The Thing 2: A Sequel Frozen in the Lost Video Game Wasteland

Since I added The Thing prequel to my Blu-ray collection (read my review here), I've been on a bit of a Thing kick lately. I watched John Carpenter's 1982 movie again, and I've been looking through various Thing fan sites to see if I can learn anything new about this sporadically active franchise. While the poor box office performance of 2011's The Thing precludes another Thing movie any time soon, I was surprised to discover that there was yet another Thing project in the works even before anyone considered a prequel on the silver screen. The project was called The Thing 2, and it was designed by Computer Artworks as a sequel to their 2002 The Thing video game.

From what I've been able to piece together, development of The Thing 2 was discontinued after Computer Artworks shut down in 2004. I've found some conceptual artwork for this game online, which you can see in the picture gallery I've assembled below. Read on....

As video game tie-ins to movies go, The Thing game was a fantastic treat for Thing fans. It had everything that a fan could ask for: bleak settings and situations, flamethrowers, paranoia, blood test kits, and a whole lot of gore. The game featured a team building dynamic where you had to win the trust of other human characters by convincing them that you weren't infected by the Thing; some of these same characters would later reveal themselves to be Things, usually during the most intense and inconvenient moments. You also could only spend limited amounts of time outside of the human bases (which included the charred remains of both Outpost 31 and the Norwegian research station), because your character would freeze to death otherwise due to the harsh conditions of the Antarctic. These details successfully captured the look and feel of Carpenter's movie, and they made for a great survival horror video game as well.

After such an impressive effort behind the first game, it's immensely frustrating to look at what might have been in the concept art for The Thing 2. According to the notes in the art guide pages below, the sequel was supposed to take place in a huge oil refinery (complete with service tunnels, an oil rig, and a settlement of porta-cabins filled with workers) and a Thing-infested aircraft carrier. With vast new environments to explore and deadly new Thing mutations to fight, The Thing 2 would have been a spectacular continuation of what Carpenter started way back in the 80s.

Manga Legend Osamu Tezuka--Live Onstage in Washington DC!

Attention, anime and manga fans who live in the Washington DC area: The play Astro Boy and the God of Comics, a tribute to the late manga maestro Osamu Tezuka, is currently being performed at Studio Theater. This production is scheduled to run until March 11, 2012.

Astro Boy and the God of Comics was written and staged by Natsu Onoda Power, a lifetime fan of Tezuka's work. In fact, Power earned her PhD at Northwestern University through a dissertation on Tezuka, which she later adapted into her book God of Comics: Osamu Tezuka and the Creation of Post World War II Manga.

Tezuka's Astro Boy, on the printed page... 

... And on the stage at Studio Theater.

Power's play weaves together certain aspects of Tezuka's real life with the fictional life of one of his most popular characters, Astro Boy. Even though Tezuka is known for his work in manga, Power uses a wide variety of art--cartooning, animation, video, drawing, illustration, and puppetry--as part of her play. By using an eclectic selection of visual expression while examining the life of Tezuka, Astro Boy and the God of Comics honors both Tezuka's legacy and the exuberant spirit that springs from all forms of artistic creation.

Click here for information about show times and tickets, as well as to read Peter Marks' review for The Washington Post. Click here and here to read additional reviews from the Washington City Paper and the We Love DC site.

Advanced Geek Photography and Kenner Star Wars Action Figures

When you hear the term "professional photography", certain things immediately come to mind--fashion modeling, photojournalism, art photography, and studios and freelancers who specialize in niche markets such as wedding photos, family photos, graduation photos and so on. Yet professional photographers can be employed to take pictures of just about anything, including cars, appliances, food, and toys ... including toys from a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Meet Pete, an avid collector of vintage Star Wars toys. Due to limited space within his own home that precludes a worthy display of his collection, he opted instead to take pictures of the action figures and vehicles so he could appreciate them on his computer. His photo collection of his toy collection eventually grew into his own blog, which is called Star Wars Action Figures Doing What They Do Best. As someone who grew up with Star Wars toys, the toys that introduced me to the joys of scale replicas and obsessive collecting, I'm amazed at how good these toy pictures are. I don't know if Pete is a professional photographer or not, but his inspired usage of lighting, focus, color and object placement in each photo reflects a talented eye for photography--a very impressive feat, considering that most of Pete's subjects are less than four inches high.

