kartooner.com

If you haven’t seen NBC’s Heroes, I’d suggest either Tivo’ing it or watching it every Monday (9PM/EST). Next to Lost, it’s been one of the only shows in recent years that I’ve been so involved with — including having side conversations with friends and family — and that’s due to a few factors that make the show so engrossing.

Apart from the great acting, the writing continues to amaze me because the story is chock full of interesting twists, turns and free falls.

There are so many layers and angles the writers have chosen to explore and the story itself is rich in character exploration and interaction. At it’s surface it seems like just a show about people with various talents and powers, but if you look further you begin to unravel the puzzle and mythology that is Heroes, which transcends the small screen in the form of an online comic and web blog.

Over the course of the first season I’ve made some mental notes (mostly spoiler-free) and I’d like to share some of those with you. In turn, I invite you to share your own, as I know we all have our own thoughts and theories on where the story arch might lead and where it’ll continue to go.

Theories on Heroes

• Biblical names used for some of the main characters; Gabriel (arch angel), Mica, Eden and Peter.
• Overall story arch (so far) has a deliberate sense of urgency and foreshadowing: some plot points uncovered, questions both answered and unanswered
• Reminds me a bit of Steven King’s The Stand in that a group of people, who previously had no contact with each other, have come together for a greater purpose
• The writing is multi-faceted and intriguing, much like Lost, and while it’s intentionally serialized it does seem more self-contained than Lost.
• The characters themselves and their stories are intriguing because of the emotional state they share; urgency and for the most part a deep rooted nonacceptance of their talents, almost a resilient self-doubt.
• Hiro (named appropriately) comes across as the glue holding everything together. He seems to be the favorite for most viewers and that’s because of his personality and willingness to work within the limitations of his power.
• Mr. Bennett (Claire’s father and codenamed: HRG for Horned Rim Glasses) seems almost as if his alignment is neutral. He’ll protect those he cares for, but also obeys his superiors’ wishes. The writers have mentioned that he is a but a cog in the bigger wheel that is his employer and at the moment their true intentions and/or motives are still unclear
• The Haitian, while mysterious and obeying of HRG’s commands, seems like he has his own motives beyond the scope of his employer

Now, what about your theories? If you have some, please share by commenting or sending me an email at erik(at)kartooner.com.

KCRW’s The Business hosted by Claude Brodesser-Akner is both a radio show and podcast dealing with the inner workings of the business of Hollywood.

Claude’s interviews with directors, screenwriters, advertising executives and actors/actresses are often fascinating, if not enlightening, especially if you share an interest in how films are created like I do.

In his interview with actor/director Jon Favreau entitled “No Special Effects, It’s Really Director Jon Favreau”, Jon reveals his love/hate relationship with CGI effects and why home brewed effects are still relevant and useful. His philosophy is that while computer generated imagery has its place (namely a toolbox of endless possibility) it can also cloud the visual aesthetic of a movie.

While CGI has improved over the years, providing the backbone for things like sci-fi vistas and mythological creatures as well upping the ante on disaster sequences it’s also — in most cases — immediately recognizable if it doesn’t blend in with live action.

Recently Favreau was chosen to direct the film adaptation of Iron Man, a task not to be taken lightly and even though the film itself has a much bigger budget than his other films, he’s also made the decision to budget the special effects. His reasoning is two-fold; that the film’s budget is targeted at a specific amount and to effectively blend CGI with live action without going overboard.

In all honesty, this is something that I wish more directors (including George Lucas) would come to terms with. Audiences are typically overwhelmed with joy when a superb CGI sequence is pulled off but to echo Favreau’s thoughts, in most cases it’s easily noticed and can take you out of the movie, detaching you from the film’s otherwise engrossing atmosphere and aesthetic.

Yet, to play devil’s advocate I suppose it’s a tricky thing to avoid and I’d imagine why most directors and producers go out on a limb blindfolded, hoping that whatever is put together by their masters of illusion comes across successfully not only in a visual manner but also allowing various CG elements to interact with live action in a realistic way.

After releasing Finding Nemo — one of my all-time favorites, right up there with Toy Story — Pixar announced that they were working on a film about cars. When I first heard the news I think I might’ve been reading an issue of Wired and sat in disbelief.

While the talking animal shtick has worn out its welcome, there’s a certain safety net that accompanies an animated film of that nature. Especially considering that talking animals is a formula that has been used by several animation companies (Disney and Warner Brothers comes to mind) in the past and for the most part, if done correctly, appeals to a vast audience.

