.
Author: Christian et Caroline Daché
Published by: Editions Gallimard
Organization Membership:
2003 - VVARMOR Nature Saint Brieuc France
Association de sauvegarde de la nature en Côtes d'Armor
2000 - SNAA Société Nationale des Artistes Animaliers
Christian Dache
Email: dache.caroline@gmail.com
Home Page: http://christian.dache.free.fr
All rights reserved. All images and text © Copyright 2022 Christian Dache - Member of the Artists for Conservation Foundation (Formerly the Worldwide Nature Artists Group) www.natureartists.com. This site represents the original artwork
of Christian Dache and is protected by international copyright laws.
Use of nature art, wildlife art or any other images or text from this site, requires permission in writing from Christian Dache ().
This site is part of the Artists for Conservation (AFC) Web site. (Wildlife Art - Nature Art - Conservation) Artists for Conservation is an international, non-profit organization dedicated to nature art, wildlife art and conservation. On this site you will find world-class nature art and wildlife art by today's leading nature artists & wildlife artists. The AFC site is the Web's premier location for nature art, wildlife artists All content appearing in pages featuring Christian Dache is the sole responsibility of Christian Dache. The opinions expressed on these artists' pages are those of Christian Dache and do not necessarily reflect those of the Artists for Conservation Foundationi (AFC).


We are experienced in all lawn cutting & lawn maintenance. We have team of professionals to provide you best services.
We cater in & around Mudgee, NSW. We are always ready to help you with our best services.
Call us today to keep your surrounding green & clean.
We provide competitve & affordable prices to our customers. We are locally owned & operated business.


Karina began yoga when she was 18 when her mum, a yoga teacher, introduced her to the mat.
She has been hooked ever since, with her practice beginning in Hatha to then develop and explore other traditions including Ashtanga and Vinyasa Flow. She has completed her Yoga Teacher Training in the Sivananda tradition, one of the oldest and most organic forms of yoga. In her spare time she loves to travel and explore the world.
Karina has taught Geography in a number of secondary schools and has experienced the vibrant, rewarding and inspirational environment staff and students create, but also the challenges they face.
She is motivated to combine her yoga and teaching knowledge to help students and teachers to combat these challenges, but at the same time have lots of fun and embrace the ethos of a school!


text:
Saturday Bantering: Bits of Jays Stuff
By Tom Dakers@bluebirdbanter Dec 4, 2021, 11:54am EST
Share All sharing options for: Saturday Bantering: Bits of Jays Stuff
Steve Russell/Toronto Star via Getty Images
This lockout is going to make for boring times for us bloggers.
There were a couple of Blue Jays rumours that have come out in the last few days:
The Brewers talked to the Jays about a trade for Randal Grichuk with Jackie Bradley Jr. coming to Toronto. Instead, the Brewers traded for Hunter Renfroe from the Red Sox. Bradley hit .163/236/261 this year, but plays excellent defense and has some speed. He could have slid into the Jarrod Dyson role. Bradley's to make $11 million next year, about the same as Randal, but then Randal has two years left on his contract.
Ben Nicholson-Smith reports that the Jays should have some money left to spend after the lockout is over. The team spent $161 million this season and came up a win short of the playoffs. I like the idea of Carlos Rodon, if we are allowed to make suggestions.
And there was a rumour that Freddie Freeman had contacted the Blue Jays to see if there was any interest. Since Vlad played first this year, it is hard to see how he would fit. I guess they could share first and DH, but I like having the DH spot open to rest guys or to let injured players ease back into the lineup. I'm not a fan of switching Vlad back to third base. I think moving your star back and forth between positions is not the way I'd like to run things. But Freeman is a great hitter.
Shi Davidi points out that the 'stakes are high' for the Blue Jays in the CBA negotiations. With a number of star young plays, losing a year of control would hurt. With a few players signed to big long-term contracts, if the team has to ramp up Vlad, Bo and Teoscar's pay quicker than planned, they could have a larger payroll than planned.
I'm sure most of you have seen Rob Manfred's note that blames the players for the lockout.
"Despite the lockout, we remain ready to bargain whenever the Players Association wants to bargain," Manfred said. "And we are steadfast in our desire to get a new agreement."
Yeah right.
One of the things I notice, every time there is a labour issue in baseball, is how many writers take the owner's side. Yes, I'm looking at you Buster Olney and Mark Feinsand. When a writer presents the owner's points without any commentary at all, you know where their allegiances sit.
Personally, I'm generally on the player's side. I won't cry if Rogers makes a little less money off the team. There are far too many billionaires out there, I'd bet ok with players getting a little richer. They tend to spread their money around.
I think it is funny that MLB has taken all the player's pictures and videos off their website. They don't seem to understand that we watch baseball for the players.