Click the link above to go to Pete's site to see all of his photos, and you can also click here to read an interview with him on the Galactic Awesome blog site. Pete also let me post a few of his pictures here (such as the above picture of Darth Vader); click below for a small gallery of some of his work, as well as a few thoughts about how Kenner used photography when it first launched its Star Wars action figure line.

When I started collecting Star Wars toys when I was just a wee lad, what struck me the most about them were wide variety of color. The original 12 figures were painted in a bold spectrum of colors, such as silver, blue, gold, yellow, gray, tan, white, black, auburn and brown. The second wave of figures, which largely consisted of droids and cantina aliens, expanded the palette to include green, orange, red and navy blue. To emphasize the figures' colors, early photos of the action figures that appeared on the figures' cardbacks and in the mini-catalogs that came with the Star Wars toys were individual photos of each figure. Each photo had a different background in order contrast and highlight the figure's coloring. The picture below is the closest thing I could find to what these early photos looked like.

A vintage Kenner Star Wars mini-catalog, courtesy of Plaid Stallions.

Kenner stopped doing individual photos during the action figure releases for The Empire Strikes Back, opting instead to do a single photo of all of the figures against a bright yellow or dull blue background. Thankfully, Pete's photos put the color and creativity back into the vintage Kenner figures from the entire original Star Wars trilogy. As you can see in the gallery below, he occasionally places them with the vehicles that Kenner designed and sold for the figures; needless to say, these figure and vehicle pics far exceed the kinds of photos Kenner used to sell its Star Wars merchandise.

Who Can Kill a Child? Movie Review

Killer kids rank as one of the most frequently used shock gimmicks in horror movies. Titles such as The Bad Seed, The Devil Times Five, The Omen, Children of the Corn and Orphan have milked this idea repeatedly, sometimes even basing an entire franchise on it. Yet very rarely do filmmakers use this plot device to make a larger point--such as how society is repeatedly failing its young in the face of modern, industrialized warfare. Such is the theme of Who Can Kill a Child? (a.k.a. Island of the Damned), a 1976 shocker that was written and directed by Narciso Ibáñez Serrador.

Serrador was no stranger to horror when he did Who Can Kill a Child?. Even though he has done much more work for television during the course of his career, he previously directed the gothic thriller The House That Screamed (read my review of that film here), which demonstrated his thorough understanding of the horror genre. With Who Can Kill a Child?, Serrador takes the plot device of homicidal children and places it in the context of the most brutal military conflicts, from World War II to the Vietnam war, thus creating a revenge story of sorts. In other words, Serrador uses his movie to speculate what would happen if children would one day rise up in unison to overthrow their greatest enemy: adults. The resulting film is very unsettling, leaving other killer kid movies look quite tame (if not outright hokey) by comparison. Read on for my complete review.

Who Can Kill a Child? opens with real footage of the child casualties from several military conflicts between the 1930s and 70s. A narrator details each conflict, emphasizing how the children died (severe injury, starvation, execution, and/or death by close proximity to battle) and the estimated number of child deaths per each conflict. Then the opening credits roll, which is followed by the introduction of a British couple Tom and Evelyn (Lewis Fiander and Prunella Ransome) who are on vacation in Spain before the arrival of their next child. Tom wants to take Evelyn to Almanzora, a small island of the coast of Spain, so they can get away from the noisy, large crowds on the mainland. Yet when the couple arrives at Almanzora, it appears to be deserted, with only a handful of children playing among the streets of the island's only town. As they explore the island and talk to the few adults they find, they realize that the children have come together to kill all of the adults on the island ... and that Tom and Evelyn will be next.

On its surface, Who Can Kill a Child? invites comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds and George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. All three films depict a reality that is on the verge of a complete meltdown, as if the universe has decided to turn itself on its head in order to purge itself of particular impurities. Each film does not provide a rational explanation for what is happening; in Who Can Kill a Child?, it's strongly implied that something supernatural or super-human is at work (particularly in light of how one of the adults dies) but nothing is made certain. What sets Serrador's story apart from a widespread zombie plague or inexplicable animal frenzy is its emphasis on adult society's hypocritical attitude on human-on-human violence. Society simultaneously abhors such violence as inhumanely immoral and yet accepts it--on gigantic, international scales, no less--as a political inevitability. By the same token, society claims to cherish and protect children, yet children are among the highest casualties whenever war and famine occur.

