Sunday, January 31, 2010

A little sneak peek

at what a lot of my 'zine is about this issue...

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Call for Pulpy Nominations!

With 2009 wrapped up, we also wrapped up another year of Pulp Legacy! Now is the time to send in your nominations for the best writings, drawings, videos and blogs 2009 had to offer.

Who had the best zine? The best joke? Which issue had the best cover? What was your favorite fiction story? Non-fiction story?

You can email your nominations to me at or Zarko at Or you can post nominations in the comments section of this blog post.

Here in a week or so, we'll be submitting the full ballot to everyone, so you have several days to get us your nominations. Don't get mad at us if we missed your limerick, or your abstract drawing of Sharon Carter, Agent 13. Nominate it now! Get it on the ballot!


Friday, January 1, 2010


Dear Hollywood --- please tell me a story FIRST. Don't be lazy and rely on the prettiness of Hi-Def and the novelty of Real 3D. They're not important. Tell me a good story with great actors being well-directed and use sound and vision TOGETHER. Film has all this going for it. Remember?

Okay, I went and saw Avatar yesterday with my son. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and think Cameron's retelling of the Europeans conquering indigenous peoples was deftly handled and acted well enough. I like that the Na'Vi language is new and is developing. I like the motion (performance) capture graphics on the animated characters. I think it's a neat idea that was well-executed.

But I didn't like it in 3D.

I've never liked 3D, and I don't know that I ever will. It requires too much of me and is too distracting. I already wear a pair of glasses and putting on a second pair to watch the film is annoying. It's pretty, but it's an effect. It's not a storytelling device. Cameron didn't do anything in the film to make me feel like 3D was absolutely necessary to telling the story. That means it's still just a stunt to lure people in. Avatar didn't need the 3D and I resented paying an extra three bucks to see it that way.

The last time I went to see a picture at our local twelve-pack theater, they weren't showing 3D films because they didn't have the projector. Fine, it looks like they paid for it but now they want me to choke up extra for it. I won't pay extra going forward for a stunt like that as it only rewards filmmakers and theater chains for bad behavior. I refuse to have the extra cost of a film passed on to me for something I won't enjoy.

I did like the movie though. The distraction of things popping out of the screen (I only ducked to the side once) was just that: a distraction. The story was long in spots (editing seems to be a thing of the past nowadays and I don't know why --- extended cuts are supposed to be on DVD/Blu Ray, aren't they?) but held my interest. If not for the silliness of the 3D stunt I'd've loved the film. As it is, I paid $10.50 for a goddamn matinee and the knucklehead behind the ticket counter was rude and didn't care. Avatar was not worth $10 a head at the theater and then when they ask me to buy it in 2D format at home, they'll ask for another $20 and I don't know if I'll pay that or not.

If it's the future of filmmaking, god help us. Use surround sound to pull the viewer from the back of the theater into the front of the screen if we're to feel 'involved' in the film. A master filmmaker can do it. We need more master filmmakers.