Hello, friends — for years now, it’s been a tradition of mine to turn out a new short story every Christmas to share with everybody. This year, I’m kicking off the fun a little early with a tale for Halloween. “Correspondence” is a new epistolary short set in the world of The Curtain (home of my novels Opening Night of the Dead and The Beginner). It’s a little world-building experiment for me, but I wanted to share it with you as well. Happy Halloween!
Year: 2024
Geek Punditry #95: A Not-So-Scary Punditry
“You know Blake,” some of you may be saying, “Just because it’s October doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING you write about has to be scary. Some of us don’t necessarily NEED to immerse ourselves in serial killers and cosmic horror and Stephen King 24/7.”
“You’re right,” I said.
“I…I am?” you reply.
“Yeah, you are. I guess just because it’s October doesn’t mean EVERYTHING has to be scary.”
“Oh. Oookay. Well…GOOD!”
“So this week,” I say, “I’ll talk about some stuff that isn’t scary at all.”
“Thank you.”
“Still gonna write about Halloween, though.”
“Damn it.”
We all know how much I love the creepy content during Spooky Season, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other things about Halloween that I love just as much – things that wouldn’t scare anybody but, at the same time, still contribute to the ghoulishly gleeful fun of this month. So if you’re NOT the kind of person who wants to be freaked out for Halloween but you still want to take part in the celebration, I’m going to give you guys a few recommendations for totally safe, family-friendly Halloween entertainment that will hopefully take you through to next month.
When I’m not watching somebody getting disemboweled in October, you know what’s the next best thing? Baking. I’ve been a fan for YEARS of the Food Network’s “Baking Championship” shows, and Halloween is the prime time. There are a whopping 14 seasons of Halloween Baking Championship available, and they’re all worth watching. In case you need someone to spell it out for you, it’s a pretty standard reality competition show. Each season a new group of contestants are gathered together and made to compete in a series of baking challenges, each episode one contestant is eliminated, and in the end, a victor is crowned. There are a wide variety of challenges as well – sometimes they have to make a certain type of dessert, sometimes they have to decorate their concoction based on a specific theme, sometimes there’s a specific ingredient they have to use. This is all well and good, but as I can’t actually eat any of the things that they’re making at home, I generally tune in to see what these creations look like. I’m in awe of some of these cakes and pies and cobblers that come out looking like monsters, skeletons, witch’s cauldrons, spellbooks, and any other sort of thing you can imagine.
Now, this isn’t one of those shows where they’re necessarily attempting to IMITATE real things (you’re thinking of Is It Cake?, where the goal is to make a cake that can trick someone into thinking it’s something else, like a shoe). This is purely about the artistry and creativity of the decorating and how good the food actually tastes. I don’t talk about it much, but I actually quite enjoy baking. It’s a fun, soothing, and edible hobby, and I think I can do a decent job making things that taste pretty good. However, absolutely NOTHING I have ever or will ever make in my entire life will look as amazing as the stuff we see on this show. Even the LOSERS turn out confections that put anything I could ever create to shame, and somehow I enjoy watching that.
I also like these shows way more than “traditional” reality competitions like Survivor or Big Brother because — unlike those other shows — you don’t have the pettiness, the nastiness, or the backstabbing that have made them world-famous. In fact, it’s not at all unusual to see the contestants on these shows HELP each other if they can. It’s not QUITE as cozy as The Great British Baking Show, but there’s still a vibe of camaraderie that makes this show far more entertaining than one where they’re voting each other off.
It’s not the only show that has this pedigree as well. There are two other Food Network shows with similar formats that I also enjoy. Outrageous Pumpkins is structurally the same, except instead of baking it’s about carving and building elaborate displays out of pumpkins. Then there’s Halloween Wars, which combines the two: on this show there are teams of food artists (typically a baker, a pumpkin carver, and someone skilled in making things out of sugar) working together to create remarkably elaborate dioramas that look like they could have spilled out of a haunted house.
Maybe that’s not your thing, though. You want something with a story, a plot. I’ve got just the thing, guys, and it’s called Bob’s Burgers. This has been one of my favorite cartoon series for years. At its core, it’s an animated sitcom about the owner of a struggling hamburger joint and his lunatic family, including his wife Linda and their three kids. The thing about this show, though, is that no matter how strange, bizarre, or absolutely ludicrous that week’s misadventure may get, there is a warm and loving core. Bob and Linda Belcher love each other and love their children completely and without reservation. That doesn’t mean they never get mad or have conflict, because real love doesn’t work that way, but at the end of the day they deeply care about one another, and that’s really refreshing in an era where so many TV comedies are about families who can’t even be in the same room together without being jerks.
The Belchers are in their FIFTEENTH season, and they’ve actually done more for holiday episodes than almost any other show I’ve ever seen. Over a dozen of their fifteen seasons have included Halloween episodes. Not only that, but they almost always have a Thanksgiving episode AND a Christmas episode each year. Plus, while not exactly an annual occurrence like the others, there have been several Valentine’s Day episodes as well. The people behind this show LOVE their holidays. If you’ve got the Hulu streaming service, there’s a spot in their “Huluween” library where you can actually access every Halloween episode of Bob’s Burgers right now. Just try to ignore the fact that 13 Halloweens have gone by and Louise Belcher is still eight years old. It’s a cartoon, you know how this works.
Last year, I spent an entire column writing about some of the great Halloween specials and how much I want new ones. I’m not going to go through all of them again (go ahead and read last year’s column), but let’s remember how many awesome non-scary Halloween specials actually exist. Beyond the classics like It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown and Garfield’s Halloween Adventure, there are lesser-known but still worthy movies and specials like Rankin and Bass’s Mad Monster Party, Halloween is Grinch Night, or The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.
But what about the SHORTS, guys?
I have often felt like a man out of time in many respects, and none more so than my craving for theatrical animated shorts. There was a time, a halcyon era before I was born, when buying a movie ticket would include not just the feature film, but at least one short film. It’s the place where the Looney Tunes, Tom and Jerry, and the Disney pantheon all came from, and the fact that not even Pixar is still consistently giving us theatrical cartoon shorts makes me a sad, sad panda. But back in the day, these studios gave us some magnificent Halloween shorts that are still fun to watch today. Let’s talk about two of my favorites, both of which star the same phenomenal voice actor, the immortal June Foray.
In 1952, Jack Hannah gave us Disney’s Trick or Treat, which is in the running for my favorite Donald Duck cartoon of all time. I know you’ve seen this one: Donald pranks his nephews while they’re trick-or-treating by dumping water on their heads, because Donald is just that kind of a jerk sometimes. This transgression is witnessed by Witch Hazel – voiced by Foray – and she decides to give Donald his comeuppance. She comes after Donald with the help of the boys, some singing ghosts, and a magic spray that gives her control over his legs.
It’s a funny cartoon with gorgeous animation and, along with it, a song that should by God be a national Halloween anthem. I’m not even joking – if a kid came up to my house singing the “Trick or Treat” song from this cartoon I would just dump all of my candy into their bag and close the door, because they just won Halloween. Plus there’s June Foray as Witch Hazel, the only person in the history of American cinema who even comes close to Mel Blanc as a voice master. Some people have even called her the “female Mel Blanc,” while others find it more appropriate to refer to Blanc as “the male June Foray.” I’m not going to argue with either one of them.
But it didn’t end there. Four years later, in 1956, director Chuck Jones asked Foray to reprise her role as Witch Hazel – not in a Disney short, but for the Looney Tunes. You see, Jones noticed that “witch hazel” is the name of an actual plant and, therefore, Disney could not trademark the name, making it free for him to use as well. Armed with the law on his side, he recruited Foray into his acting troupe for the cartoon Broom-Stick Bunny.
In this one, Bugs Bunny is wearing a witch costume for his trick-or-treating and winds up in the mansion of, once again, Witch Hazel, who thinks he IS a fellow witch and invites him in. It’s a great cartoon and knowing that Jones deliberately cast Foray to voice the character in an attempt to “remake” the Disney version makes it even funnier. Foray, for her part, did attempt to differentiate the two witches, using an American accent for the Warner Bros version instead of the British accent she gave the Disney witch, but it’s hard to watch the two cartoons back-to-back without picturing them as the same character. Foray would reprise the Witch Hazel role several times and ultimately became a frequent collaborator of Chuck Jones. The voice of Cindy Lou Who from How the Grinch Stole Christmas may have been totally different if Jones didn’t want to poke at the Disney machine just a little bit.
If you want to join in on the fun of Halloween but you don’t want to be scared, there are still plenty of options out there for you. Round up the kids, watch some of these classic cartoons, try to recreate some of the eerie edibles from the Food Network shows, and just have fun with it. Halloween should be fun, and if your idea of fun doesn’t involve having your blood chilled, there’s nothing wrong with that. You’ve just got to find what unlocks your inner ghoul with lighter fare.
QUICK NOTE: If you’re the type of person who actually reads the title of these columns (hi!) then you may notice that this issue the 95th installment of Geek Punditry. Coming up on the two-year anniversary and, perhaps more important, the nice, round 100th column. I’m the kind of nerd who likes nice, round numbers, and I want to do something special for the big 1-0-0…trouble is, I don’t know WHAT to do. So if you have a suggestion for something you think I should write about or something I’ve discussed in the past you’d like me to go back to, here’s your chance to let me know I’m open for suggestions! You can drop them in the comments here, on whatever social media you followed to get to this post, or email me at info@blakempetit.com!
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. He’s still not sure what he’s going to dress up as for Halloween this year. He was considering a Stephen King costume, but he hasn’t been able to find a Maine travel guide.
Geek Punditry #94: Four Color Terror
It’s October of course – glorious October, that precious time of year in which all the creepies crawl and the goblins gob and the gremlins grem. And at this time of year, many of us reach out and look for scary stories to cast to our televisions, books to fill our Kindles, and anything seasonal that might give us a little bit of a chill. A few days ago, for example, I saw someone on Facebook ask for recommendations for modern horror comics. While horror has long been a mainstay of the comic book medium – in fact, it was the biggest seller back in the 1950s, before the Comics Code strangled the life out of it – it’s not what most people think of when they think of comics these days. And that’s a shame, because like any other form of storytelling, there are plenty of scares to be had if only you know where to look.
Scary comics, of course, are different from scary movies or TV shows. Although they’re both visual mediums, comics don’t have some of the tools that filmmakers use to terrify people. There’s no creepy music, no way to rely on a jump scare, and even simple surprises can be difficult to pull off, as a shocking image can be spoiled if not carefully placed on the page to avoid allowing a major reveal before the creators are ready for it. (Robert Kirkman, who created The Walking Dead, is quite vocal about how aware he is of this sort of thing – he always tried to reserve majorly shocking moments for the first panel of a left-hand page to avoid a page-turn spoiler.) In terms of horror, comics have more in common with novels than film – they have to be reliant on mood and tone to pull off their scares. Sure, there ARE shock comics out there – even going back to the days of Tales From the Crypt and its blood-drenched contemporaries, there were plenty of comics that relied on gore. But these kinds of shock scenes are like slasher movies – good for a scare in the moment and plenty of fun, but they don’t necessarily create LASTING terror the way that a good book can.
