Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

DOES LOVING FANTASY MEAN I HAVE TO ROMANTICIZE THE PAST?

Can I make a confession? As much as I love fantasy, one part of the genre has always kind of bugged me:

The romanticization of the past.

I mean, I’m fine with romanticizing the past as, well, fantasy. In our era of media assault and cultural crudeness, who doesn’t smile at the idea of a simpler time, with sausages sizzling in the marketplace and a little stone cottage at the edge of a babbling brook with a pot of stew simmering over a roaring fire?

But, of course, that “past” never existed.

At all.

That’s pure fantasy. The reality is that, until just the last century and excepting for a lucky few — like royalty and people who lived in places of lush bounty like Pacific Islanders — human life has been a pretty miserable existence, at least by modern standards. The “past” had almost no safeguards or safety nets and, as a result, depended entirely on everything going absolutely right. Because if there was a famine or a war or an outbreak of disease — which happened a lot — things got really ugly really fast.

And even when times were good? The past was rife with ugly superstition, overwhelming bigotry, and plain old human ignorance. Who’s talking cultural crudeness now? And as for assaults, I’ll take a media assault over an actual one any day of the week.

I’m not saying anything particularly radical or extraordinary here. Talk to any historian, and he or she say exactly the same thing: for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of places, life was short and not-all-that sweet.

For the most part, I’m fine with pretending this isn’t true, or even simply agreeing to concentrate mostly on the positive aspects of the past — the stronger sense of community and, as a result, the accountability; the appreciation of tradition and cultural continuity; and the recognition that old people are not worthless and sometimes possess great wisdom and understanding.

But, of course, even here, all these “positive” aspects of the past had serious downsides as well: namely, a resistance to change and a lack of nimbleness, even in the face of obviously changing times. What if you want to argue that slavery is immoral, or that a women shouldn’t be consigned only to child-rearing and housework, or that gay people shouldn’t be burned at the stake?

Um, good luck with that.

But a lot of fantasy writers take it a step further even than this romantization of the past, and seem to be arguing that, with regard to human knowledge and understanding, the past was better too — that there is some great “wisdom of the ancients” or a “time of fairies” that has been lost, and that our current knowledge and understanding of the world just pales in comparison.

I’m so not down with this.

Okay, sure, I acknowledge that there is definitely some great wisdom in the past — especially in “advanced” cultures like the Ancient Greeks, the Chinese, the Islamic Golden Age, and the like.

And there is surely some “forgotten” wisdom too, perhaps in pagan peace-loving cultures that were tragically destroyed and suppressed by more war-inclined ones.

But superior to the modern world?

As bad as the present is — and I’m semi-convinced that corporations will ultimately be the death of us all — I still prefer it over the past.

It’s not even close.

Yes, there were surely some wise sages back then — but there are wise sages now. Read any Ursula Le Guin lately? And if we’re going to compare the “best” cultures of the past, isn’t it only fair to compare them to the “best” cultures of the present? Been to any Scandinavian countries lately? I defy you not to be impressed by their ingenuity, egalitarianism, and, well, civilization.

The past, meanwhile, was mostly an endless slog against superstition and ignorance.

Is it possible that there was a true “golden” age that existed before known civilization? A time of faeries?

Eh, maybe. But we haven’t found much evidence of it, and based on what we do know about the past, and about our species, it doesn’t seem very likely.

You know, I get that this isn’t necessarily a “literal” belief, that it’s all basically a wish, a metaphor for a particular world-view — the idea that “now,” that the modern world, is failing us all, morally and spiritually.

But I think it’s the metaphor that I’m most objecting to. When I look at human history, I see plenty to disgust and outrage me — just as when I look at the modern world.

But you know what? I also see a mostly steady, upward trajectory for our species: from blind superstition and ignorance, to increasing understanding and reason. From ignorance to enlightenment.

I know this is (very generally) the world-view of the science fiction genre, while fantasy tends to be much more critical of the present and suspicious of the future. Optimism in humanity and the future versus pessimism and a worship of the past.

And that kinda bums me out: I love fantasy, but my particular world-view seems to coincide more with sci-fi.

Is there a way to reconcile my two passions?

There is, but it’ll have to be the subject of another essay.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

TWO FANTASY MOVIES CLEARLY DESERVE TO BE NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE

Over a year ago, I wrote an article asking if the current “renaissance” in animated movies was possibly coming to an end.

We now know the answer: absolutely fricking not! 

This year saw the release of two animated movies, Toy Story 3 and Tangled, that are among the best the medium has ever released.

The year also saw a number of other animated movies that, while not close to being in the same league, were also pretty good: How to Train Your Dragon, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole, and (to an even lesser degree) Shrek: Forever After.

Interestingly, all these movies were fantasy-themed.

And even more interestingly, most of these animated movies were considerably better than the year’s live-action fantasy movies. Twilight: Eclipse? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1? Alice in Wonderland? The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World?

Please. And don’t get me started on the monstrosity that was the Clash of the Titans remake.

Boy, is the animation renaissance not yet over!

But Toy Story3 and Tangled aren’t just two of the best movies in the fantasy or animated genres: they’re also clearly two of the best movies of the year.

They both deserve to be nominated for Oscars — and I don’t mean Best Animated Feature Oscars (though they’ll obviously get those nominations too).

I mean Best Picture Oscars — especially now that they’ve expanded the category to include ten nominees, up from five.

Will they be nominated?

Toy Story 3 almost certainly will be: Pixar is beloved by Academy members (much the way their now-corporate parent, Disney, used to be).

But Tangled seems like a much, much longer shot.

Why? In part, because of Toy Story 3’s seeming “lock” on a nomination: there may be an attitude, unconscious or not, that animated movies only deserve one slot among the ten nominees.

I also don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that the Academy, which is comprised of established industry professionals (who tend to be both older and male), probably has something of an anti-”princess” (and kids’ movie) bias, and perhaps an outright anti-female bias. They definitely have an anti-”genre” bias, displaying a long track record that clearly indicates that they think “drama” is more important and award-worthy than anything sci-fi or fantasy.