The closest comparison I can make between Who Can Kill a Child? to other titles would be Village of the Damned and William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Its supernatural aspects are reminiscent of Damned, while its connection between war and children is reminiscent of Lord of the Files. Golding set his story against the backdrop of war, to demonstrate how children are just as doomed to engage in organized violence as their progenitors; in contrast, Serrador has the children engaging in organized violence in retaliation against those who are supposed to protect them from such evil.

For as heavy-handed as this film may sound with its explicit opening, Serrador makes it work--in fact, the film wouldn't work nearly as well without it. The characters of Tom and Evelyn provide the necessary human element to an absolutely unthinkable situation. They struggle to accept what is happening around them and even after they do, they still go out of their way to avoid harming the children in the futile hope that some of them might still be normal. In contrast, the children seem aware of this internal conflict within the adults and toy with them repeatedly: There are several scenes where they could easily attack and kill the visiting couple, but they don't. The children also don't exhibit any emotional signs of aggression; no matter how monstrous their actions are, they still laugh, smile and play like normal children. Overall, the situation on the island of Almanzora is a dark, warped reflection of the wars seen in the film's opening footage: Whereas Tom and Evelyn are justified in fighting against and sometimes killing the children to protect themselves but hesitate to do so, actual wars aren't waged for the purpose of attacking defenseless children but they wind up killing hundreds of thousands of them anyway without pause.

Serrador amplifies his film's inherently bleak mood by having most of it take place entirely in broad daylight. Not only does this reinforce the feeling of desolation on Almanzora, but it also emphasizes the brazen, unrestrained attitude of the murderous children. They don't need the darkness of the night to provide cover in their attacks against Tom and Evelyn--they want to be sure that the panicked couple can see everything they do. As with The House That Screamed, Waldo de los Ríos provides yet another memorable score that complements Serrador's mastery of suspense.

Who Can Kill a Child? is the most intense killer kid movie I've ever seen. It's one of those rare horror films that lets the mood build throughout its entirety and never stoops to the repetitive, graphic shocks that are commonplace in cheap, grindhouse-style horror to keep itself running. From its ominous opening to its chilling conclusion, Who Can Kill a Child? is film for horror fans who appreciate tales of unrelenting dread.

Classic Movie Monsters Terrorize Toy Fair 2012!

Well, the annual Toy Fair has come and gone yet again. There were many familiar licenses present at this year's event, including Star Wars, DC and Marvel superheroes, and revived 80s-era toy lines such as G.I. Joe, He-Man, Thundercats, Transformers and Voltron. Yet among these popular titles were a few faces from Hollywood's classic creature features, thanks to Diamond Select.

I've already posted about how Lego is including classic movie monsters as part of its kit sets, and I mentioned how Diamond Select was continuing its Retro Cloth Universal Monsters line as part of the ongoing legacy of the Mego Corporation. Yet when I was looking through the comprehensive Toy Fair 2012 photo galleries on the Cool Toy Review site, I was very pleased to see that Diamond Select has much more in store for classic movie monster lovers in 2012. Click below to learn more about why you should be saving your money for this fantastic new items, along with pictures that were provided courtesy of Cool Toy Review.

I may have grown up with the Star Wars saga and the superheroes of the DC and Marvel universe, but nothing brings a smile to my face quite like whenever a toy company decides to pay tribute to the creature features of yesterday by releasing high-quality replicas of their titular monsters. (If anything, classic movie monster toys certainly deserve as much attention among fantasy, horror and sci-fi collectors as the umpteenth action figure, statue, bust, or model kit of Darth Vader, Batman, and Spider-Man.) Diamond Select already released high-quality action figures of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and each of those figures came with equally impressive accessories. As you can see from the pictures below from Cool Toy Review, this year's selection will include the Phantom of the Opera, Quasimodo, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (two separate figures), and creatures from B-movie classics such as This Island Earth and The Mole People.

It should be noted here that Diamond Select is also releasing figures from yet another tribute to classic movie monsters: Mad Monster Party, a 1967 stop-motion animated film by Rankin/Bass Productions.

Click here to see all of Cool Toy Review's coverage of Toy Fair 2012.

Trailer Thursday: The Amazing Spider-Man

Here's the newest trailer for the Spider-Man reboot. I can't really see how the Lizard is going to be a strong enough villain to carry the whole film by himself, but I'm still willing to give it a look.

Nerd Rant: To See or Not To See The Phantom Menace in 3D

I sense a three dimensional disturbance in The Force.