text:
ASBESTOS MESOTHELIOMA HELP AT 1.866.634.9234 FREE CASE EVALUATION
Understanding, Managing, and Living with the
Health Effects of Asbestos
www.healtheffectsofasbestos.com
About Asbestos
Asbestos Statistics
Types of Asbestos
Uses of Asbestos
Asbestos Disease
Asbestosis
Asbestos Cancer
Asbestos Mesothelioma
Types of Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma Symptoms
Mesothelioma Diagnosis
Mesothelioma Stages
Mesothelioma Prognosis
Asbestos Disease Treatment
Questions for your Doctor
News & Settlements
Asbestos News
Asbestos Settlements
Mesothelioma Lawsuit Revived in California
Los Angeles, CA: A mesothelioma victim who alleges her asbestos disease was caused by exposure to her late husband's work clothes has seen her asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit revived after it was originally lost to a summary judgement ruling in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff Wanda Beckering was tasked, over the years, with laundering her husband's work clothes. Frank Beckering was employed by Shell Oil Co. and worked primarily as a machinist from 1954 until he retired from his job in 1992. At some point following the death of her husband in 2009, Wanda Beckering was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease affecting the linings of the lungs and other internal organs widely held to be caused by exposure to asbestos. While Beckering regularly laundered her husband's work clothes, she never once visited his place of employment, and thus claims that the only pathway to asbestos exposure would be through her late husband's work clothes.
The allegation is not without precedent. There have been cases whereby the spouses of employees regularly working around asbestos have become ill, and in some cases have died from exposure to asbestos fibers piggybacking on the work clothes of the employee.
Court records did not specify the cause of Frank Beckering's death in 2009. However, Wanda Beckering launched an asbestos cancer lawsuit against Shell alleging second-hand exposure to asbestos.
Beckering's asbestos claims appeared to have gone south in 2014 when a trial court granted Shell Oil's motion for summary judgement in March of that year. Eight months later, in November 2014 an appeals court upheld that ruling.
Beckering appealed to the state high court and found favor, thanks in part to a ruling in December of last year by the Supreme Court of California in Kesner v. Superior Court of California. That ruling by the Supreme Court determined that employers can be held liable for injuries caused by secondhand asbestos exposure suffered by household members of employees. The ruling addressed the potential for duty of care an employer has for family members who may be adversely affected through an employee.
Taking the lead from the Kesner finding, the state high court this past March vacated the ruling by the appeals court and sent the matter back to the appellate panel with instructions to reconsider Beckering's case in light of the findings inherent with the Kesner decision.
Early last month the Second Appellate District Panel sent the case back to trial court with instructions to deny the motion for summary judgement moved by Shell.
That puts Beckering back at square one, but revives her asbestos lawsuit nonetheless.
"Beckering, whose husband was a Shell employee, was a member of the worker's household and thus was 'foreseeably in close and sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of time,'" the panel said.
Beckering filed her asbestos cancer lawsuit in August, 2013. The status of her health is unknown. However a diagnosis of Mesothelioma is usually a death sentence. There is no cure. Exposure to asbestos can result in asbestos disease, asbestosis or asbestos mesothelioma that usually emerges years, and sometimes decades following exposure.
The level of asbestos compensation sought by the plaintiff was not specified.
The asbestos injury case is Wanda L. Beckering v. Shell Oil Co., Case No. B256407, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three.
We're here to help answer your questions, connect you with resources or put you in touch with someone who can provide legal help.
Simply fill out the form below or call 866-634-9234
Asbestos-related Injuries:
What is your diagnosis? -- please select -- OtherAsbestosisLung CancerMesothelioma
Month and Year of Diagnosis:
Was a biopsy performed? Yes No
If death, then month and year of death:
There is no cost to submit this form. Doing so places you under no obligation and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. By submitting this form I agree to the Terms of Service.
Get our weekly newsletter with the latest lawsuit news and legal information from our flagship publication LawyersandSettlements. View last issue
What is Asbestos Disease?
Asbestos Mesothelioma is perhaps the most widely recognized disease associated with asbestos exposure. But there are actually many types of asbestos-related disease. Find out more about the types of asbestos disease.
Visit all Online Legal Media Websites
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
© 2001-2022 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Privacy | Disclaimer | TOS | Contact Us