Toy Story 3 seems to have threaded the needle perfectly: it doesn’t “seem” like straight fantasy or an outright kids’ movie. And, sure enough, both the humor and theme work on several levels: simple enough to appeal to kids, but with subtext and subtle cultural references that also appeal to (smart) adults.

And I can’t begrudge Toy Story 3 its success: it’s a flat-out terrific movie — the first wholly successful movie Pixar has produced in years, IMHO.

But Tangled is flat-out terrific too — simultaneously old-fashioned and contemporary, with a terrifically original visual look. Like Toy Story 3, it also appeals to both kids and adults.

Even apart from the Oscar race, the release of these two movies (and the year’s other fine animated movies) gives me reason for great optimism when it comes to film: at least I now know that Hollywood can still produce quality “popular” entertainment when it wants to.

Now if the town would only apply some of this obvious ingenuity to its live-action movie offerings — and stop their creativity-destroying reliance on remake, sequels, and “re-imaginings.”

Yeah, I know that’s crazy talk. But hey, a guy can dream!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

NO, VIRGINIA, THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS

Okay, I’m going to confess something that’s sure to make me very unpopular with many readers.

If my kid asked me if Santa Claus was real, I’d absolutely say no. I feel that if a kid is old enough to ask, he or she is old enough to know the truth.

Yes, I realize this is making me sound like Ebeneezer Scrooge, but hear me out.

I’ve heard all the arguments about how believing in Santa Claus makes Christmas “magical,” and how innocence is a fragile thing that must be maintained at all costs.

But is that really true? Is Christmas really any less magical when a gift is given not by some mythical being who is watching over you and granting the gift as a reward for your “good” behavior, but by someone you love, carefully chosen to express that love?

As for preserving innocence, is there anyone among us who would deliberately want important information withheld from us, so we stay happier? Maybe so, but not me. Anyway, when someone specifically asks a trusted adult for the truth, there’s an expectation that that adult will actually give him or her the truth.

Sure, use age-appropriate language! But to lie outright? That seems to me to just invite either simple-mindedness (”The lesson here is it’s better to not ask questions in order to maintain your illusions”) or cynicism (”They lied to me about that — what else are they lying about?”). And don’t tell me a five-year-old isn’t aware enough to pick this up.

For the record, I’m (mostly) completely serious about this.

“But Santa Claus isn’t a lie!” you might be saying, citing that famous 1897 editorial in the New York Sun.

“Yes,Virginia, there is a Santa Claus,” the editorial states. “He exists as certainly as love and devotion and generosity exist.”

Sure, love and devotion and generosity exist — along with the human imagination, which the essay also pays homage to (”You might as well not believe in fairies!”).

But whether love and devotion and imagination exist is not what Virginia is asking, now, is it?

She’s asking: is there a literal Santa Claus, a man in red suit with a bushy beard who comes down my chimney on Christmas Eve?

And the answer to that, of course, is no.

So why not say to a kid: “Santa Claus is an entertaining story we tell around the holidays. So he’s ‘real’ in the sense that the imagination is real — and what exactly is ‘reality’ anyway? But no, he doesn’t literally exist, not any more than Mickey Mouse or Bilbo the Hobbit exist.”

A kid won’t understand this? The thing is, all my life, people have been telling me what kids won’t or can’t understand. And most of the time, these people have been wrong. But in any event, why in the world would you deliberately want to dumb something down for your kid? Isn’t the point of being a parent to get your kid to aspire to be smarter and more sophisticated than he or she was the day before? Wouldn’t you want to reward your kid for being skeptical of those in authority and questioning the status quo?

Why do things have to be literally true for them to be beautiful and magical and meaningful anyway? We don’t insist that Dr. Seuss or Where the Wild Things Are are literally true — and they’re still pretty wonderful.

And I haven’t even touched upon the idea of the kind of moral framework the whole “Santa” thing is developing: be a good person not because of an empathetic awareness of other people and realization that humanity is all in this together, but because … well, you’ll get lots and lots presents!

Which brings me to the part of this essay where I lose even the few readers who are still with me (and yes, I realize I’m burying the lead!).

Part of what bugs me about teaching kids about Santa Claus is that it seems like a precursor to — an important building block in– a particularly immature brand of morality in general and religious belief in particular: the idea of God as an all-powerful magical being, watching and judging everything, and granting special favors to those who follow a set of existing black-and-white “rules.”

Whenever I hear a parent insisting to a child that Santa Claus is literally “real,” I always feel like the next step will be to replace The Man in the Red Suit with The Man with White Snowy Beard.

What’s wrong with that exactly? I guess I’m one of those who thinks that that immature kind of religious belief is the source of a very large percentage of the world’s problems — either inspiring misguided and often hateful zealots, or creating an equally scary group of people who, having rejected simple-minded religion, have no moral framework to replace it with and end up being evil in other ways.

Is this all too much to lay on Santa’s jolly’s shoulders? Maybe. But it’s what I think of every time I hear a parent insisting that Santa is “real,” even over their kid’s skeptical — and, to my mind, absolutely wonderful — objections.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

IT WAS INEVITABLE: WE NOW HAVE FANTASY-THEMED PORN

I confess that this week, I’m a little conflicted. As editor of this website, I naturally do a lot of web-surfing using variations of the word “fantasy.”

Um, yeah. You can imagine what kind of results I often get.

But interestingly, this week I found a result that was “fantasy” in both the porn and the swords-and-sorcery meaning of the word.

Elf porn. Or — more specifically — fantasy-themed porn.

First, a very strong warning: these links are very, very, very NSFW! Basically, it’s hard-core graphic porn.

Got that? Still interested? Okay, here you go.There’s WhoreLore: Swords, Sorcery, and Sex. And there’s BareMaidens.

There’s (a lot) more where that came from, but I think you get the general idea. For our gay male readers, there’s probably gay-themed fantasy porn too, but in general, straight men seem to be leading the way on this one.

And as I often do, I’m finding myself a little torn.

Part of me thinks, Well, hey, why not? Those of us who love fantasy, really love fantasy, so it makes sense we’d love it in all its, um, incarnations, right?

