• 10:41 The downside to giving a dinner party with “correct” place-settings is dealing with the ridiculous amount of silver afterwards. #
• 11:53 The upside to giving a dinner party with “correct” place-settings is that I love my china and silver. I just clearly need staff for cleanup. #
• 12:26 Whoops.Got our phone bill.All of my Obama calls while in the Calgary airport in were roaming charges. A good cause, but tax deductible? #
• 12:30 Good timing. My phone just died. As in broken. Is the universe telling me something? #
• 12:50 If you were getting a smart phone & a t-mobile customer, what would you get? #
• 14:05 Curses. If I buy the phone at a store, they can’t let me upgrade unless I switch to an NYC number. How stupid is that? Not doing it. #
• 16:52 Finally leaving for Philcon with my new phone. Played with the blackberry and the G1 in the store, settled on the G1. (Hush, Michael.) #
• 19:51 I’m on the River Line heading into Camden. So far, its been painless transit. #
• 21:14 I’m at Philcon and heading for the meet the pros reception. #
• 21:57 OMG I left the Campbell tiara at home. Anyone coming out to Philly from NYC tomorrow? Daft, I am. #
• 22:40 I’m on a panel on websites for writers and explaining twitter. Got anything pithy to say? #
• 23:23 Thanks all for the pithy thoughts, we were trying to demonstrate what twitter is and what it’s good for. #
• 23:24 So, Philcon? Free wifi, which automatically makes this the best con, evar. And well organized thus far. #

This is my first Philcon so I sort of didn’t know what to expect. So far I’ve been impressed with the organization of the con. Good signage, easy registration and lots of communication beforehand. On the downside, I left NYC later than I’d planned and left my demo puppets and the Campbell tiara in the apartment. This is manifestly not very bright. So, Philcon = organized. Mary = not.

I was pleased to finally meet Bud Sparhawk, the Eastern Regional Director of SFWA, since he and I have known each other online for quite some time now. We were on the Websites for Writers panel with Ef Deal and Nathan Lillly, with whom I’d corresponded but not met.

All in all, it was a good day. Even if I am stupidly forgetful.

So, you know how I worked on Lazytown? And you know how I have a thing for Jackie Chan? Guess who the villain is in his new film, The Spy Next Door.

I have to say, I think this is extremely cool.

Whoa. I’ve just had a long-held notion smashed. See, I’ve always been told that the original end of the film version of Little Shop of Horrors was the same as the stage version. Except…it’s not. Up to this point, I’ve only seen footage of Audrey II rampaging through New York. Fantasy Magazine pointed to the original 22 minutes of the ending.¹

Now, those of you who’ve seen the play will note that it differs from the film, dramaturgicly, in two important ways, and I’m not talking about “Mean Green Mother.”

1) In this version, Seymour is captured and eaten by the plant. In the original stage ending he makes a suicide attack and voluntarily goes into the plant, saying, “You may be tough on the outside, but in there, in that pod, I’ll hack you to bits.”² I think that makes a huge difference in how is death is perceived. In the film version, he’s a total loser. In the stage version, he’s noble and has redeemed his honor, even though he still fails.

2) During the finale, the chorus voices singing, “Hold your hats and hang on to your souls” etc. are the faces of Audrey, Mushnik, Orin and Seymour. So even though they are dead, we still get to see them.

Now, I do think that Frank Oz’s reason for changing the film to a happy ending is sound. He said, “In a stage play, you kill the leads and they come out for a bow — in a movie, they don’t come out for a bow, they’re dead. And the audience loved those people, and they hated us for it.”

But I wonder what would have happened if it had been the actual stage ending.

1. Woot!!!!! [↩]
2. I’ve puppeteered Audrey II in seven different productions. At this point, the script is genetically encoded. [↩]

My column this week at AMC talks aboutFour Fantastic Films That Aren’t Quite Fantasy. You genre geeks know what I’m talking about. The interstitial stuff.

Two weeks ago we talked about movies you might not think of as fantasy that do in fact fall into the category. That got me thinking about movies that look like fantasy, but really aren’t. In broad definition, a fantasy evokes a sense of wonder by moving you out of the natural world. Sometimes it breaks only one rule, sometimes it establishes a whole new set of rules, but it’s always at least a step outside the realm of reality. At the other end of the spectrum, there are some beautiful productions that have all of the trappings of fantasy without breaking any rules at all. For us fantasy geeks, that means a wider range of movies to watch and enjoy; for those still timid about diving into the genre, these flicks are the perfect gateway drug. So today, let’s take a look at films that aren’t by definition fantasies, but are chock full of the things we love.

I’m going to turn off the comments here, but I’d love to hear what you think about the subject over at AMC. I’ve already got one person who disagrees with me on one of my picks. What are your thoughts?

.
.

I’m heading for my first Philcon this year. I figure it’s close plus the SFWA regional meeting is there and I’d like to attend.

Here’s my preliminary schedule.

Friday
10:00PM Websites for Writers - Event #16

Saturday
12:00PM Sherlock Holmes and Science Fiction
2:00PM Science Fiction and Romance
3:00-5:00PM Crafting: Hand Puppets (Yep, I’m going to teach on the kids’ track.)
8:00PM Beyond Philip Pullman- Is Atheism the Last Taboo?

Sunday
10:00AM Towards a Theory of Science Fiction
11:00AM Reading (I’ll bring a couple of options and let the audience pick)
12:00PM Presenting your art: tips for approaching art directors, publishers, and galleries
1:00PM The News from Mars

Will I see any of you there?