text:
El Antonov An-12 (designación OTAN: Cub), es un transporte mixto de carga y pasaje proyectado en un principio para cumplir funciones militares de transporte de cargas pesadas y paracaidistas. Realizó su primer vuelo en marzo de 1957 y fue lanzado al mercado en 1959. El avión ha tenido un gran éxito comercial en países del Tercer mundo ya que este tiene las capacidades para aterrizar en pistas sin pavimentar y sin compactar, y son precisamente este tipo de pistas las que abundan en los países en los que mayormente se opera este avión.

Diseño

El avión es propulsado por cuatro motores turbohélice montados de a dos en sus alas, las cuales tienen la configuración de ala alta, además, la mayoría de estos aviones poseen una compuerta de carga en la cola, lo que lo hace muy práctico para el transporte de cargas pesadas y vehículos.

El avión tiene una configuración de cola alta, lo que permite tener una compuerta de carga en la parte inferior de esta para transportar cargas pesadas o bien, para lanzar paracaidistas. La capacidad de transporte es de 18 toneladas. Al ser un desarrollo del An-10, el fuselaje de ambas aeronaves se asemejan mucho, la principal diferencia es la compuerta y rampa de carga posterior que posee el An-12. En las versiones de carga una mampara separa la bodega despresurizada de la cabina presurizada, en las versiones de pasajeros, todo el fuselaje es presurizado.

El tren de aterrizaje tiene una gran versatilidad, lo que le permite despegar de pistas de aterrizaje sin pavimentar, nieve o hielo. El interior de la bodega de carga puede ser adaptado a cualquier necesidad, un ejemplo de esto fue una misión humanitaria yugoslava tras el Terremoto de Spitak 1988, cuando dos An-12 fueron convertidos en hospitales móviles, los cuales atendieron con éxito a más de 1000 personas durante sus dos meses de estancia en la zona de desastre. Otro ejemplo es cuando el Ejército Ruso utiliza estos aviones para transportar cargas pesadas; ya sean tanques de guerra, soldados y equipamiento o bien, piezas para otros aviones y helicópteros.

Características después de la unificación de la producción con el An-10

Debido a la unificación de la producción del An-10 y el An-12, ambos aviones son iguales en la parte media y delantera del fuselaje, aunque en el An-12 se mantuvo la compuerta de carga trasera hasta la finalización de la producción en 1973. Otro aspecto que se vio afectado fue la presurización del fuselaje, tras la unificación de la producción, tanto los An-12 como los An-10 tenían todo el fuselaje presurizado, esto cambio después de la construcción de 100 unidades, cuando se volvió al sistema anterior.