And more than anything, these sites seem to have a sense of humor. WhoreLore.com? That’s pretty funny. For me, nothing kills sex faster than not having a sense of humor about it. I mean, come on: sex often is funny — not in a snickering, giggly way, but in the sense that people can be so different in bed (or “wherever”) than they are in real life. Both sex and laughter are about celebrating life, so it seems natural to me that they should go together.

Furthermore, if you’ve been reading this site regularly, you know what I fan I am of author Jacqueline Carey — not just her storytelling skill, but the audacious notion of hers to bring sex and erotica into the sometimes-staid and old-fashioned (in the bad sense of the word) world of fantasy.

So where’s my ambivalence?

There’s always been a strain of deep, deep of sexism in the fantasy genre: in the art where women have long been sexual playthings of men, and, more depressingly, in the stories where women are either (a) basically non-existent, or showing up as passive objects to be rescued or protected, or beautiful, unattainable elven queens to offer comfort and advice, or (b) appearing as the sexual playthings of men.

Obviously, that’s changed enormously in the last twenty years. With the rise of Xena and Buffy and all the other strong female characters since then, women are now active players in the fantasy genre (although there’s still the whole Bella-in-Twilight thing, determined to drag us right back into the 19th century!).

But even today, fantasy stories are still usually written for and about men. And that’s not only unfair to women, it makes the genre more boring and repetitive and one-dimensional than it has to be. And that’s bad for everyone, female or male.

For me, “elf” porn — and, of course, it is all about women as sexual objects — is kind of a reminder of one of the things I really hate about fantasy. It’s ironic that people are producing fantasy-themed stories that mostly star women — but only so they can all have sex with each other.

But I’m thinking about this too much? Fantasy porn is what it is, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to watch.

Incidentally, I didn’t search to see if there is “dwarf” porn — not “dwarf” as in “little people,” but as in the bearded-and-muscled-female-warrior type. But I bet it’s there, isn’t there?

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

WHEN DID FANTASY STOP BEING ABOUT SWORDS AND SORCERY?

Whenever I tell people I edit a website devoted to fantasy-themed entertainment, they usually say the same thing: “Oh, wizards and sorcery and quests and stuff like that?”

Usually, I just nod and say, “Yup!”

But if I’m in the mood to give a more complicated answer (and if I think the listener actually wants to hear it!), I say, “Well, swords and sorcery are a part of it. But increasingly, traditional or ‘high’ fantasy is a smaller and smaller part of the genre. These days, it’s much more about contemporary or urban fantasy — anything that involves magic or the paranormal or supernatural in general. These days, most of the creative energy is around shows like Supernatural or vampire-themed projects like True Blood. If anything, swords and sorcery is becoming sort of the bastard stepchild to the genre.”

Let me pause here to say that I love swords and sorcery. It’s what drew me to the genre, and it’s still probably the fantasy sub-genre I love the most (indeed, this site and this column are named after it!).

But the fact is, when was the last time a “traditional” sword-and-sorcery fantasy project took the world, or even the geek world, by storm? Legend of the Seeker? We all know how that story ended up.

Sure, there’s George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Fire and Ice (soon to be an HBO series called A Game of Thrones). But that series’ claim to fame is its post-modern “realistic” bent — and its almost complete lack of magic. Spartacus: Blood and Sand, meanwhile, subverts the traditional genre with its explicit gore and (especially) its sex.

Harry Potter kept the sorcery — but put it in a traditional setting.

True, the Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia movie franchises are still going strong, but let’s face it: these projects are fueled, in large part, by nostalgia — by the desire of geeks like me to see their childhood passions finally fully realized on-screen, in a way they couldn’t be pre-CGI.

You can certainly still find high fantasy in fiction and in many video games — Dragon Age: Origins was deservedly a sensation. But you can also find plenty of urban and supernatural contemporary fantasy in both mediums as well.

Still, the swords-and-sorcery backlash became clear to me yet again last week when I was reviewing a new (pretty good) webseries called JourneyQuest. Basically, it’s a satire of all the traditional fantasy conventions, with the wizard, the warrior, and a villain all given modern, ironic sensibilities.

But when I was writing my review, it occurred to me that I’d been seeing this mock-the–traditional-fantasy-conventions premise a lot lately: last year’s Comedy Central series Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, and a long list of other recent webseries: The Legend of Neil, Doraleous and Associates, A Good Knight’s Quest, The Gamers, and The Guild.

Mocking fantasy conventions really isn’t anything new. I think a big part of the reason why Xena: Warrior Princess became  the sensation it did (especially compared to its originator Hercules: The Legendary Journeys) was because of its take-no-prisoners sense of humor (and its female protagonists for a change). There were no sacred fantasy cows on Xena, that’s for sure.

Meanwhile, the next swords-and-sorcery fantasy movie, Your Highness (coming in April 2011), is, of course, a fantasy-comedy, making fun of the genre.

What is it about traditional fantasy that is making people so eager to make fun of it?

Ironically, I kinda blame it on The Lord of the Rings — or at least the authors and fantasy enthusiasts who followed directly in Tolkien’s wake. Sure, the “fantasy” genre existed long before Tolkien, but it was Rings that basically ended up creating the modern fantasy genre: elves, dwarves, an all-powerful magic item, an evil force to be destroyed.

Lord of the Rings cast a long, dark shadow all through the 60s, 70s, and 80s — a shadow that was reinforced by the explosion of the D&D gaming culture where people basically acted out those Tolkien conventions over and over again. Before long, the template Tolkien had popularized almost became something sort of … sacred.

And let’s face it: in the hands of most 70s and 80s fantasy writers, these ossified conventions also became very predictable and very boring. Been there, done that, that’s for sure. Around 1989, I decided if I read about one more humble medieval farm-hand who was destined to save the world from yet another Big Bad, I was going to scream.

In short, the genre was ripe for implosion. Indeed, the genre wasn’t just ripe for implosion, it was actually sort of begging for it.

So cue the rise of fantasy reinventions like A Song of Fire and Ice and Xena: Warrior Princess, and the parodies like JourneyQuest and Krod Mandoon.

None of this is a bad thing. Fantasy is richer and more sophisticated than its ever been (IMHO). But sometimes I do think: wouldn’t it be nice to see another great work of traditional fantasy, without the irony, the parody, or the reinvention?