So here are a few comics from recent years that I think are particularly successful at delivering the scares, stories that are well worth tracking down and reading as part of your Halloween wind-up.
On that initial Facebook post that prompted this column, one of the respondents stuck his metaphorical nose in the air and replied, “WELL, you won’t find any good horror from MARVEL or DC, but…”
What a prick.
It’s true that Marvel and DC are known as superhero publishers, and that’s what most of their audience comes to the table for, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of delivering in other genres, even within the confines of their existing superhero universes. The best horror comic Marvel has published in a long time is actually Immortal Hulk. This series, which ran for 50 issues from 2018 through 2021, was written by Al Ewing with art mostly by penciller Joe Bennett, and followed the “death” of the Hulk in Marvel’s Civil War II event. Comic book characters die and come back to life all the time, of course. It’s reached the point where it’s not just a cliche, it’s almost a JOKE to say you’re going to kill off a major character. But Ewing takes the old comic book concept of the “revolving door in Heaven” and turns it on its head, becoming a literal green “door” in Hell.
In this series, Ewing explores WHY characters like the Hulk seem to die and come back over and over again, drawing in most of the gamma-powered characters (hero and villain alike) in the Marvel Universe and telling a deeply unsettling story about Bruce Banner, the multiple personalities that co-exist inside his head, and a battle against his true greatest enemy. Despite being a part of the Marvel Universe and occasionally guest-starring characters like the Avengers and the Fantastic Four, this is a legitimately creepy story and probably one of my favorite runs of Hulk of all time, second only to Peter David’s legendary first run back in the 80s and 90s. If you don’t think there’s room in a shared universe for something truly scary and disturbing, I challenge you to check out this series right away.
On the DC side, there isn’t an awful lot of horror to be found in the modern DC Universe itself. Even those characters that use the trappings of horror, such as Dr. Fate or the Creature Commandos (coming soon to MAX!) aren’t usually used in legitimately frightening stories. But DC’s library doesn’t stop at the outskirts of Metropolis. From DC’s Black Label line, writer James Tynion IV and artist Alvaro Martinez brought us The Nice House on the Lake in 2021, a 12-issue sci-fi saga about a group of ten people who are invited by a mutual friend for a little getaway in the titular nice house on the lake. Some of them know each other, some are nearly strangers, and the only thing they all have in common is their buddy Walter. But on their first night in the house, something utterly heart-stopping happens that I’m not about to reveal because it would ruin the beginning of one of the best and most original horror comics in years. This 12-issue series was absolutely phenomenal, full of well-drawn characters and a concept that is creepy and compelling all at the same time. The creative team has reunited for a sequel, The Nice House By the Sea, the third issue of which was recently released. Grab the collected edition of the first series and come aboard.
Speaking of Robert Kirkman, as I did that back in paragraph two, his Skybound Entertainment (published via Image Comics) has been giving us more horror lately as well. The house that The Walking Dead built has been branching out into licensed comics, including two pretty significant horror properties. First is Creepshow: what started as a George Romero/Stephen King movie that paid tribute to the likes of the old EC Comics has expanded into a franchise with the current anthology TV series on Shudder. Skybound has taken to publishing Creepshow comics now, with three miniseries and a few one-shots, including a Christmas special last year and another one-off adapting a story by King’s son, the prolific horror author Joe Hill. Most regular issues of the comic include two stories by assorted writers and artists, each of which includes the requisite amount of gore and most of which display the kind of twisted sense of justice that befits a tribute to the likes of Tales From the Crypt. As with any anthology, the quality of the individual stories can vary – in other words, some are better than others. But if you’re looking for the sort of tongue-in-cheek horror that we got from the Cryptkeeper back in the day, there’s no better place to look right now.
Kirkman has also acquired – to my shock and delight – the license to the classic Universal Monsters. While Dracula and Frankenstein may be public domain, this license includes the versions specific to the films of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, as well as the original Universal creations. Even better, each of the series they’ve produced so far has been drastically different from all of the others, making for a very diverse and enjoyable reading experience. The line began last year with Universal Monsters: Dracula, a four-issue series by James Tynion IV (the Nice House on the Lake guy) and artist Martin Simmonds. Tynion and Simmonds retell the story of the movie through the perspective of a mental patient, with a heavy emphasis on the character of Renfield. Simmonds’ artwork is bizarre and scattershot, befitting the point of view of someone who is mentally unstable, and the whole thing is wonderfully creepy.
The second miniseries, written by Dan Watters and Ram V with art by Matthew Roberts, is Universal Monsters: The Creature From the Black Lagoon Lives! This one is a straight-up sequel to the original film trilogy, set in the modern day as a woman decides to delve into the mystery of the swamp monster from decades ago. And like most great horror, it’s more about the humans that are wreaking havoc than the monster itself. It’s a fantastic, worthy sequel that could easily be made into a movie if Universal Pictures had any idea what it was doing with these classic creations.
Most recently, they’ve kicked off a series based on my favorite member of the Universal Pantheon with Michael Walsh’s Universal Monsters: Frankenstein. We all know that Henry Frankenstein (changed from the novel’s “Victor” for reasons I’ve never understood) stole the corpses of the dead to make his creature, but how often have we really thought about the people that the Karloff monster once was? This miniseries is told from the point of view of a young boy who, still in grief over his father’s death, discovers that his late father’s body is now part of Frankenstein’s monster. It’s a brilliantly original concept. As big a Frankenstein fan as I am, it’s not easy to find an angle on the story that I haven’t seen before, and Walsh nails it.
The hip bone’s connected to my — DAD’S bone…”
Sticking with Image Comics, let’s talk about their acclaimed ongoing series Ice Cream Man, written by W. Maxwell Prince with art by Martin Morazzo. The horror series tells a different story in each issue, with the only connective tissue at first seeming to be Rick, the titular Ice Cream Man, who rolls through each issue at some point. The series hits on all kinds of disturbing themes, dealing heavily with existential dread and frequently drifting into Kafkaesque body horror and other such things. It’s a bleak, nihilistic comic, which isn’t usually my thing, but Prince very slowly and subtly reveals that these seemingly one-off stories are, in fact, connected, and there’s a vast backstory of deep cosmic horror that Rick has spawned from. The stories delve into terrors that deal with the very nature of existence, taking very human fears and externalizing them the way that few other stories – comic books or otherwise – can do effectively. It’s remarkably disquieting horror.
Rounding out our time with Image Comics, there’s a new series from Geoff Johns and Ivan Reis worth mentioning. Only one issue of Hyde Street has been published so far, but it’s already got its hooks into me. On Hyde Street, we see characters like “Mr. X-Ray” and a twisted Boy Scout going by the name of “Pranky” as they lead the unsuspecting residents and visitors of Hyde Street down dark paths of destruction. They’re in some sort of competition, reaping souls for a hidden gamemaster for purposes that have not yet been revealed. As I said, there’s only been one issue so far, but it hints at a vast and complex mythology, and there are few writers out there who do that better than Geoff Johns. I’m very excited to see where this series is going.
Finally, I’m going to leave you with a lesser-known miniseries from Magma Comix that just recently wrapped, The Principles of Necromancy. Written by Collin Kelly and Jackson Lanzing with art by Eamon Winkle, this tale of horror is set in a world where magic has been ostensibly driven out by the “City King,” leaving in its wake a realm of reason and science. Not everybody subscribes to these beliefs, however. The miniseries features the ghastly Dr. Jakob Eyes, the man inventing the art of necromancy in an effort to conquer death itself. If body horror is your thing, this is a book to check out, as we watch Eyes’ gruesome experiments and deliciously twisted practices over the course of four issues which ends on a note that leaves things wide open for further exploration of this dark world. Kelly and Lanzing have become favorite writers of mine in the last few years, doing great work at Marvel, DC, and IDW (particularly with their run on Star Trek), and it was on their names that I decided to pick up this series. I’m very glad that I did.
So my point, friends, is that horror is out there. If you’re still looking for creepy comics to fill your bookshelf before Halloween ends, here are some fine suggestions for you, and I’m sure the folks down at your local comic shop can give you even more. Dive in and get ready for a chill on every page.
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. He misses the days of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street comics, though. Those need to come back.
Geek Punditry #93: The Narrative Chain of ‘Salem’s Lot
Welcome to The Narrative Chain, the newest of my many column-within-a-columns here at Geek Punditry Global Headquarters. In The Narrative Chain, I’m going to take a look at a story that has been told multiple times and examine some of the different versions, whether this be books that have been turned into movies, comics that have been adapted to television, remakes, reboots, or adaptations, we’re going to pick into them here. And I thought that, for October, we would start with the second published novel by Stephen King, as well as the various adaptations thereof (including the one that dropped just last week): the vampire drama ‘Salem’s Lot.
The original novel, published in 1975, tells the story of an old-world European vampire named Kurt Barlowe (no, really) who comes to the little town of Jerusalem’s Lot, Maine, and begins to worm his dark tendrils into the citizens thereof. The novel focuses mostly on a small group of citizens who come together to fight back against the vampire, including Ben Mears (a novelist, because as early as his second book Stephen King was establishing patterns), local woman Susan Norton, 12-year-old Mark Petrie, Father Donald Callahan of the local Catholic Church, and a few more. But interspersed between the scenes with our heroes are many chapters detailing the activities of the other citizens of the ‘Lot as they fall prey to the darkness.
Although his first novel, Carrie, was a hit in his own right, I feel like this is the book where we really started to see the Stephen King who would become a literary juggernaut. It’s much longer (although still a drop in the bucket compared to the likes of The Stand or It), and the first of his books to establish a large cast of characters that he bounces between as he tells the story of a community under siege. These are things that King does better than almost anyone, and you really see it as he paints the citizens of Jerusalem’s Lot, warts and all.
In an introduction to an anniversary edition of the book years later, King said that his goal with this novel was to create a sort of marriage between the storytelling of Bram Stoker’s Dracula and the American style of horror he grew up with in EC Comics like Tales From the Crypt. In practice, I’m not sure that he completely succeeded in that particular goal. Although not utterly hopeless, the ending of ‘Salem’s Lot is considerably bleaker than the ending of Stoker’s novel (and King himself says that the story ends in a more hopeful place than he originally intended). Similarly, it doesn’t quite have the sort of bitter sense of humor or twisted concept of justice that the EC Comics brought to the table, both elements that would be more visible in some of King’s later works. There’s also an odd sentimentality to the book – the characters seem to meet and immediately form lifelong bonds (not that “lifelong” is a particularly lengthy period in a vampire novel) in just hours. It’s a way to drive up the tension and make you feel for the characters a bit more, but there are times where it feels a tad unearned.
That said, I don’t want you to give the impression that I don’t like this book. I very much do – the atmosphere King creates is magnificent, and the way he treats his vampires is as evocative as anything Stoker does, even though he DOES borrow some non-Stoker elements that really gained prominence thanks to vampire MOVIES, such as the vampires’ vulnerability to sunlight. I re-read the book last month in anticipation of the new movie, and I found it just as engaging as I did the first time I read it years ago. It’s not my favorite Stephen King novel – heck, it probably wouldn’t make my Top Five. But when you consider just how many books the man has written, Top Ten is nothing to sneeze at.
There have been three adaptations of ‘Salem’s Lot to date, all of which I watched (or re-watched) after reading the book, and I’m going to break them down in order to discuss the pros and cons of each, beginning with the original CBS miniseries from 1979. This version starred Starsky and Hutch’s David Soul as Ben Mears, Die Hard’s Bonnie Bedelia as Susan Norton, and…um…Enemy Mine’s Lance Kerwin as Mark Petrie. Directed by Texas Chainsaw Massacre director Tobe Hooper, this is the version of the story that a lot of people grew up with and most of the old-school fans consider the best. I have to say, though, I was only two years old when this miniseries came out. I didn’t watch it until I was an adult, and the nostalgia glasses weren’t on, and I have to say…to me it’s just kind of okay.
You have to take into account that it’s a TV movie from the 70s, and by the standards of a TV movie from the 70s, it’s not bad. The vampire makeup is pretty effective, especially that of Reggie Nadler, who plays Barlow. Beefy David Soul doesn’t quite pull off the skinny, contemplative Ben Mears of the novel, but if you aren’t trying to reconcile him with the character from the book he gives a pretty solid performance, with appropriate dread on his face during his encounters with the undead. Bonnie Bedelia is absolutely charming as Susan as well, and it’s easy to see why John McClai– I mean, Ben Mears would fall in love with her so quickly.
This miniseries, with its three-hour run time, just goes to prove something that’s true of a lot of Stephen King adaptations, and not just of this book. When he creates a world full of rich, engaging characters, trying to squeeze them into three hours or less just doesn’t cut it. Father Callahan’s role in this film is reduced to little more than a cameo, and several of the other characters are merged or done away with entirely. I understand the demands of different media, and I know that you’ll never be able to translate a book to a movie with 100 percent accuracy. I’m okay with most changes, provided that the spirit of the original work is left intact. But when so much of what makes the book work is the enormous cast and the way King shows life in all the different corners of the ‘Lot, the way the story and characters are pruned becomes a serious disadvantage to the film. Worst of all is Barlow himself – while he LOOKS scary enough, this version never speaks, losing all the sly, hideous charm of the character in the novel and becoming more of an analogue for Nosferatu than Dracula.
Another issue comes in the prologue to the story. In the novel, we open with a “boy” and a “man” on the run in a flash-forward to the time after the main events of the story. It isn’t until much later in the book that it becomes clear exactly which two members of our sizable cast they are. In a movie, though, you see them on screen from the first minute, completely erasing the question as to which characters are going to survive the vampyric rampage that consumes the town and losing the thing that makes the prologue worthwhile.
There’s a sequel to this miniseries, A Return to ‘Salem’s Lot (1987), which I’ve never seen – and from the comments of even the most stringent of admirers of the ‘79 version, I don’t think I’m missing anything. I’m not immune to nostalgia. If you get me started talking about cheesy movies and TV shows of the 1980s, I can wax poetically for hours about the things I love in films that – objectively speaking – really aren’t that great. So I appreciate the deep affection a lot of people have for this rendition of ‘Salem’s Lot. But I don’t SHARE that nostalgia, and the warts stand out to me a little bit more. This first attempt at adapting the story isn’t disappointing, but it’s not a sacrosanct film that should never be attempted again, so I wasn’t particularly upset when a new version was announced in 2004.
This remake, a TNT miniseries, stars Rob Lowe as Ben Mears, Donald Sutherland as Richard Straker (Barlowe’s familiar), and James Cromwell as Father Callahan, so already it’s off to a better start than the version from the 70s. It takes far more liberties with the original story, but I feel like some of them are for the better. For example, the original prologue is done away with for one that is more effective in leaving the viewer questioning what’s going to happen next, with a nice misdirect that Constant Readers may believe is pointing towards another King novel where one of these characters appears.
Mears is, once again, quite different from his portrayal in the book, taking on a dark detective persona early on in a quest to seek out the truth about the ‘Lot. He’s changed from a novelist to a journalist, with a thirst that makes him more proactive (if a bit of a cliche). His relationship with Susan Norton (Samantha Mathis) is also different – not as fairy tale/star-crossed tragic lovers as the older version or the novel. Rutger Hauer’s Kurt Barlow, however, is a bit more in keeping with the original. He may not look like he spilled out of the pages of an EC Comic, but neither did Barlowe in the book. They sacrificed his “European-ness” for the sake of the actor they wanted, but the result was a more interesting character. One of the more positive changes in this version is the greatly increased role of Father Callahan – not just compared to the original miniseries, but even in comparison to the book. James Cromwell isn’t somebody who should be wasted on five minutes of screentime, and screenwriter Peter Filardi and director Mikael Salomon make very good use of him.
One of the best things about this version, though, is that it does a much better job of bringing in the expansive cast of the book. It’s not a perfect adaptation, of course. There are still some merged and missing characters, as is pretty much always the case in an adaptation, but for the most part I feel like it captures the “town” aspect of the novel much better than the 1979 iteration.
I’m not wild about the ending, which doesn’t really fit the novel at all, but I at least have to concede that it fits this particular adaptation. If I hadn’t read the book or watched the earlier miniseries, I probably would have thought it was appropriate. As such, though, while I liked this better than the first miniseries, I was hopeful for the new version, a movie that dropped on the Max streaming service earlier this month.
The 2024 movie has had a bit of a troubled pedigree. Originally slated for theatrical release in 2022, it seemed to get caught up in the chaos of the Warner Bros/Discovery merger and tossed around in the same cataclysmic atmosphere that led to the loss of the Batgirl and Acme Vs. Coyote movies. As it sat on the shelf for two years, many people were skeptical that it would ever see the light of day, and when it was finally announced that it would be released on Max, many people were skeptical that it SHOULD. As soon as it premiered it seemed like half the internet came out in force to hate it, but that doesn’t actually mean anything. Half the internet hates EVERYTHING. It can’t help it, it’s a reflex action like breathing or screwing Oreos open to eat the creme first, so I didn’t put any stock in the initial reaction, determined to make up my own mind.
The cast for this movie, I must say, is effective. Lewis Pullman as Ben Mears and Makenzie Leigh as Susan Norton both feel quite natural in the roles, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to say they have great chemistry, the stark atmosphere in director Gary Dauberman’s telling doesn’t really demand the gooey, doe-eyed love of the book anyway. Alfre Woodard as Dr. Cody gives a solid performance because she’s not capable of any less, and it’s always nice to see Stephen King adaptation veteran William Sadler, this time as Sheriff Parkins Gillespie. But the standout in this cast is Jordan Preston Carter as Mark Petrie. He’s not only the first actor to play Mark that’s actually a child instead of a teenager, but he’s also the first that has the sort of cool disposition and intensity that the character has in the book. Novel Mark Petrie is wise and level-headed beyond his years. Neither of the other two adaptations pulled that off, but Carter lands it perfectly.
I also appreciate the mood Dauberman has created. While the 2004 version was a little too clean and the 1979 version was a little too…well, “70s TV movie,” this version of ‘Salem’s Lot really has a good atmosphere, a dark tone, with some great effects as the townspeople turning into vampires delve into the shadows or attack an unsuspecting victim. Dauberman doesn’t shy away from some of the more spiritual aspects either – in the book, crosses and crucifixes actually glow with power when used against a vampire. This is the first version of the story to do that, and we get a fantastic visual when it does. This version of Barlow (Alexander Ward) again has a very Nosferatu-like style, but he’s got more life and animation than the ‘79 version, including a — sadly abbreviated – version of the novel’s epic face-off with Father Callahan (John Benjamin Hickey).
The ending, like the 2004 version, is greatly changed from the book, but I like this one better. There’s a fun set piece that I don’t want to spoil because it’s just nicely creative idea for how to stage the finale, although some of the special effects are wanting (we’re in the age of CGI artists being rushed instead of given the time to do the job properly, my friends). It also seems like the sun sets abnormally fast…but come on, am I really gonna complain about a scientific inaccuracy in a vampire flick? There’s a lot to like about this movie.
Unfortunately, in one vital aspect, the internet is correct: this movie is clearly chopped to hell. The pacing is a mess and there are huge gaps in the narrative as the story leaps from one high point to another without taking the time for the slower character moments in-between that make the best of Stephen King’s stories so good. Most of the intriguing side characters are missing altogether; the few that remain are reduced in scale to minor cameos, and it’s only our Vampire Squad that gets any attempt at development at all. And at 113 minutes – less than two hours – it can’t really be a surprise. Even the two miniseries, with three hours each (after commercials, of course) didn’t feel like there was enough time to tell the story properly. Perhaps the most frustrating thing, though, is that there is reportedly a three-hour cut of this film that New Line Cinema whittled down to the dismally insufficient running time. And for the love of Father Callahan: WHY? I could at least understand the financial incentive – if not the creative one – when the movie was slated for a theatrical release. The shorter the movie, the more times it can be shown per day, the more money the movie will theoretically make. But none of those factors apply to a movie on a streaming service. There are so many good PARTS to this movie, that I have to think a longer version with proper pacing would be the best of the adaptations to date. I’m not the sort of guy to start a website and start demanding the studio “Release the Dauberman Cut,” but if somebody else starts doing that, I’m not gonna disagree with them.
As it stands, the best version of this story is still the book – which honestly should come to no surprise to anybody: I’ve only ever seen two movies I feel definitely improve upon the book they were based on, and neither of those were Stephen King adaptations. As far as the film version goes – people will hate me for this, but I honestly place the 1979 version at the bottom of the pile. It’s harder to choose between the other two. The 2024 version has better pieces, the 2004 has a better construction. Flip a coin – either way you’ll get some good things and some bad. But to date, I don’t think we’ve had a definitive ‘Salem’s Lot on film. We’ve gotten enough chunks to prove that it’s possible, but it hasn’t happened yet. I can only hope, after he finishes his adaptations of The Dark Tower, that Mike Flanagan continues on his obvious life’s calling of adapting all of Stephen King’s works the way Kenneth Branaugh tried to do with Shakespeare. If anybody can really nail this story, he’s probably our best hope.
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. The Godfather and Jaws. He knows you were wondering what the two movies were that are better than the book they were based on. It’s those two. But he’s never read Psycho, which is currently in his to-be-read pile, so he’ll let you know if that changes.
Geek Punditry #92: The Spectrum of Horror and Comedy
If there need be any further evidence that Hollywood executives frequently don’t have the slightest idea what they’re doing, let’s talk about the fact that they seem to be afraid of horror/comedy hybrid movies. ‘It’s confusing,” they will tell you, pulling their hair out over a movie like Behind the Mask or Happy Death Day. “We don’t know how to market this! Who is it for? Is it supposed to be a horror movie or a comedy?” Whereas the answer is obvious to anyone smarter than a movie executive, which is a very large part of the Venn Diagram, and includes virtually all horror movie fans: it’s both. Horror and comedy BELONG together. They are a natural combination, the peanut butter and chocolate in the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups of the movie industry, and the notion that there are people who don’t understand that is maddening to me.
Admittedly, humor and terror seem to be on the two extremes of the emotional spectrum, but that’s one of the reasons they compliment each other so well. Another reason is that, structurally speaking, they are very similar to one another. Both of these styles of storytelling are built upon creating an emotional response in the audience, and both of these responses are constructed through the careful buildup and release of tension. In fact, if separated from context, it might be impossible to tell if a scene is intended to be funny or scary until the punchline hits and the audience either laughs or screams, because until that point they can be virtually identical. A funny movie can turn on a dime if an expected laugh turns into a scare, and the dread of a scary movie can be decreased to a manageable level by a well-timed joke.
The horror/comedy combo is one of my favorites in all of storytelling, but there is a spectrum that these movies and stories exist on. Some of them lean heavier towards the comedy side, some more on the horror, and it’s fair if you prefer one side more than the other. But for the sake of discussion, this week I thought it would be useful to go over what I think of as the five levels on the horror/comedy spectrum and give some examples of each. We’ll start on the more comedy-heavy side.
Level one is where I place the mildest iteration of horror/comedy, where the emphasis is on the comedy. This is usually pretty lighthearted, and more often than not it’s family friendly. It usually has the TRAPPINGS of horror: haunted houses, ghosts, monsters, and pretty much anything else you would consider acceptable in an elementary school Halloween decoration, but there is rarely (if ever) a legitimate attempt at scaring people with this. The classic examples here are the legendary sitcoms The Addams Family and The Munsters. People will argue until the end of time as to which one was better (as far as the original TV show goes, that is – there can be no debate that the Addamses have superior movies), but whether you’re a Gomez Guy or a Lilly Lover, these two franchises are about as close to G-rated as horror gets. There are more recent entries into the category as well, like the Hotel Transylvania movies and underrated movie Igor, and a lot of family cartoons and sitcoms shift into this for Halloween episodes, often seen on the likes of Roseanne, Home Improvement, or Phineas and Ferb.
It’s worth pointing out here that, again, I’m calling this a spectrum, and even these five subcategories have different levels. Technically, I would place Beetlejuice here as well (the original, at least, I haven’t seen the sequel yet), because I don’t think that the movie is ever actually intended to be scary. However, it’s obvious that the movie is more intense than the adventures of the Addamses and the Munsters, and thus if it IS a Level One, it’s towards the high end of the spectrum. A 1.9, perhaps.
On the second level, I place those stories in which the situations are relatively serious, but the characters themselves are funny and react to the scary moments in funny ways. Ghostbusters is the classic example of this. The ghosts aren’t played for laughs (not usually, at least, especially not in the first film), and some of the things could actually be legitimately frightening, such as the first appearance of the Library Ghost. But the behavior and antics of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson are very funny and keep you from feeling any legitimate terror. Even when it looks like a Sumarian Deity is about to curb-stomp the city of New York, you know that Venkman is going to have a wisecrack to defuse the situation. Another of my favorite films, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, falls into this category. The classic Universal Monsters are there, and Lon Chaney Jr. (the Wolf-Man), Glenn Strange (Frankenstein’s Monster) and Bela Lugosi (Count Dracula himself) all play their roles perfectly straight, as if they’re in one of their solo adventures and trying to chill the spines of the audience. But with Lou Costello freaking out over a candle and Bud Abbott doing his impression of everybody who never sees Michigan J. Frog singing, there’s no real sense of danger. The blend of master monster performers and master comedians is never more evident than in this film.
Other works that are typically family-friendly but where the villains have the POTENTIAL to cause actual harm fit in here as well. Hocus Pocus and The Nightmare Before Christmas fall into that category, as do certain classic cartoons such as the Bugs Bunny short Transylvannia 6-5000. I struggled a bit with one of my other favorite Halloween movies, Ernest Scared Stupid, trying to figure out if it belongs here or level one. Ultimately, I’m placing it here, because there are kids (the intended audience) who might find the trolls actually frightening, and they’re trying to do bad things. It’s only through the intercession of American hero Ernest P. Worrell that they’re stopped in time. Yes, that means I’m giving Ernest a higher rating than Beetlejuice, but my metric is how scared the INTENDED audience might be, and I’m sticking with it.
Level three stories have a fair balance between the horror and the comedy. Parts of the film may feel like you’re watching a scary movie, other parts feel like a pure comedy, and when this is done well there is no discrepancy felt by the audience. These two styles of storytelling just match each other very well. Drew Goddard’s The Cabin in the Woods is a great example of this. We start out with what looks like some sort of bland, white-collar office comedy, then cut to a bunch of teenagers getting drawn into what appears to be a very stereotypical slasher movie. But the creeps start to claw their way into the office setting, while the events in the titular cabin turn out to be funnier than you would expect, and by the time we get to the full-on collision of the two settings and you come to understand what one has to do with the other, we’ve got a great blend of the two that maintains pretty much throughout the rest of the film.
We often see this type of balance, by the way, in later films in a franchise. It’s not unusual to see a relatively serious horror movie get zanier in the sequels. Gremlins 2 is one of my favorite examples of this. The first film has its humorous moments, but the sequel really leans into absurdity, with the monsters taking different forms and playing out scenes as though they fell out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. The result is a movie that many fans even prefer to the original. Another good example of this is Army of Darkness, the third movie in the Evil Dead trilogy. The first movie is pure horror, almost nothing funny about it. The sequel, Evil Dead 2, is still very dark, but brings in enough comedic elements to earn it a spot on my spectrum. (That spot is in Level Five, and we’ll get to that soon enough.) But in Army of Darkness, Sam Raimi decided to let Bruce Campbell’s comedic skills and charm really shine through, resulting in a movie that is very different, tonally, from the rest of the franchise, but like Gremlins 2 is a favorite of a large number of fans.
Level Four is where things are getting a lot darker. These are films that are primarily horror movies, but movies that have a twisted sense of humor, and that often comes down to the villain of the franchise. We see this most clearly, I think, with A Nightmare on Elm Street. You’ve got a dead child killer who has the ability to enter and attack you through your dreams, which is not funny at ALL. But the child killer in question also has a wicked funny bone, which manifests itself both in what he says and in the scenarios that he traps his victims in – scenarios that can go from bitterly ironic to just plain goofy. I think it’s the reason that Freddy became such a breakout star in the 80s. There were lots of slashers at the time, but in an era when most of them were imitating Michael Myers and acting as the Strong, Silent Type, Freddy was blazing a trail as a new kind of killer. There have been efforts to imitate him, but few have succeeded.
Probably the most successful imitator, tonally at least, is Chucky from the Child’s Play series. In this franchise, we’ve got a child’s plaything, a three-foot doll, inhabited by the spirit of a serial killer. Making a kid’s toy creepy is a fairly common occurrence in horror (the idea of something that’s supposed to be wholesome and nurturing turning dangerous is frightening), but again, it’s the wit and cleverness of the Chucky character and Brad Dourif’s performance that made the franchise successful and allowed it to grow into so much more than it was in its origins. Oddly enough, later films in the franchise and the follow-up television series do drift, but not lower on the scale of comedy, but towards having a bit more melodrama. It’s a weird, unique transmogrification of the concept, but it never loses its sense of humor.
The Cryptkeeper from Tales From the Crypt and other assorted horror anthology hosts often fall into this category as well. Whether we’re talking about a TV series, movie, or comic book, the format is usually the same: they present to you a scary story, popping in before and after (or sometimes during, if it’s a format that has a commercial break) to drop in a few witticisms about the hapless characters marching stoically to their doom, and the audience loves them for it. The truth is, fans tune in as much for the Cryptcreeper’s ghoulishly ghastly puns as we do for any of the scares that are coming our way.
Finally, we arrive at the top tier, that level of horror that’s furthest away from comedy while still, at the same time, having some funny beats. In this category, I place movies that are primarily horror films, but that have a pitch-black sense of humor. Evil Dead 2, again, is a prime example. Bruce Campbell and his girlfriend are under assault by the horrific “Deadites,” demonic creatures that are out to torture and mutilate. Not funny. They take his girlfriend and turn her into one of them. Not funny. One of them possesses Campbell’s hand and he’s forced to cut it off with a chainsaw. Not –
–actually, that part is kinda funny. And that’s how movies on this level go. They take things that SHOULD be horrible and graphic and terrifying, but elevate them to a level that’s almost too cartoonish to take seriously, allowing some laughter. Campbell is great at this. We also see it done to good effect in Adam Green’s Hatchet series. The characters who are NOT undead revenant Victor Crowley are often pretty funny, but Crowley himself is the unspeaking sort of horror. The kills he pulls off, though, are so ridiculously gruesome that the realism is drained away, giving the audience permission to laugh a little bit. To a lesser extent, the same is true of the hugely popular Terrifier films, where the silent Art the Clown brutally tortures his victims. Early screenings for the third film (opening soon) are reporting people walking out during the first ten minutes, with one audience member allegedly even throwing up in the theater. If this is the reaction filmmaker Damien Leone is going for (and I believe it is), then you have to believe he is intentionally going way over the top.
So there you have it, friends, the levels of horror/comedy. Keep in mind that this scale is meant to determine INTENSITY and in no way is indicative of the QUALITY of a film. Every level has great movies and awful movies that belong there. But if you’re trying to figure out how intense a movie you’re looking for this spooky season, think of the scale and make sure you’re not in a Level Two mood when your friend shows up recommending a Level Five.
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. The only movie on his scale to ever achieve a Level Six? Babe 2: Pig in the City. Weird, huh?
A word about AI
I thought about writing this as one of my Geek Punditry columns, but that doesn’t really fit the thesis of that feature. Geek Punditry is where I write about things that I love, and this doesn’t qualify. But at the same time, it’s been pervasive lately, and in the last few weeks seems to have gotten worse than ever, so it’s time I talk about it.
Yesterday on LinkedIn, I got a sponsored message offering me the chance to apply to an AWESOME new job making UP TO $15 an hour! And all I had to do – get this – is TRAIN AI TO WRITE. The laughable thing is not the pay, nor is it the fact that they were making this offer to somebody who has been remarkably vocal about being AGAINST the use of generative AI in the arts. The really funny thing is that somehow the algorithm somehow got the idea that I would be willing to work at something that destroys everything I care about.
Using artificial intelligence to generate art of any kind – writing, comics, 3D modeling, music, you name it – is completely abhorrent to me. AI takes the work of real artists, human artists, breaks it down into data points, and spit out some sort of amalgamation that is as bland as it is fast. People love to joke that everything Hollywood puts out these days is just regurgitating old ideas anyway, but folks, you have NO idea how much worse it would get if AI becomes the norm.
I’ve heard the arguments, of course:
- “Human artists draw inspiration from other artists too!” Sure, but they still have the ability to innovate and make something new, which AI does not.
- “AI is just a tool, like a typewriter.” Bull. If someone can write an essay using a typewriter and I take the typewriter away, they can write it with a pen and paper. It might not be as fast, it might have more mistakes, but they can do it. If I take away the pen, they can scratch words out in the dirt with their fingers. But if someone can only “write” using ChatGPT and I take away ChatGPT, they’re helpless. That’s not a tool, that’s a replacement.
- “New technology has always replaced old technology. Do you think we should still be using the horse and buggy?” The difference here is that in the past, the creation of new technology has brought with it new jobs to replace the old ones. When the automobile arose we no longer needed as many people caring for horses, but now we needed workers in car factories, mechanics, and people to construct and maintain roadways, not to mention all of the ancillary jobs that cropped up as the tourism and hospitality industry grew exponentially to keep up with the greater ability to travel. But AI is taking away jobs WITHOUT any appreciable creation of new jobs, and that’s not sustainable.
- “AI is the future.” Calling something awful the way of the future has been the tool of every despot in history. You don’t get to decide what the future is, the future will decide that itself.
I was blindsided a few weeks ago when I discovered that National Novel Writing Month, the annual writing challenge that I have participated in and championed for nearly 20 years, was taking advertising from companies that use generative AI. What’s even worse, when asked to define their position on the matter, a spokesperson for NaNoWriMo said it was “ableist” to deny people the right to use AI to create. A great tactic, that. The surest way to try to get the internet on your side is to call your opponent anything-”ist,” because there’s nothing in the universe worse than being an “-ist.” But it’s a garbage argument, friends. Has anyone ever looked at one of Stephen Hawking’s books and said, “if only there was an algorithm that could have written this for him”? Has anyone ever thought that about the works of Helen Keller? Has anyone said that Beethoven, Ray Charles, or Stevie Wonder really could have made something of themselves if there was a computer to compose for them? No, NaNoWriMo, calling it “ableist” to oppose generative AI is a slap in the face to every person who has overcome their own difficulties and a transparent, pathetic attempt to deflect criticism from yourself coming from the very community that you helped to build.
I deleted my account. It hurt, but I did.
I need you to understand that I do not oppose artificial intelligence in its entirety. It CAN have uses, and it DOES have positive applications. I teach a unit on this to my senior class every year, and as such I try to keep up with what it is and how it can be used, so I flatter myself to think I know at least a little more about the topic than a lot of people. One thing AI is really good at, for example, is pattern recognition, and that can be very useful. It can detect potentially cancerous cells before they become malignant. It can be used to sort and categorize information. Hell, you could theoretically use it to help solve crimes. These are things that are beneficial, helpful, even potentially life-saving.
But using AI to write a book or draw a picture benefits nobody except for the person who didn’t want to devote the time and effort to learn how to do it themselves.
I don’t even understand how anybody can take pride in something they “create” with AI, as all they’re essentially doing is describing what they want. If I need a book cover, I contact an artist (usually my pal Jacob Bascle, who has done most of my books) and we discuss what I’d like it to look like. He does a mock-up, I give him thoughts on any changes or adjustments I want, and then he creates a finished product. But at no point in the process do I think I can call myself the artist or the designer of this piece, any more than someone who commissions a painter to paint his portrait is the artist or someone who goes down to Sears Portrait Studio (does that still exist?) can call themselves a photographer. I can be happy with the design, and I always am, but the pride I feel is because I know this is a cover that is going to get people to look at my book, not because I feel like I had any true hand in its creation.
The problem is that the people with the pursestrings love AI because it can do the job CHEAPER and FASTER than a human being, and don’t give a damn if it’s actually BETTER. The tragedy is that, especially when you’re talking about movie and television production, these are the ones deciding WHAT GETS MADE.
So what can we do about it? There’s only really one way to stop it: we have to make it unprofitable. If someone is using AI in the creation of a movie, or a television show, or a cartoon, or a novel, or a video game, or a comic book, we have to collectively decide to NOT SUPPORT THAT WORK. Lionsgate, for example, has recently signed a deal with an AI studio that they hope can be used to eliminate things like storyboard and visual effects artists. Awesome, right? Faster! Cheaper! Worse product that puts actual human beings out of a job, but who cares as long as it’s faster and cheaper? So that means that I can’t – and none of us should – continue to support the studio behind the Hunger Games and Saw franchise, among many others.
Then there’s James Cameron, director extraordinaire, who has joined the board of directors of Stability AI, the company behind things like the controversial Stable Diffusion system. You would think the man who created Skynet in the Terminator franchise would know better, but no. Instead, the company says that having him on board will “empower creators to tell stories in ways once unimaginable.” The real takeaway here seems to be that Cameron is more interested in shiny new technology than he is in actual creativity or innovation in storytelling, although that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody who has seen Avatar.
Of course, the tough part about a boycott of these companies and creators is that you can’t trust that they’ll all be as honest about it as Lionsgate and James Cameron, so we may wind up throwing support behind AI without realizing it. That’s where we need the creators themselves to take action. Last year we saw a prolonged strike from both the writers and actors in American film over various issues, AI included, but it doesn’t seem like the industry has learned its lesson. So now we need the writers, directors, actors, and other creatives making these things to refuse to work with companies or individuals that use generative AI and, what’s more, BE VOCAL ABOUT IT. We need them to TELL us when they turn down a job because of AI so we know not to support that work, because otherwise we’ll see it quickly spiral into a modern witchhunt of accusations. Earlier this week, people accused Disney of using AI in the creation of the new poster for the upcoming Thunderbolts* movie. That accusation appears to have been unfounded, but you can be sure that more people heard the accusation than the exoneration. It just proves that we need first-hand accounts, not speculation.
I know that’s easier said than done. These people are under contract. A lot of these contracts include a clause forbidding them from speaking out against the company they’re working for. And people at the bottom of the hierarchy may not be able to afford turning down work for reasons of integrity, because ultimately most people will have to choose putting food on the table instead of principle. (The sad irony is that these people at the bottom are also the first ones that will be replaced when AI use becomes rampant.) I feel for these people, and I don’t blame them for staying quiet. So it’s going to have to be up to the people at the TOP to speak up. Can you imagine the response if people like Zoe Saldana or Sigourney Weaver said they’re not going to make any more Avatar movies as long as Cameron is involved with Stability? The impact could be seismic.
My biggest fear is that it’s already too late. Pandora’s box is cracked. (The original Pandora, not the Avatar one.) If it’s opened too widely, it’ll be impossible to stop this. We need to fight back against it now while there MAY still be time to push it back. If not, the future of the arts will just be as bleak as the one James Cameron once tried to warn us about.
Geek Punditry #91: What Measure Horror?
As part of my Pregaming for Scary Season, my wife suggested I watch the new movie Abigail. I’d heard mixed things, but between her recommendation and the fact that it was by the same writing and directing team responsible for the last two Scream movies (which I greatly enjoyed), I decided to give it a shot. I’m really glad I did. Abigail is about a group of crooks hired to kidnap the ballet-dancing daughter of a wealthy man. As they hold her, awaiting their ransom demands being met, they begin to fall prey to a series of increasingly unlikely mishaps.
I don’t want to tell you anything more about the plot. If you’ve seen the trailers, you probably already know the biggest twist in the film, because the idiots in marketing gave it away even though the film is structured in such a way that it seems quite clear it was intended to be a surprise. I’m just going to say that I recommend you NOT look up the rest of the plot if you haven’t seen it yet and just watch it with an open mind. It’s a great, original twist on an old trope.
It got me wondering why so many people on the internet were down on it, though. I thought the movie was loads of fun. So I went back to find some of the complaints about the film and the major one seemed to be that it wasn’t SCARY enough.
Guys.
Okay, it’s not a movie that will make anybody wet their pants. There are a couple of jump scares and a LOT of gore, but nothing in it is going to keep me awake at night. But the thing is…is that REALLY the only metric by which a horror movie should be measured?
I suppose part of the question is what exactly one expects from “horror.” If you go by the strict definition of the word, yes, “horror” is supposed to be scary. But if I’m being honest, guys, there are very few movies that I find legitimately frightening. I’m not trying to sound like some macho jerk, like I’m above being scared. I get scared all the time. There’s a fair in town this weekend and I need to make sure we go on the day Erin is off work because I’m far too scared of heights to take our son on the Ferris Wheel. It’s just that jump scares and gore — while effective in the moment — are not the sort of thing that linger in my psyche. Stories that I find REALLY scary are the ones with unsettling or disquieting implications for the human monster. 1984, for instance, terrifies me. And I know enough about the movie A Serbian Film to know that I never, ever need to watch it. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just take my word for it. Don’t look it up. Seriously.)
Gore, similarly, only bothers me when it gets too “real.” Historically speaking, the gore in a lot of horror movies has been so over-the-top as to become comical, almost cartoonish. The things that Jason Voorhees does to a camper are largely impossible, and thus, not particularly disturbing to me. The stuff that IS disturbing is the stuff that – again – I don’t care to watch, like the wave of “torture porn” that was popular after the first Saw movie. Which is ironic, as the original Saw is actually relatively light on gore. The franchise didn’t get particularly bloody until the sequels, when it began to ride the trend of torture porn that was popularized by the over-the-top IMITATORS of the first film, who took it to ridiculous extremes.
Similarly, I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts recently – Star Trek: The Next Conversation, featuring Matt Mira and Andy Secunda going through the vast Trek library an episode at a time – when Matt argued that he didn’t count The Walking Dead as horror because he doesn’t think zombies are scary. That’s kind of short sighted. Sure, ONE zombie isn’t going to be that terrifying. I think most able-bodied adults could survive a single zombie, unless it was one of those fast ones from movies like the Dawn of the Dead remake, but that’s going to open up an argument as to whether we should even count them as zombies at all, and that’s an entirely different column. But the horror of a zombie, from the earliest days of George Romero, comes because of the HERD mentality. One zombie? No biggie. Whack him in the head. A hundred zombies? Bring me my brown pants. It’s like a bee sting. Unless you’ve got allergies or other medical conditions, a single bee is just an annoyance. But if an entire HIVE falls on your head, I don’t care how good a shape you’re in, you’re going to have a very, very bad day.
I count zombies in the same category as any other movie monster, like werewolves, vampires, mummies, and my ol’ buddy Frankenstein’s creation. They are a type of creature, and while they certainly CAN be played for comedy (or any other genre, really – there are a shocking number of zombie romances out there), their ROOTS are in horror, and as such are part of the genre whether you, personally, are frightened by them or not.
My point is, I don’t judge the quality of a horror movie by its ability to keep me awake at night, but rather by the same standards I judge any other movie: writing, acting, innovation, music, direction. And by those metrics, I consider Abigail to be a pretty successful film. It takes a very familiar subgenre of horror and does something with it that I haven’t seen before, which is a huge mark in its favor. The writing is strong, with witty dialogue and several moments that were genuinely funny. The performances were very good as well, particularly that of 15-year-old Alisha Weir as Abigail. (I should point out that she’s currently 15, probably closer to 13 when the movie was filmed, and entirely convincing as the 12-year-old title character.) It was also great to see current horror It-Girl Kathryn Newton playing against type. Movies like Freaky and Lisa Frankenstein have kind of given her a sort of 80s Winona Ryder “dark teen in a quirky horror movie” vibe, although it should be noted she’s also been in Detective Pikachu and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, and thus far more than a one-trick pony. This movie keeps her in the same KIND of movie where she’s become a queen, but she gets to do a very different CHARACTER than she usually does, which was fun.
But a contingent of the internet seems to think I should disregard all of that because the movie didn’t make me toss and turn until 3 in the morning. (LIFE does that, I don’t need movies to do it.) And like everything else on the internet, I’m sure it’s a small minority of loudmouths who make these complaints. Most horror movie fans that I know are among the warmest, most welcoming people I’ve ever met. But there’s always that jerk who thinks that any movie made after they turned 17 is garbage, and will loudly voice that opinion.
The thing that really baffles me is that a lot of those people who whine about how “not scary” a movie like Abigail is are the same ones who will bemoan the days of Freddy Kruger and Michael Myers. Fellas, I hate to break it to you, but Freddy ain’t scary. Sure, the CONCEPT is frightening – a demon that has the ability to stalk you in your dreams, in the one place where you SHOULD be the most safe but, at the same time, are at your most helpless. That’s a terrifying thought. But go back and watch those movies. Robert Englund is a blast to watch. Heather Langenkamp deserves far more credit than she gets for being one of the all-time great Final Girls. And Wes Craven, of course, was a master storyteller. But I’ve seen every one of those movies multiple times, and I never even ONCE was worried that anything in them could possibly happen in my life. If I had, I probably never would have gone back to them again.
Most horror fans are great, of course, but there are snobs in that fandom just like any other. And like a lot of snobs, there’s a recency prejudice that seems to lock a lot of people out of current stuff that’s really good just because they think that the stuff from their formative years is the greatest that will ever be. (I wrote about this with cartoon fans a couple of months ago. It’s the same concept.) So with October coming, with the glorious Creepy Movie Bacchanalia that we’re all going to indulge in impending in just days, here’s my message. Give stuff a chance. Try new things. Watch new movies – and I don’t just mean movies that came out last week, but rather anything you personally haven’t tried in the past. And don’t think that the ONLY thing that matters is that you get nightmares.
Sometimes, a scream can just be for fun.
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. He’s trying to do the math to figure out just how many monster movies he can squeeze in between now and Oct. 31. He’s terrible at math, but the only answer he can arrive at is “not enough.”
Geek Punditry #90: The Mount Rushmore of Monsters
Yesterday, September 19, when I got home from work, my wife was ready and waiting for something we’ve been looking forward to for months: putting up the Halloween decorations. Oh I know, some people may scoff. Some may say it’s too early. Some may say that preparing for Halloween before October is a terrible breach of seasonal etiquette. To these people I say, bite my gourd. Halloween is one of my favorite times of the year, and I’ve been waiting for this day since I went back to work from summer vacation on August 1. It is well past time, as far as I am concerned.
Our decorations aren’t terribly complex, because we can’t afford anything terribly complex. Nor are they terribly scary, because we have a seven-year-old and we don’t want to give him nightmares. But Eddie does love monsters and creepy crawlies, so we’re not above hanging a few ghosts from the trees, wrapping the posts in front of our door with LED lights, and setting up inflatables of the likes of Slimer and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. We’d have more if we could, but we’re happy with what we got.
As we were decorating, though, I started to think about just which horror icons I would adorn our home with if money was no object. If I could grab the icons of terror from any time period, who would they be? In short, what creatures belong on the Mount Rushmore of Monsters?
It was honestly too hard to narrow down all the different monsters from throughout history to a simple quartet, so I decided instead to do three different mountains dedicated to three different eras: the Universal Monsters, 80s Slashers, and 21st Century Terrors. Obviously there are plenty of other ways I could subdivide things, but restricting myself to these three keeps me from going overboard (and gives me an excuse to return to this topic later, should I so choose).
I’m making my decisions based on how iconic I think the monsters are – how far have they come in terms of penetrating popular culture? For example, no matter how good a movie I think Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is (and it IS a GREAT movie, and you should all watch it) the fact that he’s kind of faded away since then is going to keep Leslie off the list.
But enough of that. Who HAS made the cut?
Universal Monsters
Universal Studios didn’t invent the horror movie, and in fact, most of their iconic creatures came not from them, but from the annals of public domain. That said, when people think of these classic monsters, the average member of the public is picturing the versions that came from the Universal monster flicks. The Universal Monsters are still known worldwide, a valuable brand that even kids will recognize without ever having seen a single one of their films. Their versions of Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman, the Invisible Man, and many more are absolute legends. How in the world do you narrow it down to just four?
Well, you do it by deciding which ones are the MOST iconic, which ones are known by EVERYBODY – even people who hate monster movies or don’t like Halloween. And for that reason, I think the first two spots have to go to the Frankenstein Monster and his lovely Bride, as portrayed by Boris Karloff and Elsa Lanchester, respectively. Karloff wasn’t the only actor to play the creature for Universal (Lon Chaney Jr., Bela Lugosi, and Glenn Strange each had turns as well), but he was the first and there can be no denying that he was the most memorable. It’s his picture that you see on the merch, his face that the Halloween masks are based on, and his rendition that has informed pretty much everything from his three successors to Frankenberry cereal. As for the Bride, despite the fact that she only appeared in the one film – and only in the final scene of the movie at that – she has become as iconic as the Monster himself. The tall hair with the white streak, the bandage-wrapped body draped in gossamer, and Lanchester’s wide eyes and legendary scream have earned a permanent place in pop culture.
Spot #3 on the mountain couldn’t possibly be given to anybody but Bela Lugosi as Dracula. People don’t often realize that Lugosi only played the count twice, in the original 1931 Dracula, then not again until 1948 in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. But like Karloff’s Frankenstein Monster, his is the most recognizable version of Bram Stoker’s bloodsucker. Everything we accept about Dracula’s hairstyle, his clothes, and his accent (a remnant of Lugosi’s own Hungarian background) come from this version of the creature. Even today, when you watch a Hotel Transylvania movie, it’s Lugosi that Adam Sandler is doing a parody of. Like Karloff, his depiction of the monster is so famous that anybody who tried to do a novel-accurate version of Dracula would probably be met with confused looks as people asked why the hell he has a mustache.
And then there’s the final spot and…guys, this is hard for me. REALLY hard. Not because there isn’t an obvious choice, but because it means I’m going to have to sideline one of my favorites. I love Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolfman. I think he’s got some of the best, most nuanced performances in the entire Universal monster canon, and if this mountain was just my favorites, he’d be right up there. But in terms of how ICONIC he is…well…there are a lot of werewolves in movieland, and he doesn’t quite have the complete dominance over his version of the monster that Karloff and Lugosi do. But you know which monster IS instantly recognizable as the one and only Universal creation? The Creature From the Black Lagoon.
He’s not my favorite of the monsters (in fact, a few years ago I actually ranked him as my LEAST favorite of the iconic Universal Monsters), but EVERYBODY knows the Creature. And since this is the only iconic Universal Monster that is a wholly original creation, not based on an existing book or folklore, there’s not even any real competition for him to have to crush. He’s the one and only. (Although the most famous knock-off happened to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Go figure, Universal exec who turned down Guillermo Del Toro.)
80s Slashers
It has been said by many a horror fan that the slashers of the 80s are the spiritual successors to the Universal Monsters. Granted, they’re far gorier and less kid-friendly than the classics; I’ll sit down and watch a Universal classic with my son, but we’re not going to be sharing a Nightmare on Elm Street marathon any time soon. But at the same time, many of these creatures have achieved the same level of cultural awareness as the creatures of the golden age of cinema. In other words, although not everybody may have watched all of – or ANY of – the Friday the 13th movies, I don’t think there is anyone in the western world who can see somebody wear a hockey mask and pick up a knife without thinking, “JASON!”
Which is why, by the way, he gets the first spot on the 80s Mount Rushmore. Jason Voorhees is synonymous with slasher movies. Even though he wasn’t the bad guy in the first movie and he didn’t get his iconic hockey mask until the third, the version of Jason we’ve had since then has made his mark on our culture. It’s a go-to Halloween costume for bigger dudes (guilty) because it’s so simple – the mask, a weapon, some old clothes and everybody knows who you are. He’s a lumbering monument to the iconic nature of the 80s slasher. Also, the question of which version of Jason is most iconic is largely moot, since no matter who plays him, the mask makes him look pretty much the same. Besides, the best one was Kane Hodder and you know it.
Next to him will be his one-time sparring partner, Freddy Krueger, and this time the creature IS permanently associated with one actor, Robert Englund. (Jackie Earle Haley played him in the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, and although I don’t think anyone really blames that movie’s failure on his performance, it’s still a version we’d rather forget.) In an era where most of the slasher icons were silent killers – hulking brutes who were just as capable of breaking your bones as slitting your throat – Englund’s Freddy is svelte, agile, and with a wonderfully wicked sense of humor that has made him as beloved in the real world as he is terrifying to the teens of Elm Street. Even before the two characters faced off in the movie Freddy Vs. Jason, people would often say their names in a single breath as the two most well-known movie monsters of the era.
The third slot belongs to another quiet killer, Michael Myers from the Halloween franchise. (I know, the first movie came out in 1978, but he’s part of that 80s echelon of horror regardless.) Like Jason, many actors have played the role, but unlike Jason I don’t know that there’s necessarily a consensus as to who did it the best. That said, the creepy killer in a William Shatner mask painted white is indelibly linked to the holiday of Halloween. If you weren’t afraid he might stick a knife in their stomach, you might be sending your kids to sit on his lap for a picture like we do Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Jason and many other killers over the decades have taken their cues from John Carpenter’s creation, and few have done it better.
The fourth spot is a little tougher this time. There’s an argument to be made for Leatherface, gruesome titan of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise, but A) only ONE of his films actually came out in the 80s, and B) I don’t think he’s nearly as recognizable to the general public as Freddy, Jason, or Michael. But you know who is? CHUCKY.
Charles Lee Ray, the bloodthirsty serial killer played by Brad Dourif who has possessed the body of a child’s “Good Guy” doll and, in the process, made us all afraid of our kid’s toys, has earned his spot on my Mount Rushmore. Okay, only one of Chucky’s movies (the original Child’s Play) came out in the 80s, but he’s a MUCH more recognizable figure than Leatherface. In addition to his film series, he’s the star of a TV series that is currently on the air and – let’s face it: the merch. Chucky’s as much a brand as he is a character at this point. Everybody knows who he is and what he looks like, and the name “Chucky” is now permanently associated with a red-haired pint-sized whelp who brings chaos and despair in his wake, although part of that may be attributable to the cartoon Rugrats.
21st Century Terrors
This last mountain of mine is going to be the most challenging, mostly because the pop culture penetration part is a little harder to say for sure with modern monsters. Lots of things are popular when they’re NEW, but will they still be instantly recognized 40 to 90 years later like the monsters I’ve talked about already? Only time will tell. That said, these are the four that I would currently put on the mountain, based on how popular they are NOW and how popular I think they are likely to remain. I’ll go in chronological order of their first films for this batch.
First up is Victor Crowley, the hatchet-wielding killer of Adam Green’s…well…Hatchet series. Victor is a good ol’ Louisiana swamp boy, accidentally killed by his own father as the result of a cruel Halloween prank gone tragically wrong and transformed into a murderous, vengeful spirit that allows no one to leave his home in Honey Island Swamp alive should they be so foolish as to venture there after dark.
I admit to a little bias on this first choice – I’m a big fan of Adam Green and his work in general, so I’m always ready to promote it a little bit. Regardless, I think Victor (who has ONLY been played by Kane Hodder) is highly deserving of this spot. The first Hatchet movie, in 2006, came at a time when virtually all horror was a remake or reboot, either of an older franchise or of a Japanese horror film. Green had the guts to come out with an 80s-style slasher in a time when they weren’t in vogue and created a popular, beloved franchise. It’s been a few years since his last outing (in 2017’s Victor Crowley) but he’s still filling toy stores and turning out new comic books from American Mythology, keeping him alive until Green and Hodder are ready to polish up their hatchets and bring him back to the screen.
Next, from 2009, I’m picking Sam from writer/director Michael Dougherty’s anthology film Trick ‘r Treat. This is one of my favorite Halloween movies, an annual must-watch featuring four delightfully scary stories that all center around the same small town on the same Halloween night, with the diminutive orange-and-burlap clad creature called Sam serving as the common element to all four of them. The movie has a highly devoted fan base, and every few years we get our hearts broken all over again as news of a sequel is announced and then, sadly, nothing happens. Despite that, though, Sam has only become more and more popular as an icon, with costumes, decorations, and toys filling the shelves of a Spirit Halloween near you even as we speak – and really, is there a better measure of an iconic monster than that?
The psycho that gets the third spot comes from 2016’s Terrifier by writer/director Damien Leone: Art the Clown. (And let me just say for the benefit of those readers who happen to be my wife that I intended to include Art BEFORE you looked over my shoulder and saw the title of this column and said, “You better include Art the Clown.” You’re welcome.) Art actually appeared in a couple of short films and the 2013 anthology All Hallow’s Eve, played then by Mike Gianelli. But it wasn’t until the 2016 Terrifier, when David Howard took over the role, that the character really started to get stratospheric popularity.
What is it, exactly, that makes Art so creepy? I suppose part of it is just our cultural fear of clowns, which has only gotten worse in the last decade. Part of it is the unnerving design of the character and his ghastly makeup. But a lot of the credit has to go to Howard’s performance. His Art is lithe, quiet, menacing, and probably the single most brutal horror to yet appear on my list. Seriously, if one of my Mount Rushmore Monsters was coming after me, there’s nobody I’ve mentioned that I would be more disturbed by than Art the Clown. Art, like Sam, has begun to ascend that Mount Rushmore of Merchandise as well, with costumes, decorations, and tchotchkes appearing everywhere this Halloween season in anticipation of the upcoming Terrifier 3 which, amusingly enough, is going to be a Christmas film. My wife got a stuffy of him when we made our first Spirit trip this year. It’s adorable.
The last monster on my last mountain? It’s going to be a controversial choice, I know, but I challenge anyone to make an argument that Bill Skarsgård’s rendition of Pennywise the Dancing Clown doesn’t belong there. Like Art, the villain of Stephen King’s It has that creepy vibe to him, but unlike Art, he’s a chatterbox. He’s as likely to talk the terror into you as he is to jump out from a closet. Whereas Art is an anomaly, a creature of unknown origins who is all the more horrible for it, we know what the deal is with Pennywise. He’s a nightmare out of time, a beast from another universe that preys on our fears and surfaces every 27 years to do so. And Skarsgård is flawless in the role – sly, charming, compelling, and an absolute terror every second he’s on the screen.
I know some of my Stephen King purist friends will turn on me for this one. And look, I love Tim Curry as much as anybody. But he’s be honest here, Skarsgård’s version of the character has completely eclipsed Tim Curry in terms of cultural awareness. Children of the 80s and 90s remember Curry as Pennywise, but if you ask anyone who didn’t see that miniseries in their formative years, the vision of the character they come away with is Bill Skarsgård.
And damned if I don’t think he earned it.
There you have it, friends, three Mountains of Malevolence. But lists like this one are intended to INSPIRE discussion, not settle a debate. So tell me, who would YOU put on each of those mountains? And what other mountains would you build? Let me hear all about your Quartets of Corruption!
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. Other mountains he considered were Hammer Horror, Final Girls, Horror Heroes…ah well. Next time.
Geek Punditry #89: What is Mr. Petit Reading?
There’s a relatively new trend among teachers – English teachers, at least – that I’ve grown quite fond of: the “What am I reading?” board. There aren’t enough kids out there who read just for the pleasure of it, and it seems like that number dwindles every day. Sure, talking about books all day is one of the best parts of my job, but I think kids get the idea that I spend all my time marinating in Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald. And while I certainly enjoy many things about both of those authors, that ain’t what I read for fun. So teachers have started making signs or bulletins that declare that we’re reading for our own recreation in the hopes of stirring some conversation. I never draw attention to the board, or let them know when I’m changing it up, but in the past year or so that I’ve kept the board in my room it has spurred a few questions like, “How many books DO you read?” and “Why do you draw that little star next to so many of them?”
Anyway, another thing that this board has been good for is keeping me reading at a relatively brisk pace. The last thing I want is a kid asking me why I’ve spent the last month and a half on the novelization of Spaceballs. So I carve out a little time to read each day, usually before I go to bed, and I keep that board updated as often as possible. It’s been really helpful to me, giving me an impetus to read more often, and I thought today it may be fun to look back on a few recent reads that I’ve enjoyed.
A Mystery of Mysteries: The Death and Life of Edgar Allan Poe by Mark Dawidziak
I picked this book up at Barnes and Noble on my birthday, part of my Rear Window date night with my wife, and I finished reading it a couple of days ago while riding out Hurricane Francine. I like to think Edgar Allan Poe would have approved. This is a great biography of Poe, with an emphasis on the unsolved mystery surrounding his death, found wandering the streets of Baltimore in a haze, drunk, possibly rabid, and dying a few days later crying out for an unknown person called “Reynolds.”
Or so the reports say.
Dawidziak alternates chapters between telling the story of Poe’s life and the story of Poe’s death, and in both cases he spends a lot of time unraveling a lot of the scandalous tales that have plagued the widest-read author in American history ever since his death. Was he actually an opium addict? (No.) Was he an alcoholic? (He had his troubles with alcohol, but at the time of his death he had taken – and adhered to – a temperance pledge.) Did he die of rabies? (The water he drank on his deathbed seems to rule that out.) Granted, I haven’t read a LOT of books about Poe’s life, but Dawidziak definitely paints the most balanced portrayal of the man that I’ve ever read. There’s a clear admiration of Poe in his words as well. This is obviously the work of an author who holds Poe in high regard, so it’s not surprising how much work he does to rehabilitate Poe’s reputation. At the same time, though, the writing is clear and engaging, and the book left me feeling like I know much more about the man who we all imagine hunched over a shadowed writing desk, an ominous raven perched on his shoulder. If you’re at all a fan of Poe, I can’t recommend this book enough. It’s the perfect way to pregame for Spooky Season
A Nightmare in Oz by David M. Keyes
I’ve written before – frequently – of my abiding love for L. Frank Baum’s Oz in all its forms, and when I encountered author David M. Keyes on Threads discussing his series called the “New Oz Chronicles,” I decided to give it a chance. I’m really glad I did.
A Nightmare in Oz is set in the modern day, 120 years after Dorothy Gale’s first journey to Oz and almost as long since she and her Aunt Em and Uncle Henry came to Oz to live permanently (which happened in Baum’s sixth book, The Emerald City of Oz, in case you didn’t know). But in Oz, nobody ages or dies, so Dorothy is still a young girl here in the 21st century. The story begins with Dorothy having a nightmare – her first since coming to Oz over 100 years ago. As she seeks an answer to her dark visions, she discovers that many of the residents of Oz that, like her, originally came from the non-fairy world are having nightmares of their own: Em, Henry, the Wizard of Oz (who also came back – really people, read the original books) and even her little dog Toto. The mystery of where the nightmare comes from brings back an ancient threat and opens up the doors for an engaging new fantasy series.
Since the Oz books went into public domain, dozens of authors (maybe even hundreds) have tried to put their own stamp on the world of Baum’s creations. Some, like Eric Shanower, do their best to create a world that seems like it could have spilled from the pen of L. Frank Baum himself. Others, such as Gregory Maguire of Wicked fame, use the skeleton of Oz to do something quite different that doesn’t strictly fit in with anything that Baum has done or would have done with his stories.
But Keyes has found a marvelous balance between these two extremes. He is taking Baum’s works as canon, and Dorothy and the other characters have the same inherent goodness and sweetness that readers of the Famous Forty would find familiar and comforting. But by bouncing the action forward a century, he also adds a layer of modernity and sophistication that many contemporary writers don’t attempt. It’s the same old Dorothy, but she’s got a century of experiences that are belied by her childlike exterior. The danger in this book feels more real and more layered than most of the old stories, while not going to the extreme of some other modern writers. I really enjoyed this book, and I’m looking forward to digging into the rest of the books in this series.
The Naked Sun by Isaac Asimov
But this accelerated reading schedule isn’t only reserved for new books. I’ve taken advantage of it to dive back into some old favorites as well, such as Isaac Asimov’s robot series. Most recently I read the second book in the series, The Naked Sun. In a future in which the citizens of Earth are limited to lives in huge, domed cities without ever facing the outside world, Detective Elijah Baley is summoned by an old partner – Robot Daneel Olivaw – to help solve a murder on a distant planet where the sky is open to all, but is so sparsely populated that people live solitary lives without ever seeing one another in person.
Asimov was renowned as a science fiction master, and the world-building in this series has always impressed me. We’re all familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics and all the stories that have been written trying to thwart them, but that’s just the beginning. The projected future of the human race and how Earth is made subservient to its own colonies is fascinating, as are the different types of worlds explored throughout these stories. But I don’t know that people give Asimov enough credit for how good he was as a mystery writer. This is by no means the only mystery novel Asimov wrote, and not even the only mystery/sci-fi hybrid, but the unique circumstances of the world in which the story takes place adds an additional level of complexity to the mystery that makes this one a joy to unravel.
Of course, not every book that I’ve read in the year since I started keeping my board has been a winner, but as I always do with this column, I’m doing my best to focus on those things that I love. You’re not going to hear about the clunkers. At any rate, these are just a few of the stories that I’ve dug into lately that have helped me jumpstart my love of the written word. Hopefully, you’ve been having fun with books lately too.
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. The toughest thing about Blake’s new reading routine? Figuring out what book to read NEXT. There’s a…sizable list of candidates.
Geek Punditry #88: Blake’s Five Favorite Superhero Movie Scenes
It’s time for a new Geek Punditry feature: Blake’s Five Favorites! In Five Favorites, I’m just going to talk about something that’s been on my mind and discuss my…well…my five favorite examples of that thing. Now keep in mind that this list is inherently subjective and not at all comprehensive. You may disagree with my choices, and that’s fine. And there may be other examples out there that I’d like even better, but I haven’t seen them yet. And if we’re being totally honest, if you asked me again tomorrow, my list may be totally different. I’m funny that way. But for now, as of the time I’m writing this, I want to tell you about my five favorite scenes from superhero movies. This is NOT a list of my five favorite superhero movies (although there would definitely be overlap), but a list of the five individual scenes in the history of superhero cinema that make me feel the happiest, proudest, most excited, or most touched. And obviously, these are going to be FULL of spoilers, so if you haven’t seen these movies by now, you may want to skip. Let’s see if any of your favorites make the list.
#5: James Gordon Lives (The Dark Knight, 2008)
Very few superheroes can really do their job alone, and those that try usually wind up learning early on that attempting to do so is a mistake. And for all his talk about being a lone wolf, decades of storytelling have built up a sizable contingent of heroes surrounding Batman. He’s got sons (biological, adopted, AND surrogate), daughter-figures, father-figures, friends, allies, lovers, and even frenemies. And of all the characters that have taken up arms with the Batman during the years of his crusade, my favorite is police commissioner James Gordon. There’s something inspiring about the one good cop trying to clean up a filthy, corrupt department and forging an alliance with an agent outside of the law to do it. I don’t really care for any version of Batman that casts Gordon as an incompetent, which is perhaps the most unforgivable of the many sins in the Joel Schumaker movies.
Of all the actors who have played Gordon, Gary Oldman in the Dark Knight trilogy is hands-down my favorite. He really sells Gordon as a good man who recognizes that things are out of control and takes the necessary steps to set things right, and I absolutely LOVED how this film showed the pact between Gordon, Batman, and Harvey Dent that worked so well for all characters in The Long Halloween.
So I was pretty darn startled when, partway through the film, Gordon is killed. I was shocked. I was stunned. And although the large part of me didn’t believe it could be true, I also recognized that director Chris Nolan had already taken some liberties with canon and I couldn’t be TOTALLY sure that he wouldn’t make that big of a turn. A while later, Batman and Dent hatch a plan to trick the Joker into attacking a convoy. The plan works, the Joker winds up on the ground with a gun to his head, and the cop holding that gun whips off his mask to reveal Gordon, alive, his faked death revealed to be all part of the plan.
Me, in the back of the theater, screaming: YEEEAAH, YOU DO!!!
It is a testament to the love of my girlfriend at the time that, after I jumped and CHEERED in that movie theater, she still agreed to marry me. Someday I hope our son gets as thrilled at this scene as I am every time I watch it.
#4: You Are Who You Choose to Be (The Iron Giant, 1999)
Let’s get this out of the way before we go any further: Hell YES, The Iron Giant is a superhero movie. A childlike creature of immense power comes to Earth from outer space and chooses to use his powers to help people. There is no adequate definition of the term “superhero” that can justifiably exclude Brad Bird’s gargantuan guardian. As if that weren’t enough, the Giant befriends a young boy, Hogarth, who teaches him about being human using what is arguably the greatest possible source material: Superman comic books. (The argument, by the way, is whether or not these are a better source than Charles Schulz’s Peanuts, but the movie is set in 1957 and Schulz’s greatest philosophical work was still ahead of him.)
Lost on Earth and with no memories, the giant goes through the usual sort of mishaps that ETs usually get into, only with fewer Reese’s Pieces, while the military picks up on his trail and tries to chase him down. Late in the film, the Giant’s true nature is revealed: he was created by some distant alien civilization as a weapon. As he struggles against his own programming, a panicked government agent orders a nuclear attack on the robot, one that will destroy not only the Giant, but an entire town of innocent people. The Giant, however, overcomes his programming and remembers something Hogarth told him earlier in the film: “You are who you choose to be.”
The Giant makes his choice. He is not a weapon. He is not a gun.
He blasts into the sky to intercept the missile, choosing to sacrifice himself to save the town full of innocents, and in the last second before impact, he whispers the name that he has chosen.
“Superman…”
If you can watch this scene without tears, I don’t know if I want to talk to you.
In this scene the Giant proves he understands sacrifice, he understands selflessness, he understands choosing to believe in the fundamental goodness of humanity. He understands what being a hero actually is.
He understands Superman.
A hell of a lot better than most other people, I would argue.
#3: Peter One, Peter Two, Peter Three (Spider-Man: No Way Home, 2021)
Tom Holland, as I’ve often said, is my favorite of the actors who have played Spider-Man on the big screen. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a fondness for the other two, Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield. And it was immensely satisfying to me to see the three of them share the stage together in the final act of Spider-Man: No Way Home. In this film, the MCU version of Spider-Man has screwed up badly, breaking a spell Dr. Strange was trying to cast to wipe memory of his secret identity from the public, and drawing in people from alternate realities, destabilizing the very fabric of the multiverse back before people were doing that every other week. The whole thing builds to a battle against the nastiest rogue any live-action Spider-Man has ever faced, Willem DaFoe’s Green Goblin, who ups the ante in this film by (last time I’m warning you against spoilers) murdering Peter’s Aunt May.
While the MCU never showed us Holland getting bitten by a radioactive spider or the death of Ben Parker, they found a different way to demonstrate Peter’s character development by spreading it across three films. Homecoming was about him learning how to be a hero. Far From Home was about him learning to be his OWN kind of hero, separate from Tony Stark. This film is about learning the COST of being a hero. It’s May’s death, not Ben’s, that really hammers that home for us all.
But Holland doesn’t have to learn this lesson alone, because the multiversal rift hasn’t only brought in villains. Holland’s Peter finds himself allied with his previous incarnations, Maguire and Garfield, each of whom has some baggage to bring to the table, and each of whom is essential to the full development of Holland’s character.
While Holland wrestles with his own failures, he sees Maguire, who is implied to have found a sort of stability and love with his version of Mary Jane Watson. In Maguire, Holland sees that there is hope for the future, even in the wake of seemingly unsurmountable tragedy. Garfield, meanwhile, has tortured himself over the death of Gwen Stacy ever since the end of Amazing Spider-Man 2 and become a darker, more broken Spider-Man because of it. But in perhaps the greatest moment of this movie, Garfield saves the MCU version of MJ from suffering the same fate. The look of simultaneous anguish and relief on Garfield’s face is tectonic: he has atoned for his failure. He hasn’t failed again. In him, Holland sees the hope for redemption.
We should all have a moment where we can find that kind of peace.
Seeing what the other two have gone through and how they came out the other side is perhaps the most important part of Tom Holland’s journey in this movie, guiding him to the new life he has to lead at the end with no family and no friends who remember his existence. He’s striking out on his own – lonely, yes, but with the knowledge that hope and redemption are real and possible. And no matter what movie he shows up in next or who directs it, if Tom Holland swings again, that’s the Spider-Man I want to see…the one shaped by the lessons of his multiversal brothers.
#2: Avengers…Assemble (Avengers: Endgame, 2019)
You want to know what makes Avengers: Endgame so great? You know what it does that so many other attempts at a “cinematic universe” (and even much of the MCU in the years since then) have failed at? Payoff. What’s the point in a cinematic universe if not to introduce long-term story threads that eventually are brought together in a satisfying way? Endgame pulled together the threads of eleven years of storytelling and almost two dozen movies to put together a finale that served as a powerful conclusion for every part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, provided you pretended that there weren’t any TV shows that were related to it.
And the best part of that film, for me, was the final battle scene, probably the most thrilling such scene in the history of superhero movies. The Hulk has undone the “snap” from the end of the previous film, bringing back all of the people Thanos killed five years ago, and as he launches his attack on the broken Avengers, their friends start to filter in.
It starts with “On your left.”
We remember this signal from the Falcon – one of the lost – and the rest of the heroes begin to arrive. The Avengers who were dusted in Wakanda. The Guardians of the Galaxy, along with Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, brought back from the far reaches of space. The armies of Wakanda, the acolytes from Wong’s temple. The battlefield is populated with more heroes than we’ve ever seen in a superhero movie before, and Captain America kicks it off with the words that fans have been waiting a DECADE to hear:
“Avengers…assemble.”
But even that wasn’t the greatest part of the scene, wasn’t? Oh, no, as fantastic as that was, there’s still one more bit of payoff to come, when Thor and Thanos grapple on the battlefield and suddenly the mad Titan is struck by Thor’s hammer Mjolnir, scavenged from the past along with the Infinity Stones. The hammer smashes into Thanos’s face, flying through the air, hurtling back to the hand that threw it…but if not Thor, whose hand is guiding it?
It returns to the hand of Captain America, and the movie theater EXPLODED. At least, the theater where I was sitting did. In all my life, I have NEVER heard such an outpouring of cheers and excitement from a movie audience as I did in that moment, and I seriously doubt I ever will again. This, my friends, this was payoff for the entirety of the franchise. As we all know, Mjolnir is enchanted, and can only be lifted by someone who is “worthy.”
“I KNEW IT!!!” Thor shouts.
We all did, Thor. We all did.
#1: You’ve Got Me? Who’s Got You? (Superman, 1978)
But my favorite scene, guys…my single favorite scene in superhero movie history, the scene I would ask to have playing on the screen if they were strapping me down on one of those tables from Soylent Green, comes from the first Richard Donner Superman movie. We’ve spent half the film watching baby Kal-El become Clark Kent, watching him grow up into Christopher Reeve, watching him shape the persona he’s going to wear as a mild-mannered reporter, but we have not yet seen HIM. We have not yet seen more than a glimpse of the title character. Until Lois Lane – of course – is involved in a helicopter accident. The whirlybird falls and Lois falls OUT of it, and it’s curtains for the Daily Planet’s star reporter.
Until she falls harmlessly into a pair of waiting arms.
This strange visitor, this proud figure in red and blue, lifts Lois in one hand and catches the helicopter in the other, and he reassures her that everything will be fine by simply saying, “I’ve got you.”
And Lois, flabbergasted, shouts, “You’ve got me? Who’s got YOU?”
I think we take for granted, in superhero stories, the miraculous things that these characters are supposed to be capable of. We’ve seen so many movies, read so many comic books with people who can fly and shoot lasers from their eyes and walk through walls that we forget how astonishing these things would be in the real world. But Superman was the first movie to attempt such a thing on this scale, and in-universe, it’s something that has never existed before. Up until this point, the world of this film is ostensibly our own. The astonishment that Margot Kidder brings to that moment is absolutely perfect, as is Christopher Reeve’s reaction. He gently places her (and the helicopter) back on the roof, but before he can leave, Lois asks him who he is.
And he gives the only answer that matters:
“A friend.”
There are two things, I think, essential to the character of Superman. One is the protector, the defender, the man who will stop at nothing to save the lives of everyone around him. The Iron Giant showed us that side of Superman. The other side, though, is the man of infinite compassion and kindness, a belief in the better angels of human nature if only there is someone to guide them. Superman is the hero who never gives up on anyone, even his bitterest enemy, because somewhere inside of them he KNOWS there is a flicker of good waiting to be fanned into a flame. Batman tries to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Superman is there to show us all that there is a better way.
I’ve got high hopes for James Gunn and David Corenswet, but it’s hard to believe that anything they can do could ever capture that essence as simply and perfectly as the two words, “a friend.”
Blake M. Petit is a writer, teacher, and dad from Ama, Louisiana. His most recent writing project is the superhero adventure series Other People’s Heroes: Little Stars, volume one of which is now available on Amazon. You can subscribe to his newsletter by clicking right here. Next time: his five favorite McDonald’s breakfast sandwiches! (Spoiler alert: steak, egg, and cheese bagel.)
Blake M. Petit 