Press "Enter" to skip to content

Month: June 2024

The First Shared Universe – Halloween Special II: Episode 17first shared universe

The First Shared Universe – Halloween Special II: Episode 17

Published June 28, 2024 by Ross Lawhead

What was the first shared universe? The answer may be surprising (unless you listened to our last episode). Join us as we discuss the little-seen 1943 classic Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, as well as the following Universal Monster movies, and Ross compares Halloween as a kid in the US and the UK.

Ross’ Notes

  • Check out Part One of our Halloween special here!
  • I’m trying to reference Arsene Lupin Contra Sherlock Holmes, a lost silent film serial. Characters from different stories — or what we would call franchises or IPs (Intellectual Properties) had met each other before this movie, but these characters had not been previously established in their own movies, and thus would not qualify as the first shared universe as Wolf Man and Frankenstein did.
  • The chronology of the Univseral Monster movies is from Wikipedia.
  • Here’s the “Monkey Tennis” scene from I’m Alan Partridge, season 1, episode 1:
  • The Mexican project that Lon Chaney, Jr. was a part of was Face of The Screaming Werewolf (1964).
  • Below is a picture of me (left) and my brother, Halloween either 1988 or 1989. I’m in a homemade Ghostbusters uniform, and my brother is sporting a very Bela Lugosi-inspired Dracula outfit.
  • It is fun finally being back in the States for Halloween, and I still enjoy making my costumes from scratch. And not just mine, either. This is what I did to my son last year:
Comments closed
Universal Horror Movies – Halloween Special I: Fiction Hack Episode 16Universal Monster Movies

Universal Horror Movies – Halloween Special I: Fiction Hack Episode 16

Published June 22, 2024 by Ross Lawhead

Why are the Universal Horror Movies important and why should we still talk about them today? Because believe it or not, the Hollywood movie industry is still making billions upon billions using the storytelling models that this specific series of movies developed that were kicked off over 85 years ago. Come inside and listen… if you dare!

Ross’ Notes

  • So… there’s going to be disagreement on exactly who is in the core cannon of the Universal Monster Movies. And that’s fine.
  • Doing a little more digging, it looks like the books I remember are the Crestwood monster books (orange series). Our library had maybe five of them. Here’s a short, informative video about them:
  • Much of my information comes from various special feature documentaries on DVDs that I own and that I borrowed from the library.
  • Information on dates and chronology (the same thing) for Universal horror movies I lifted from Wikipedia here.
  • Lon Chaney (Sr.) as The Hunchback in 1923:
  • Yes, German expressionism. Probably worth an episode. Sometimes misapplied, but everyone agrees that The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920) by Robert Weine did it to the best effect. The pictures below are not from a dream sequence, but what the movie actually looks like, all the way through. The film stock was also hand-tinted in green, red, blue, and whatever in order to enhance/subvert the mood. Check out this insanity:
  • Now compare to the Universal horror movies made in Hollywood a decade later. A little more sense of realism, but still a definite skewing of reality:
Frankenstein (1931)
Frankenstein (1931)
Dracula (1931)
  • M (1931) by Fritz Lang. Using a sound motif as a replacement for a character that is present, but unseen:
  • Blackmail (1929) by Alfred Hitchcock. Watch this short scene, I think it’s one of the best in the history of cinema:
  • Vampyre (1932) by Carl Th. Dreyer is a remarkably unsettling film using a lot of very basic techniques in very masterful ways:
  • Boris Karloff’s real name was William Henry Pratt.
  • Gods and Monsters (1998), dir. Bill Condon.
  • The play Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein was performed in 1832, 13 years after the book was published.
  • The Invisible Man (1933), dir. James Whale. The “eaten away” scene:
  • The definition of sequel is my own. But that’s what it is, right?
  • The Hays Code was by no means comprehensive when it came into effect in 1930, but a crackdown, led by “popular opinion” was really ramped up in the mid-1930s.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Attributed to Socrates (469–399 B.C.), by Plato quote from https://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html
  • Christmas is around the corner! If you wanted to treat a loved one (or yourself, I’m not going to let on), then I recommend the boxed set below. It contains the Spanish version of Dracula as a bonus feature.
Comments closed

Why Are There So Many Spider-Man movies? Fiction-Hack: Episode 015

Published June 18, 2024 by Colin

Why are there so many Spider-Man Movies? I’ll tell you why there are so many Spider-Man movies! We do a box office and critical analysis of all of the Spider-Man movies up to the present day. Find out why the stories are recycled so much, why they keep recasting the character, and why he’s suddenly started showing up in the Avengers movies.