That’s when I remember: all those favorite fantasy works of my childhood still exist: all I have to do is cue them up on my DVD player or Kindle.

That fact that I don’t do it all that often — that I’d rather watch the latest episode of Supernatural or read the newest Jacqueline Carey book — makes me think: well, maybe I’ve moved on some too.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

THAT’S IT! I GIVE UP!

I’m never carving a Halloween pumpkin again! What’s the point? No matter what I do, no matter how great I try to make it, some internet a**hole has already done it fifty times better.

Okay, let’s back up a bit here, shall we?

Sitting on my counter right now is an uncarved pumpkin. I bought it last week at an actual pumpkin patch — more expensive than the supermarket, it turns out — and I’ve been thinking for a while now, “I need to carve that thing before Halloween rolls around.” So last night I brought it from the cold, thinking I’d do it today.

Then this morning, I wake up to see this all over the internet:

Yes, that’s right: it’s not just that cool “Death Star” pumpkin from a couple of years ago — it’s the frickin’ Death Star destroying Alderaan!

Now I grant that this is unbelievably cool and creative and all that.

It’s also completely obliterated, Death Star-like, any motivation I had to carve my own pumpkin. It’s sucked all the fun right out of the entire endeavor. Unfortunately, I don’t have fifty hours to spend on this project, not to mention a masters degree in gourd-sculpting.

Remember when you used to be able to wow your friends and neighbors with something like, say, this?

Fat chance these days. This is your competition now:

Let’s face it: no matter what I do, no matter how hard I try, it’s going to end up looking like s**t compared to that.

And it’s just going to get worse every year. Like a crack addict needs an ever-larger fix in order to achieve the same high, the internet requires its pumpkin-carvers to scale ever more impressive heights, at least if they want any shot at going viral. There is no end in sight.

It’s not a race I can win, or that I even want to participate in, because, well, I have a life.

So I won’t be carving a Halloween pumpkin this year, and probably not ever again — at least not until I have the time to take six hundred pumpkins and recreate the entire battle at Helm’s Deep, in stop-motion, no less.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at some element of the fantasy genre. You’ve been warned!

SHOULD DIRECTORS GET A “DO-OVER” ON THEIR MOVIES’ SPECIAL EFFECTS?

Last weekend, I watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture. For years, I was one of its few defenders, mostly because I really liked the twist about who “V-ger” turned out to be.

Well, I was wrong before. It’s pretty much a terrible movie. There’s, um, no story: it’s two and a half hours of the Enterprise flying into a cloud.

But I did notice one thing: the special effects were pretty darn good for 1979, when the movie was released.

Indeed, they looked a little too good.

Sure enough, upon a little investigation, I discovered that the director, Robert Wise (yes, the Sound of Music guy), did a “re-edit” in 2001, redoing most of the special effects with CGI. This is now the version that’s available on DVD.

This is a really, really bad idea.

Movies are moments in time: cultural snapshots. Everything about them — their pacing, their style of acting, and, yes, their special effects — reflects the time in which they were made. A couple of months ago, I watched the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie Total Recall, keeping in mind that its state-of-the-art (at the time) special effects were jaw-dropping.

Let’s just say they’re not jaw-dropping anymore. In fact, they’re downright laughable — especially the final scene when Schwarzenegger and Rachel Ticotin are outside on the planet without face-masks and their eyeballs start to burst.

And this was only 1990!

But seeing this was fascinating to me. In fact, this is a very large part of the pleasure of movies for me: seeing how times, and perspectives, change. This is impossible if the movie itself has changed since you watched it the first time. One of the great pleasures we derive from movies ceases to be.

Besides, special effects are constantly improving by leaps and bounds, and it’s a fool’s errand for a director to keep them updated. Where does it stop? Re-editing a movie every ten years?

Which, of course, brings us to Star Wars.

In 1997, George Lucas famously reedited the original trilogy, adding new (old) footage and GCI effects that he said were much closer to his original vision.

At the time, he said:

There will only be one [version]. And it won’t be what I would call the “rough cut,” it’ll be the “final cut.” The other one will be some sort of interesting artifact that people will look at and say, “There was an earlier draft of this.” The same thing happens with plays and earlier drafts of books. In essence, films never get finished, they get abandoned. At some point, you’re dragged off the picture kicking and screaming while somebody says, “Okay, it’s done.” That isn’t really the way it should work.

And at the time, I agreed with him enthusiastically. I loved the new edit. Wow, look how big Mos Eisley is now! Whoa, that’s a new scene of Jabba with Han next to the Millennium Falcon!

But like virtually every decision Lucas has made since about 1982, he just couldn’t have been more wrong, could he? Movies do get finished — they have to be. And that’s exactly the way it should work.

Why? Well, have you tried watching the 1997 re-edits lately? I have, and it’s the same great 1970s/1980s movies you remember — with a bunch of very incredibly outdated 1997 CGI thrown in.

In other words, special effects have since changed again, and now the movies look clunky. Not just that, they feel confused. Is this a movie from 1977? 1997?

Okay, sure, maybe it’s one thing to do another “cut” of the film, like James Cameron did with his 1996 version of Aliens, even adding back original footage that had to be cut for a theatrical release due to time constraints. In the case of Aliens, learning about Ripley’s dead daughter does make the movie much richer. Peter Jackson’s additions to The Lord of the Rings made those movies richer too.

And obviously these movies have to be re-mastered for Blu-Ray releases. Frankly, I respect these directors enough to let them tinker with their babies a bit — providing they keep the original look, tone, and internal consistency of the original movie.

But literally re-doing the special effects and completely changing scenes, as both George Lucas and Robert Wise did with their movies?

As trendy as it’s been, it’s a terrible idea. And as the years go by, it will become increasingly obvious just how terrible it is.

Well, this week’s flame has sputtered out, but join me again next time when I promise I won’t be nearly so cranky.

Oh, who am I kidding?!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at the week in fantasy. You’ve been warned!

IS IT THE DAWNING OF THE AGE OF FANTASY TELEVISION?

Things are suddenly looking pretty good out there on the fantasy television front, aren’t they?

