Just learned about Expendables 3 (in filming, apparently)

The new cast for the third film really caught my eye! Also, the conspicuious abscence of Charisma Carpenter, which I will research when time allows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333784/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4

The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were action-packed, ultra-violent, bloody films especially notable for their amazing cast, which stated out with Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, and a dazzling host of others, and the precious Charisma Carpenter. Brief cameos were contributed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis.

Expendables 2 brought basically everyone back, plus brought in two big names, Walker, Texas Ranger (Chuck Norris) and martial arts hero Jean-Claude Van Damme. An expanded role was given to Schwarzenegger.

You'll notice that all these "big names" are action stars with a impressive reputation. That is the point. These movies are not anything artful or meaningful. They are impressive, and designed as well oiled cash-engines. They are serving that purpose rather well.

At the time, I complained that they had missed some of the perfect cast members, and Mel Gibson was on that list. Now, he is in this third incarnation, so I have some hope for the others perhaps. They have added Wesley Snipes, which will excite many people. I never thought of Antonio Banderas or Harrison Ford specifically, but they are rather appropriate for the style of the movie and in fact add to the eccentric mix. Kelsey Grammer, on the other hand, I had never imagined in such a movie, except I would imagine he could play an unsympathetic by-the-book aloof lawyer quite well, and perhaps that is his role. Personally, I hope he has a role which stretches the range of his acting skill (I doubt that will happen with the money-fiends sapping the actors' reputations for all they are worth). That would be the only reason (I can see right now)to make this movie worth seeing this in the theater, aside from social reasons.

Two action stars that are shamefully omitted are Samuel L. Jackson and Malcolm McDowell. If either one is brought in for a fourth, or the return of Charisma Carpenter, I will have a new reason to visit the franchise in the theater and pay good money.

Note: I just found this on Kelsey Grammer
http://www.deadline.com/2013/09/kelsey-grammer-joins-beefcake-brigade-in-the-expendables-3/
I may have to look up the YouTube trailer for Transformers: Age of Extinction
And on Banderas:
http://www.latina.com/entertainment/movies/antonio-banderas-joins-expendables-3#axzz2iJWF5ZC4
And one of the best-all-over finds:
http://www.liveforfilms.com/2013/08/30/first-look-at-arnie-harrison-ford-on-the-set-of-the-expendables-3/

Doing my research on Charisma: still unclear: but I get the feeling she is not in the film.
http://www.parade.com/28266/erinhill/0818-charisma-carpenter-the-expendables/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma_Carpenter
http://expendables.wikia.com/wiki/The_Expendables_3
http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Statham,_Jason/Videos/?vxChannel=&vxClipId=&clip_id=cSffPT9OEtH5k1taOiyjTQ&video_title=The+Expendables+-+Exclusive+Interview+With+Charisma+Carpenter
?!? http://www.latina.com/entertainment/movies/exclusive-charisma-carpenter-says-shell-reprise-her-role-expendables-2#axzz2iJWF5ZC4

sci-fi backstage

RedLetterMedia has made some EXCELLENT reviews of Star Trek movies (and Star Wars, and Avatar, and many others). These have been uploaded onto YouTube fairly recently (2012) Star Trek Generations Star Trek: First Contact As much as I liked First Contact generally, I found his wit and critism to be severe but fair. And sometimes painfully spot-on. Star Trek: Insurrection I was impressed by factors I had not considered before, especially the comparison with the DMZ native Americans. Star Trek: Nemesis I liked the Nemeis review best, perhaps because I respected Nemesis the least of all the films. Yes, worse than I and V. His criticisms were spot-on. I was impressed.

I have been reading a bit about the history of the sci-fi genre and it's corresponding media ghetto.
I suggest some (in)famous essays: http://www.verysilly.org/lethem/lethems_vision.html (the link seems to have wandered around) The Squandered Promise of Science Fiction (Why Can't We All Just Live TOgether?), by Jonathan Lethem Things Are Tough All Over, by Ray Davis.
A concurrent e-mail exchange between Davis and Lethem is also a worthwhile read.

TV series Heroes

I said I was going to post more on natural history and ecology, and I had entirely intended to, but life intervenes. (Although on an ecology note, I heard on NPR this morning that the guest was estimating a 80%-90% chance Obama will succumb to the Keystone pipeline bill during his second term, despite his political base. Say it isn't so!) Well, my pre-wife bought me the box-set DVD collection of Heroes Season One. I finished it last night, and it was quite the thrill ride, but I am glad it is over. It was fun, but I am glad. Why? It was not a series that was convenient. It was not kind to it's audience (or at least the part represented by me). Here's why: there were very few story frameworks. It was not appropriately episodic. There were very few reliable endings. Now, cliffhangers during a two-parter are acceptable. Unresolved endings are acceptable. Hints that "the villian lived and will come back for revenge later" or somesuch are acceptable. Heroes was a continuous flow of story lines that felt like a 26-parter (I forget how many episodes the season had.) It was not until the season ended that I felt a little relief in the form of something resembling an ending. A TV series needs to be episodic, I think. It felt more like a made-for-tv movie. I guess that is a matter of taste, but I think I have precedent on my side. A talented creative team can form a wonderfully rich story taken as a whole, but with each installment being readable or watchable in and of itself. This may be been a matter of taste, and certainly makes good business sense for the TV series, but I wa unhappy with it. Storywise, I was especially disappointed that the whole series did not diverge much from the X-Men archetype. Wrapped up with that, I was also disappointed the eclipse (despite the series logo and pilot) wasn't much of a factor in the plot. Perpahs the solar eclipse was explained and incorporated later, but it was such promise as an alternative to the tired old mutation concept. Like the X-Men movies, heroes even featured a mutant conspiracy and government-sponsered genocide. And the concept of a villian-stealing-super-powers was one of their biggest innovations, but even that was taken from LXG (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Can you please point me to any example of innovation? I generally applaud the series, but I am very glad I caught it on DVD rather than immersed in the broadcast episodes. One of my largest applauds most go to the casting of Malcolm McDowell as a great, multi-faceted villian. I have caught his performances on other occasions, and this was one of the best roles. A role befitting him. I am still annoyed that Star Trek Generations so wasted his potential. Although the same happened with F. Murray Abraham in Star Trek: Insurrection, so I guess it's a sad habit of the franchise. Speaking of Trek, seeing the reboot Spock (Quinto) as Sylar was interesting, and very good casting also. George Takei had a good "peice of the action." Oh, and do you recognize this guy? I knew he looked familiar! Erick Avari was Daniel's Abados father-in-law on Stargate, plus a million other things, including bit roles in Star Trek: Enterprise, Babylon 5, Independace Day, and Lois and Clark, among others. And he was in The 13th Warrior, too! Speaking on Insurrection earlier, I did a quick search on YouTube, and although it says little to nothing about Abraham, it's well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qlV3bsafkq0&feature=endscreen