Ross’ Notes:

  • The tangent I mentioned actually occurred in the second Doctor Who episode and is not an out-take.
  • In 1967 National Periodical Publications, which was the official company name for DC Comics, was acquired by the Kinney National Company. That same year Kinney began negotiating with Warner Bros.-Seven Arts, the movie studio. In 1969 the deal was finalized and in 1972 the conglomerate was rebranded as Warner Communications Inc.
  • The Matrix hired two comic artists to produce conceptual art and storyboards for the movie: indie creator Geoff Darrow and mainstream artist Steve Skorce. Skorce would go on to draw for X-Men, and Darrow would create Shoalin Cowboy.
  • Bryan Singer made a conscious decision to dial back on the more flamboyant elements from comics, particularly the costumes, and also made decisions to underplay character elements as well, cutting characters like Mystique and Sabertooth out of back stories (later retconned). Marvel overtly rejected this approach, deciding to turn everything up to ten when it came to costumes and storylines borrowedfrom the comics.
  • Colin does raise an interesting question — did Spider-Man (2002) lay groundwork for Batman Begins (2005)? I can’t draw an artistic line between them, but the superhero appetite was certainly expanded by both, and the groundwork laid for the ridiculous Marvel Cinematic Universe (fans) vs. DC Expanded Universe (fans) “debate”.
  • The Incredible Hulk end credits scene is interesting in that it leads to absolutely nothing. General Ross isn’t seen again until the third Captain America movie, and there’s been no hint that he’s been involved in anything Stark discussed with him in that seen. But it was a hugely important scene in underscoring the shared universe because although Jackson had clout in his end scene, Downey jr. was coming in as the star from the previous movie.
  • I get my box office figures from boxofficemojo.com. Here are the Spider-Man in film ones. Bear in mind as well that a studio can often spend twice a budget on advertising, but then there are things like merchandising that aren’t taken into consideration when calculating a movie’s grosses.
  • Although the first five Spider-Man movies have a similar tonal feel, I think there is a concerted effort in the Garfield movies at world building with a view to making a franchise as opposed to a series. A series means just Spider-Man movies, a franchise means a kind of cluster of movies that would include Venom, Sinister Six, etc.
  • I apologize to everyone who tuned in to hear about the 1970s Spider-Man movies starring Nicholas Hammond. These movies really fit when discussing Spider-Man in film since they were shot for television and re-edited as movies for the international market.
Comments closed
Who is Doctor Who? Part 2 – Fiction Hack: Episode 14

Who is Doctor Who? Part 2 – Fiction Hack: Episode 14

Published June 14, 2024 by Ross Lawhead

Who is Doctor Who? We continue to answer this question, covering the Third and Fourth Doctors played by Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, as well as Berry Letts. 

Ross’ Notes

  • Jon Pertwee’s son, Sean Pertwee, is indeed Alfred Pennyworth on the TV show Gotham. If you haven’t seen Dog Soldiers (2002), I think it’s worth a watch. It’s a werewolf movie.
  • Hard Light Holograms. I think it’s a ridiculous concept.
  • Here’s a link to that Barry Letts book on Amazon:
  • We talk all about Spider-Man in film in our next episode.
  • Yes, I deliberately said “can of fish”, conflating “can of worms” and “kettle of fish”. There’s probably a word for this.
  • Doctor Who Magazine was launched in 1979 and is still going strong today. I pick up an issue every once in a while myself.
  • Terrence Dicks was also along-time serving story editor for the original series, as well as a later writer. He is probably the best person to answer the question “Who is Doctor Who?” In fact, it completely slipped my mind until just now that Dicks co-wrote one of the first in-canon book material for the Doctor in the 1972 book The Making of Doctor Who, which was part in-canon biography, part behind-the-scenes material. For many young British fans this was the first comprehensive look at how a TV show is made and many of those children were set on course for a career in television. I’ve read it, it’s pretty interesting:
Comments closed
Truth and Story – Fiction Hack: Episode 013

Truth and Story – Fiction Hack: Episode 013

Published June 10, 2024 by Colin

Today we tackle and solve one of the eternal questions of humanity: what is truth? And what do we mean when we talk about truth and story? We have all the answers here for you guys. Seriously, we worked it out. You’re welcome.

Ross’ Notes:

  • Man, I’m talking fast. But hey, I’m passionate about truth and story! Maybe listen to this at 0.75 speed. I don’t know.
  • What percentage of the Bible do YOU think is factual? Tweet us a percentage mark with the #fictionhack.
  • Here is the letter from theologian Karl Barth:

Basel, 18 Feb. 1965 

Dear Christine, 

You have had to wait a terribly long time for an answer to your letter of 13 Dec.—not because of indifference, for I am sincerely interested in your welfare, and in that of your mother and sisters, and am always pleased to have good news from Zollikofen [near Bern, Switzerland].

Has no one explained to you in your seminar that one can as little compare the biblical creation story and a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner—that there can be as little question of harmony between as of contradiction? 

The creation story is a witness to the beginning or becoming of all reality distinct from God in the light of God’s later acts and words relating to his people Israel—naturally in the form of a saga or poem. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the same reality in its inner nexus—naturally in the form of a scientific hypothesis. 

The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with what has become, as it appears to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation. Thus one’s attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely from faith in God’s revelation or from the mind (or opportunity) for scientific understanding. 

So tell the teacher concerned that she should distinguish what is to be distinguished and not shut herself off completely from either side. 

My answer comes so late because on the very day you wrote, 13 Dec., I had a stroke and had to spend several weeks in the hospital. 