• HBO has picked up A Game of Thrones, the series based on George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Fire and Ice books. Meanwhile, they set channel records with the second season of True Blood.
  
• Spartacus: Blood and Sand is an unqualified hit for Starz, the channel that this week picked up a mini-series based on the medieval cathedral-building novel The Pillars of the Earth.
  
• Supernatural and (especially) The Vampire Diaries are both hits for The CW, as is Smallville, which the network announced yesterday will be returning for an astounding tenth season.
• Warehouse 13, which set ratings records for SyFy last summer and fall, will be returning with new episodes this July.

Meanwhile, the disappointing or disastrous ratings for strictly sci-fi shows like V, Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, Dollhouse, Stargate: Atlantis, Flash Forward, and Fringe have some people questioning whether this all signals the “end” of TV science fiction (apart from “niche” channels like SyFy).

The networks themselves seem to be leaning that direction, with not a single strictly “science fiction” pilot even being developed for the fall season.

So are things different for fantasy? Do the above shows mean we’ve entered an era of “fantasy” TV dominance?

Not necessarily.

First, I think it’s unquestionably true the the success of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings has made fantasy more palatable to the masses. I also think the massive sales of fantasy books, especially in comparison to science-fiction, indicates that we have entered an age where fantasy-themed entertainment, long sci-fi’s “ugly stepsister,” will at least be more on parity with science fiction, if not soon surpass it.

But the fact is, all of the above fantasy shows are either syndicated, on cable, or on The CW — all outlets with much lower viewership that the broadcast networks that are broadcasting V, Flash Forward, and Fringe.

And except for NBC’s The Cape and ABC’s No Ordinary Family, both about would-be superheros, there are no fantasy or fantasy-esque pilots in development for the broadcast networks either.

In short, except for Lost, no TV genre show, science fiction or fantasy, is drawing massive, crossover ratings.

And the fantasy genre has seen its share of recent TV bombs, from Eastwick to Reaper to Merlin. At press time, word was just breaking that the syndicated fantasy show Legend of the Seeker would probably not be renewed for a third season.

Still, success on television is all about meeting, or exceeding, expectations, and while I’m disappointed by the loss of some solid sci-fi, I’m encouraged that the above-mentioned fantasy shows have found such vibrant, enthusiastic (if relatively small) audiences.

And I’m cautiously optimistic about future shows, both science fiction and fantasy, including Steven Spielberg’s unnamed Noah Wylie alien invasion project and Terra Nova, his dinosaur project, not to mention American remakes of the British shows Being Human and Torchwood.

THE IDIOT BOX

We may be back from the Olympics, but most fantasy-esque shows are still on hiatus.

Still, tonight brings a new episode of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, basically about Spartacus having to come to terms with the death of his wife in the last ep: does he give up, or does he finally really commit himself to his new life as a gladiator? After the intensity of last week, this is one is a little mellower — a little mellower, there are still a couple of shocking developments. But don’t get too comfortable; I’ve seen through episode nine, and there are some truly shocking things to come! (10 PM, Starz).

No new Legend of the Seeker this weekend, and nothing new on the Thursday night “fantasy/sci-fi TV death match” either.

Well, this week’s flame has sputtered out, but join me again next week when I promise I won’t be nearly so cranky.

Oh, who am I kidding?!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at the week in fantasy. You’ve been warned!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO US!

As hard as it is for me to believe it, TheTorchOnline.com is exactly one year old.

I started this site for two reasons: first, because most of the existing sci-fi/fantasy websites seemed to treat the two genres like they were the same thing (and usually gave short-shrift to fantasy). In my experience, while there’s obviously some overlap, most people have a clear preference: sci-fi or fantasy.

I like some sci-fi, but it’s not what makes me get up in the mornings. Fantasy is.

I wanted to create a place where fantasy aficionados were always welcome — a “House of Elrond,” if you will (except that domain was taken!) — and where we could look, in depth, at the genre across all mediums.

I was also frustrated because most of the other existing genre entertainment websites seemed to be just another part of the big internet echo-chamber, rewriting the latest article from Variety or Hollywood Reporter, or blindly repeating the latest casting rumor. If a site did any original reporting at all, well, I often wasn’t very impressed.

I wanted a site that did mostly its own original reporting. And sure enough, in the last year, we’ve interviewed some of the most interesting and influential people in the field of fantasy, including Lucy Lawless, Rob Tapert, Tamora Pierce, Anna Torv, Bridget Regan, Ted Raimi, Kevin Williamson, the cast of Chuck, Craig Horner, Dominic Monaghan, David Boreanaz, Anthony Stewart Head, Jacqueline Carey, the cast of Being Human, Lynda Carter, the cast of Warehouse 13, Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller, and many, many others.

We also broke several important stories, including the news that the Xena movie was dead.

And people have responded. We’ve gone from, well, zero visitors to tens of thousands every single week. Basically, this makes me think, “Okay, so maybe I wasn’t completely crazy.” There was room for TheTorchOnline.com, even on the insanely crowded landscape of the internet.

Along the way, I’ve been joined in my windmill-tilting by some pretty cool folks, people I’m proud to work with and showcase, including my ever-game associate editor, Tim O’Leary, who not only creates our hilarious Ensorceled webcomic — honestly, how did I not see that “The Father” was Papa Smurf?! — he also does our weekly episode reviews of both Spartacus and Legend of the Seeker, among many other chores.

Ninety-five percent of the 750 articles we’ve published in the last year were written by either Tim or me.

Yes, it was just us against the Black Riders internet!

Our newest addition to the staff is Heather Hogan. She’s only just begun to write for us, but I’ve been familiar with her work for other sites for years now, so trust me when I tell you that in a few months, you’ll be just as impressed by her talent as I already am.

And we’ve also been joined lately by two terrific freelancers, Jennifer Fitzgerald, who currently writes our Magic with an Accent column about British fantasy, and Ed Kennedy, who now writes (most of) our From the Palantir fantasy news round-ups.

Speaking of which, the site is currently in the process of a major expansion, so expect lots more coverage in the weeks and months to come.