While I passed up the opportunity to see the movie in the theater I did manage to rent it this past week and it’s safe to say that Cars, despite it’s main characters being talking vehicles, does work and only because Pixar is at the helm. I’m not entirely sure whether someone else with this material would’ve been able to make it as interesting and worth watching, which goes to show that Pixar could probably make talking rocks watchable.

The plot is surface deep, but the general outline is that it involves a pompous NASCAR race car named Lightning McQueen (perfectly voiced by Owen Wilson) who through the course of the movie humbles himself thanks to a few small town denizens who teach him how to slow down in life.

There’s a life lesson here that resounds in all of us, that life is sometimes too fast paced for us to realize that everything is coming at us at a blur. It’s been tackled before in movies but never using a car as the protagonist, who is quite literally the embodiment of fast-paced life.

On the other side of the spectrum, there’s even a deeper lesson about how we are willing to sacrifice beauty to shave a few minutes off our travel time. In the movie, it’s Route 66 that at one point in time flourished with tourists and car enthusiasts and now stands as reminder of what once was and will never be.

The movie itself is full of chuckles from the supporting cast and when it’s all said and done it really does stay with you. I’m an advocate of slowing down every once in a while, taking a step back, enjoying the sweeter aspects of life (like love, family and relationships) and figuring things out instead of letting everything fall into place.

As the Racal Flatts’ song ‘Life is a Highway’ tells us, “Life’s like a road that you travel on, When there’s one day here and the next day gone.”

Ask anyone who knows me about my fondness and utter boyhood joy for movies and most likely you’ll begin to piece together personal fragments that ultimately led to the person I am today.

Like Michael, I’m like a kid in a candy store — gnawing on an enormous Gobstopper — when it comes to watching movies, especially those rare cinematic experiences where you feel as if you’re a part of what’s occuring on screen.

There are very few movies that have immersed me in such a vivid manner that when I’m amongst the audience I forget about reality until the credits appear on screen. One such movie, which debuted in the early 90s, totally captivated me at the time as well as reminded me what a good movie could be.

Several months prior to the official opening of the movie I can remember strolling past the cardboard display, a medium-sized advertisement with a jeep and the words “Jurassic Park: An Adventure 65 Million Years in the Making”.

At the time, my brother and I stopped dead in our tracks and just examined the advertisement wondering to ourselves whether or not it was a dinosaur movie or a cheesy horror flick. Despite our attempts to figure out what the movie was about, I do remember thinking that the logo was fantastic, a silohuette of a dinosaur on a blood red background with huge bold letters, that alone guaranteed our prescence at the film’s release.

However, there was one tiny detail I had initially overlooked upon first glancing at the cardboard stand, that Jurassic Park was not only going to be a movie about dinosaurs, but that Steven Spielberg was directing. I decided then and there, without a moment’s hesitation, that I was going to see this movie, no matter what.

After doing some more research on the film, which if I remember correctly, consisted of watching every entertainment medium that I could, it was revealed that not only was this going to be a movie about dinosaurs, it was going to be about a “dinosaur amusement park”. In my opinion, mixing giant reptiles of the past with Disneyland seemed like a superb idea.

Having no prior knowledge of the book I decided to purchase it and read it before the movie, something I try to avoid since they rarely ever compliment eachother. A few chapters into Jurassic Park my eyes glazed over and I tossed the book aside in disbelief and frankly disappointment, mainly because of the long passages of text dealing strictly with medical terminology and the fact that the story itself dragged on.

Luckily, Steven Spielberg and crew took creative liberties with the story, something I was happy with considering the original storyline, while similar and I suppose appealing to some readers, wasn’t exactly “adventure” material (years later I would end up changing my mind, after reading the book cover-to-cover).

The movie Jurassic Park, unlike it’s book counterpart, was simply one of the most energetic and visually mind-blowing cinematic experiences since Star Wars. The breakthrough CGI, bringing to life dinosaurs you could only imagine beforehand, made these dinosaurs seem lifelike and in some instances downright horrific, especially the T-Rex and Raptors.

Almost 13 years later, I’ve since revisited Jurassic Park, having watched the DVD and airings of the movie on television and I’m still captivated by it. The performances are and characters themselves are stellar, especially that of Ian Malcolm as played by Jeff “The Fly” Goldblum. He plays the neurotic, know-it-all character in many films and pulls it off particularly well in JP. The special effects, which were pinnacle at the time, still remain convincing and dramatic.

Jurassic Park is and was truly one of the most fulfilling movie experiences that I’ve ever witnessed and because of the amount of detail and the thrilling aspects to the film it’ll always remain a classic, earning its spot next to other wonderful movies that will be watched and remembered by generations to come, mark my word.