Producción

En la URSS el avión se produjo en serie en tres fábricas

 Irkutsk: 1957-1962; 155 unidades fabricadas

 Vorónezh: 1960-1965; 258 unidades fabricadas

 Taskent: 1962-1973; 830 unidades fabricadas

A pesar de estas cifras, también se fabricaron algunas unidades esporádicamente en otras fábricas, además de la producción en China de este avión, que es llevada a cabo bajo el nombre de Shaanxi Y-8.

Operadores

  Motor Sich (compañía aérea) 2

Utilización

El avión es usado activamente para el transporte de militares, vehículos y pasajeros, así como también es utilizado es misiones de rescate por algunas fuerzas aéreas. El avión también fue la columna vertebral del transporte en la Fuerza Aérea Soviética hasta la entrada al servicio del Ilyushin Il-76, pero esto no significó su retiro, ya que fue utilizado hasta el colapso de la URSS y aún es utilizado en la Fuerza Aérea Rusa como avión de transporte para pistas no preparadas. Tras la entrada al servicio del Il-76 en la Unión Soviética, el An-12 pasó a ser la principal plataforma de lanzamiento de las tropas aerotransportadas.

Fue un avión de transporte muy popular en la URSS, lo que le valió muchas misiones importantes, el transporte a la RDA de diversos materiales de guerra durante la crisis del bloqueo de 1958, o el transporte de tropas acorazadas a Cuba durante la crisis de los misiles cubanos en 1962. El avión tiene la capacidad de transportar diversos vehículos, entre ellos están los BMD-1, 2S9 "Nona" y los BTR-D. Durante la invasión a Afganistán, estos aparatos fueron rentados por la US Army a diversas compañías de la región.

El An-12 fue ampliamente utilizado como banco de pruebas, entre estas pruebas se encuentran:

 Pruebas del motor Ivchenko AI-24, motor utilizado en el Antonov An-24.

 Se tomó como base su fuselaje para un vehículo espacial reutilizable, dicho vehículo nunca se fabricó.

 Banco de pruebas para la aviónica del Antonov An-22 y para el equipamiento de la bodega de carga del Ilyushin Il-76.

 Banco de pruebas para cámaras de alta definición que posteriormente serían utilizadas en aviones espía MiG-25.

 Pruebas como avión de observación y reconocimiento cartográfico.

 Utilización durante un corto tiempo como parte del tratado de Cielos Abiertos.

 Pruebas para ser utilizado como guía de misiles por medio de láser.

 Banco de prueba para asientos eyectables y trajes espaciales.

 Utilización para la creación de hielo artificial.

 Pruebas para ser utilizado como un avión de guerra antisubmarina.

El avión resultó ser un aparato muy fiable, capaz de trabajar en condiciones duras sin que esto afectase su rendimiento, gracias a estas capacidades el avión es hoy en día utilizado por diversas aerolíneas de países del tercer mundo, donde las pistas sin pavimentar, altas temperaturas y pobres servicios de mantenimiento son comunes.

Descripción técnica

El An-12 es un avión de ala alta, cola alta y tren de aterrizaje retráctil construido de metal.

Fuselaje

El fuselaje de la aeronave consta de cuatro partes; la parte frontal que posee un compartimiento pequeño y la cabina de mando, la parte central que es en su totalidad parte de la bodega de carga y soporte de las alas, y la parte trasera, con un compartimiento mediano y que posee la rampa de carga trasera y la cola de la aeronave. El fuselaje mide 68m² y posee 110 larguerillos, el fuselaje está fabricado en aluminio.

La parte delantera está sellada y presurizada; aquí se encuentra la cabina de mandos y un pequeño que se utiliza para transportar diversos productos que no pueden exponerse a las condiciones en la zona despresurizada. En la cabina hay puestos para el piloto, el copiloto, el navegante y el operador de radio; opcionalmente puede ir a bordo un escolta de carga, que se asegura de que la carga sea manejada correctamente durante su embarque, el vuelo y su desembarque. En esta sección del avión se encuentran dos salidas de emergencia; una superior, que se utiliza para abandonar el avión en caso de un aterrizaje en el agua o sin tren de aterrizaje, y una inferior que se encuentra en el compartimiento del tren de aterrizaje, esta se utiliza en caso de que la tripulación deba abandonar el avión mientras este aún está en el aire, esta evacuación en posible gracias a una dotación de paracaídas reglamentarios que se encuentran a bordo. La parte delantera del avión posee una cúpula acristalada, dicha cúpula es el puesto del navegante, quien se encarga de establecer la ruta más segura para el vuelo.