God knows I’m not the perfect editor. In the frenzied rush to do way too much in way too little time, I’ve made a few mistakes — though I’ve always corrected them if possible. I also wish we had more coverage of fantasy gaming, both video and RPG. I’m working on it, but hey, there are only so many hours in a day.

Speaking of which, my fantasy-themed web-series is on hold too. No, seriously, I honestly thought I was going to be able to write and produce one in all my free time, and it could be “presented by” TheTorchOnline.com. Ohhhhh-kaaaaaay.

There was a point early on in this website when I said to myself, “Is there really enough fantasy-themed entertainment out there to devote a whole website to it?”

Ha! If you ever have any doubt about the mainstream fantasy resurgence that began in the 90s, and then exploded outward with the arrival of the Harry Potter books and The Lord of the Rings movies, trust me when I say: fantasy is bigger than ever. There is no end in sight to the current fantasy renaissance.

And I, idiot that I am, am nonetheless determined to cover it all.

Which means, of course, that it’s time for me to get back to work!

THE IDIOT BOX

It’s all-or-nothing, isn’t it? Either all the shows on television are in first-run, or none of them are.

Okay, that’s not entirely true. Tonight brings a new episode of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and it’s a really, really good one. If they’re going to defeat the uber-gladiator Theocoles, Spartacus and Crixus must join forces. Oh, and along the way, they apparently also have to wrestle naked (10 PM, Starz).

There’s also a new Legend of the Seeker this weekend where — nice! — Cara dies and agrees to become a baneling. Yikes! (syndicated, check local listings)

THE BOX OFFICE

The only fantasy-esque movie opening this week is Shutter Island, but still in theaters is The Wolf Man and Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (neither of which, it must be said, we liked very much).

On DVD this week is Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant (and that one pretty much stinks too).

Well, this week’s flame has sputtered out, but join me again next week when I promise I won’t be nearly so cranky.

Oh, who am I kidding?!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at the week in fantasy. You’ve been warned!

AND THE OSCAR DOESN’T GO TO…

Much has been made of the fact that the Oscar nominations were announced this week and, having had the number of Best Picture nominees raised from five to ten, three of the nominees turned out to be genre movies: Up, Avatar, and District 9 (four if you include Inglourius Basterds).

Others have rightfully pointed out that this really wasn’t that much of an achievement, since they were three (or four) wildly critically acclaimed films that also wildly exceeded their box office expectations — exactly the kind of movie that usually is nominated.

In other words, the Academy would have had to be really, really biased to ignore these films. And that is absolutely true.

It’s also true that while the Academy nominated these films for Best Picture, they pointedly ignored all the actors in genre films, notably Zoe Saldana in Avatar and Lorna Raver as the gypsy woman in Drag Me to Hell (who had buzz, but was probably always a very long shot).

Lorna Raver in Drag Me to Hell

My response: duh! Of course the Academy is biased against genre films! They’re a group of some 6000 older industry professionals, most of whom don’t work in, and obviously don’t appreciate, genre filmmaking.

And so what? This is precisely why genre aficionados have their own award ceremonies.

I happen to love the Oscars, but the thing that annoys me about them every year is how people ascribe these grand meanings to the Academy’s judgment — and nurse resentments over movies and performances they feel were “slighted.” Yes, they call it the “best” picture, but it’s all just someone’s opinion. How could any group of human beings make an objective, factual statement about anything as subjective as film? Isn’t that screamingly obvious?

One thing I don’t believe is that the voting is corrupt — that awards can be “bought,” that they’re not the genuine opinion of those involved. Yes, there’s politicking, yes, Academy members are swayed by “buzz,” and they probably also vote for and lobby for friends.

Still, I think you can make a good case that the Oscars generally honor pretty decent films — much of what most educated film-goers think of as the “best” for the year (although not usually my personal tastes).

And for the record, I’ve judged many award contests myself, and the one thing they all had in common is that the people involved take it very, very seriously. It’s like jury duty: from the outside, you think, “That’s crazy! People are morons!” But once you participate, your faith in your fellow human beings usually goes up a little, not down.

(All this said, I’m personally still a little tickled District 9 was nominated for Best Picture, since it was easily my favorite film of the year.)

DOES ANYONE REMEMBER JIM HENSON’S THE STORYTELLER?

With the news that SyFy is producing a series of fantasy films based on classic fairy tales and legends (the first of which, Beauty and the Beast, premieres on February 27th), I couldn’t help but be reminded of Jim Henson’s The Storyteller, a live-action/puppet hybrid series that starred John Hurt as the narrator (and, later, Dumbledore himself, Michael Gambon).

The show ran in 1988 as part of the failed The Jim Henson Hour (but won several Emmys anyway).

I loved this show!

In my opinion, one of the minor tragedies of the life of Jim Henson is that as he moved farther away from the Muppets, and closer to the fantasy themes that clearly spoke to him the most, his work became increasingly less popular with mainstream audiences (at least at the time of creation — much of the work, like The Dark Crystal and The Storyteller, has since become cult classics).

The irony is that I found his work here to be far richer and more sophisticated, and the puppetry far more impressive, than anything he ever did with The Muppets.

I haven’t seen The Storyteller in ages — why don’t I own this? — and I was a little worried it wouldn’t have held up. I don’t know why I was concerned. It’s amazing what they were able to do without CGI:

Looking to buy The Storyteller (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

THE IDIOT BOX

On Friday, Smallville goes all Watchmen as Clark tracks down the former members of the Justice Society of America, in a special “two-hour event” that co-stars Pam Grier. (Friday, 8 PM, The CW). Here’s the trailer:

This weekend, it’s a rerun of “Touched” (a decent episode) on Legend of the Seeker (syndicated, check local listings). And hey, I have an interview with Bridget Regan in the works!

On Tuesday, we have the last episode of The Jay Leno Show (10 PM, NBC). They thought this was going to save their network? Now that’s television fantasy!

On Thursday, we have the debut of a new show, Past Life, which is sort of paranormal Cold Case — detectives use past life regression to solve long-dead crimes. I’ll have a full review next week, but suffice to say, it’s pretty by-the-numbers (9 PM, Fox).

Also on Thursday, there are new episodes of The Vampire Diaries (8 PM, The CW) and Supernatural (9 PM, The CW), which has a Valentine’s Day ep entitled “My Bloody Valentine” about a real-life Cupid run amok (although the title is also a cheeky reference to the movie Jensen Ackles starred in last year. Get it?)

Well, this week’s flame has sputtered out, but join me again next week when I promise I won’t be nearly so cranky.

Oh, who am I kidding?!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at the week in fantasy. You’ve been warned!

“IT KNOWS WHAT SCARES YOU!”

I distinctly remember when Poltergeist came out in June of 1982. I went with my friends, loved it, and it instantly became one of my favorite movies of all time, despite the fact that I wasn’t (and am still generally not) a big fan of its producer, Steven Spielberg. (It’ll take a lot more Minority Reports for me to forgive him for A.I.!)

But interestingly, Spielberg’s directing magnum opus (at the time) E.T. came out one week after Poltergeist. I wasn’t a fan of the movie, which I found to mostly be treacly crap, but the rest of the world went nuts for it. What I remember about almost the whole year of 1982 was how everyone was raving about E.T. – Neil Diamond wrote a whole song about how frickin’ touched he was! — while I was frantically shouting to the heavens, “No, you idiots — E.T. was mediocre at best! But Poltergeist — now that was a brilliant movie!”

Yeah, I was that kid.

Anyway, the world completely ignored me (as it so often does). But I re-watched Poltergeist recently, and while the special effects are sadly dated — wow, we really thought that scene at the sink when he tears his face off looked cool?!? — I still think the movie more than holds up.

In fact, the irony is that, while E.T. may be considered much more of a “beloved classic,” I think Poltergeist ended up being far more influential.

Think about all the movie’s most indelible images: the toy clown in the bedroom, the tree that eats that kid, the chairs that slide across the kitchen, the quirky psychic, the ghost coming down the stairs, the swimming pool full of bodies, the theme of the soul-less suburbs, a complicated mythology of “the light” and “the other side,” and the house sucked into another dimension.

Sure, Poltergeist borrowed from movies that came before it. But every ghost or haunted house movie since Poltergeist has borrowed from it (or blatantly ripped it off).

Like Jaws, Poltergeist pretty much invented a whole genre — or at least mainstreamed a formerly B-movie one.

What did E.T. do? Well, it made a whole lot of little old ladies cry. And it gave us Drew Barrymore (though, for me, the jury is still out on that one).

Why do I bring this up? Zelda Rubinstein, the actress who played Tangina Barrons (to absolute perfection!), sadly died this week. Take a look at her saying some of her most memorable dialogue:

THROW THOSE BITCHES INTO A RANCOR PIT!

Question for you. You get up in the morning, and you have two choices:

• You can go have breakfast with some friends at Denny’s.

Or:

• You can travel to a completely alien world where human beings are capable of breeding “avatar”-like beings that can interact with the native occupants and can fly around floating mountains on dragon-like creatures.

Which would you choose?

I mean, come on? Is there really any choice?

Hey, I like having breakfast with my friends. We have good conversations, and there’s a place near where I live that makes great hash browns. Sometimes there’s even some interesting drama and tension between the people involved.

But here’s the thing: I can really have breakfast with my friends! I do it almost every Sunday!

In real life, I can’t travel to Pandora. So I ask again: when given the choice between a realistic story and fantastical one, why does anyone ever choose the realistic one?

Okay, sure, I like me a realistic drama now and then. The Hurt Locker is in my Netflix queue (but there’s a “very long wait,” apparently). I like to consider the human condition and all that.

But why can’t I do that while playing Dragon Age: Origins?

The complaint about fantasy and sci-fi is always: “But the characters are so cliche!”

Which, I admit, is sometimes true. But I think that’s just as true of “realistic” stories too.

When I read something as brilliant as George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Fire and Ice (at least until A Feast for Crows, where it all kind of went off the rails), I defy anyone to argue that fantasy can’t be just as sophisticated as realistic fiction.

The point is, you can have dragons and dinosaurs and magic and well-rounded characters and believable emotion!

Our own Tim O’Leary recently offered George Lucas some fantastic writing advice that I wish every writer would take to heart:

Once you have those truly great characters who we empathize with, feel connected to, care about, and want to see succeed, then throw those bitches into a rancor pit!

Could! Not! Agree! More!

But then, hey, I founded this site, so it kinda follows I’d think that, right?

THE IDIOT BOX

On Friday, we’ve come to the end of the line for Dollhouse, which has its series finale. Cheekily entitled “Ephitet 2,” it picks up the events of last season’s “lost” 13th episode that was then thought  to be the series finale. (Friday, 8 PM, Fox).

Also on Friday, we’ve got another episode of Caprica , which I’m told by folks I trust is better than last week’s premiere (Friday, 9 PM, SyFy). And Lucy Lawless finally gets some screen-time on Spartacus: Blood and Sand (Friday, 10 PM, Starz). Expect to see more of Lucy than you ever thought you would!

This weekend, there’s a new episode of Legend of the Seeker (syndicated, check local listings).

On Saturday, SyFy has an original movie called Meteor Storm. This, along with cheddar and pepper jack, is the kinda cheese I like! (Saturday, 9 PM, SyFy).

On Tuesday, “The Beginning of the End,” will bring Lost viewers up-to-date on the last five seasons for the upcoming series finale (Tuesday, 8 PM, ABC).

On Thursday, there’s a new The Vampire Diaries (Thursday, 8 PM, the CW) and a Supernatural in which Sam and Dean go back in time to stop someone else who has gone back in time to make sure Sam is never conceived, to prevent him from becoming Lucifer’s vessel. Does that make sense? (Thursday, 9 PM, The CW)

Also on Thursday is the Fringe “Winter Season Finale” — yeah, I’m not quite sure what that means either, but I think it means there won’t be any new episodes until spring. Frankly, I’m on the verge of boycotting this show completely for two reasons: (1) Walter was apparently intimately involved in every experimental research project ever conducted, and then forgot all about it (at least until he “remembers” mid-way through each episode), and (2) last week’s episode, which was perhaps the most scientifically-stupid sci-fi I think I’ve ever seen. Walter identifies a nonsensical “intelligent” virus, and then creates a “cure” out of horseradish horseradish! — all in about thirty minutes, with no lab equipment?!?!?! Waiter, check please. (Thursday, 9 PM, Fox).

Well, this week’s flame has sputtered out, but join me again next week when I promise I won’t be nearly so cranky.

Oh, who am I kidding?!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Back again for another highly opinionated — some might even say downright cranky — look at the week in fantasy. You’ve been warned!

COULD THE HOBBIT SUCK?

With the news (since shot down) that Tobey Maguire is once again the front-runner to play Bilbo in The Hobbit, I’m starting to get this sinking feeling that the movie, if it ever actually happens, will end up being a massive disappointment.

It’s not just a question of sky-high expectations — my expectations for The Two Towers and The Return of the King were just as high, and both those movies actually (far) exceeded them.

Then again, those weren’t your usual sequels. The Lord of the Rings may have been released over three years, but it was, of course, conceived and mostly filmed at one time. In many ways, it was “one” movie.

And let’s face it: with all the delays and lawsuits, and now these endless, pointless casting rumors, The Hobbit movies are starting to feel like the never-ending health care debate in the U.S.: no matter what happens now, everyone is going to end up disappointed and cranky.

But in retrospect, at least when it comes to health care, that disappointment was probably inevitable. There are simply too many hopes and dreams (and masters to serve and pipers to pay) for it to have not ended up this way.

I hope I’m wrong, but I think the same could be true for The Hobbit.

Yes, I understand that most of the key players involved in The Lord of the Rings will be involved with The Hobbit. On paper, you have to admit, “There’s no way these movies can suck! They just have to do exactly what they did before! How hard is that?”

But it’s when you start to think like that, of course, the universe really sticks it to you. On “paper,” there’s no way a Peter Jackson version of King Kong could disappoint either, but we all know how that turned out.

The same goes for George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford re-teaming to make a new Indiana Jones movie after all these years — and, again, we all know how Kingdom of the Crystal Skull turned out.

The older I get, the more I think that art expresses a feeling and, more importantly, a moment in time (for both the creator and the viewer).

It’s impossible to recreate a moment in time. It simply can’t be done. You might create a new, maybe better moment, but you simply can’t go back to that which is already past. The fact that each moment is totally unique and transitory is part of what makes “time” special.

I think smart artists recognize this and always try to move forward, never even trying to recreate an artistic triumph of the past. The few successful movie sequels (or prequels), like Aliens, completely rethink the premise of the franchise — but, of course, that’s hard for anyone to do successfully, much less the filmmaker who originated a franchise and had such success the first time around.

Can Peter Jackson do it again? Does it help that Guillermo Del Toro, not Peter Jackson, is directing? (Despite my initial disappointment, the further we get from that announcement, the more I think this was an excellent decision. I think this at least gives us a shot at greatness.)

Anyway, I want to believe The Hobbit movies will be great, I really do. But I confess, I’m losing faith.

HEY, HE’S A MODERN-DAY DA VINCI!

A friend sent me a link to the website of a fantasy-esque artist named John Pitre.

His art isn’t bad, but his website is so over-the-top that it kinda has to be read to be believed. It calls him a “visionary” at the top of every page and has a bio that brags that one of his inventions was featured in “one of TV’s most successful infomercial” and refers to him as a “modern-day DaVinci.”

For one thing, it’s spelled “da Vinci,” not “DaVinci,” which is a hint that he may not be replacing the original Renaissance man just yet.

Here are some of John’s works:

Now that I think about it, maybe if “DaVinci” were alive, he would be involved with infomercials! Hey, a guy’s gotta eat.

Not surprisingly, I get over-hyped press materials like this all the time. I guess a lot of publicists think journalists will read them and think, “Wow, if this press release says it, it must be true! I’ll just mindlessly repeat this in my article!” When, of course, the exact opposite is true, and we usually end up writing snarky posts like this.

THE ALICE IN WONDERLAND HYPE MACHINE KICKS INTO OVERDRIVE

Here’s a (very) short featurette about the character of The Mad Hatter in Tim Burton’s upcoming Alice in Wonderland. As always, it looks like it’ll be visually incredible:

THE IDIOT BOX

On Friday, most programming is being preempted by the Hope For Haiti telethon, but there are two premieres: the two-hour Battlestar Galactica prequel Caprica (9 PM, SyFy). I thought it started strong, but then got way too bogged down in character introduction and world set-up. I’m told things get better in eps three and four (in the next few weeks), but I don’t think I’ll be sticking around to find out. (I’m generally sort of anti-prequel to begin with, a feeling that was forever confirmed by The Phantom Menace.)

Also premiering on Friday, of course, is Spartacus: Blood and Sand (10 PM, Starz). Here’s what we thought of the series, but for the record, I thought the pilot was (by far) the weakest of the four episodes I’ve seen. It makes it seem much more conventional than it actually is.

This weekend, there’s a new episode of Legend of the Seeker (syndicated, check local listings).

On Thursday, there’s a new The Vampire Diaries (8 PM, the CW), Fringe (9 PM, Fox), and Supernatural (9 PM, The CW). In the latter, Sam switches bodies with a teenage nerd, who enjoys his handsome new body while “Sam” is stuck dealing with intrusive parents. Sounds funny, but I confess: I’m surprised by how many “funny” episodes they’ve already done this season.

Oh, and if anyone is curious to hear what I sound like, I’m a guest this week on Alpha Waves Radio’s podcast, talking about how “gay” the would-be American remake of Torchwood is (or isn’t) likely to be.

THE BOX OFFICE

Two fantasy movies open this weekend: The Tooth Fairy and Legion. I was curious as to why I hadn’t been invited to a press screening for the latter, and it turns out they didn’t do press screenings. That is a sure sign that the movie almost certainly stinks. I was going to catch a midnight showing tonight for a early-morning review, but you know what? Since I’m certain it’ll suck, I’m thinking I’ll just skip it.

The Tooth Fairy was screened, but it’s getting terrible reviews, so I’m thinking I’ll skip that one too!

Well, this week’s flame has sputtered out, but join me again next week when I promise I won’t be nearly so cranky.

Oh, who am I kidding?!

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.