With sincere greetings which you may also pass on to your mother and sisters, 

Yours, 
Uncle Karl

Taken from http://www.faith-theology.com/2006/01/creation-and-evolution-letter-from.html
  • I was always curious as to why it is The Picture of Dorian Grey, not the Portrait. Not sure why Wilde made that decision, but he was was a genius, I don’t question, only seek to understand.
  • The line from the preface I’m referencing reads, “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” And, as I say, he goes on to write a startlingly moral book. Again, Wilde is so complex, and he understood truth and story as meaning something different to what we’re talking about here, that there were any number of reasons why he may have written what he did. One that I didn’t bring up was that he thought this was true. Again, author’s aren’t always the best people to talk to about their own work, or how it should be purposed.
  • The Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes I’m referencing are Descent I & II, from seasons 6 and 7.
  • I’m thinking of making t-shirts that say “You Can’t Live On Crack”.
  • That G. K. Chesterton quote in context (emphasis mine):

Literature and fiction are two entirely
different things. Literature is a luxury; fiction is a necessity.
A work of art can hardly be too short, for its climax is its merit.
A story can never be too long, for its conclusion is merely
to be deplored, like the last halfpenny or the last pipelight.
And so, while the increase of the artistic conscience tends
in more ambitious works to brevity and impressionism, voluminous
industry still marks the producer of the true romantic trash.
There was no end to the ballads of Robin Hood; there is no end
to the volumes about Dick Deadshot and the Avenging Nine. These two
heroes are deliberately conceived as immortal.

The full short essay is available at: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/penny-dreadfuls.html
Comments closed
Who Is Doctor Who? Part One – Fiction Hack: Episode 012Who is Doctor Who?

Who Is Doctor Who? Part One – Fiction Hack: Episode 012

Published June 6, 2024 by Colin

So who is Doctor Who, anyway? It’s a fair question, and one that we have to travel 50 years into the past in order to answer fully. This week we pick up with the very first Doctor, mention very briefly “Dr. Who”, and blow through the Second Doctor–essentially all the black and white (and missing)episodes. Join us on a journey through space and time as we ask… who is Doctor Who?

Ross’ Notes

  • First up, this episode is in NO WAY meant to be a comprehensive guide, only an introduction. That said, I’m fairly well-versed in Doctor Who lore, so I challenge anyone to find ANY MISTAKES AT ALL with anything that I’ve said.
  • FIRST MISTAKE: Doctor Who first aired on 23 November 1963, not 1965.
  • Authors C. S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley also died on the same day as John F. Kennedy. In 1963. Not 1965.
  • Check out some bio info for Verity Lambert. She’s quite an inspiring person.
  • The biopic starring David Bradley that we’re talking about is called An Adventure in Space and Time, and was aired in 2013. You can buy it here:

  • Find out more about the Peter Cushing Dr Who here. He’s largely been forgotten, which is kind of a shame, but the movies add almost nothing to the mythos of The Doctor, having been made from rewritten episodes and not any better realised the second time around.
  • CORRECTION: Did I say that Derrick Sherwin died? He did not! I think I was thinking of the great Berry Letts.
  • Graeme Harper is the guy who has directed for both the old Doctor Who series and the new series. His first directed episodes were the Caves of the Adrozani in 1984, which was the last Fifth Doctor story, and he rejoined the family in 2006, during the David Tennant/RTD run.
  • I’ll give a shout out to the Tardis Data Core, which is a fan-run wikia, and is the bookmark I always go to first for Doctor Who info.
Comments closed
Ready Player One. Fiction Hack: Episode 011Ready Player One

Ready Player One. Fiction Hack: Episode 011

Published June 2, 2024 by Colin

Are you ready player one? Ross has read the book, Colin has seen the movie–can one convince the other to do the other? It’s a roundabout discussion that drifts into deeper waters as we question the value of nostalgia in the pursuit of truth.

Ross’ Notes

  • I really do recommend the book–much better than I expected. Buy it here to support the show:
  • Colin really did seem to enjoy the movie, and he succeeded in making me curious enough to give it a go. Click here to buy it and support the show:
  • These notes are quite short and I’ve just noticed that Mark Rylance is in the movie adaptation of Ready Player One, so I’ll talk a little about him. I think for a lot of people this mid-fifties year-old guy just dropped out of nowhere and started getting nominated for Oscars and awards. But he had a very full career before then, mostly on stage. He was the first artistic director of the rebuilt Globe theatre in London. I actually saw him in a production of Anthony and Cleopatra in the early 2000s, where he played the title role… of Cleopatra. It was an all-male cast, and he was an absolute revelation. Not only a convincing woman, not only a convincing monarch… he was funny and moving. At one point he hoiked back his skirts and pulled a dagger from a holder on his leg. It remains one of my most memorable Shakespeare experiences ever. Mark Rylance is also a Shakespeare denier, which means that he doesn’t think that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. He co-authored some declaration or other which made a bigger splash than it should have because every thirty years someone pops up making a big deal of it. Maybe it’s worth an episode in the future. Write in if you want to hear that.
Comments closed