I love 3D movies, I love Star Wars, and I love the special effects work done by George Lucas-backed companies such as Industrial Light and Magic. However, I have no desire to see the re-release of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 3D. The reason is simple: Based on several reviews I've read, the converted Phantom Menace movie doesn't take full advantage of the new dimension it is supposed to have. It ranked fourth during its first weekend at the box office but I doubt that's enough to justify the cost of converting just one film to 3D, let alone six. Furthermore, if Phantom Menace falls off the top ten list this upcoming weekend, then the future of a complete Star Wars saga in 3D is more doomed than Alderaan.

What gives? This is George Lucas we're talking about here. If there's anyone in Hollywood who has easy and ready access to the latest special effects technology, it's him--and yet Phantom Menace didn't get a decent conversion to 3D? Really?

Naturally, I'm severely disappointed that the Star Wars 3D movie experience that was supposed to be probably won't happen at all. Yet the real reason why I am posting this rant is that deep, deep down inside of my little geeky heart, I'm hoping that someone will give the high-definition 3D treatment to one or more of the older anaglyph 3D classics, classics such as House of Wax and Dial M for Murder. Thus, I'm sure that the box office performance of re-released, 3D-converted titles such as Phantom Menace will have an impact on whether or not that happens. After carefully considering what has happened so far, I think that this could very well be the first time that Lucas' technological savvy has been trumped ... by Disney. Click below to learn about how the House of Mouse has beaten The Flanneled One to the 3D punch.

To be fair, while Lucas has invested a lot in advanced film production technology, Disney has plenty of experience when it comes to distributing their products. Add to that Disney's large catalog of titles, and it becomes clear that it takes more than technological sophistication and a huge built-in fan base to make 3D conversions profitable.

I think that Lucas' mistake is twofold: that the 3D conversion was lackluster and that he released it within months of the Blu-ray release of all six Star Wars movies--and less than two months after the Christmas shopping season, when I'm sure plenty of fans got their Star Wars Blu-ray sets. If you already have a Blu-ray player and a high-def TV, then there's no reason to pay extra cash for a disappointing 3D conversion when you can watch crystal-clear copies of the Star Wars movies (as well as the hours of bonus features that came with them) in the comfort of your own home. Even if you don't own the Star Wars Blu-rays yet, you'd be better off saving your money to get them than to spend it on higher-priced tickets for a 3D experience that doesn't deliver.

In contrast, Disney has been tinkering around with 3D for years by now, both with first-run 3D releases and 3D conversions. Its conversions include Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Each time Disney re-releases a converted title, the distribution plan adheres to the same strategy: The title is released in theaters for a limited engagement, which is quickly followed by the release of the title on 3D Blu-ray. This strategy has worked quite well for Disney so far, although it's not the only way to do it. For example, Dreamworks converted its 2D Shrek movies to 3D and then released them on 3D Blu-ray without bothering with theatrical re-releases.

Regardless of which release pattern is followed, each would fail if the 3D conversion process didn't yield impressive results. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the most successful 3D conversions all happen to be animated. CGI animated movies are easier to convert to 3D than another other film, but that doesn't explain the successful conversions of 2D hand-drawn animated features and stop-motion features. Without knowing the exact processes and technology involved, it seems that the less moving elements there are on the screen the easier it is to convert it to 3D. The animation in Lion King and Nightmare Before Christmas is gorgeous, but none of their scenes are nearly as busy as an action scene from a Star Wars film--and there I believe is where the problem lies.

It could very well be that the 3D conversion process--at least for the immediate future--should strictly be limited to the domain of animation. If Lucas really wanted to enter the 3D movie arena, he should have taken a feature-length story arc from the CGI animated Clone Wars TV series, convert it into 3D, and then release it on 3D Blu-ray with a few behind-the-scenes featurettes. Yet even if 3D conversion is limited to animation, that shouldn't rule out the conversion of older, live-action films that were already shot in the 3D into a superior 3D format.

In summary: Disney can keep doing what it does in 3D because it does it well. But for Lucas, James Cameron and all of the other filmmakers who want to convert their older movies into 3D, I can only say this: Don't. There are many older films that I would love to see in 3D (click here to see my 3D conversion wish list) but please, please, please wait for the technology to catch up--even if it means waiting for the conversion of movies into holograms if that's what it takes. In the meantime, work on updating movies that were already shot in 3D, movies that were ahead of their time and are long overdue for a comeback.

Now ... who's finally going to release a high-def double feature Creature from the Black Lagoon/Revenge of the Creature 3D Blu-ray set?