La parte central del fuselaje no está presurizada, en esta sección es donde se almacenan las mercancías que pueden soportar las condiciones que se dan grandes altitudes, cuando el avión ya esta en su altitud de crucero. En esta sección es donde empieza la superficie alar, por esta razón, esta sección de avión es una de las más resistentes a las presiones externas. Es esta sección se encuentran, generalmente, dos sanitarios para la tripulación, así como dos literas para vuelos largos en los que se requiere de una tripulación de relevo, además, aquí se encuentran los compartimientos para el equipaje de la tripulación, que se guardan en pequeñas escotillas cerca de las literas. En esta sección se encuentra la entrada principal al avión, además de poseer dos salidas de emergencia, una de estas es lo suficientemente grande como para soltar parte de la mercancía durante el vuelo si esto fuese necesario y la compuerta trasera estuviese averiada.

La sección de la cola es donde se encuentran los controles del avión, además de ser donde se encuentra la compuerta de carga trasera, la que se utiliza como método primario de carga del avión. Al igual que la parte media, esta no está presurizada y es utilizada para las mercancías más pequeñas que se puedan transportar en zonas no presurizadas. En esta sección de la nave se encuentran dos salidas de emergencia y una de las dos dotaciones de paracaídas que se exigen a bordo.

Alas

Las alas están divididas en cinco partes; la sección central, dos piezas contiguas a la sección central, estas dos piezas han de ser muy resistentes ya que son las que soportan el peso del resto de las alas, y dos piezas móviles donde se almacenan los flaps y los frenos aerodinámicos cuando estos están plegados. En la parte media del ala se encuentran los tanques de combustible, los cuales están fabricados de acero y con un revestimiento interno de fibra de vidrio. En versiones más modernas del avión partes de las alas se fabricaron con materiales compuestos para reducir el peso y darle una mayor capacidad al avión, además de que también se han modificado los tanques de combustible para que estos alberguen una mayor cantidad de combustible.

Planta motriz

El avión es propulsado por cuatro motores Ivchenko AI-20 con hélices de cuatro palas de metal AI-68I. La potencia del motor al momento del despegue es de 4000 CV. El motor está equipado con un regulador automático que es capaz de controlar la cantidad de revoluciones por minuto que tiene cada hélice. El motor está situado en la góndola del ala, esta está reforzada para poder soportar el peso del motor, que pesa unas cinco toneladas.

Especificaciones

Véase también

Aeronaves similares:
 Lockheed C-130 Hercules
 Blackburn Beverley
 Transall C-160
 Airbus A400M Atlas

Accidentes:
 Accidente de Antonov An-12 de Avis Amur en 2011
 Accidente de Antonov An-12BP de AZZA Transport de 2012
 Accidente de Antonov An-12BK de Ukraine Air Alliance de 2019

Referencias

An-012
Aeronaves de ala alta
Aviones tractores de cuatro motores
Aeronaves de cuatro motores turbohélice
Aviones de transporte militar de los años 1950 de la Unión Soviética
Aeronaves de transporte de la Unión Soviética de los años 1950

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Quicksort to generate a nearly sorted output with K error I need to change the psuedo code
To output a nearly sorted array where an element is at a maximum of K away from it's sorted position.
For example the array 6,1,2,3,4,7 is sorted for K=4, because 7>6 and their distance is larger than K.
I tried simply changing the calls to this
or instead of K using K/2 since i want half the distance on both sides of the partition.
i don't think it works since i tried implementing this in java.
Any help would be really helpful, Thank you!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange