Remote Wanderings

John Carter (formerly of Mars) may face a battle at the box office

2012-02-17T19:44:00.000+10:00

Deadline is reporting that just-released figures tracking awareness of Disney's science fiction epic John Carter are 'shockingly soft', with one rival exec speculating that it could be the 'biggest write-off of all time'.

The release date is still three weeks away, and a marketing blitzkrieg could turn this around, assuming the prognosis is accurate. But the way Disney have marketed the film is clearly flawed, and speaks to the difficulties of adapting a classic property for a modern audience.

John Carter is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' series of Barsoom novels. Burroughs, who also created Tarzan, wrote ten Barsoom novels beginning with A Princess of Mars in 1917. They follow a Civil War veteran who is transported to Mars and swept up into a conflict between the two Martian races. He ends up fighting for one side and falling in love.

The Barsoom stories have been immensely influential on print and screen science fiction, pioneering the epic adventure rather than idea-based approach to the genre. Star Wars and Avatar are indebted to Burroughs. Jake Sully's journey in Avatar is strikingly similar to John Carter's (some would say it's identical). Dune's Fremen also resemble the Tharks in their ability to survive an incredibly harsh alien environment, and Carter is an outsider who comes to lead them just as Paul Atreides does, albeit without the messianic stuff.

So the problem with a John Carter movie being released in 2012 is that the casual moviegoer unfamiliar with Burroughs will naturally assume that this heretofore unknown property is just ripping off Star Wars and Avatar. This was inevitable and Disney needed to think of a way to market around it. But they haven't, and that's just one of many marketing blunders.

Foremost is retitling the film from John Carter of Mars to just John Carter. The rationale is that women will be turned off by a title that screams 'space romp', and men will assume that A Princess of Mars (if the book title was retained) was not the SF action epic they would want to see in a film set on Mars.

So Disney, afraid of communicating to its audience that the film offers something for everyone, falls back on a generic title that means nothing. On its own, John Carter is not a name that inspires intrigue. Although a good name for a protagonist, it sucks as a movie title, particularly because it communicates nothing about the film's science fiction or romance. ER viewers will think straight away of Noah Wyle's character and be puzzled why this Martian warrior was named after a handsome doctor. Every trailer and TV spot has been instantly deflated by offering this title at the end, which is positioned as grandiose but instead baffles.

Disney and director Andrew Stanton should have just come up with a brand-new title that appealed broadly and portrayed the film accurately. Avatar was a pretty good title because it's an enigmatic word that sounds futuristic, but not blunt and pulpy enough to put off SF haters. How about using Barsoom in the title? Nearly a century on, it's still an unusual name for a planet and connotes history and grandeur, despite sounding a little pompous. Or don't worry about brand-recognition at all - these stories are hardly in the lexicon in the way the Burroughs' Tarzan is.

The second big problem is not telling the audience what the film is about. Most trailers have had some fight scenes that look like Attack of the Clones, a battle speech, and Lynn Collins saying 'you are John Carter of Earth?' That's it. No implication of plot, threat, or character dynamics. When your setting and visual design aren't dynamic and fresh (and fair enough, since this is a century-old property), you need to give the audience a hook to get them curious enough to look past that. Especially when they may be convinced that this is a rip-off.

Which leads to the third problem: the pioneering nature of the Barsoom property could have been an asset. Instead of trying to promote the film as brand-new by virtue of not acknowledging its roots, Disney could have taken a 'see where all your favourite stories came from' approach. I don't know whether they could have legally or ethically named Star Wars, Avatar, and other properties, but they could nonetheless have suggested that John Carter was taking a new generation back to where it all began, or somesuch. Pulling that off without suggesting that the property was musty and old-fashioned would have been difficult, but that's where the CGI and modern action sequences would come into play. To younger audiences, seeing cutting edge technology used for this comparatively ancient tale would suggest a lost treasure to be discovered. That's a lot more enticing than another generic SF alien rebellion movie that seems suspiciously timed after Avatar.

And the final problem (or the last that we'll discuss here, because this film has a lot of problems): not promoting the Pixar connection. Pixar is one of the few consistent creative and critical successes in film, and audiences can't get enough of them. They know that Pixar means a good time at the movies, and also a smart time at the movies. They'll even faithfully show up to a movie starring an old man and his house. John Carter is directed by Andrew Stanton, following up Finding Nemo and Wall-E with his live-action debut. Disney aren't denying their own presence by slapping their name above the title, despite its childish connotations, so why not say 'from the director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E', or 'the director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E takes you into the real world of another world' or whatever.

And show us some dialogue! Show us that great HBO cast of Dominic West, Ciaran Hinds, and James Purefoy. Show us how accomplished actors like Willem Dafoe and Samantha Norton have turned the performance-captured Tharks into real characters. Don't just show us CGI monsters, low-gravity jumping, and Tim Riggins saying 'yes Ma'am'. No wonder potential audiences are rejecting this movie.

I'm a third of the way through A Princess of Mars at the moment, and the lineage to later Hollywood successes like Avatar is already clear. Hopefully Stanton has figured out how to justify adapting this material 'again' and that it feels fresh and vital. Storytelling is his most valuable weapon, and that's what can triumph over Avatar. That film dazzled us to the tune of way over a billion dollars, but it's not terribly rewatchable and certainly felt a little empty even on first viewing. With a great cast, Stanton could make this archetypal story truly resonate this time.

And maybe he's done just that, but Disney aren't telling us. Hopefully word-of-mouth will bring new audiences in on subsequent weekends, as it did for Avatar. That may be what this film needs to pin its hopes on, because based on Disney's marketing so far, I can understand why anyone would be ambivalent about boring old John Carter.

Trailer Watch

2012-02-12T22:11:00.002+10:00

A look at an assortment of recent trailers with some musing about whether or not we should give a monkey's, including The Bourne Legacy, The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider-Man.

You'll find YouTube embeds below, and links to Apple Trailers if you want to download better quality versions.

The Bourne Legacy - Trailer 1

Paul Greengrass dropped out of the fourth Bourne film, and Matt Damon followed out of loyalty. Instead, we have a Bourne film about a Bourne who isn't Bourne. This Bourne is Jeremy Renner, and the film is sold with the supposedly enticing tagline, "there was never just one." Unfortunately, it smacks more of desperation.

Legacy has several pluses. The cast is strong, with Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz joining. Renner is a smart replacement for Damon: an accomplished actor with a different energy to his predecessor. Several of the supporting cast from the previous films return, including Albert Finney, David Strathairn, and Joan Allen. And Tony Gilroy, who contributed to all three Bourne scripts, now writes and directs.

But the truth remains that the project began with the desire to make another Bourne film regardless rather than a strong idea for a new Bourne film. That the project continued without Damon shows that the brand is what matters.

I look forward to being proven wrong, and with this pedigree it's far more likely to succeed than some other franchise reanimations. And parts of this trailer are highly effective, particularly that opening. But I suspect that audiences may groan at being sold a Bourne film that is not about Jason Bourne.

Let's say Bourne one more time: Bourne.

The Amazing Spider-Man - Trailer 2

The trailers for this and Bourne came out within days of each other, but coincidentally they are both a radical reshaping of a fourth film that initially had the existing creative team involved. Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and Kirsten Dunst were in discussions about and developing a fourth Spidey film, but when Raimi refuses to kowtow to the studio's demands after being assured creative freedom following their interference in the wretched Spider-Man 3, he and the studio parted ways and decided to reboot the franchise.

So we have a new Spider-Man film series launching ten years after the last one did. Sony are hoping you won't care.

Fortunately, unlike The Bourne Legacy the title character does still appear. He's just recast as Andrew Garfield and the previous films never happened.

Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) directs, and what's encouraging about this project is that he's already fixed some of the shortcomings of the Raimi films. Garfield looks and feels a lot more like Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire. The villain won't be wearing a Power Rangers costume. And, most crucially, Spidey cracks wise in this film. A hallmark of the character is his sense of humour, which was entirely absent from Raimi's films. Oh, and the webshooters are mechanical this time, but you probably don't care.

More concerning is that Peter Parker is less of a picked-on dork and more of an emo loner. Can Webb sufficiently differentiate his action sequences and visual style from Raimi's while still making his film look like a Spider-Man flick rather than a Nolan Bat-film? And with the casting of Peter's missing parents, will the script play havoc with the lore? This is problematic not out of loyalty to the comics, but as with many superheroes, there's a simplicity to Spider-Man's origin that continues to resonate. If you mess with it too much, you get midichlorians.

The trailer itself is pretty snazzy and fun, although a bit generic in places. The talented Andrew Garfield is what excites me most about this film, as is the prospect of seeing the real Spider-Man on screen for the first time. Oh, and Martin Sheen is the perfect Uncle Ben - who wouldn't want President Bartlett as their uncle?

Battleship - Superbowl Spot

I can't get over how closely the alien spacecraft in this film look and sound like Michael Bay's Transformers. Precious little attention seems to have been paid to a distinctive ship design. Audiences may hurl popcorn if the finished sequences resemble Bay's mechanical explosion orgies as closely as they seem to here.

Even leaving aside the absurdity of a film so tangentially based on a board game purely for brand recognition purposes, this looks like a thoroughly dull exercise in pedestrian 21st century action filmmaking and relentless CGI. I love both Berg and star Taylor Kitsch thanks to Friday Night Lights, but the talent they both displayed there does not seem evident here. Plus, Rihanna--an unproven singer-turned-actor--is the female lead....

I'm quite comfortable writing this off unless some really surprisingly rave reviews pop up.

The Avengers - Superbowl Spot

Please be good please be good please be good.

I should be tired of superhero films by now, I really should. But I'm immensely excited for The Avengers. The reasons are numerous:

1) Joss Whedon finally gets to play in a bigger sandbox. I'm not a Whedon idolator but strongly believe his naysayers sell him way short. Serenity is an exceptionally well-crafted debut feature, and he was an inspired choice to handle the dysfunctional Avengers family given that recurring trope in his work.

2) As we get closer to the film, many seem to have started taking for granted the rare thrill of seeing lead actors from a host of intelligent blockbusters co-existing in the same movie and bouncing off of each other. Marvel Studios get a lot of flack for being cheap and overly controlling, but they had the moxie from the start of their big movie-making plan to team up the heroes from their individual films in one big epic, before they even knew some of them would succeed alone.

And who can not be excited at the prospect of Robert Downey Jr. sarcastically ribbing his more serious colleagues.

3) Finally, a big superhero alien invasion film. Some scope at last!

Of course, there are several potential negatives too:

1) Has Whedon been given the resources to achieve that scope? Much of the action beats we've seen are in New York. Is the alien (or whatever they are) invasion going to be curiously local? Will the build-up to the Avengers be let down by Marvel's penny-pinching?

2) Are the actors going to give their all now that they're not the sole leads? There's been concern brewing that Downey has become such an influential force in these films that he may not be as committed to The Avengers as he is to the Iron Man solo movies. This time he has a new and largely untested director who's new to Marvel movies, and he has a reputation for wanting a lot of input and flexibility on set. He has publically admitted that he was skeptical about the whole project, and the truth is that he was contractually obligated to make this movie. But then he also admitted that it went better than he could have hoped. Hopefully that isn't just spin.

3) Marvel sadly lost Edward Norton as Bruce Banner/The Hulk, most likely due to their penny-pinching. Granted, Norton may have charged a premium because of how valuable he was to maintaining continuity between the films, but Marvel should have paid that.

Even though The Incredible Hulk wasn't the success they hoped for, by letting Norton go (he was in talks with Whedon and excited) Marvel sabotaged part of the plan they had spent so long bringing to fruition. Mark Ruffalo is a superb replacement, no question (I'm still surprised he said yes), but Downey and Norton trading barbs on screen would have been joyous. What a shame.

Oh yeah, the new trailer...

That was pretty damn good! Some terrific money shots there now that more effects have been completed. Holy crap Iron Man fighting alien fighter thingies! Hulk leaping across buildings and getting pummelled by spacecraft that explode when they hit him! They're all standing on a rooftop teaming up and stuff!!

...

Wow, did I just say all that? I'm not typically a fanboy who squees at any comic book fight scene. But there's something so audacious and gleeful about these shots that I can't help but be excited.

Hopefully we get a full new trailer soon, and hopefully I get to April 25 (1 week before the US, yay-uh!) without discovering who the alien invaders are and any more of the plot. I want Whedon to surprise me.

FINISHING SCHOOL: The Larry Sanders Show - Season One

2012-02-11T19:00:00.000+10:00

In which I muse on a wide variety of DVDs from my absurd personal backlog as I complete them.

OK, I'm cheating a little here because I still have five seasons of Shout Factory's tremendous Complete Series DVD box set to get through, but progress is progress...

The Larry Sanders Show was one of the most influential comedies of the 1990s, but has since become more of a cult favourite after being a critical sensation during its run. This is no doubt because the series was largely unavailable on DVD until this set was released in 2010. Rights or legal issues that remain unclear prevented a release, but somehow Shout was able to overcome them.

Now that we have the chance to revisit the series (or in my case, revisit the first two seasons before heading into new territory), we can notice the striking similarities to many contemporary comedies from America, Britain, Australia, and beyond. Larry Sanders helped define a new kind of television comedy that owed more to the documentary than the sitcom, and showed us a skewed, unvarnished, but utterly plausible view of celebrity culture in Hollywood.

Set behind the scenes of a late-night talk show akin to Letterman and Leno, Garry Shandling and Dennis Klein's HBO series used the often petty conflicts involved in running a television show to critique the ego and neuroses of celebrities and, by extension, us. While Larry Sanders (Shandling) is undoubtedly able to indulge his own weaknesses because he's a star, he's clearly a flawed human being despite his fame, which is particularly clear in his relationship with his wife, Jeannie (Megan Gallagher). Rounding out the cast are the show's staff, led by Larry's approval-hungry screen sidekick Hank Kingsley (Jeffrey Tambor) and loyal but slightly unhinged producer Artie (Rip Torn).

Most episodes involve a problem preparing for the night's show, with these behind-the-scenes segments shot on film. This alternates with footage from the show itself, shot on video (similar to ABC's similarly structured Frontline). The camera roves and follows the actors rather than filming their choreographed movements, and combined with the low-grade image quality you believe you're watching a functioning office.

That ethos also informs the show's humour, which is typically wry and satirical rather than laugh-out-loud, and these scenes can transition into a moment of pathos without warning. The humour rarely feels staged, and when it does, it's because Larry is a comedian and his making the joke in a particular context is the point rather than the joke itself. Shandling and Klein's approach is subtle rather than bombastic, so it may take a few episodes before you know you like it, and you'll find the characters engaging before you start laughing uproariously at them. This approach is ubiquitous now, with The Office (both versions) entrenching it even further. Gervais cites The Larry Sanders Show as a major influence, and the lineage is clear.

It also influenced Gervais' next show in a different way. Extras featured celebrities parodying or at least playing reprehensible or undignified versions of themselves, and Larry Sanders blazed that trail. Guest stars in this first season include Robin Williams, Dana Carvey, David Spade, Mimi Rogers, and Michael Richards, and all are willing to seem callous, self-absorbed, or just plain weird. Curb Your Enthusiasm and 30 Rock now do this on a regular basis, but there's an unsettling realism to how Larry Sanders uses its guest stars that they and Extras can't duplicate. You know that these portrayals are orchestrated, but the documentary aesthetic makes it so credible that these recognisible faces become vaguely abhorrent.

Abhorrence isn't what you expect from a comedy, but that speaks to the complexity of The Larry Sanders Show. It eludes genre categorisation, and even labelling it a satire doesn't account for the sadness at the heart of it as Larry and Hank's insecurities eat away at them and intimidate them into betraying their principles. I've yet to see the majority of the show so can't confirm the view of many critics that it's one of, if not the best comedy of the 1990s, but it's already an entertaining and caustically witty show that hints at greatness.

[It's just a shame that the complete series is unavailable on DVD outside of North America. However, Australian readers, a free, legal solution is unexpectedly at hand! In a deal with content provider Crackle, Plus7 have most of the first four seasons available to stream. They are presumably adding one a week and episodes are available for a year, so the early ones may start disappearing soon if my maths is correct. But if you like it, support the excellent Shout Factory and import their set, which is stacked with extras.]

Reviewing Un-Go and some thoughts on anime overall

2012-02-10T20:30:00.000+10:00

Siren Visual have re-positioned themselves over the last couple of years as an impressive second voice in Australian anime licensing. A few years ago their anime focus was hentai and the occasional mainstream title, but they've since identified a valuable niche: off-beat anime that isn't easily categorisable, in contrast to Madman's preference for more established genres and styles.

That's an overly reductive assessment of both companies, but Siren's approach clearly leans toward bringing less conventional anime to the Australian market. Some titles like Casshern Sins and Tiger and Bunny are more 'mainstream', but Siren have gone as far as releasing titles completely unavailable in English-speaking countries as subtitle-only editions. They brought the highly acclaimed Kaiba to Australia last year after most territories no doubt saw its hallucinogenic fusion of Tezuka-style character design and SF spirituality as too uncommercial a prospect. Likewise, the younger-skewing but thematically rich augmented-reality SF series Dennou Coil was released here late last year. Siren is no doubt prompting anime fans in the UK and US to now start looking to Australia for anime imports.

I admire Siren for taking a chance on material that bigger companies have rejected, and without having any financial figures to hand it certainly seems to be paying off for them, with a steady stream of quality titles hitting the shelves.

Siren have also teamed up with Anime News Network to stream anime series within a day of their broadcast in Japan in advance of an eventual DVD release. Thanks to websites like Crunchyroll and the big US licensors like Funimation, instant streaming is becoming a fixture in order to combat piracy. Madman have streamed certain series for Australian fans for a couple of years now.

One of these shows from Siren/ANN is Un-Go, part of the Noitamina line-up of shows on Japan's Fuji Television network. Noitamina is intended to showcase more experimental and unconventional anime, so Siren has naturally licenced several of its shows. Un-Go is one of the most traditional Noitamina shows I've seen, but it fits with the block's ethos by cramming in a bewildering array of concepts.

Un-Go has the framework of a mystery series, as Shinjuurou Yuuki--the Defeated Detective--solves crimes in a contemporary Japan that has recently been ravaged by war and terrorism. His assistant, or boss, is Inga, a young boy who inexplicably transforms at certain points into a buxom woman capable of drawing the truth to a single question from anyone she asks. Why the two work together is a key mystery, but they have a mutually beneficial agreement of some kind.

Most episodes stand alone, but elements from those stories are gradually grafted on to the central arc. Unfortunately, that arc is nearly incomprehensible because the script crams in backstory and secondary characters to breaking point. A recent war or calamity is almost an anime cliche now, so maybe a sense of obligation led to its inclusion here. Otherwise, there is little reason for it that I can discern because it has virtually no bearing on the plot. So many elements of this show fail to cohere, partially because eleven episodes is not enough to do justice to the story the team establish here in brush strokes. Anime stories--particularly their conclusions--can be emotionally and instinctively satisfying even when the narrative isn't understood on first viewing (see Evangelion and RahXephon), but there have to be enough episodes to build the story and characters to that point.

Plus, key elements of Un-Go lay limp. Shinjuurou is an inert protagonist, the typical stern-but-stylish anime dude, so the stories frequently fall flat because it's hard to feel anything for him. Inga's talent for questioning is also utterly contrived, similar to how Death Note's many arbitrary rules undermined the authenticity of the narrative.

The parts of the show that do work unfortunately race by so quickly that we have no time to understand or engage with them. Un-Go has a number of intriguing elements, such as an imprisoned novelist trying to alter reality (I think...) and the gender-shifting duality of Inga, but they are addressed too rapidly to make much impact. This speed also sabotages any emotional investment. As with much anime, overly emotive characters are here felt to be a valid substitute for involving the viewer emotionally. Combined with the breakneck plotting, you're just left to sit and observe rather than truly watch.

I've watched anime more over the last couple of years than I typically have since I first encountered the medium in the late 90s with Evangelion and Akira, and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the aesthetics and concepts of anime are frequently more appealing than the shows themselves. Although I haven't watched an exhaustive amount lately, the anime shows I have seen have mostly underwhelmed, with the exception of Eden of the East, RahXephon, and Paranoia Agent. Even Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex didn't grip me as I expected, despite having so much to offer aesthetically and conceptually.

I'm coming to the conclusion that anime is spending more time on the presentation of the meal than the meal itself, and I don't merely mean the design and other aesthetic elements. A lot of time is clearly spent on concepts and ideas, but rarely do the scripts bring these ideas to fruition. Little time is spent on characters who genuinely resonate so they can deliver those ideas to us.

I've been left wanting enough times now that I need to be more picky with the anime I watch, not just watch the shows that are available through the excellent service that is legal streaming just because the service is there. With so much out there, part of me just wanted to have a ton of great stuff to comprehensively gorge on, as serious anime fans clearly do based on online discussions. But I've luxuriated in the compelling aura of anime enough now to have had my fill of anime-as-experience, and now want to devote the anime time I have to the truly good works that come along rather than persevere with shows that feel half-baked.

Besides, there's still more great shows out there than I probably have time to watch in full, but I need to wait a while to see how they're received by reviewers I trust. Un-Go passed the time, but not enjoyably enough that I should have watched all eleven episodes. I salute Siren for providing this service and will sample any interesting shows they provide (I adored what I saw of Usagi Drop, for instance, and will buy the DVD), but Un-Go has been a valuable experience in being more judicious.

Anime is special and it's easy to think it's consistently great because of the impact it's had on Western pop culture and the passion of its fanbase, but it's just as susceptible to Sturgeon's Law as any other medium.

DC's Watchmen prequels: I'm not angry, I'm disappointed

2012-02-09T19:46:00.003+10:00

The announcement that DC Comics will be publishing the first Watchmen material since the original series didn't provoke quite the reaction I would have expected. At risk of patronising many distinguished creators and comics professionals, I felt like a parent who discovers their teenager has done something bad after they had a calm and rational conversation about why this wasn't a good idea.

You just feel deep disappointment. You expect better from them because they are smart and have such potential, and because you thought you'd gotten through to them.

Of course, they haven't made a fatal mistake and reached a point of no return. But they've done something they're going to regret, and you feel sad for them. That's how I feel about this decision. I actually feel sympathy for DC Comics that they felt this was necessary.

I'm late to the party in addressing this, but since much of the discussion has been about the ethics of returning to these characters--and because this will be one of the biggest mainstream comics stories of the year--another view on the creative rationale is hardly superfluous.

Alan Moore has naturally spoken out against the project, simply wishing it wasn't happening. Dave Gibbons issued a deliberately vague statement that amounted to, "I don't see the point, but I guess if you have to...". Critics have debated whether DC's continued ownership of Watchmen is ethical since Moore claims that DC never expected to keep the rights from he and Gibbons for this long.

These are crucial issues, but not what immediately galls me about the project. Watchmen is hardly the first single, finite text to be expanded upon with follow-ups by other creators, but that doesn't creatively justify it. Watchmen is one of the few superhero graphic novels that is perfectly formed and requires no expansion. Most hint at greater potential and you want to see further adventures, but not Watchmen. Despite rich and complex characters and an intricate alternate history that could conceivably be explored further, I--and many other readers, judging by the outcry to this project--saw no need for such elaboration. Moore and Gibbons created a world that, miraculously, was entirely fulfilled by the one and only story told within it.

This is a common sentiment, and precisely the reason no Watchmen follow-ups have appeared until now. Former DC publisher and editor-in-chief Paul Levitz reportedly blocked all attempts to follow up Watchmen. Despite not offering a meaningful olive branch to Moore about the rights issue (according to Moore), Levitz nonetheless realised that Watchmen was better--and more profitable--if left alone. The property would inevitably be diluted by ancilliary products, and betray Moore's critique of our fascination with the superhero.

Now that Levitz is merely a DC writer rather than its boss, more Watchmen has finally arrived. Several prequel mini-series focusing on characters and groups totalling 35 issues will be released later this year.

35 issues. Three times the number of the original series. DC have managed to turn Watchmen into the money-spinning comics event it was always positioned as a contrast to. The single-volume gateway drug into mainstream comics has been refashioned into the climactic text of a suite of books, with just as nebulous a reading order as Blackest Night and other crossovers.

More surprising is that tremendous creators like Brian Azzarello and Darwyn Cooke are involved. J. Michael Straczynski is also writing two of the mini-series, but this Babylon 5 fan has realised the self-indulgent shortcomings of JMS's writing more and more as the years pass, so his involvement doesn't wound me as it might once have.

However, I am surprised that he would take on this project. He has defended the ethical and legal justifications for the project at length, but precious little has been said about why this should exist it all. Yes, Moore has written about other writers' characters himself, etc etc, but does that creatively rationalise this particular project? Watchmen has had 25 years to embed itself in the comics community and the popular consciousness, so to presume that it can be added to in anything but the most perfunctory sense seems like hubris of the highest order. The original series (strange as it is to nowsay that), was already full of flashbacks, so what purpose to prequels serve?

Passionate as these creators may indeed be about expanding on the Watchmen universe, it's difficult to believe that the original impetus was anything but financial. The Watchmen graphic novel has been a consistently strong seller, and even more so this century and since the movie started gathering strong buzz. More Watchmen books mean more bucks, at least initially.

This is hardly a profound insight, I know, but it strikes me as a simple truth that drives all of this. Both DC and Marvel have preferred to mine their existing characters for all they're worth and beyond rather than take extended and vigourous chances on new material. Yes, this may say more about the market than DC management, but some properties could still have remained sacrosanct. We always assumed Watchmen would be one of those properties. No longer.

If Neil Gaiman hadn't managed to negotiate approval rights for future Sandman projects despite not owning the characters, you can bet DC would be planning a Gaiman-free Sandman series right now. Anything is fair game. Nothing is sacred, and creative justification is no longer a requirement for any potential project, not just some.

If the comics industry hadn't been on this path for some years, the Watchmen prequels would make me angry and bitter. But they just make me sad for what mainstream comics could truly be if we looked to the future.

Ahem...

2012-02-09T18:32:00.001+10:00

... and we're back.

I won't dilly-dally with too much in the way of preamble and explanation. Let's just power on.

Remote Wanderings will continue to be a melting pot of screen and print pop culture commentary, particularly film, TV, comics, and books. I can't predict what each day's post will be, and I hope that'll be as fun for you as it will be for me... after I've actually thought of each day's post...

'Basic Training' and 'Finishing School' will continue (or, more accurately, begin in earnest), particularly because it gives me added impetus to get through my DVD backlog and plug shameful gaps in my experience of cinema.

As for other features, we'll have to see what develops...

So let's go!

Del Toro's Madness, Ruffalo is Hulk, and more news

2010-07-29T19:40:00.000+10:00

GUILLERMO DEL TORO has landed on his feet, hard: Deadline reports that his first post-Hobbit directing gig will be his long-gestating passion project, an adaptation of the seminal H.P. Lovecraft novella At the Mountains of Madness. Del Toro put a substantial, ten-year deal with Universal on hold to direct The Hobbit, postponing the production of several dream genre vehicles, including new, perhaps definitive versions of Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde, a film of Dan Simmons' neo-Victorian Drood, and Madness. His return to America has apparently borne fruit, with James Cameron of all people stepping on board as producer to bring Del Toro's ultimate movie to screens. A script has long been written, and Deadline reports pre-production may begin in weeks with production commencing next year.

Madness is a key tale in Weird horror writer Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, wherein an expedition to the Antarctic in the 1930s awakens horrific old gods linked to the origins of humanity. A film would be that now-rare beast: a horror tentpole movie, with a big budget to bring an epic of Weird Fiction to the screen. Between the unexpected mass success of Avatar and Inception, the rejection by audiences of returns-to-the-well like The A-Team and Robin Hood, and the studio support for visionary projects like this, might we be seeing a rise in auteur-driven blockbusters? Granted, Cameron's involvement no doubt helped a lot - he and Christopher Nolan are probably the only filmmakers who can make anything they want on a large budget - and it will be in 3D, but this is still hugely encouraging. I'm off to read the book.

THE AVENGERS ASSEMBLED at Comicon last weekend, as expected, and what a thrill it was. Marvel pulled it off, gathering the entire lineup cast so far on stage together at the end of Saturday's Marvel panel, along with writer/director Joss Whedon: Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Chris Evans (Captain America), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson), and the new arrivals: Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo were both confirmed as Hawkeye and the Hulk, respectively.

Snagging Ruffalo is significant, as he veers more to prestige fare and hasn't taken on tentpole movies before, although I'm sure he's been offered them. Whedon says he was his first choice, which is lovely, although we technically know that's not true because he was in talks with Edward Norton. Alas, we must move on: Ruffalo's a great choice and will convey Bruce Banner's vulnerability expertly.

Likewise, Renner's a terrific actor joining an already classy lineup - Marvel have accomplished great things so far with this project. Curiously though, despite the hullabaloo, the nascent studio has only had big hits with one character: Iron Man. Captain America and Thor have yet to prove their box office clout. It would be a crying shame if they flounder at the box office and enthusiasm for The Avengers among the general public wilts before it can even begin to grow. I imagine Marvel are hoping for the best very, very fervently.

COMICON also offered the usual array of first-look trailers, but only one has emerged online officially in any form: Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. He has wisely followed up Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen with his first original film, although it looks to be a pastiche of an immense number of pop culture influences. The setup is simple: a young woman committed to a mental institution by her father escapes to a fantasy world, but that world appears to be Lewis Carroll crossed with Tolkien, samurai films, machine guns, war movies, and who knows what else. It's ambitious to incorporate so much into one movie without it feeling overstuffed, and we don't know what Snyder's like as a screenwriter, but it looks visually arresting. Plus, this is an original film made on a big budget servicing an auteur's vision - you will notice a pattern here, non? Sucker Punch arrives in March.

Blu-Ray Bliss: Alien Anthology and Back to the Future Trilogy announced

2010-07-15T19:37:00.015+10:00

Two Blu-Ray packages have been announced that give hope that studios aren't completely abandoning extra features: a few weeks back, it was the Back to the Future Trilogy, and today we have the Alien Anthology.

The Alien Anthology... my god, this is a comprehensive package. Fox have thrown in everything from all previous releases of the films: the 1999 Legacy DVD set, the 2003 Quadrilogy DVD set, even the 1991 laserdiscs! I have the Quadrilogy and it's one of the best sets out there, as should be expected from DVD producer extraordinaire Charles de Lauzirika (Blade Runner, Twin Peaks, Gladiator). But there's a lot of new material on the Blu-Ray. It would take substantial extras to make the upgrade worthwhile, but these look to be a slam dunk. The highlights:

remastered 1080p transfers of the four films. I mainly love this series for the first two films, although Alien 3 has a lot to offer. I'm not going to re-purchase too many movies I own except in cases where they would truly benefit: Alien and Aliens are two of those. But we must pray that Fox doesn't enhance them to death, stripping the grain from the transfers and making these wonderfully grimy films look shiny and polished, as seen in their recent Predator Blu-Ray.
Lauzirika's 3-hour documentaries on each films are carried over, with one notable addition. Thirty minutes were cut from the Alien 3 doco at the last minute, containing the most sensitive material about this extremely troubled production (director David Fincher has since virtually disowned it). Lauzirika took his name off the documentary in protest. In a wonderful surprise, since the material allegedly criticises the Fox regime at the time, the Alien Anthology will sport the uncut documentary. This should be a juicy and compelling watch. Bravo Fox for letting us see the whole story.
Also added to the four documentaries are five hours of 'enhancement pod' featurettes branching off at various points throughout, presumably in the vein of the classic Follow the White Rabbit feature on the original Matrix DVD.
Several other docos from over the years in a kitchen-sink effort by the DVD producers, including the Alien Legacy, a British effort called Alien Evolution, AMC's Alien Saga, and reportedly a Danny Boyle-hosted retrospective on the first film, although this isn't included in the press release. Hopefully it hasn't been cancelled.
A never-before-seen and much sought-after deleted scene from Aliens, presumably recently unearthed, featuring Paul Reiser's character cocooned, plus other new scenes.
Dailies from James Remar's performance in Aliens as Hicks before he was replaced by Michael Biehn.
A superior audio track for the workprint version of Alien 3, reconstructed for the Quadrilogy without Fincher's involvement. Several actors returned to re-record lines previously inaudible on the Quadrilogy version.
Isolated scores for all four films - only Alien's has been included before, on the Legacy release.
Thousands of new stills from the Fox archives.

This promises to rival the Blade Runner 5-disc set as one of the most comprehensive special editions ever released. Hell, the Quadrilogy already was...

The Back to the Future Blu-Ray set won't be anything to sneeze at either. Like the Anthology, it will carry over the original DVD set's features, but unlike the Quadrilogy those DVDs didn't feature an extensive, definitive documentary on the series. The Blu-Ray and the new DVD set both offer a 6-part doco called Tales from the Future, which could be just a do-over, but since the original DVD docos are also included this promises to be something more substantial.

New high-definition transfers are there, naturally, and producer Bob Gale is raving about them to BTTF.com. He also told them that, in a surprise move akin to the Remar Aliens footage but much more significant, they have included some of the legendary Eric Stoltz footage in the new documentary!

Stoltz was infamously cast first as Marty McFly and several weeks of production were completed before director Robert Zemeckis and his team realised they didn't have the right guy. Universal agreed to fund reshoots so they could work with their first, now-available choice: Michael J. Fox. The footage has never seen the light of day since with only a few photos ever emerging, understandable really since releasing it would be a tad insensitive. Gale explained at length quite recently that it wouldn't be appropriate to release it. Obviously all parties are now okay with it though, so this promises to be a fascinating glimpse into a Back to the Future that very nearly was.

For the big movies at least, the studios are still willing to fork out for quality extra features. Hopefully these sets sell well and justify the expense to them.

FINISHING SCHOOL: Wonder Woman (2009, Animated)

2010-07-14T16:41:00.004+10:00

Following up on their long-running benchmark shows Batman, Superman, Batman Beyond, and Justice League, Warner Bros. are taking a new approach to their DC superhero animation, releasing two or three short feature films straight to DVD and Blu-Ray each year. Spotlighting both major and lesser-known characters and sporting big-name voice casts, these films also have a more mature sensibility and slightly more graphic content than is allowed on Saturday morning TV.

So far Batman and Superman have scored a few films, together and separately, as have the Justice League. But in an animated first, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman have been given their own solo vehicles. Of the line so far, I've only seen Superman: Doomsday but was impressed by the scale of the action, the credible dialogue, and the emotional weight. Wonder Woman differs in offering an origin story, but easily meets the other criteria too. I've never had much interest in the character, uncertain of just how feminist this scantily-clad whip-wielding woman really was. This film though, in only 70 minutes, addresses that issue, tells a complete story, and dispels any notion that the Wonder Woman mythology isn't interesting in its own right. This storyline and script could truly serve as the basis for a live-action film.

The opening sequence is a fairly ferocious ancient battle between the Amazons and the forces of Ares, god of war (Alfred Molina). The Amazons defeat him, but are utterly disillusioned with the havoc men have wrought. The goddess Hera heeds them and offers to create a paradise for the Amazons on the hidden island of Themyscira, so they can remove themselves from a world they hate. Their leader Hippolyta (Virginia Madsen) creates a child on the island, Diana (Keri Russell), who grows up with a curiosity about the outside world, which comes much closer when air-force pilot Steve Trevor (Nathan Fillion) crash-lands on the island.

Like Superman: Doomsday, the action scenes are dynamic, physical, and exciting, with a musical score to match. For a straight-to-DVD production, the animation and the scale of the project is impressive. The actors are well-cast, with Fillion a natural as a womanising but ultimately sensitive Trevor. Russell initially sounds too youthful for the role but transforms into a commanding, impassioned warrior. The script is a decent yarn of Ares' quest to regain power, but it's pretty stock stuff - the prominence of ancient mythology is a nice touch though.

More interesting is that the gender politics of the concept are explored with more adroitness than mere cliche, with both Diana and Trevor making good points about each other's somewhat narrow views on the opposite sex. It's not a sophisticated feminist treatise, but in terms of using the Wonder Woman concept for more than Hot Chicks Fighting, it succeeds nicely.

I'd like to see most if not all of the other DC animated movies, though they're coming out at a rate of knots. Wonder Woman and Green Lantern didn't sell as well as the others though, which doesn't bode well for spotlighting less prominent characters as per part of the stated goal of the series. Hopefully the forthcoming titles don't just alternate between Batman, Superman, and Justice League, although the rumoured adaptation of Frank Miller's Batman: Year One would certainly be most welcome. I love animation, and any projects given as much care as these are quite a treat.

Discovering Green Lantern

2010-07-13T21:00:00.022+10:00

While I enjoy superhero comics - sometimes against my better judgement - I don't love all the characters unreservedly. Try as I might, I don't find Superman that engaging except in a few classic stories. I love the mythos and greatly relish the Christopher Nolan-produced film currently in development, but unlike Batman, I can't get into Superman comics consistently. Then there are the characters I haven't even tried reading yet, and Green Lantern was one of these. An interstellar cop with a ring powered by will, he was historically more of a B-lister with a cult following than an iconic player. But in the last few years, Green Lantern has enjoyed a rare transformation into an A-lister of the superhero world, to the point where Warner Bros. saw his potential and put a major film in development. It will be released next year, whereas only a few years ago the character was so inconsequential to them that they were going to use him as a comedy vehicle for Jack Black.

In 2004, DC sought to reinvigorate the stagnating Green Lantern title by returning the most popular incarnation of the character, Hal Jordan, to the mantle. This would be no mean feat, as Jordan had been disgraced ten years earlier, turning into a psychopath after the destruction of his home town. Along the way, he virtually eradicated the Green Lantern Corps and the ancient Guardians who formed it, so a great deal of the mythology was wiped off the slate. Writer Geoff Johns saw in that discarded material the means for the character to gain greater prominence in the DC universe. He has called Green Lantern the greatest mythology in comics, but it was hard to see why for much of the 90s.

With the miniseries Rebirth, Johns had the unenviable task of returning Jordan to the role, redeeming him, re-establishing the Corps, bringing back a classic villain named Sinestro (I know...), and laying enough groundwork for many years of stories within this new status quo, all without overloading the narrative. Jordan was technically dead too, but was the latest host for the Spectre, a spirit of vengeance. Somehow Johns had to turn this scattered character into a Green Lantern again.

Remarkably, these elements coalesce marvellously into an exhilarating story that effectively makes Johns' case for why this mythology is special. To prepare, I read some of the 90s material concerning Jordan's fall and his replacement by young artist Kyle Rayner, but Rebirth was my first foray into the current storyline. It's a terrific yarn with beautiful art by Ethan Van Sciver that somehow juggles a ton of plot points while still remaining smooth and coherent. I believe it would hook anyone with an inclination towards superhero material. The redemption of Jordan is particularly clever as Johns doesn't retcon past stories, merely unearthing hidden aspects to them.

From there, Johns launched a new ongoing title and contributed to a separate Green Lantern Corps book too. The main series focused on Jordan and his dealings on Earth and elsewhere, while Corps took the rich Green Lantern mythology and explored it in more depth. It's easy to bemoan spin-offs, but Green Lantern warrants one. One of the crucial distinctions between this mythology and those of other superheroes is that Jordan is not unique, but rather one of many similarly skilled Lanterns, meaning the title refers as much to the hero's world as the hero himself

Most impressive and exciting to me though is that Johns has been telling a five-year storyline since Rebirth, building gradually to a major event called Blackest Night, which concluded earlier this year. Between the two books, the Green Lantern world has become so detailed as to be a universe in itself, not merely one corner of the DC universe. This is partly because Johns has a fundamental question about this universe that I'm shocked no-one has answered before: if the Lanterns' rings are green and controlled by willpower, couldn't there be other Corps with other coloured rings controlled by other emotions and aspects of thought? He has combined this gradually unfolding answer with a prophecy Alan Moore wrote into a classic Green Lantern short story in the 1980s regarding the end of the Corps and then the universe, incorporating portents from the prophecy into the ongoing storylines. Blackest Night was such a huge story that it became the DC event of the year, which Green Lantern has never really inspired before. Johns has performed a rare act of creative restoration of a superhero by discovering untouched facets that were there all along.

I've yet to read the Blackest Night books, but I can't wait. I'm excited about Green Lantern even while I've grown jaded with other superhero comics. But it's not just the comics that inspire excitement - this is also a world that will look incredible at the movies. Seeing Lanterns flying through space and battling with thought-powered constructs will be exhilarating. Ryan Reynolds is playing Hal Jordan, which is good casting if not ideal (that honour would go to Jon Hamm, who would make a great Superman too). Johns is consulting on the film and Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) is directing. There are indications that the film is throwing in everything and the kitchen sink though, which may be problematic depending on how prominent each element is. The first footage will be seen at Comicon later this month, and I expect it will bring the house down.

So if you've heard about Green Lantern and are wondering what the fuss is about, the good news is that the story over the last few years is fairly linear. Just start with Rebirth and work your way up to Blackest Night - IGN have a reading order here. Johns and his collaborators have crafted a dazzling escapist epic, and if you don't like superheroes, this doesn't feel like the usual men-in-tights business. Instead, it's wonderfully entertaining heroic SF. Enjoy.

Star Trek Fiction - More than Mere Tie-Ins

2010-07-12T21:48:00.042+10:00

I like to consider myself the kind of fan who isn't slavishly faithful. I don't think it's healthy fandom when the object of your ardour can do no wrong. If nothing else, it prevents you from demanding the best, not to mention the fact that you may end up spending far too much time thinking about it.

Tie-in novels have a reputation among more casual geeks as being extreme fodder targeted at such all-encompassing fans, wherein the large backlog of episodes still isn't enough. When the corporate owners of the show don't see any creative value in these extensions of the franchise and are keen to just make a quick buck, then it's sad to see mediocre and inconsequential tie-in novels get gobbled up by the fanbase without discernment (and don't get me started on novelisations...). To make matters worse, the tie-ins inherently can't contribute anything substantial to the narrative of their series or franchise as they are tightly constrained by being unable to contradict what may come. While the shows are running, the novels occupy a fairly pointless limbo where they can only ever hope to be a standalone episode free of budgetary constraints.

But to tar all tie-in novels with this brush is to generalise and ignore their potential. I read some Star Trek novels in my teens and a couple were hugely exciting, written so creatively that the stakes were huge without contravening the series they were based on. Peter David's Q-Squared was a terrific read in this vein, but I soon came to feel that most of the novels I was encountering were entertaining but inconsequential Trek yarns. There were still plenty of TV episodes I'd yet to see that served that purpose, so I moved on. As the years passed I would spot the latest novels in the bookstore and cringe a little that they were still going, even after the TV and movie franchises had gone to dust.

I've since learned that this was far too reductive an assessment. Out of curiosity, I read up on the current state of Trek fiction and was surprised to discover that its ambition has skyrocketed. Free from the constraints of conforming to series in production and movies in development, the books can now be as adventurous as the authors can imagine - anything can happen. The shows have essentially continued in prose form, but with the added bonus of becoming increasingly intermingled in mostly plausible ways, taking care to avoid what's been termed 'small universe syndrome'. The fallout from the Dominion War now affects Voyager and The Next Generation rather than being contained to the Deep Space Nine books, and the political and cultural complexity of that show is now one of the book line's calling cards.

It began with a 'relaunch' of Deep Space Nine in 2001, taking the status quo at the end of the series and incorporating new characters and plot threads to continue the story, but one's that carefully built on what had come before. Voyager then did something similar, but with less longevity: the show was far less serialised and the books had an unclear purpose following the crew's return to the Alpha Quadrant. The Next Generation novels have moved beyond Nemesis with two series, one following Picard and the Enterprise and the other Riker and his new ship, the Titan. Before I learned of the ambition of current Treklit, I assumed the Titan books were just about yet another ship with yet another crew, and groaned a little at the predictability of giving Riker his own series. However, it has been designed with a unique purpose: Starfleet is determined to re-establish its mission of exploration following the destruction of the Dominion War, so Titan is tasked with this as its sole mission. Distinguishing it from similar novels set during the original shows, Titan has a number of bizarre alien crewmembers who could not be achieved on a television budget. The mandate of the Titan series is to be as bold and imaginative as possible, in contrast to the more political and continuity-based TNG stories. Each series has a purpose, rather than just being another vehicle for the same type of tale.

With these four main vehicles for 24th century Trek literature leading the way, there is also room for more distinctive and unusual side projects. In these books the passion of the authors and editors is clear; they are not just whittling off generic Trek yarns. Instead, they seek to alter the Trek mold in a manner that was largely abandoned following the conclusion of Deep Space Nine. Keith R.A. DeCandido's Articles of the Federation features barely any of the usual characters, instead focusing on a year in the life of the Federation President following Nemesis and some calamitous novel events set before that film. DeCandido painstakingly crafts this barely glimpsed corner of the Trek universe so that it becomes fascinating in its novelty, alternating between council sessions, panel discussion shows, and West Wing-style presidential office intrigue (except with aliens). There's a vitality to this novel, its characters, and the major political issues it addresses - which also influence several novels across different series - that makes it easy to forget that Trek is no longer on the air. The stories are substantial enough to be worthy of transmission, and in terms of innovation often surpass the likes of Voyager and Enterprise.

Another example is Vanguard, a series set during the Original Series on a space station at the edge of a mysterious but politically crucial expanse. I've only read the first installment - there are five so far - but this is Star Trek as reinterpreted by HBO, not just in content but sensibility and sophistication. David Mack only uses the Enterprise crew as a way into the Vanguard story and he creates a vivid cast of characters for us to meet on the way, but this is not merely Deep Space Nine crossed with TOS. The agenda is even darker and more ambiguous, the tone more adult and ominous. Mack and the other writers were inspired by the new Battlestar Galactica, and it shows: characters tend to behave in a less flattering light than we're accustomed to in our Trek heroes. Given that novels set in the Kirk era are still prevented from being too universe-altering, it will be interesting to discover how the momentous events the series is building to will incorporate into established history. Regardless, these are quality novels that give a fascinating new perspective on the original Star Trek.

As enamoured as I am of these novels though, I can't help but ponder the question of whether, despite the current creative streak, enough was enough back when these series ended, as many on the outside looking in may assume. Why exactly are readers drawn to these novels when the shows are long over? Surely that is the last word, so should we move on? Well, to begin with, readers don't necessarily spend all their reading time on Trek novels, especially since they're pleasantly brief reads. For me, the interest does partially come from the pleasure of returning to a universe that holds much appeal, but mostly it derives from the ambition of the team behind these novels. I would not be reading them now if they were as understandably inconsequential as most of the novels I read in the 90s. But the current authors - a stable of around ten - have taken the opportunity for high-stakes original Trek fiction and run with it, in the process achieving things that the shows never could. Armed with a limitless budget, the writers can make Trek as massive as they want and as interconnected as they need since there is no concern for actor availability and other production factors. While it could be argued that such investment might as well be transferred to an original fiction series rather than drawing out the lifespan of one born in another medium, this denies the appeal of seeing a much-loved franchise being reinvigorated, even if it is in novel form, and that the majority of Trek readers will still predominantly read original fiction.

After all, Trek did not end its run on TV and at the movies with the audience still clapping. While Voyager and Enterprise certainly had their fans and I enjoyed them on the level they were aimed at, I'd argue that ambitious, innovative, daring Trek undeniably ended with the conclusion of Deep Space Nine (not necessarily GOOD Trek, I stress). The Next Generation films didn't fare much better, dwindling rapidly after the high of First Contact with decent yarns that nonetheless felt oddly askew with what had come before. The ensemble cast was far less prominent given the running time, and due to this and other factors the films were less recognisable as TNG installments, instead becoming big SF action movies with Picard and Data.

I'd wager that nearly every Trek author has a similar preference for the Deep Space Nine approach to Trek over the later shows, not because I'm an egomaniac but because the storytelling of the novels is far more reminiscent of DS9 than it is of Voyager. Politics, serialisation, moral ambiguity, and conflict are the order of the day, not space anomalies, holodeck problems, and bumpy-headed aliens in trouble. By taking this approach, Trek has unexpectedly received a shot in the arm via its own tie-in material rather than the tie-ins trailing an on-screen creative renaissance. As much as I enjoyed the Abrams Trek film, it is these novels that capture the spirit of Trek as seen from a 21st century perspective, continuing to critique the Roddenberry utopia without undermining what it stands for, just as Deep Space Nine did.

I'd encourage any lapsed Trek fans to take a look at the novels published so far this decade, as I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised: they've apparently even managed to transform Voyager into an intense, important, relevant series. Although less books are being published now than when the shows were on the air, quite a few have been amassed so far that take part in this post-DS9/Nemesis shared universe. I'm only partway through myself, but I gather it's not crucial that all of them be read. Below are some links to get you started. Obviously this is a post purely for the fans - I doubt you'd get enough out of the novels without the shows to draw from. But for those fans who never considered bothering with the novels, I'd urge you to reconsider. And hey, they're cheap!

Memory Beta - the non-canon Star Trek wiki. Entries like "DS9 relaunch" and "TNG relaunch" will get you started.
Trek BBS Literature FAQ - the premier online forum for discussing Trek fiction. This is a FAQ created to answer all the questions a new reader may ask.

Edward Norton won't be the Hulk in The Avengers

2010-07-11T22:37:00.001+10:00

Drew McWeeny at Hitfix scored a double-whammy of a scoop over the weekend, first reporting that Edward Norton would not be playing Bruce Banner/The Hulk in The Avengers, despite Norton and director Joss Whedon both loving the idea. A deal allegedly couldn't be made, and given Marvel's current strategy of paying actors relatively small sums but for multi-picture deals, it's not hard to figure out what the sticking point might be.

Then Drew received an official response from Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige, which is rare in that it publicly acknowledges negotiations usually kept behind closed doors. Any chance that fan reaction to the news might send Marvel back to the negotiating table seems lost, with Marvel's rapid response designed to make that abundantly clear. It's also a very public dig at Norton, accusing him of not being a team player. Whether this means unreasonable demands for creative input or just not accepting a similar salary to his castmates is unclear. I can't help but wonder though if Downey is scoring the biggest payday here, and perhaps that's ruffling feathers.

I think this is sad as hell. The Incredible Hulk was not a great picture, and despite being a tremendous actor Norton did not make a marked impression in the role. This may not be his fault though, as the Banner character is far less showy and eccentric than Tony Stark, which rocketed Robert Downey Jr. to the A-list. Plus, the script did not give Norton the opportunity to truly make us feel for the character. Such material may be on the cutting room floor, as Norton was allowed to revise the script, which I'd wager Marvel agreed to in shock that an actor of his calibre was willing to take on the second attempt at a failed franchise directed by the guy who made the Transporter films (the Internet quaked a bit when Norton was announced - no-one expected Marvel would score a talent like that for the Hulk). Norton was then reportedly dismayed when much of the characterisation he had written in was edited out to produce a leaner, plot-driven cut. A longer cut of The Incredible Hulk, if ever released, may restore some nuance and resonance to a film sadly lacking them.

Regardless though, the film was the second in Marvel's series of interconnected films. The super soldier serum that created Captain America was glimpsed, and of course Downey appeared as Stark in the final scene. Recasting Terrence Howard was bad enough, but swapping the Hulk himself really torpedoes the continuity Marvel is striving for. Granted, unavoidable social and financial conflicts can always arise that have to trump such goals, but this one was crucial to overcome. Plus, for the last couple of years the speculation has been about whether Norton would even want to return following his bad experiences with Marvel (he barely promoted the film), but he did and he liked Whedon, who wanted Norton as his Banner. For all these aligning elements to be ignored is truly sad. Norton is a hell of an actor and there's every chance that the material in The Avengers and his interaction with Downey and the rest of the cast could have enabled Banner to come alive. Plus, recasting in an interconnected series of films is arguably even more damaging than recasting for a sequel, as more than one directly linked film depends on the continuity.

It's doubtful too that the role will be small and a new actor will have little impact, as I doubt Norton would be interested in returning for such a scenario. If what Drew heard was accurate, then Norton was energised upon hearing what his role would be in the film. Instead, we've now got one less name on that stellar marquee that the Avengers poster will sport. I was so anticipating seeing Norton and Downey on screen together.

Now the focus is on Comicon, and what Avengers events may occur there. Marvel has yet to officially confirm Whedon is the director despite everyone he knows strongly implying in public that he's working on it right now. I expect they'll now save the announcement for Comicon, and perhaps even have the stars currently signed on there on stage with Whedon for the official debut of the project - Downey, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, maybe Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and whoever else they may have secretly signed up. I think Hall H will truly meltdown upon seeing these guys on stage together - the Avengers assembled at last - and discussing what's to come with Whedon. I'm tickled at the notion of Downey and Whedon working together - it's a delicious combination.

The new Hulk actor may be announced there too, but whoever it is will know they're the second choice in Whedon's eyes and the fans. It reminds me of the bizarre Justice League film that George Miller nearly made with an unknown actor as Batman who would have played the role concurrently with Bale. It's a true shame that this had to happen, that the wheels on the Avengers train are already starting to rattle. We won't be privy to the secret shenanigans that led to this decision, but they've disappointed the very fans who this project is designed to excite, which is quite a speed bump as the journey begins...

Revolutionary Road

2010-07-10T22:23:00.001+10:00

A skilled filmmaker can take a basic premise and develop two markedly different films from it. Revolutionary Road is similar to director Sam Mendes' debut American Beauty in examining discontent with suburban life, but each draw different conclusions depending on how the characters act on their epiphanies.

I'm trying to refrain from reviewing older films randomly unless they fit into an existing project such as Finishing School or the forthcoming Basic Training, but Revolutionary Road sparked such contemplation that I can't not write about it. Although set in the 1950s and based on Richard Yates' 1961 novel, the film is effortlessly universal and urgently relevant to life today by identifying that while the trappings of the conformist, more repressive 50s but may be gone, feeling trapped within one's society is always possible.

Frank and April Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) are a young couple living the reputed American Dream: a lovely suburban house, two kids, and a job that supports their lifestyle. But the ambitions they had as they entered adulthood have dwindled in significance without their realising it, so they become determined to boldly break with convention by moving their family to Paris. However, neither of them know exactly what they want to do with their lives, so their attitudes to change begin to diverge.

This is a remarkably insightful film that is painful in its resonance. DiCaprio and Winslet beautifully embody the struggle of wanting to change their lives but not knowing how, and the intertextuality with Titanic is poignant. By casting the two, Revolutionary Road almost becomes the story of what would have happened to the whirlwind love affair of Jack and Rose if they had both survived and found themselves in 1950s America in a life innately more mundane than than when they fell in love. That contrast with idealised, timeless love adds an additional layer, as we see very little of Frank and April's relationship before they started hungering for something new.

The dialogue cuts to the heart of these personal agonies, although occasionally being a little too profound for the heat of the moment. April speaking of the nature of truth in the middle of a fraught argument stretches credulity, and in this and other cases the film can wear its ideas on its sleeve too readily, particularly in the character of John Givings (Michael Shannon). A mathematics PhD transitioning from life in a psychiatric ward, John is introduced to the Wheelers by their quintessentially suburban 'friend' Helen (Kathy Bates) in the hope that time spent with Such A Delightful Young Couple may help his recovery. John proves to be the only person who sees the value in moving to Paris and starting anew, and feels betrayed when their opinions change. John is a battering ram smashed into quaint suburbia, questioning its values and purpose but not taken seriously because of his condition.

Shannon is tremendous in the role, a seething malcontent angry at the world but lacking the social ability to impart his ideas without alienating those who hear him. Unfortunately though, the character is redundant, giving voice to notions that are plainly apparent in what is said and unsaid between Frank and April (his first scene is followed by them noting how he is the only one who agrees with them when it's plainly obvious that they've realised this). He doesn't even affect the decisions they make, rather serving as a Greek chorus on the tragedies that surround him. It's a shame that Shannon - who I'm now looking forward to watching in the Martin Scorsese-produced HBO series Boardwalk Empire - is not used to more consequential effect.

His character is the film's only misstep into heavy-handedness because much of the characterisation is conveyed visually, both by Mendes and the cast. There's a beautiful contrast between Frank in a sea of identical office workers and April standing on her empty street, surrounding by matching garbage cans, and a climactic shot of Frank running is wrenching in its fulfillment of a recurring refrain. While the film relies a little too much on dialogue - perhaps due to Mendes's theatre background - this is still a gorgeously visual film and one ripe for character analysis merely from the actors' expressions.

Central to this intricacy is how they respond to revelation, which is where Road diverges from American Beauty. Lester Burnham's journey was bookended by contrasting epiphanies that enabled him to realise the beauty in the life he scorned, but Frank and April are unable to act on theirs. Although each may believe the other has a different view on what needs to be fixed, they are equally crippled by varying terms of acceptance with the harsh realities hemming them in. Frank is torn between the average life he knows and the promise of a more fulfilling one, but he only glimpses it in faint outline with no confidence in what it would actually be. April instead wants to go for broke and try anything but her current life, and so remaining in it would be a conscious choice rather than merely powered by inertia, rendering it agonising in a way Frank can't understand.

If you're at all affected by such dilemmas of purpose and direction, then this film will wrench at you and remain in your thoughts. The novel has a reputation as being the forerunner of the fiction of suburban discontent, so it is appropriate that the film stands as one of the finest and most acutely observed recent examinations of "lives of quiet desperation". Revolutionary Road is a cautionary tale for anyone tempted to settle for less.

The 2010 Emmy Nominations - Why I'm Not So Cranky This Time

2010-07-09T22:38:00.001+10:00

I've learned to care about the Emmys a little less each year. One maddening win after another does much to weaken your resolve, but since such awards are the closest a sportless weirdo like me will get to enjoying professional competition, I can't help but be curious when the nominations come in. On days like today I can't help but join my fellow industry watchers in cheering the little victories and crying foul at the usual lazy selections and narrow-minded thinking.

The Emmys are particularly galling in that, unlike the Oscars, the same poor choices can recur year after year out of misplaced loyalty or voters ticking the usual suspects on their ballots. Prime examples are the continued focus on the now rushed and forgettable 30 Rock and the perpetual nominations for Monk star Tony Shalhoub despite nothing else for the show itself, ever. More infuriating is the snubbing of incredibly worthy shows so that average ones can steal their thunder because they're more palatable. The Academy's resolute refusal to even nominate widely acknowledged modern classics like The Wire, Battlestar Galactica, and The Shield except in occasional token fashion so that House and Grey's Anatomy can be propped up is a stupendous feat of narrow-mindedness. These are shows adored by critics and by much of the industry yet the Emmy voters hold up a crucifix. Since the Emmys are composed of huge numbers of industry professionals, the rest of the industry must have the deciding vote.

But alas and bygones - let's look at this year's nominations, which can be viewed here.

THE GOOD

Friday Night Lights scores shocking nominations in major categories for the first time, and the most clamoured-for ones of all: Best Actor and Actress for Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton (above), responsible for the more natural, compelling, and believable marriage on TV. They're utterly convincing, down to the slightest gesture. Does this pave the way for FNL to finally score a Best Drama nom for its forthcoming final season?
Lost was not shunned in the major categories despite a major storyline involving an ancient smoke monster with mummy issues. Not only did it score a Best Drama nod - and any show that makes that work without jumping the shark deserves to win - and more noms for Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson, but Matthew Fox was finally acknowledged in the Best Actor category. Fox has always copped flack because his ostensible hero character was intentionally unlikable much of the time, but his poignant work - particularly in the finale - as a shattered man who found his reason for living was truly affecting; that final scene haunted me for days. But what a crime that Nestor Carbonell wasn't given the nod for his gobsmacking, intense work in Richard's spotlight episode! I would much rather he and Josh Holloway get recognition than past winners Emerson and O'Quinn.
Entourage and Jeremy Piven were finally booted from the party. I've seen the first two seasons but remain baffled as to why this pointless, arrogant, and unfunny show has consistently been so rewarded. Emmy finally saw sense and rewarded another HBO comedy instead: Curb Your Enthusiasm and the immortal Larry David.
I'm not a big True Blood fan and don't think it warrants a Best Drama nod, but the presence of two genre shows in the Best Drama category may be unprecedented. Perhaps the category needn't be just for the meaningful shows though - no show does gripping popcorn entertainment like True Blood. I usually dislike watching large quantities of TV at once, but I downed season 2 in two days - it's relentlessly entertaining despite being fairly hollow and not living up to its potential (we got a glimpse of it in that amazing rooftop scene with Eric and Godric...).
Mad Men and Breaking Bad delightfully remain in play, although that's not surprising. And while I've yet to see Nurse Jackie, it comes with high praise and its nom for Best Comedy is a pleasant underdog victory.
Voters truly stuck it to NBC by nominating The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien in four categories including Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Series, rather than with Jay Leno, despite NBC naturally not spending one cent campaigning for it. It's rare for an Emmy nomination to make such a pointed political statement.
The absurd dominance of the writing categories by Mad Men and 30 Rock mercifully lessened this year with only two apiece, leaving room for Friday Night Lights, Lost, and The Office to squeeze in. Come on voters, watch FNL next season too!
The mini-series nominations are typically far less surprising, due to less options and a couple of productions usually standing way out in front, so The Pacific scoring the most noms for any show is to be expected, although the lack of overwhelming critical adulation could have led to an upset and may yet (I don't see BBC import Return to Cranford besting it though). I'm saving The Pacific for Blu-Ray at my own pace, and I'm curious to see if I'll concur with the 'great, but not masterful' critical consensus.

THE BAD

30 Rock!! The opening episodes of season 4 proved that this once engaging comedy is now just churning out product, as filled with lazy non sequiturs and inconsequential plotting as Family Guy. The show now coasts on Alec Baldwin deadpanning and showing everyone how it's done and Kenneth being naive and kooky, yet a-bloody-gain. From what I hear, it didn't improve much, yet it still attracts massive guest stars - Matt Damon! I swear they've heard how cool the show is but haven't actually watched it since season 1.
I want to like Modern Family, but the first three episodes quite shamelessly crib The Office's style, humour, and characters. It's like a spin-off made by the same documentary crew who hunted the family equivalent of Dunder Mifflin. Naturally I would give it more time to see if the acclaim applies to later episodes, but since the industry was falling over itself to call the pilot a masterpiece I sense we're on different wavelengths. I'm shocked by how Ty Burrell's character is essentially Michael Scott as a married father, and by how the documentary with interviews technique doesn't just rip off The Office's format, but each interview replicates the same gags and observations. This is one of those massive success stories that I don't quite understand. Ditto Glee, but I hate musicals so don't hold the show any ill will.
The Emmys recognising a large number of new shows is laudable though, which makes the lazy voting all the more irritating: Mariska Hargitay for Law and Order: SVU, again, seriously, after a decade on the air?! That nom should have gone to Katey Sagal for Sons of Anarchy, by all reasonable accounts.
The snubbing of Sons of Anarchy is potentially irritating to me as well. I've only seen the first few episodes and haven't reached the pants-wettingly good stuff yet, but I love The Shield - creator Kurt Sutter's last gig - and trust certain critics that this is in my wheelhouse. It's still frustrating because the Academy has a larger problem with grimy shows that have the temerity to show life as it actually is for some people, which explains the lack of love for The Wire, The Shield, and now Sons despite every objective criteria stating that they are of the same quality as their more shiny peers. Amusingly, it's not FX that's getting dissed - their slick shows like Damages get hugs and flowers. But if your main characters look shady, then game over (also known as the Sopranos/West Wing-The Practice effect).

So despite all of that, I must confess that I have little reason to tune in to watch the broadcast and wade through the glitz and lame gags and self-congratulation. I'm curious to see if Kyle and Connie pull a surprise win though. And what if Lost wins the big gong? And Conan winning would be too sublime... OK maybe I will be watching it. But I'll hate every minute, I promise.

News for the Day

2010-07-08T22:46:00.001+10:00

Ain't it Cool reports that Aaron Johnson will play young Cyclops in X-Men: First Class, to be directed by his Kick-Ass boss Matthew Vaughn. It's not official, but Ain't It Cool are more careful with their casting scoops these days - when they do make them, they tend to be very reliable.

Johnson joins James McAvoy as Xavier, Michael Fassbender as Magneto, and Alice Eve as Emma Frost, with the remainder of the cast to be announced.

Yes, this appears to be either a prequel or a reboot, neither of which has had much creative success in Hollywood lately given that they largely serve as a means to cast new, cheaper actors or wring some more money from a brand the studio has the licence to by hoping to convince the audience that the original films never happened.

But then they just go and confuse me by hiring good people. First Andrew Garfield - a thespian, not a star or even a pin-up - as the new Spider-Man, and now Vaughn directing First Class (yes, I know that's the wrong way round but it serves my purposes, dammit). Vaughn values his creative freedom so highly that he went outside the studio system to make Kick-Ass in an uncompromised fashion, raising funds to make a $30 million British independent superhero film - the man has steel, that's for sure. Plus, he left X-Men 3 under mysterious circumstances, possibly due to the pressure of having to deliver the film on Fox's insanely rushed schedule to meet a release date. The task eventually fell to Brett Ratner, who produced a tragically mediocre conclusion to what should have been a strong trilogy. If Vaughn dodged Fox's bullet once, it's interesting that he's risking stepping in front of it again.

There's speculation that Fox have learned from Avatar and are valuing a director's vision, and may even be heeding the geek bile hurled their way for years due to their consistent mishandling of slam-dunk properties (botching the X-Men films post-Singer, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and more). Thus they hire Vaughn, who earned much geek goodwill for his brutal, brilliant Kick-Ass, and promised him more creative latitude than previous directors in his position have enjoyed (eg: Gavin Hood on Wolverine). He's been able to hire Stardust and Kick-Ass collaborator Jane Goldman to rewrite the existing script - the First Class project has been kicking around at Fox for a couple of years now, initiated by The OC's Josh Schwartz - which is rare on a mere work-for-hire assignment.

Granted, the film is coming out in June 2011 and has yet to start filming and Vaughn was only hired in May, and granted, Vaughn may be smarting from the underwhelming box-office take of Kick-Ass and may be willing to make one-for-them to restore his commercial viability. But Kick-Ass was made rapidly, so Vaughn may be able to produce First Class on a similar schedule (Kick-Ass showed no signs of being rushed).

Plus, he's hiring some great talent. Michael Fassbender is so perfect as a young Magneto that it beggars belief, and James McAvoy has great presence and no doubt has his pick of many projects. The two of them facing off truly is the 30-ish equivalent of Stewart and McKellen. Johnson too is very capable and versatile, judging by his contrasting turns in Nowhere Boy as a young John Lennon and Kick-Ass.

I'd love to believe that Fox have learned their lesson with the woeful response to X-Men: The Last Stand and Wolverine (commercially, the films slid very rapidly too), and these are certainly steps in the right direction. But whether this is a prequel or a reboot will determine the content of First Class and how ambitious it can be. At least it has the strong hook of showing how Xavier and Magneto turned from friends into enemies, so there is some new territory to explore. We'll have to wait and see whether Vaughn can transform the X-Men well from a tepid pool into a spring. Between this, Captain America, Thor, and Green Lantern, 2011 promises to be a hell of a year for superhero cinema.

Avatar will be re-released in cinemas in August in 3D and Imax 3D. That'd be fine, but they call it a Special Edition and promise that we'll "see it like never before". Yet it has a measly 8 minutes of new footage. In a 2-hour-40-minute movie, that's not much. They claim the re-release will enable those who missed out on the 3D experience to see it properly, but this feels like a bit of a cash-grab. Ah well, people can go see it again if they want to. I'll just wait for the proper multi-disc Blu-Ray, likely with more deleted footage as well. I'm fairly lukewarm on the film now, but the visuals and the technology are so impressive that I'm looking forward to learning about how the film was made, especially if the rumour that superb DVD producer Charles de Lauzirika (Blade Runner, Twin Peaks Gold Box, and many more) is creating the documentary.

Marvel is releasing pin-up art from its Marvelman Classic Primer one-shot, coming later this month. It's strange that this introductory publication, announced months ago, is nearly out but with no word yet on what on earth Marvel are actually doing with the character. Clearly resolving the complicated rights issues to reprint the landmark, astounding Moore/Gaiman issues is taking a long time. Announcing it at Comicon, also later this month, makes a ton of sense, one year after they announced they had acquired the character, but Rich Johnston recently reported that this may not be possible - argh! We've waited so long for Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman's run to finally be reprinted and for Gaiman to finally finish his story, 20 years on, that any more delays may just make me cry.

To those who have no idea what I'm raving about, that's actually kind of the point - not enough people know about this seminal and influential work. Alan Moore's reinvention of a fairly forgettable 50s British superhero was revolutionary in its treatment of the superhero genre as ethically ambiguous, featuring some content that even today is truly confronting. After a stunning climax, Moore handed the keys to Neil Gaiman, but the publisher folded before he was halfway through his run. Then rights issues relating to the character and the work itself dragged Marvelman - or Miracleman as he had to be known then - down for years. Then last year, Marvel pieced together a solution and bought the rights to the character, but not the whole package (note that in the above image, Marvelman at the right has no chest logo, clearly indicating that the rights situation has yet to be resolved - long story).

That is the ludicrously short version. For a quite fascinating yarn of lost stories and characters, Wiki it. Skip to the ownership bit though - don't ruin the story for yourselves. Besides, the cover to issue 15 that you'll see amidst the plot summary will tell you all you need to know about how far Moore takes the superhero...

Misfits

2010-07-07T22:52:00.001+10:00

British genre television is a fickle beast, airing either in abundance or hardly at all. The success of the revitalised Doctor Who has thankfully led to numerous science fiction, fantasy, and horror shows with that much-missed no-bollocks British sensibility. For the decade prior, one show would came along in a blue moon to get our hopes up for a revival, but nothing would appear in its wake. Ultraviolet was a lone wolf in the late 90s, offering a pragmatic and innovate take on vampires years before they re-entered popular culture in force. But now we don't have to hang our hats on just one British genre piece. There's Torchwood, Being Human, Primeval, Dead Set, Paradox, and more. I can't vouch for the quality of all of them, but if a number are being made then we're far more likely to have a few standouts. Misfits is one of them.

The first series wrapped up on ABC2 on Monday, a month after winning Best Drama at the BAFTAs despite airing on a peripheral British digital channel and focusing on foul-mouthed, dysfunctional youths with superpowers. If genre television is so prevalent that it can even crest the peak of mainstream award shows then it is becoming part of the British television landscape again, as it should.

I'll resist the urge to proffer 'this-show-meets-that-movie' comparisons as I'm sure you'll be able to infer them. Five young people doing community service for petty crime are suddenly transformed by a mysterious storm and develop superheroic powers, from telepathy and invisibility to some less orthodox ones. With the setup out of the way quickly, creator Howard Overman sets out to tell a contemporary superhero story the British way, most notably by giving the superpowers not to pillars of society or pop-culture obsessed Whedonesque figures but those in between: average young people with only a passing interest in superhero yarns and doing the right thing. Overman also doesn't care about the source of their powers or about them being particularly heroic. Even when they threaten to be, they certainly don't talk to each other about their moral obligations. They continue to be kids dealing with their own issues, and powers are a vaguely embarrassing hindrance rather than a means for personal growth.

Each episode stands reasonably alone, but there is a throughline concerning the fallout from their first encounter with their powers (hint: they're not alone). That storyline is compelling but a little cliched and stretches credibility, especially in light of how deliberately mundane the show is designed to be. But it does yield some interesting character explorations, particularly with Simon (Iwan Rheon), the friendless 'freak' who is both the smartest and most naive of the group. Rheon looks exquisitely uncomfortable in his own skin; his teeth can even be seen grinding through his cheeks. All the actors are engaging, particularly the mesmerising Robert Sheehan as Nathan, the one character whose power is yet to reveal itself if it even exists at all. Sheehan gives every line a unique spin, and can elicit laughs just with a shift of his eyes, never more so than in the darkly hilarious closing scene of series one.

But like his castmates, he's equally comfortable with drama, which the series embraces wholeheartedly even though it refuses to become po-faced and serious, especially with regard to the ethics of their powers. Misfits is blatantly the polar opposite of Heroes, which drowned in its inflated sense of self-importance, but the more subtle difference is that Misfits still absolutely needs the superhero conceit to exist. Lesser shows wear their high-concept on their sleeve, announcing it ten times an episode, whereas Misfits downplays it to the point where we take it for granted and happily accept wherever the show chooses to go, fantastic or mundane. As in classic superhero fiction, each character's power - or lack thereof - reflects who they are and deepens our understanding of them. Such success at integrating character with fantastic narrative is apparently difficult since it is so rarely achieved by other shows (V is a particularly egregious example).

Let's not get too academic though. Genre shows are meant to be fun, and Misfits is a riot. Even though it stringently avoids the mythology of a Lost or Battlestar Galactica, it's a frequently funny, exciting, and poignant down-to-earth superhero adventure that puts most genre shows to shame. A Christmas special and a second series are on the way at the end of the year.

Why Christopher Nolan's Inception Matters

2010-07-06T17:34:00.001+10:00

The release of Inception is cause for celebration. Not just because it's Christopher Nolan's new film, but because an original science-fiction concept has made it to the screen with big stars, a bigger budget, and a major publicity campaign backing it, despite the prevailing wisdom that films with such attributes must now be based on known properties. If a major success, it may prove to executives that Avatar was no fluke, that audiences will flock to a film without brand awareness if they are sufficiently intrigued. Avatar also went against the norm in delivering a modest opening weekend but then remaining atop the box office for weeks, with strong word of mouth powering it on to become the highest-grossing film of all time. This is the opposite of the sadly-entrenched economic model of a massive opening weekend powered by buzz and marketing followed by a massive drop in sales when word gets out that the film is mediocre (Titanic managed this too. There's something about Cameron...). If Inception powers onward at the box office, could it be a game-changer?

It sadly feels a little naive to even wonder, but there's no question that studios will try to replicate any massive hit by any means. The drawback of Avatar's success is that they are trying to emulate it in the most superficial ways, most notably 3D. A backlash is already beginning, with audiences disappointed with Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender's poor post-converted 3D. This method pales in comparison to Avatar's immersive production-sourced 3D, especially when ticket holders are paying a premium. The next live-action film actually filmed in 3D can't come soon enough if studios hope to turn the tide and prove that the form can endure.

Other lessons from Avatar may take too long to eventuate, as films following the lead of its original SF story - I use original in the technical, marketing sense, as I know many decry Cameron's cribbing of established texts - will take some time to arrive. Like fantasy films post-Lord of the Rings, the wait may mean none can hope to come close to its level of success, coming too late to join it within the zeitgeist.

But fantasy is a genre and is perhaps not analogous because original ideas prospering at the multiplex is relevant to more than mere content, in that it defies the notion that a film needs in-built product awareness to make money. If this kind of freedom can be maintained, it applies to all genres. Comedy has largely been immune from the trend, as original high-concepts can be easily marketed with a simple hook and often without well-known stars. But as we've all seen, dramatic blockbusters have increasingly relied upon TV shows, comics, games, and even theme park rides to form their basis. Despite these precedents, I refuse to believe that as a culture we will plummet so low that movies based on Viewmaster and Monopoly - these are actually in development, the latter with Ridley Scott! - will ever go beyond development hell, let alone make money and capture the imagination, when their stories are fabricated from whole cloth for a toy store brand to be grafted to. I just can't accept it.

But once again, this may be naive. I think Avatar and Inception may stem the tide a little, but we're in an unfortunate position on the outside where we can't possibly know for sure. I'm far from a business expert, but I wonder if a studio determines that its slew of lower-budgeted films with brand awareness collectively produced a bigger profit margin and a greater return on the investment, then Cameron and Nolan's films will be viewed as happy accidents where the director managed to sell a massively-budgeted film on their own. Executives will believe they dodged a bullet and turn to Facebook applications for movie ideas (after all, a Twitter account is the basis for a new CBS sitcom starring William Shatner...).

It's easy to be pessimistic about major movie-making these days, but it's also too easy to tar everything with the same brush. Yes, superhero movies are widely prevalent, but the majority are actually well-written, acted, and produced. Marvel Studios are being highly ambitious in creating an interconnected movie universe, and the brand awareness of Batman enabled Nolan to make the smart and challenging The Dark Knight.

But the drawback in even these cases is that to a large degree we know what to expect. Films like Avatar and Inception restore the mystery to movie anticipation because we have no pre-packaged frame of reference, which worked marvellously for blockbusters past from Star Wars to The Matrix. That kind of movie fandom is hard to experience now, except with lower and moderate-budgeted pictures like Moon and District 9. The increased affordability of credible CGI is a boon to the production values of these films and in many ways they can absolutely compete with their big-budget rivals. But for the mystery to return to massive, event cinema that unites us in intrigue? Wouldn't that be something...

That's why Inception is worth your time and your excitement. Avoid plot summaries and walk in with wonder.

Is The Hobbit debacle a sign?

2010-07-05T23:19:00.001+10:00

The Hobbit is one of those upcoming films that everyone is looking forward to on auto-pilot. It's more Middle-Earth at the movies - it has to be great, right? I'd wager many such enthusiasts are failing to consider what an awkward position this endeavour is in, and that in some ways, it is setting itself up for failure. And that's before we consider the current debacle with MGM's bankruptcy postponing the film's progress. But one thing at a time.

A film version of The Hobbit is a financial no-brainer following the critical, commercial, and cultural success of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's the next logical Tolkien adaptation, and possibly the only one left - no-one's adapting The Silmarillion or the extensive notes without some major creative licence. The only surprising aspect is that it took so long to come to fruition. For that we can blame many factors, including Peter Jackson's lawsuit against New Line Cinema for withheld profits from LotR, the implosion of New Line itself, and the rights being split from the beginning between New Line and MGM, hitherto uninvolved in any screen Tolkien.

But bridges were mended, deals were signed, and Jackson and his team returned to the fold, producing and writing the screenplay. New Line (now part of Warner Bros.) would have the New Zealand ingredients so crucial to the original films and the goodwill of Jackson's involvement (film fans would cry foul for years, non-stop, if he hadn't at least given his blessing). They manage to sign Guillermo del Toro to direct, despite his having a whopping 14 films in development at rival Universal including some dream projects. It's also a two-film deal, although this is decided before it's creatively justified. No doubt spurred by the phenomenon effect generated by LotR's multiple installments - and the profits wouldn't hurt either - Warner and MGM put the cart before the horse and request two films from what is clearly a one-film book. Surprisingly, very few criticise this decision. We then learn that the second film will rather serve as a bridge between The Hobbit and LotR, using appendices, notes, digressions and other odds and sods that really shouldn't serve as the basis for a feature film. Then when they realise this is a bad idea, Jackson and co. announce that The Hobbit story will just be split over two films, as originally feared (well, by me). I've yet to hear a rationale for why this story needs two films to be told. Is it just because the Lord of the Rings had three films in it? That kind of thinking can come back to bite...

MGM's financial sputtering then becomes a death rattle as it chokes on its billions in debt, hanging on to life with extensions granted in its quest for new owners. They even put the James Bond franchise on hold, even with Sam Mendes attached to direct. With the twin moneybags that are 007 and The Hobbit, the fact that no-one has yet rescued the studio illustrates just how badly off they are.

With no end in sight to the delays preventing the start of production and even casting, Del Toro is forced to walk so he can resume his deal at Universal and not keep his family in New Zealand for nearly a decade. The coup of attracting such an in-demand auteur on a lengthy project that reportedly was not always a passion does indeed become too good to be true. I'm saddened that the project lost a unique voice that could have aided The Hobbit in justifying its existence, but his other films in development were too tantalising to delay further: At the Mountains of Madness, Frankenstein, Jekyll and Hyde, Hellboy 3, Drood... the list goes on.

Talk of a new director begins, particularly as it may be a drawcard for potential rescuers. Speculation immediately turns to Jackson himself and negotiations are reliably rumoured shortly thereafter, despite his originally opting not to direct so as not compete against himself and spend many more years stressed out and exhausted in Middle-Earth. Ergo, his sensible and sane decision may now be reversed, and a project that shouldn't exist will snare a director who should arguably be focusing on new horizons. If he needs a good financial bet after King Kong and The Lovely Bones, there are new ones to be found rather than dredging up old ones.

Why should it not exist? Why do I oppose the common view that The Hobbit films must be a source of great joy and excitement? Because it epitomises pop culture's inability to leave well enough alone. This is not even a case of one sequel too many, but a matter of tacking on a smaller story to a triumphant, epic trilogy that has yet to be topped for sheer spectacle and emotional cohesion. The Hobbit is a lovely book, but a lark compared to the substantial, robust Lord of the Rings, and the films would parallel this divide.

What fans may be unwilling to accept is that The Hobbit stands a good chance of being inherently disappointing. By the time of release, ten years will have passed since LotR, and we will experience a bizarre paradox of disappointing deja vu. It will be cut from the same cloth but conjure nothing close to the original thrill, because that thrill can never hope to be replicated. We see it frequently, even in a lesser case like the more muted reaction to Iron Man 2, which, while from a quality standpoint is on par with the original, could not hope to surprise and delight as the original did when it snuck up on us. And The Hobbit is no mere sequel to a single film, but a prequel duology to a massive trilogy. It's a little brother project being pumped up into the beefy older sibling - why else would they turn it into two films if not to replicate The Lord of the Rings? But that's not what The Hobbit is.

So maybe these interminable MGM problems are a sign that this project just isn't meant to be. That's not to deinigrate the hard work that Del Toro and Jackson's team have put in on the screenplay and the design. They clearly believed in the project to be prepared to spend years on it, and part of me is tantalised to see what these creative minds have come up with. I would love to ultimately be proven wrong, but if Peter Jackson takes the reins again, it will perfectly symbolise this project's desire to recapture lightning in a bottle. It stands a good chance of being The Godfather Part 3, not Part 2. The Lord of the Rings was a glorious beast that was of its time. If The Hobbit had been made first, then we'd be having a different discussion now. But they made the big kahuna first, and The Hobbit will inevitably suffer in comparison, especially if it is artificially bloated into two 3-hour films.

Let The Lord of the Rings be one blockbuster success story that is allowed to stand alone, just as Star Wars should have been (the miracle that there wasn't a Return of the Jedi in Jackson's trilogy should not be underestimated). Let it be the Watchmen of blockbusters, remaining forever untouched despite the ever-present promise of riches because it would dilute a sacred brand. And I may not be superstitious, but if this much adversity gets in the way of a project, maybe it's time to take the hint?

Where the Wild Things Are

2010-07-04T19:23:00.001+10:00

The notion of a kid's film that can appeal to adults is now a cliche. Pixar is so unfailingly good at catering to both demographics that it's now unusual for a 'kid's film' to offer nothing for the grown-ups. Spike Jonze has now pushed that boundary with a kid's film made with indie sensibilities: meandering, episodic, purely character-driven, and with much left unsaid. Where the Wild Things Are is highly ambitious, particularly in adapting Maurice Sendak's much-loved but very short picture book to feature length. Jonze and co-screenwriter Dave Eggers have opted not to pad it with an elaborate plot, but to let this world be for 90 minutes. It's a bold move, and sporadically successful.

Max (Max Records) is an extremely playful child who enjoys his wild side, often pretending to be a wild beast, but his difficulty coming to terms with his mother's new boyfriend means he's acting out too much. One night, he goes too far and runs away. He then finds a boat and sails across a sea to the land where the Wild Things live, large furry beasts who speak like adults but act rather like children themselves. Max is initially entranced, especially after he convinces them he should be their king, but the dysfunctional group starts to hew a little too close to home.

Jonze laudably eschews CGI except for the Wild Things' faces, instead teaming with the Jim Henson Creature Shop to create full suits for Max to interact with. The combination is seamless and remarkable, and Jonze's voice casting is pleasantly offbeat, led by James Gandolfini with Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, Catherine O'Hara, and Forest Whitaker. There is no way that Jonze would have elicited such a joyous, endearing performance from Records without the extravagant Wild Things being on the set. Despite their post-production visages, they feel utterly real and tactile.

The use of handheld camera and the deliberately drab production design is similarly unconventional, creating a children's film quite unlike any other. I'm frankly uncertain though whether kids would enjoy the film or get much out of it. The metaphors are sophisticated, even for adults, and the Wild Things more off-putting than endearing. This is of course intentional, as the film is about Max's awakening to the realities and complexities of the grown-up world he must participate in and eventually join. Jonze's twist is to make everything about the film reflective of this sombre learning experience, not just the serious moments between colourful characters. The dialogue overlaps slightly in Altmanesque fashion, and there is no quest or adventure narrative. Max just befriends the Wild Things and inspires them to creative and exciting goals, but in the process discovers their unnerving failings of character, which he cannot change.

There is absolutely an arc to the film and to Max, but not a linear one, and this may put off kids and even parents. Indeed, some sequences are distractingly lacking in direction and verve. Jonze is clearly smart enough to be aware of this, yet he chose this path anyway. His film is about childhood, and while its rawness can be discomfiting, it is oddly comforting in its honesty. If they see it at the right age, this may be a child's first profound movie experience in seeing their life reflected back at them, both literally through Max's sadness and metaphorically through the Wild Things and their foibles. Consequently, Jonze may have made a rare niche kid's film, which is quite an accomplishment, although many parents may see nihilism rather than affirmation.

Where the Wild Things Are had a long road to the screen, with numerous delays and rumoured clashes between Jonze and the studio, which is hardly surprising. But the end result is reportedly Jonze's cut, and it is so esoteric as to clearly be personal. He may not have set a new precedent for the thinking child's kid's movie, but this is a worthy film nonetheless. It still pleasantly embodies that cliche too: there's something for kids and adults, albeit not what they may expect.

The Case for Richard Kelly's The Box

2010-07-03T22:56:00.001+10:00

The first Blu-Ray I purchased was The Box. I had other, more likely candidates on the way from Amazon, but I wanted something to watch with my new player. It was on special and I liked it a lot at the cinema, so I picked it up. The film got a fairly savage reception on release, tanking critically and commercially. I was curious whether it would hold up on second viewing.

My feelings for Richard Kelly's work have been erratic, and I know I'm not alone in that. I did love Donnie Darko and was eagerly anticipating Southland Tales, and I refused to believe the reviews that proclaimed it a nonsensical cinematic travesty. I was confident that there was plenty to love, even if it was flawed. I was so impressed with Kelly's distinctive style in Darko, oppressive yet warm, and so intrigued by his juxtaposition of philosophy and the everyday, that the prospect of him cutting loose with a massive, Phildickian sociopolitical SF canvas was utterly tantalising.

Then I saw the movie, and discovered it to the poorly thought-out dog's breakfast so many reviews had damned it as being. I still admire Kelly's ambition and his determination to work so against the mainstream and even arthouse grain, to the point of choosing even the oddest actors to populate an odd film (The Rock, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Christopher Lambert!). But the film seemed to slip away from him down the narrative rapids, filling up with idea after idea with no discipline whatsoever. It stands as one of the most fascinating cinematic failures of recent times.

So I approached The Box with hesitation, half-expecting another self-indulgent, obfuscating pseudo-narrative. Not so, it turns out. Although not perfect, particularly in that its central theme is ultimately too simplistic, this is nonetheless a creepy, tautly directed, wonderfully weird thriller that feels like the true follow-up to Donnie Darko, and a more sensible one too. Kelly needed a couple of smaller films like this under his belt before tackling something like Southland Tales - I'd wager it would have been much better if he'd waited.

The Box adapts a very short Richard Matheson short story into feature-length, wherein Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) are unexpectedly presented with a box by the charming Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), who gives them the opportunity to press the button on top of the box and be given $1 million, at the price of the death of someone they don't know. Once the button is pushed (hardly a spoiler, I hope), Norma and Arthur realise they are part of a larger experiment...

The Box is more tightly constructed than Donnie Darko, although that film's digressions were certainly engaging. Once the button is pushed, there is an inexorable slide into claustrophobia that Kelly achieves with first-rate cinematography, edited, music (the film is scored in a Herrmann-esque style by members of The Arcade Fire), and Langella's eloquently empty performance as Steward (and the Blu-Ray immerses you in this strange, dripping sense of existential dread). Diaz and Marsden are affecting as well, despite some awkward opening scenes that are more the fault of bad editing than acting. They're a convincing couple who draw us in to their fear, culminating in a wrenching finale that wouldn't have worked without strong performances.

As the explanation for the Box unfolds, Kelly loses track slightly. Perhaps due to the strain of expanding a short story into a feature, a sequence with Marsden walking through a gateway of water (one of three, offering salvation or damnation) is eerie but surprisingly arbitrary. Apart from a meaningful question near the end, it is as if Donnie Darko is barging in mid-film for a thematic cameo. Kelly does this stuff so well that it's easy to forgive on first viewing if you're on board with such philosophical mysticism on film, but it's ultimately tangential. All three of Kelly's films unfortunately reveal his tendency to get carried away with his own ideas, causing the narrative to become overstuffed and inconsistent, but The Box does the best job yet of integrating them into a whole.

Also, Steward's 'employers' are handled enigmatically enough to be genuinely unsettling. So little information is given about where, when, what, and how, but there is more than enough allusion to make them seem truly otherworldly. However, the ultimate purpose of this experiment, if we go by Steward's explanation, is simplistic and too absolutist for such apparently sophisticated forces. Unfortunately, since this is the foundation of the entire film, the moral questions are too elementary to be truly thought-provoking, even though the emotional toll rings true with us as compassionate viewers.

Many critics seemed almost offended by The Box, but it's far more coherent than they would have you believe. Production values are first-rate, creating a finely calibrated piece with very little excess. Compared to Southland Tales, this is a restrained and polished film by Kelly that gives me renewed faith in him as a filmmaker. He's not a one-hit wonder, and I hope he's given the funding to try something new. He's a distinctive voice and we need more of them, although I hope he challenges himself with something truly different this time. If he's the filmmaker I believe he is, he'll surprise his critics.

FINISHING SCHOOL: The Fall (2006)

2010-07-03T18:39:00.001+10:00

The trailer for Tarsem's The Fall is of the sort that comes along once in a while to utterly beguile you and demand to be watched over and over. Sometimes it leads to an amazing film (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) and other times a disappointing one (I Heart Huckabees). The end result of The Fall is somewhere in between (check out that trailer here, in high-res if you can).

Following the middling reaction to SF headtrip film The Cell with Jennifer Lopez, director Tarsem spent 4 years intermittently filming The Fall with his own funds in around 20 countries, in a piecemeal fashion similar to David Lynch's Inland Empire (although I'm unsure whether, like Lynch, Tarsem started without a complete script). Its distribution path has been rocky - 18 months after premiering at the Toronto Film Festival it was finally released in American cinemas to a resounding shrug, although some critics like Roger Ebert made a strong case for the film. It hasn't been released in Australia yet, even on DVD, over two years later.

Intrigued by the trailer, I grabbed a copy on DVD from the UK and finally watched it recently. Set in a 1920s Los Angeles hospital, it tells of 5-year-old Alexandra (Catinca Untaru), who while recovering from a broken arm meets Roy (Lee Pace), a bedridden former stuntman convalescing from a stunt gone wrong. Whether he will walk again is uncertain. Alexandra befriends him and he weaves a fairy tale story for her incorporating history and mythology from Charles Darwin to tribal mystics with birds in their bellies. In exchange for the story, he needs her to steal some medicine for him...

Whether the script was complete from the beginning or not, The Fall is a little too fragmented for its own good. The visuals are as stunning as they appear in the trailer, and given how recently I ended up watching it I wish I'd waited and got the Blu-Ray. Tarsem's compositions and transitions are often breathtaking, but the fairy tale itself is not engaging enough in itself to sustain such lengthy interludes. The parallels to what we learn of Roy's history as the film progresses may assist a second viewing, to see where the two bleed together.

The hospital scenes are lovely though, with the conversations between Pace and Untaru largely improvised, and improvised scenes with a gregarious 5-year old are as adorable as they sound. Untaru, new to acting, is such a real child free of virtually all dramatic precision and polish that her innocence makes their relationship heartbreaking - she manages the difficult trick of having no acting experience but enthralling you nonetheless. Pace demonstrates his versatility too - he's a world away from Pushing Daisies here, and I hope he continues to find lead roles like this.

This was a passion project for Tarsem and his ambition is laudable, as is his realisation of fairy tale and fable, which is rarely seen on-screen these days. The Fall is ultimately not cohesive or engaging enough to match the beauty of its imagery and photography, but it marks Tarsem as a director to watch.

Is Blu-Ray God in disc form?

2010-07-03T12:58:00.001+10:00

Well, not quite, but it's certainly transcendent.

After many long months of pining, I finally have a 40-inch full HD LCD TV and a Blu-Ray player. Although I'd only seen snippets of Blu-Ray in action in stores - and not at optimal settings, I now learn - reading about the technology online and just watching my CRT confirmed that there was much room for improvement. My experience with that technology is akin to seeing a moving image through a dirty beer glass, and these first days with the new TV have proven that.

My DVDs now look clearer, sharper, brighter, and most importantly, more immersive. I can't wait to watch Twin Peaks again on this, for example, despite seeing it five or more times. Grain is much more obvious on certain discs, such as the first season of Friday Night Lights, but that may have been deliberate on Peter Berg's part anyway. Plus, having widescreen DVDs fill the screen is such a treat. Physically, this TV isn't that much bigger than our CRT, but with the image nearly reaching the edges of the unit itself combined with the leap in quality, it feels twice as big.

But Blu-Ray has been the most impressive aspect, by far. Some friends had said they could barely tell the difference, which was a little concerning. Is Blu-Ray, in the final analysis, more for the incredibly discerning home theatre buffs who can tell the difference between a Dolby and a DTS audio track? Would my upscaled DVDs look on-par with the new, much-vaunted, but controversial technology?

No. Far from it.

Don't get me wrong, DVDs look amazing and better than ever, and I will happily continue to watch them and marvel at the picture. But I doubt I'll be able to buy a DVD again if the title is also available in Blu (certain low-key titles, such as sitcoms, are a likely exception if price is an issue).

Watching a Blu-Ray is like looking through the cleanest window you can find. Hell, forget the window. It's like being in the room. You may have thought you were seeing that with DVD, but you weren't. You can now see every grain of stubble, every blade of grass, every lick of flame. Not only does this look astounding, but it pulls you in to the film, utterly immersing you. It feels wrong to eat your dinner in front of it.

I now honestly believe that anyone who likes movies who sees Blu-Ray will be converted to its value.

I completely understand the skepticism that this is an unnecessary expansion of DVD, and a means to get home theatre fans to buy their discs again, but what's been underestimated is just how profound the improvement is for any moviegoer. In the cases of a few select films with incredible visuals, you may actually want to buy them again, just to experience them in this way (I think I have to get Blade Runner again...). I now sorta understand why those with such setups can't be bothered going to the movies anymore (I won't quite get to that point - I have to see Inception on the big screen).

Extras are a slightly different story. I adore them when they're smart and comprehensive, and they were usually a key selling point for me for DVDs since picture quality didn't matter much on a CRT. Now, I'm not as worried. I'll still be happy to pay for a movie-only disc, because picture and sound quality is now a priority. Plus, I get the impression that studios have yet to fully harness Blu-Ray's capabilities for unique extras in a manner that isn't perfunctory. BD-Live may be able to connect my player to the Internet, but I have no interest in making a music video using portions of a film, or getting a filmography on the screen straight away. Such frivolities don't hold a candle to a great documentary on a film, which DVD has been handling just fine for many years. Such substantial extras are reportedly endangered these days though, with studios unwilling to fork out for feature-length docos - particularly of catalogue titles - when so many consumers just want the film. I used to scorn that, but if those consumers had great picture quality, then I can understand it a little more. However, I want quality extras to survive and prosper. There's nothing like a great documentary taking you into how a classic or a modern classic was made. They become part of the discussion.

But if you're reading this and don't care about extras, then this won't impact your view of Blu-Ray and its significance, and nor should it. My first Blu-Ray ended up being Avatar, and although the third viewing did not really engage me as a narrative - I doubt it's a film I'll revisit much - I was transfixed for all 2 and a half hours at the stunning imagery. I'm considering buying it just to use as a test disc to demonstrate Blu-Ray to family and friends, although I'm sure another great-looking film will come along soon to serve that purpose.

That's the great thing about this. It may just be the initial novelty, but Blu-Ray is like discovering movies all over again. If you enjoy movies and/or TV and you're willing to make the investment, I can't recommend getting into this technology enough. It's breathtaking and vital and important. Yes, full high-definition digital downloads will come along one day, but it will be a long time before we can download this level of quality, let alone stream it, in anything less than hours upon hours, certainly in Australia (the National Broadband Network is far from complete, after all). Your new TV will be the vehicle for that quality anyway, wherever it comes from, and Blu-Ray players can be had for less than $AU200 now, plus the discs are getting cheaper and going on special more often. Take the plunge and enjoy now rather than waiting years for 1080p downloads. You won't regret it.

[Damn, this looks like I was paid by the Blu-Ray Disc Association. Oh well, I'm enthusiastic :)]

Also, I will be blogging each day this month, with three today to catch up. I won't make a big deal about it because down that road lies madness. Whatever happens, I hope you enjoy.

The Wheel of Time - When Enough is Enough

2010-02-28T23:13:00.001+10:00

I come before you to recant. I have realised the error of my ways, and the folly of placing a desire for closure over the common sense of reading things I enjoy.

I tried to finish The Wheel of Time.

I should say straight up that this is not a post I'm entirely comfortable making. The saga's author, Robert Jordan, died only a few years ago, tragically one book away from completing his fantasy series. I certainly don't want to be disrespectful, but art is there to be critiqued, regardless of the nature or status of the person involved. More importantly, I feel that Jordan's misogyny, which I'm finally coming to grips with, makes criticism of his series justified, even at this point in time.

I began the series in Year 9 on a friend's recommendation. Seven books were out by that point, and the concept intrigued me. In hindsight, I'm not sure why exactly, because all I would have been told was that it was a cool Tolkien-esque fantasy - hardly unique, but perhaps the prospect of immersing myself in a fantasy epic over many volumes trumped concerns about plot. So read them I did, and I enjoyed the early books. The world was meticulously created and the villains gothically cool, with no reliance on bastard sons and barbarians as so many doorstop fantasy novels seemed obsessed with, based on their blurbs. But by the fourth book, I got suspicious. This was a 1000+ page tome that simply didn't need to be that long. Rather than being a page-turner, it was a struggle, because the texture and characterisation that slowed things down were flat rather than entrancing. But the pieces were still falling into place, so I was patient.

By book 7, I realised that the incident-to-page ratio was widening dramatically. By book 9, even though it ended with the first game-changing plot development in quite some time, it was evident that Jordan had become bogged down in description, endless politicising and discussion, and yet more world-building. Any book series with any integrity, particularly one with volumes over a thousand pages, would be on the downhill slope by now. But no, partway through book 10 I realised that Jordan had been consumed by the quicksand of his own imagination. All he could manage was to wander around his world like a player in a lavish PC adventure game who prefers to see the sights rather than take on the mission, possibly because he had added so many incidental characters, cities, reborn Forsaken, and yet more Aes Sedai that he had no idea how to finish this teetering, hole-ridden Jenga-stack of a narrative so that it still stood up.

So I gave up early in book 10 shortly after its publication and moved on. I heard about the next installment, and was appalled and saddened to hear that Jordan had died before completing the series, then intrigued that an established fantasy novelist, Brandon Sanderson, would complete the story from Jordan's notes and completed prose (I'm always a sucker for unfinished projects and lost versions, particularly films, getting unearthed and completed). I still had enough fondness for the central narrative thrust - the farmboy-come-Dragon Reborn versus the Dark One - that I sorta wanted to see how it ended.

So a few months ago, I started again with book 10 having heard that book 11 was a return to form. I viewed it as a speed reading exercise, and the fact that I recalled everything from the Dragonmount summary despite racing through vast tracts of description told me a great deal.

What an astoundingly, shockingly narrative-free book. If the texture and characterisation had any grace or insight, then it could have been a masterpiece of mood and ambience if sheer page count was a criterion. But Jordan's description has always been hollow and superficial. His obsession with describing rooms and the intricacies of Aes Sedai custom and wallowing in speculation about possible motives and outcomes was not rich or dynamic, as any lengthy description needs to be to justify its own existence. Instead, it was turgid and pointless. Jordan did not seem to understand that by book TEN, the world-building should be over - it simply HAS to be. We have more than enough information - now get on with the plot.

Instead, the Wheel of Time became a story about sitting around waiting for the Last Battle. Virtually all scenes are discussions in rooms. Even though there was an invasion from abroad by the human Seanchan people, we barely ever saw an actual fight - in a war! It seemed like a very peaceful and laid-back siege. Fans will blast this criticism as being fueled by an inordinate fixation that storytelling simply must equal action scenes - far from it. What they don't understand is that there is a difference between action and action scenes. Action merely means "things happening". Plotting IS action, and even character development can be action when it tells us something new. Jordan gave up on action several books ago, at least on any that wasn't the narrative equivalent of running on the spot or looping the athletics track, except for once or twice a novel reminding readers that there was actually something at stake. It's as if the Wheel of Time is a fantasy TV show - it doesn't have much of a budget, so it could only do big action scenes once or twice a season, yet it also doesn't know how much longer it has to tell its story because it's so successful that the suits don't want to axe it while it's still making money (an approach fatal to audience investment, as the moneymen behind Lost finally realised).

But this is a novel, written by one author, who owns the copyright - Jordan had all the control, yet wrote as if he was at the mercy of market forces. More likely, he wrote himself into a corner, and had established so many cities and lands and characters that he could explore them endlessly while he figured out how to finish the actual plot.

That approach might have worked if the characters were remotely distinctive. Instead, Jordan created hundreds of characters who blended together so completely that it felt like the cast was populated by the clone troopers from Star Wars. Every Aes Sedai was more or less the same as the next. Yes, some were more scheming than others, and Moiraine was quite nice, but for all intents and purposes they were stock characters. The same goes for every noble and countryman from Camelyn, Cairhien, Tear and all the other places that are mere stops along the journey rather than vital, unique places that justify their place on that map at the start of each volume. The character names don't help - nearly everyone who isn't a Forsaken has a name filled with vowels and soft syllables - Bashere, Cadsuane, Amyrilla, etc. The names bounce off your brain, which would be fine if the characters they were assigned to didn't do the same thing.

Dull characterisation is one thing, and it would be rude to lambast the series just for that given the author's passing prior to completion. But the offensive and omnipresent misogyny makes the series ripe for criticism. Nearly all the female characters fall into two categories: aloof bitch or subservient idolater. It's remarkable that Jordan expected us to invest in so many Aes Sedai when he clearly has such contempt for all of them. They are either scheming, uncooperative, or whinging about men. Conversely, Elayne must be the most simpering queen in fiction that we're actually supposed to root for, constantly pining for Rand and relying on her brash offsider, Aviendha (herself initially strong but softened purely by falling for the hero) even though the plot calls for her to actually be someone of influence. To confirm my suspicion that this is actually Jordan's attitude, he does not merely have one of the male characters bemoaning how women are so moody and that "we'll talk about this later" means doom - nearly all the primary male characters think this way, and they are never criticised for it. It just gets distasteful.

But the icing on this shitty cake is that Jordan's description of women has a glaring focus on the physical when compared to descriptions of men, sexualising them when it's not remotely relevant to the point of being derogatory. He is quite obsessed with breasts, and virtually every description of a new female character mentions her "ample" or "pleasantly small" bosom, and I swear, halfway through book 11, not ten pages have gone by without a character "folding her arms beneath her breasts". This bizarre phrase has been overused since the series began. Apart from being a useless, space-filling descriptive flourish since the character in question is rarely trying to communicate dissatisfaction or resolve, it is inherently pointless - there is, quite simply, no other way that women fold their arms!! It is obvious to anyone who has ever actually seen a woman that this positioning goes without saying. Would we ever see the phrase "he sat with his hands in his lap" clarified with "beneath his penis"?. No, yet eleven books in, Jordan is still at it, and with this and many other instances of objectification is implicitly telling us that a woman's sexuality is the one true yardstick for understanding her rather than her intellect or skill, because he makes abundantly clear elsewhere that strong, independent women are not to be trusted, only those who ally themselves with a man first, such as Aviendha. And don't get me started on the main character having three women so in love with him that they agree to share him, even though they have no desire to be polyamorous. The male wish fulfillment is so blatantly irrelevant to the plot, themes, or characterisation that it's like watching an episode of "Entourage".

It was this sinister attitude to women and the endless repetition of tropes and themes (I am so tired of Lews Therin saying something mad and Rand telling him to shut up) that finally prompted me to give up, a little over halfway through book 11, Knife of Dreams. I was emboldened by my rapid progress through book 10 and truly wanted to see the series through to the end, but the road to that end is too drenched in molasses for me to continue. No ending is worth such masochistic boredom and tolerance of such grandly irresponsible writing.

The Wheel of Time is the ultimate abuse of the notion that fantasy has to be told in massive installments, telling an epic story in such an absurdly procrastinatory fashion that it no longer qualifies as such - the scope has not widened, it has merely been pulled along itself like an elastic band until every atom is recounted in tedious detail. Several authors have demonstrated the value and thrill of the multi-book fantasy series by exercising some restraint, never forgetting that quality trumps quantity.

But it seems that so many fans are still very happy with quantity - the Wheel of Time continues to top the New York Times bestseller list, even though barely a single media source has reviewed it in many years. It has become a product rather than an artistic endeavour, relying on fans having the patience and forgiveness of saints. It's just a shame that Jordan died before he could right the ship and end the series in a fashion befitting the original intrigue of his concept, derivative of Tolkien and Dune though it may have been. I'm happy for those fans who continue to find value in the series, and am hopeful that Sanderson has brought a fresh perspective and injected the series with some drive again. I wish him well, but the decision to turn Jordan's last volume into three volumes, necessary as it may have been to end the series in a fashion that didn't give readers whiplash following the glacial prior installments, merely demonstrates that this is already a hopelessly bloated endeavour that is not worth the many hours required to see it through.

Fourteen doorstop volumes is shamefully verbose and holds readers in contempt. The Wheel of Time name ended up perfectly encapsulating how these endlessly repetitive tomes elicited a vertiginous sense of deja vu; it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm so relieved that the spell of closure has been broken and I've freed myself from the obligation to finish this behemoth. I've been reminded that there is so much exciting, innovative, and concise fantasy offerings out there that dare to offer new perspectives instead of dining on Tolkien's leftovers. I'll be seeking out the most recent China Mieville and Jeff Vandermeer novels without delay. If you are afflicted with Wheel of Time-completism too, I hope my story has helped shake you free as well.

FINISHING SCHOOL: My Neighbours the Yamadas (1999)

2009-12-03T21:12:00.001+10:00

Isao Takahata is often referred to as 'the other Miyazaki', which is a little dismissive of his unique style given that he just hasn't achieved the fame of his Studio Ghibli colleague. His four films share subtle characterisation yet are hugely diverse, even if they are not as visually dazzling as Hayao Miyazaki's.

I had yet to see My Neighbours the Yamadas on purchase, unlike most of the Ghibli collection, but my love of the studio meant that I bought it happily. Employing a completely distinct visual palette of watercolours and exaggerated, caricatured character design, Takahata's story of the everyday life of a contemporary Japanese family barely resembles a Ghibli production but unmistakably has the spirit of one, celebrating the joys of life despite adversity. Many have dubbed Miyazaki the Kurosawa of Japanese animation and Takahata the Ozu, and Yamadas gives the analogy great credence. Like Ozu, he luxuriates in the poetry of simple moments, celebrating the strength and eccentricity of ordinary people.

To that end, Yamadas is completely episodic, beginning and ending at arbitrary but satisfying points, alternating between wish-fulfilling fantasies and street-level confrontations. In one of these sequences, he fascinates by gradually transforming the exceptionally cartoonish Yamadas into taller, darker figures that flicker as if standing in candlelight, akin to the style of the short film adaptation of The Snowman. Such haunting gestures make me long to revisit this film, especially since in hindsight the random points that we enter and leave the film render it somehow cyclical, as if returning to the beginning knowing the structure to come will enable keener understanding of what Takahata is doing.

But for all its visual dynamism and meandering structure, this is primarily a very funny and endearing film about a family with numerous foibles but much love for each other. Some may dislike the lack of conflict and narrative momentum, and for that reason it's no wonder that Yamadas has not garnered the audiences of Spirited Away and co. But if you adore Ghibli as a style and an ethos, then you must see it and experience how versatile that style can be.

FINISHING SCHOOL: The Agenda

2009-12-03T19:57:00.001+10:00

One of the perils of our age of DVD gluttony is putting the horse before the cart, and stockpiling far more of them than we can watch in the immediate future due to unmissable bargains or plain ol' Digital Versatile Lust courtesy of Amazon.com.

I have fallen prey to this on many an occasion, but rarely do I get home from JB HiFi and slam the disc straight into the player. My enthusiasm doesn't vanish upon purchase; rather I'm usually happy to let the movie sit, ready for when I get around to it. The problem is that unless someone else wants to watch one of these movies and blows the dust off, I usually get preoccupied with TV seasons and the latest episode of Lost and whatnot. Hell, I even have some seasons sitting on the shelf waiting for their turn (sorry, Brotherhood season one...).

So I decided to give myself some incentive to finally finish the bastards. I propose a recurring feature wherein I shoot off brief or not-so-brief reviews of the DVD that I've finally watched, with a view to how the films (and in some cases shows) hold up on rewatching. The vast majority of these discs are things I've seen before, either recently - in which case we'll see whether they earned being purchased - or long ago and I'm revisiting with a more mature eye (in theory). Earth 2: The Complete Series is an example of this, and hopefully not an embarrassing one - the point of this feature is that we'll find out together. [I rarely buy sight unseen unless I've heard amazing things and can't get it any other way, but there will be a couple.]

From a blogging standpoint though, this series will stretch my reviewing muscles, as I'll try to set myself new challenges each time, hence the title. They will all be as brief as possible while saying as much as possible, and I may shake things up with new formats (haiku may be pushing it though...).

This feature is likely to be two sides of a coin. Whereas this side is about reassessing old favourites, the other will be about completely new films. I'll save the details on that one until it begins, but it will share the trait of working through a collection, albeit a much larger one...

So let's begin. Hopefully this will be an interesting read in its randomness - we'll flit from The Godfather Trilogy to the Dilbert TV show - rather than self-indulgent. Let me know what you think

SHOULD I BOTHER? - Dexter

2009-07-08T23:05:00.015+10:00

There has been much discussion in the last few years about the renaissance of television, where drama and comedy have improved to a point where their quality and ambition is outstripping most motion pictures, etc etc. Yours truly has perpetuated this truth, ad nauseum, as well. But it would be easy to fall into an adulatory trap and all agree on the Great New Shows (because they’re on cable, because they’ve subversive, et al), to the point where they all blur together with no standouts. To avoid this, we need to point out the praised shows that are overpraised, where the balloon must be burst so we can remind each other that in some cases, we are still putting up with samey garbage in the guise of something more distinctive.

Which brings me to Dexter.

Michael C. Hall has followed his terrific turn as David in Six Feet Under with a rich and challenging part that he unsurprisingly nails – a serial killer with a conscience. Based on Jeff Lindsay’s novels, Dexter follows a police forensic expert, liked by many with a good relationship with his sister, Deb (Jennifer Carpenter). He also moonlights as a serial killing vigilante, putting his unstoppable urges to ‘better’ use thanks to the counsel of his late foster father (James Remar), a detective whom we meet in flashback in each episode. Dexter knows that what he does is wrong, but since he can’t stop himself, he has decided to punish those who do not exercise such conscience whom he believes have escaped justice. His father has taught him how to cover his tracks, and so Dexter’s precision methods have never been uncovered. He only remotely unsettles one person: Detective Dokes (Erik King), who is convinced Dexter is wrong somehow, but can’t figure out why.

The premise is far-fetched but terrific, a platform for an exploration of moral relativism using a fairly extreme scenario. Shades are added in Dexter’s apparent lack of emotional connection, which he conceals by entering into a relationship with Rita (Julie Benz), mother of two and recovering from an abusive marriage to the now-incarcerated Paul (Mark Pellegrino). It’s all for show, to maintain his image as a likeable joe, but the ethics instilled in him by his father make him protective of her and her children.

For such a person to be the protagonist of a TV show is bold and rewarding, especially since Dexter does not flinch from showing just how disturbed its title character is. The overarching storyline of season one tracks the emergence of another serial killer in Miami, dubbed the Ice Truck Killer, who completely drains his victims of blood. Dexter is fascinated by this new arrival and feels a kinship. Although he qualifies as an evildoer that Dexter should punish, the reverence they share for their ‘art’ leads Dexter to seek him out for solace rather than justice. Thus Dexter becomes a multiple inversion of the police procedural – the investigator is a criminal, but not the criminal in question, who punishes other criminals but can’t bring himself to catch this one.

Unfortunately, this richness does not extend to the rest of the show. Since the creators have chosen to make this an ongoing rather than limited series, Dexter is sadly let down by its need to service other characters. But they belong in a standard police procedural, not this one, and have storylines appropriate to those shows. It’s hard to care about Dokes’ military background impacting a case, or Lieutenant LaGuerta (Lauren Velez) sleeping with her replacement’s husband in order to drive her out of the job. I mean, please. These aspects of the show are an utter disservice to Hall and the reason the show exists – a different approach to the crime series. The two sides of Dexter never mesh.

Other supporting characters are integrated into the series more organically due to their emotional connection to Dexter, namely Rita and Deb. But their stories rely on Dexter having an attachment to them that he’s not supposed to have. Dexter is a sociopath, plain and simple, and to have him heroically save Deb and stand by Rita through tough times is to mold him into a noble protagonist when he should just be engaging. The character is softened in order to sustain him, and this is mistaken for complexity in the vein of a Tony Soprano or Al Swearengen. Such extreme character traits as serial killing do not lend themselves to nuanced portrayals because that is not what they’re useful for. Dexter is far more interesting when exploring the ethical hall of mirrors that the character’s actions lead us into rather than Dexter trying to maintain a home life.

But subtlety is not even the order of the day in these sequences. Dexter is burdened with a cumbersome voiceover that spells out every nuance we can readily grasp for ourselves and outlines the moral quandaries, which are naturally deflated once expounded upon by the character experiencing them. Considering they are still present halfway through the second season – which is when I gave up on the series - means they were clearly not a growing pain. They are just part of how this show has come to work.

The show certainly excels conceptually. The second season begins with the discovery of the bodies that Dexter routinely dumps at the bottom of Miami Harbour, prompting a manhunt that he must thwart from the inside, since his job demands him to help further the investigation. But this is rendered inert by a sequence of repetitive episodes where nothing is achieved, replete with a dreary femme fatale plotline that proves that despite its inventive concept, Dexter primarily deals in clichés (even if that subplot develops into something unexpected, that doesn't affect the road to it being dreary). Hall’s tremendous performance keeps the whole enterprise afloat. He’s compulsively watchable, erasing all memory of David Fisher, but even he couldn’t keep me going past one-and-a-half seasons.

That number of episodes is really how long Dexter should have run. Many American TV writers are publicly longing for the British model of programming these days, where short, high-quality runs are the norm. Dexter would have benefited from such brevity, but instead has been shoehorned into the long-running series model that few American shows have eluded despite prestige. I would be curious to see the British take on the same concept; their television’s more realistic and immediate milieu would probably yield a far scarier series, and the format would allow a single summation of the theme rather than an endless elaboration on the same ideas.

So don’t always believe that all the supposedly great shows are actually great. Sure, some won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but as Dexter proves, some are actually not very good. I say that with regret though. I persisted with it because there were a number of strong elements, but too much superfluity sink a potentially great piece of crime television.

SHOULD I BOTHER? No.

SHOULD I BOTHER? - Dollhouse

2009-05-31T22:27:00.005+10:00

Joss Whedon's TV ride started out comfortably and eventually became short, big, and very bumpy. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel had long and acclaimed runs, but as soon as Whedon tried working with a major network - FOX – expectations were high and impatience higher. Space western Firefly was shuffled around the schedule, had its pilot abandoned, all before being cancelled after only 14 episodes with no wrap-up by a network that reportedly didn’t understand what they’d commissioned. Although the show enjoyed a quite unprecedented rebirth via DVD resulting in a major motion picture (Serenity), the prospect of Whedon returning to television was both relished and dreaded. Since the distinctive creator has never managed a massive mainstream hit, he wouldn't necessarily enjoy carte blanche.

Dollhouse is Whedon's return, both to TV and to FOX after several feature projects stalled. Although the Firefly-killing regime had long since departed, many wondered why he didn't try the more niche-friendly cable networks. As the story goes, Dollhouse came about by accident. During a lunch with Buffy actor Eliza Dushku (Faith), Whedon advised her that she needed to select or develop projects that gave her a range of acting opportunities, rather than the sassy bad girl she was becoming typecast as. He brainstormed an idea where Dushku would play an impassive 'doll' who is imprinted with a new personality and skill set for every new 'engagement', wherein the exceedingly rich pay for a custom-made person to meet their needs, altruistic or otherwise. Sufficiently compelled, he agreed to develop the show himself, but Dushku's development deal was with FOX. He held his breath and dove in.

Many hosannas were sung about Whedon's illustrious return, and Dollhouse was given a prime berth after 24 on Mondays. Then the troubles began: production halts, an agreement between both parties that a new pilot was required, and finally, exile to Friday nights where Firefly had crashed and burned. Here we go again, fans assumed.

Not quite so: Dollhouse was just renewed for season 2, although it is perhaps the lowest-rated American network drama to ever get renewed, and consequently we can't quite tar Fox with the usual brush - they're trying. Why this is worth celebrating is that although the opening episodes of Dollhouse are god-awful and I pity anyone having to sit through their banality, when the series moves beyond making the engagements the focus of the episode and instead addresses the issues of identity, control, and human commodification that are inherent in the premise, it transforms into something very promising. The ads you may have seen that make this look like a Hot-Girl-Kicks-Ass show should be disregarded.

The initial engagement episodes that sadly feature some of this empty ass-kicking highlight a fundamental flaw in the show's conception - why would anyone pay vastly more money for a programmed human than an expert in the field? A brief early sequence features Dushku as a midwife that makes you want to scream at the TV - "why is anyone hiring you to deliver their baby?!! There are plenty of competent professionals!" An early speech by Paul Ballard (Tahmoh Penikett - Battlestar Galactica’s Helo), an FBI agent who becomes increasingly obsessed with the urban myth of the Dollhouse, tries to circumvent this by suggesting that those who can have everything will always pay for something new and mysterious. That may hold water for rich, corrupt executives bored with normal call girls, but I doubt expectant mothers would be craving such an odd experience.

When the network's desire for standalone, easily digestible - and barely nourishing - episodes is jettisoned in the sixth episode, “Man on the Street” (the tenth is one sad exception), Dollhouse comes to life. Whedon's established knack for crafting unconventional TV episodes and exploring social issues through genre comes back into play. Just as Angel didn't work until it embraced serial storytelling, Whedon and his writers are clearly much more comfortable when working with a bigger canvas. Fans of his work will be surprised though by the lack of wordplay humour and pop culture references. Beneath the Alias-style action trappings is a very dark idea: the Dollhouse deals in slaves, plain and simple, and that can’t be de-emphasised for the sake of entertainment, even though they supposedly start out as willing participants. This is about deeply unpleasant people, not colourful demons and vampires, thus humour is not as paramount as it once was in Whedon’s shows. The one player that does resemble his prior, quirky characters - Topher, the genius technician who imprints the dolls - is amoral, reprehensible, and distinctly unlovable, despite being fairly funny. Topher is Whedon's way of saying, "I'm back on TV, but don't expect my usual shtick."

Indeed, Whedon's much-publicised love and support of Battlestar Galactica – responsible for his casting of Penikett - may be the cause of his newfound solemnity. His previous shows certainly had their murky side, but Dollhouse has a darkness of vision more in line with Battlestar (if not aesthetically), and that show’s wrestle with the nature of identity in the face of technological encroachment is arguably a key inspiration. The commerce of identity is a rich and timely theme, and the fraying of Echo's empty doll persona as she begins to remember her supposedly erased engagements and even her pre-doll existence serves this well.

Conversely, the Battlestar inspirations can occasionally be strong enough to appear derivative. Sleeper dolls come into play, and the rising question of who may and may not be a doll will rub a little too closely for fans of the space opera. Hopefully Whedon takes it somewhere new, but regardless, the use of the technique to highlight the malleability of indentity indicates that Whedon has substantial SF questions on his mind. The action-adventure Dollhouse of the first few episodes - flitting from art gallery heist to religious cult standoff - is clearly revealed as network appeasement once Whedon's true goals become clear with episode 6. A testimonial from an academic in the framing scenes of a news story investigating the Dollhouse myth sums up the show's goals, outlining how if the technology to render identity transient and disposable ever comes about then it means the end of humanity, as we understand it. Beneath that technological question, Dollhouse is about the devaluing of the individual in our culture, paradoxically caused by our prioritisation of individual advancement and competition with others.

Sadly, Dushku herself doesn't quite meet the high standard required for such a chameleonic character as Echo. Perhaps it’s a lack of sufficient versatility, or just that unknown actors may naturally suit such a role better. Whatever the reason, Dushku always being Dushku is a shame but hardly cripples the show, as once again Dollhouse is far more compelling when it doesn't require new engagements and thus new personalities. Dushku is effectively creepy when she informs Ballard that the Dollhouse has a deeper purpose, having been sent by some unknown benefactor within the organisation.

I write this having still not seen the last two episodes of the season, which reportedly kick the show into high gear with the culmination of a storyline that has been hinted at from the first episode. For this reason I’m hesitant to recommend skipping the first five episodes entirely, as morsels of this plotline and information on how the imprinting process works and some key relationships are all included. So suffer through the first five, and know that the show that Dollhouse should be is waiting around the corner.

Intriguingly, the thirteenth and final episode of the season will premiere on DVD and perhaps never be broadcast due to legal wrangles surrounding the re-filming of the pilot. It acts as a coda to the season set some time afterwards and produced on a much lower budget, but is reportedly so different from the episodes that precede it that Dollhouse may evolve into an entirely new show in only its second season, and not because of a network stipulation for retooling (Dollhouse's renewal was ironically predicated by the strength of non-engagement episodes like “Man on the Street”, so Whedon is still in control). A lot of shows get off to a rough start and develop into something incredible partway into their run. With the departure of Battlestar and the imminent loss of Lost, Dollhouse has the potential to turn into American TV's great intelligent SF show. Just please keep that in mind when Echo gets imprinted as a pop star's back-up singer...

SHOULD YOU BOTHER? Yes.

SHOULD I BOTHER? - Chuck

2009-05-31T22:11:00.004+10:00

Welcome to the first in an ongoing, and in theory infinite series of obviously named articles evaluating whether That Show You’ve Heard Of or That DVD Everyone’s On About is worth your time. We will cut through the ‘if you like this’ and ‘my friend told me it’s good’ bollocks to determine the answer to that sage, undying question… “Should I Bother?”

Granted, this is also only one opinion, but I shall strive to give a well-rounded overview of the thingy in question and a firm sense of whether it’s worth your hard-earned time and money. Or it will be an excuse for a rant. You’ve been warned.

First up, one of the many Little Shows That Could that are around at the moment. Every American TV season produces a new show that cult TV fans and broadsheet critics rally around as a quality program that not enough people are watching. Their emergence is joining death and taxes as one of life’s constants. But that’s not to say that these shows aren’t worth the effort, rather that the divide between viewers of reality TV and crime procedurals and fans of less conventional drama and offbeat comedy is not shrinking, but is instead a binary that seems to define TV.

However, this month has proven that these shows don’t have to wither on the vine. Both Chuck and Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse (next up on Should I Bother) were granted extraordinary last-minute reprieves last week despite poor (and in the latter’s case, abysmal) ratings, thanks to budgetary trims, shorter episode orders, and the wonderful statistical ambiguities raised by the diversification of viewership in the 21st century brought about by DVRs, DVDs, iTunes, Hulu, and more. We may finally be seeing the emergence of economic models that make niche shows viable on major networks, not just cable. Few thought we would ever see the day.

Chuck has just been renewed for a 13-episode third season, partly thanks to a vigourous fan campaign and the vocal support of critics. From the outside though, I didn’t get the appeal. The concept – an affable computer store employee inadvertently has America’s secrets downloaded into his brain – seemed contrived and nonsensical. Plus, it appeared to be yet another iteration of ‘charming slacker gets thrown into exciting life with resident Hot Chick and kooky friends’ - disposable but harmless.

Eleven episodes in, I can’t completely disagree with my initial, unreasonably kneejerk assessment. Chuck doesn’t offer anything particularly new. There’s nothing to compare with Buffy’s new vernacular, or Arrested Development’s intricacy of wit. Chuck is a composite of many other shows that were either better or similarly average. What is does have is a charmingly demented premise and a very enjoyable cast. As Chuck, Zachary Levi is a truly bizarre biological hybrid of Jerry Seinfeld, Zach Braff, and The Office’s John Krasinski, as if he were bred in a lab to be the ultimate dramedy leading man. But thankfully that’s superficial – he has his own style and anchors the show exceptionally well, helping us to accept the forced premise. Yvonne Strahovski is decent in a Jennifer Garner-mode as Chuck’s CIA handler/protector Sarah, but while the show is fairly self-effacing in many respects, it still uses Strahovski as the ass-kicking dream girl without much irony. Perhaps they do something more with her character soon, but we’re not seeing it yet. She seems to be there to appease those viewers who find eccentricity in their characters a bit too much.

As Chuck’s NSA handler, Adam Baldwin is much more entertaining, almost reprising his Firefly role with the irascible and trigger-happy John Casey. It’s a shame that the male supports in so many American shows are allowed to be very or at least a little deranged while the women aren’t. Sarah is beautiful but otherwise bland (the writing’s fault, not Strahovski’s), as is the other main female character: Chuck’s sister Ellie, played by Sarah Lancaster. Both stand in stark contrast to Casey and to Chuck’s disturbingly doting best friend Morgan (Joshua Gomez). A less gender-specific vitality of character, Whedon-style, would be welcome and much fairer. Even Ellie’s husband, in a recurring role, is allowed more fun (Chuck nicknames him Captain Awesome). It doesn’t even have to be humourous – just give us some spice, writers! Women can be multifaceted too! It won’t undermine your emotional song montages at the end of the episode (Chuck sadly has these each week. I’m trying not to hold them against it).

The vanilla flavouring also tarnishes the generic spy plots of the first few episodes. They’re nothing new, and they rely on the entertainment of seeing a genuine everyman thrust into this high-powered, dangerous spotlight to power them through to the end. But that will get very old, very fast. Fortunately, a number of unanswered questions surrounding how and why Chuck was given the Intersect (the name for the massive database in his mind, details of which he recalls on seeing visual cues that cause him to ‘flash’) are giving rise to a more substantial ‘mythology’ (The X-Files has a lot to answer for…) As we’ll see with Dollhouse, the missions are far from the most interesting part of Chuck, and if they recede into the background, all the better.

It’s not a show that breaks new ground, or makes you love the medium even more. It’s not cinematic or literary; it’s television at its most televisual. But Chuck is an entertaining hour that won’t make you wish for it back, with a fun cast and some funny moments. The critical love seemed to kick in during season two, so I’ll stick with it for now.

SHOULD I BOTHER? Yes, if you need something light, but don’t break down someone’s door to get to it.

Star Trek (2009)

2009-05-29T22:46:00.021+10:00

It’s been a few weeks since the release of the new Star Trek film, and the numbers indicate that JJ Abrams and Paramount have achieved something that I was highly sceptical could ever happen: they have made Star Trek cool. This film has outgrossed Wolverine, and will likely defeat Angels and Demons and Terminator Salvation, perhaps even Night at the Museum 2 (yay!). It is the highest-grossing movie of the year to date, yet until now it has without question been considered the nerdiest franchise of them all.
How did they do it? With a well-balanced mixture of loyalty to the fans and concessions for everyone else, a no-brainer really but still a solution that may have done nothing to have overcome the deeply engrained stereotypes the general public had about the franchise if nobody had shown up. Abrams’ Star Trek, which returns to the original crew of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest as they set out into space for the first time, both honours and preserves the original continuity while rebooting it (that’s a word you’ll be hearing a lot from now on, especially as a euphemism for ‘remake’ – it’s the new ‘re-imagining’). Subsequent films will not be slave to an existing timeline, and I was surprised to discover that the entire plot of the film is devoted to this setup rather than just being addenda. It’s a tricky sleight of hand, as there is action on such an epic scale that it’s only hours later that you realise you’ve been hoodwinked into getting swept up in two hours and $150 million worth of franchise house-cleaning. Incredible.

Abrams makes the film so light and entertaining that he gets away with it . While fans would argue that Trek has always been fun – and I’ve always loved it – there was an insularity and solemnity to the franchise, including the films, that made them more of a niche interest than its beefier brother Star Wars. Star Trek was born on television, so it has primarily been a cerebral and idea-driven series by necessity, and the films naturally replicated that on a bigger scale since that was what Trek was. The Star Wars-esque talk of destiny and the fast-paced space battles in the trailers for the new film – exciting as they were – led me to wonder whether Abrams was preserving Trek’s chassis for the fans’ benefit but replacing the engine. This would be a tragedy, because if Trek were just made into another action-adventure then it would no longer be distinctive, to old fans and new viewers alike, who would have just seen this all before.

It was always going to be a double-edged sword though, because the Trek films were previously budgeted and publicised as B-pictures. Now, for the first time, the franchise has been given a major budget and a prime summer berth, and is also finally free of Gene Roddenberry’s appointed franchise shepherd Rick Berman, who steered it well for a number of years but eventually drove it into the ground with the TV series Enterprise and the film Nemesis, by which point Trek was just replicating itself endlessly into mushy oblivion.

That newfound prestige is awfully gratifying, and if you’ve seen much Trek - particularly the poorer latter-day material - you’ll get a sense while watching the new film of the franchise shaking off the baggage of continuity and the burden of expectation like dried mud. It’s only been five years since Enterprise was cancelled, but the vitality of Abrams’ film makes it seem like twenty. He’s even turned the once-cardinal sin of recasting the original characters into a triumph, signalling just how desperately Trek needed a serious rebirth (read: enema) – it could even withstand a new Kirk. Chris Pine is a strong, dynamic, and engaging presence as the future captain, embodying the brash adventurousness while leaving the Shatnerian quirks behind. Karl Urban proves his versatility in a very different role as Dr McCoy, aiming more than his castmates to recapture the original portrayal. It’s an impressive feat of mimicry while still being a performance rather than an impression: Urban both is Deforest Kelley and makes the character his own as well, his imposing presence an interesting contrast to McCoy’s neurosis.

Zachary Quinto is certainly better as Spock than he is on the now-execrable Heroes and he spars well with Pine, but his take on a logical, emotion-suppressing Vulcan is more psychopathic than serene, so it’s difficult to invest fully in his version of the character. Simon Pegg is unsurprisingly a lot of fun as Scotty, while the others are serviceable since they’re not given much to do. Anton Yelchin sounds a little constipated as Russian Chekov, and John Cho and Zoe Saldana are decent as Sulu and Uhura. But the sequels are coming so they’ll get their turn, and anything is an improvement on the time these characters were given in the original films.

I’m reluctant to divulge too much of the story, even though I’ve noted it as perfunctory, since much of the fun for fans will be seeing exactly how Abrams pulls it off. But there are sadly big flaws. Eric Bana’s Nero is given such a clichéd, poorly developed rationale, and when it turns out that he only goes back in time by accident, the plot becomes very limp; the tail starts wagging the dog. There are plot devices that are never explained (“the red matter”), coincidences galore, and character decisions that service the plot rather than make sense (Kirk is booted off the ship on to an ice planet at one point, which gets the story rolling along, but as if they would do that rather than put him in the brig! Ludicrous). The film went into production after the writer’s strike hit, and the script was being tinkered with up until the last minute – it clearly needed some more work.

But there have been far worse scripts for major motion pictures, and the entertaining characters, sense of scale, and surprising twists (one feat of destruction clearly states that this is now a different Star Trek universe) compensate more than adequately. It’s not rich and memorable but still fun and optimistic, which is perhaps good for blockbusters to be right now. Personally, I’m still on Cloud Nine that there are more Star Trek adventures still to come that will be far fresher than the last few years of the franchise, and that this beloved outcast series has been successfully redeployed for a new generation. Although plenty would look at even The Next Generation and deride it as dated and lame after seeing this new whiz bang version, plenty more will be awakened to the virtues of the many hours of Star Trek that are there to be discovered and learned from. It’s been a formative moral and imaginative text for so many young people, and if Abrams can make it so again (pardon the pun, Picard fans), then I’m over the moon.

News and Readables - 25.2.09

2009-02-25T17:25:00.004+10:00

- Alan Moore speaks to Wired about his antipathy for the Watchmen movie, this time adding antipathy for the superhero genre in general. It's been hard to refute any of Moore's arguments, particularly those the entertainment industry usually doesn't make (that spending $100 million on a film is pretty outrageous), but it's also sad that Zack Snyder and his crew have been so dedicated to doing right by his work and he still says "I'll be spitting venom on it." Sigh. He has some great thoughts on the advantages of comics as a form though, in relation to film and particularly CGI, which he feels is erasing our ability to imagine.

- on that note, CHUD's Devin Faraci and Hitfix's Drew McWeeny (formerly the invaluable Moriarty of AICN) review Watchmen. I'd link to negative reviews for balance, but the only official one yet released is from British tabloid rag News of the World. These guys are fans, but realistic ones, and they're ringing endorsements are very encouraging.

- lone holdout Michael Cera may well be signing on to the Arrested Development film, reports the reliable Kristin of E Online. I imagine the right offer was made at last... She also says that Ron Howard is directing, which goes against initial reports that creator Mitchell Hurwitz would be helming as his directorial debut. It's off-hand so may be a mistake, as I can't imagine Howard spending all that time on a small-budgeted TV adaptation, even if he loves it, especially since he never directed any of the episodes. We'll see....

- Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) will direct The Green Hornet starring Seth Rogen and former director of the film Stephen Chow. Although Gondry hasn't managed a slam-dunk follow-up to Eternal Sunshine, he's a highly interesting director and Gondry directing a pseudo-superhero Seth Rogen film is a wonderfully deranged prospect.

- occasionally movie deals are announced that strip any remaining illusions you may have had about creative integrity in Hollywood: Gore Verbinski will direct a film version of Clue (aka Cluedo). Not only is it a film based on a board game, it is the SECOND film based on said board game. This comes a few months after the news that Ridley Scott was developing a Monopoly film. You couldn't make this stuff up. I've been underestimating the sheer power of brand recognition...

REVIEW - Zack and Miri Make a Porno

2009-02-25T17:12:00.003+10:00

I’m of two minds about so-called ‘gross-out’ films. Part of me deplores them for reducing mainstream comedy to something reliant on shattering an endless series of glass ceilings of vulgarity, reaching the point where even the presence of a botched sex act or poorly targeted faeces is supposed to be funny by default, presented like some feckless museum exhibit. On the other hand, such films can be hugely entertaining in their liberation when there is some wit involved, and it’s tempting to defend these rare exceptions against critics who write them off entirely for the mere presence of such material, whether it is well-deployed or not.

Kevin Smith’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno is such a film, with a title that almost baits critics into having preconceptions in order to upend them. However, Smith has not always employed vulgar comedy in the most successful way. Clerks II, a throwback effort that embodied Smith’s mid-career timidity, placed the characters from the micro-budgeted, conversational 1994 original into a slightly larger canvass where a performer having sex with a donkey and a supporting character masturbating to the sight was apparently seen by Smith as a natural development and emblematic of 30-something life. Although his trademark arcs of characters angsting their way into a better life were still present, the whole project stunk of desperation and narrow thinking, best exemplified by Smith casting his non-actor wife in a major role and having one character stop the film to recite a poorly-rationalised spiel about why the Lord of the Rings films sucked compared to Star Wars, a spiel virtually repeating verbatim Smith’s own public pronouncements on the matter. Jersey Girl, Smith’s first venture outside of the loosely-connected ‘Askewniverse’ and into a less cult mode was so savaged that he was incapable of just giving variety another shot via a different method. Hence Clerks II.

Thankfully, the tepid critical reaction to that film has galvanised the director into giving it another shot, albeit with one foot still in the warm bath. Signing Seth Rogen – who could have done any comedy he wanted after Knocked Up – was the first good sign, as was the news that this was not part of the Askew series. The result is a vulgar comedy with a surprisingly sweet and moralistic purpose, perhaps even Smith’s commentary that our culture’s sex-obsession may be wrong-headed despite his own many embodiments of it in his work.

Set once again in New Jersey, the film follows Zack (Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks), 20-something lifelong friends and housemates working small-time jobs and enjoying their convenient platonic relationship. When Zack’s impulsive spending brings them to the brink of destitution with a house lacking power and water, his meeting a gay porn star (Justin Long) at their high school reunion gives him a brainwave – they could earn money making their own porn film. While initially reluctant, Miri agrees, and they hesitantly decide to have sex on camera themselves, despite believing they have no interest in each other. They assemble a group of friends, strippers, and sexually talented ‘actors’ and begin filming.

As expected, Zack and Miri, endearingly played by Rogen and Banks, must confront their latent feelings for each other. Although a conventional plot arc, when inserted into a bizarre concept like amateur porn to make money rather than something hideously conventional, it somehow becomes fresh and even a little incisive. The film is sexually frank throughout, not holding back, and by running the gauntlet and showing sex at its most raw, Smith emerges with the question of ‘what about sex as intimacy rather than solely gratification?’ Why must these be apparently two separate concepts, with sexual love being depicted as almost boring in a media hellbent on titillation? By having the characters utterly at ease with sex as an entertaining, provocative, and constant conversation topic, Smith is able to raise the question without being accused of being sentimental and chaste. And even after the plot takes this turn, he still mines sex for its funny side so that the film is meaningful without being self-important.

This attitude is greatly assisted by Zack and Miri looking like a slick product. This is not shot in a pedestrian fashion with occasional amateurish acting, like Clerks II. The performances are charismatic and entertaining, the cinematography strong, helping Smith to shake his (self-confessed) reputation as a bland visual storyteller. He has cast well, with The Office’s Craig Robinson terrifically deadpan as Zack’s co-worker and reluctant money-man Delaney and Justin Long tremendous as an arrogant, overly dramatic porn star partnered with Brandon Routh, whose performance would do great things to overturn his squeaky-clean image as Superman if anyone actually remembered that he was in that film (I say that with sympathy for Routh. He’s fairly engaging and doesn’t deserve the embarrassment that the lack of major deals following the then-most expensive film ever and speculation about a never-gonna-happen sequel has caused him).

Having thought Smith would never again reach the heights of Chasing Amy, a film that excelled with the creative limitations of a low-budget, I’m relieved to see that there is hope for him to return as a major voice for youth in cinema. Zack and Miri Make a Porno is touching, tender, and hilarious, if you have a high tolerance for gross-out comedy. But please, Kevin, move on from Star Wars humour. It’s getting old.

Dusting away the cobwebs

2009-02-25T16:47:00.002+10:00

Yes, my likely imaginary readers, Remote Wanderings has been updated. Your RSS feeds would be pinged once again if I hadn't abandoned you in the year Ought-Seven and you had rightly deleted me in outrage over my disappearance.

Nah, I'm a realist. But the blog is back, as what I hope will be one of a few venues for my not-unique brand of pop culture musing. There will be a little spring cleaning, and most importantly, new content when life isn't getting in the way as it is so fond of doing.

The imminent arrival of Watchmen on the movie scene and its potential to be one of the genre touchstones for our generation (he said with hopeful reservation and foolish hyperbole) has galvanised me to get Remote Wanderings happening again, as have a few new ideas for different kinds of movie coverage, old and new. More on those as we get to them.

We'll inaugurate proceedings with something classy: a review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Although long since out of US cinemas, its recent opening here in Australia has inspired me to write a few words in its favour, which you'll see above. The inevitable Watchmen review will, thankfully, be somewhat more timely.

So settle back, add or re-add RW to your RSS doohickey, and enjoy some ramblings of the filmic and televisual variety.

The Dark Knight

2008-08-04T18:42:00.004+10:00

Can this humble site's review, three weeks after release, possibly enhance the cultural conversation about the year's biggest film, and the most pop-culturally significant since The Lord of the Rings and perhaps even Titanic?

Damn straight it can, as you’ll see.

Let it be said right off the bat that The Dark Knight is a deeply impressive blockbuster, a sombre crime film about order and anarchy and the cost of both, which happens to star a man in a batsuit. Director Christopher Nolan has surpassed Batman Begins in texture and subtlety, an accumulation of unsettling details that result in probably the most intense superhero film yet made. The choice of the Joker and Harvey Dent as villain and tragic other-hero prove more effective in getting to the root of what makes the Batman mythos appealing than the posturing Ra's Al Ghul of the first film. This root - the nature and cost of justice in a world seemingly designed to mock its pursuit - has been the subject of the more thoughtful and most successful Batman stories, and the character's relentless determination is what has made him so appealing. Although Batman is sidelined somewhat in this more ensemble-oriented film and undermined by Christian Bale's over-the-top disguising of Bruce Wayne's voice, the fundamental ideas that the character provokes writers to engage with are evident in The Dark Knight more than any Batman film before it. At risk of sounding snobbish, it's surprising that such a heady film has been such a runaway success.

That's largely because Nolan's made a film that's gripping, sharp, and sometimes blackly funny. Heath Ledger's performance is as revelatory as the hype bombardment has pronounced, making his passing on the verge of such versatile greatness all the more sad. It's a funny performance in an arch sense, but only intermittently; this is a far more sinister Joker than any presented before, representing anarchy rather than mischief. His philosophy is that people need to feel their worlds crumbling, although stops short of wanting people to appreciate their existence. He's insane and so that purposeful conclusion is missing, but his awareness of that gap makes him a fascinating paradox. In one of the film's most potent scenes, the character likens himself to a dog chasing cars: "I don't know what I'd do with it when I caught it".

He certainly casts a shadow over the film as far too many have said, but to note it so enthusiastically is unfair to the other actors. He's written to be charismatic in his sheer, horrific liberation, and Ledger's performance takes full advantage of this. It's a gift of a role, but doesn't deter the other players. Bale is solid as ever as Batman, although the voice has sadly gone too far. The first two scenes with the character in Begins had the voice pitched perfectly. It still didn't sound like Bale, but was plausible as a man's voice. By the end of that film, it had crept into absurdity, and that voice persists throughout The Dark Knight, jarring us from otherwise effective scenes. The Joker laughing at Batman should be seen as part of his gleeful rebellion; we shouldn't be able to join in on his mockery, as it sabotages our investment in our hero.

But this is made up for by Aaron Eckhart as crusading district attorney Harvey Dent, a key character from the comics here finally given his due in his own right before devolving into Two-Face. His fall from grace is such the spine of the film that he never becomes a true villain. For one thing he would be too similar to the Joker. How those two characters are interlinked is far more effective than merely teaming-up, Batman Forever- style. It's this rejection of overused superhero tropes that makes Nolan's approach so welcome. The intertwining of the proponent of reform with the agent of chaos – one deliberately steering the other into the abyss to demonstrate the futility of having a cause - is the lynchpin of the central theme of escalation. What hope does a pioneer have against forces beyond self-interest, who exist only to destroy on a bigger scale than they can create?

But for all this welcome richness, there is a flip side. In striving so much for realism and thematic subtext, Nolan loses something of the Gothic grandeur of Batman. Tim Burton’s films were certainly flawed takes on Batman with an over-inflated sense of style, but they still captured that macabre element that has made the character so irresistible to readers less interested in the purity and bombast of Superman and the oft-precious but deliberate everydayness of Spider-Man. In Nolan’s films Batman is more of a demented Jason Bourne than Gothic superhero. Finding plausible origins for Batman’s costume, technology, and theatricality was smart and necessary in Begins, especially to further differentiate from the previous films, but in The Dark Knight the fulfillment of that goal leaves the hero of the piece a little mundane rather than otherworldly. The dual focus on Batman and Dent certainly suborns Batman further, but that’s not the only reason; rather, Nolan’s grounded aesthetic – taken even further with the removal of the baroque Wayne Manor, the lack of location shooting, and the greater emphasis on technology and organised crime – diminishes the character’s genuine ability to transcend the silly costume, as proven by the best comics that feature him. It’s not just the transposition to live-action cinema. Batman fights incredibly, is utterly driven, but that’s about it. In his presence, force of will, and intelligence - the promised focus, at last, on his detective work is sadly absent - Batman should seem superhuman in the most eerie sense, even if he isn’t surrounded by Gothic extravagance. Bruce Wayne should be our relatable hero, but Batman needs to be a force of nature – that’s the point. Instead, the gap between Wayne’s true, non-playboy face and Batman has shrunk even more since Begins, until just the voice separates them.

The superhuman attribute is what makes him the natural opposite of the transcendently abhorrent Joker, and elevates their conflict to a more elemental battle of wills. Without it, the fight is between extreme man and more entertaining nutcase - a significantly less interesting proposition. The Dark Knight is clearly invested in the Batman/Joker dynamic, but Nolan trips himself up. As hard as it will be to top this film in a third installment, the world it fashions also begs the question of how any of Batman’s other villains can be transposed into it. The Joker works in this reenvisioning as an anarchist force of nature without a past, but can the Penguin? Catwoman? Even Two-Face, in his usual, less sympathetic guise? Naturally, consideration of future instalments should absolutely not be held against the present one, but this dilemma highlights the sole major problem of The Dark Knight. The loss of that operatic quality, that archetypal canvass, robs the central conflicts of some of their power and the hero of his primal strength. If one film dead-ends the exploration of that world on-screen, is it the best on-screen encapsulation of it?

Thankfully though, the heart of the mythos is here, just in a different milieu, and never has been so strongly as in The Dark Knight. The thematic underpinnings are deceptively complex in their politics and moral relativism, and address our current cultural and political climate with more dexterity than every other blockbuster that has attempted to. Nolan was very canny to see the timeliness in the Joker’s goals; the terrorism parallels are disturbingly effective because you can actually imagine someone painting on ghoulish makeup and committing these acts, if not the taking-over-the-mob part. In place of religious extremism is a belief in chaos as a cleansing fire, and that plausibility makes the Joker scary on a level separate from yet engrained in Ledger’s unnerving individual monster.

There are many more kind things to be said about this film, from Gary Oldman’s noble cop, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s relief of a convincing performance in taking over from Katie Holmes, the gorgeous steely cinematography, the lack of supervillain posturing, to the title that perhaps disproves once and for all that people can’t grasp a sequel title without simply a ‘2’ being attached. But they have been said many times over since The Dark Knight’s release. It may not change filmmaking practice forever, but it absolutely raises the bar for summer entertainment. I just read a refreshingly candid and self-aware interview with Terminator Salvation director McG, a man apparently determined to reject his fluffy Charlie’s Angels past, move beyond opportunistic franchise garbage, and help blaze a new trail. He says that now “there is a chance for the biggest movies to be the best movies… Let’s return to that [time] where you don’t have to apologise for a summer movie.” The Dark Knight was clearly in mind in stating that, and he’s absolutely right. Its overwhelming success by striving for greatness while still being massively entertaining may set a new standard and challenge for blockbuster cinema. Let’s hope that others accept the challenge rather than being cowed by it.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2008-02-03T21:50:00.025+10:00

In cinematic times past, particularly during the dominance of the auteur in the 1970s, the line between commercial filmmaking and artistry was blurred if not invisible. As much as I deplore reactionary film criticism, it is undeniable that before the proliferation of special effects and digitally assisted technology, audiences were more content with just a good story, solid characterisation, or suspense than they are now. Sensory engorgement – be it with effects, rapid editing, or the scale of carnage or coarseness - is now a prerequisite for a major box-office take, and while some financially successful films of quality manage to use that facility to their advantage (The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix, for example), the divide between consumer-oriented and creatively-focused filmmaking is very wide.

Consequently, prestige films must either have a small budget or straddle this barbed dividing line with supernatural skill in order to warrant a studio’s investment. Projects that attract a sizable budget of $30 million or more must often go rogue if a filmmaker’s vision is to ever be adhered to. Granted, the studios are making a sizable investment and do deserve input, but it is still tempting to rage against the fiscal mindset of the typical studio executive when we long for their philanthropy, as tragically naïve as that sounds.

But over the last year we’ve received several films of quite sizable budget that could never be expected to be box-office kingpins, to the point where one is unsure whether to thank the studios for taking a chance or just be grateful for whatever delusions they were under that such films would satisfy their shareholders. Zodiac, Southland Tales, The Fountain, The New World, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men are mid-range budgeted films so contemplative, esoteric, or both that they could only have been greenlit for the respect they would garner for their studios rather than the cash.

But such inquisitiveness feels risky, as if by acknowledging such creative fragility in film circles we are exposing it to destructive scrutiny. Regardless, we should be thankful that such films are being made at all. The truth is that while blockbusters are indeed largely getting worse, there are still enough films of significant quality made each year, either on a low budget or as recipients of studio largesse (or perhaps insanity). To argue that films aren’t as good as they used to be does have basis, but at the same time such people need to pipe down. There are plenty of good films if you just look for them.

Which brings me to The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, a film from that lovely limbo where lucrative studio expectations are tossed into the wind for something more timeless. Screenwriter/director Andrew Dominik has followed up his dynamic Australian true-crime flick Chopper with a Western that isn’t really a Western at all. Given that the studio reportedly wanted their $30 million Brad-Pitt-as-wild-west-legend film to be a more visceral, epic, Unforgiven-style affair, they were understandably miffed when Dominik delivered a meditation on celebrity and hero worship where the two main characters are crazy and maladjusted. Cue a two-year delay allegedly beset by requests for cuts and the staunch resistance of Dominik and producer/star Pitt. The director has intimated that they won and that he endorses the final version, although the film has consequently been dumped in a limited release pattern despite the jubilation of a number of critics. This is a case where film lovers should grin manically and run into the theatre while they can, gleeful at the filmmakers’ gall, because in this case Dominik and Pitt have run the gauntlet and emerged with a masterful film that may eventually be considered a classic.

As quietly confident and audacious as Chopper was, it did not suggest that Dominik was capable of a film this elegant and poignant. Despite sharing the theme of fame and whether it is misguidedly awarded, Chopper was such a cynical and grotty film, albeit deliberately, that Assassination’s majestic emotional heights are surprising and even more breathtaking to behold. Although he is working from a very well regarded 1983 novel by Ron Hansen, Dominik’s film seems to transcend adaptation to become something else entirely, a haunting visual document that grabs verbatim chunks of the novel in voiceover form and then sprints away to portray history in a soulfully perceptual and tactile way unique to cinema. Assassination is far more dialogue-driven than the works of Terrence Malick, but Roger Deakins’s stunning, evocative cinematography creates brooding yet beautiful landscapes that stand with the best of Malick. Dominik’s measured depiction of immense and often harsh vistas shares Malick’s contemplation of the natural world as being both alien and entrancing.

Jesse James’s story has been dramatised plenty of times before, but Assassination focuses on the twilight years of his criminal career, beginning with his last heist and then turning deeper in on itself to explore the claustrophobic paranoia that the legend of Jesse has caused in the man himself. Lifelong James enthusiast Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) seeks to become a member of the gang after his older brother Charley (Sam Rockwell) is hired, despite having no aptitude for such misdeeds. Bob is an unsettlingly sycophantic creature, but one motivated by love and respect rather than malice. The unwieldy title (which Pitt’s contract stipulated must remain unabbreviated) is crucial in its entirety since the film is about the simplification that fame and infamy enforce on complex events, and takes pains to illustrate that while Bob can be neatly summed up as a creepy guy - as older brother Frank James (Sam Sheperd) deems him on first meeting - there is far more to him. The assassination scene itself is breathtaking for many reasons, not least of which for the torment in the Ford brothers’ faces as they contemplate the inevitability of what they are about to do, while also being overwhelmed with confusion as to why it has fallen to them to do it.

The whole cast delivers career-best performances in a meditative film that gives them room to spread their wings. Much has rightly been made of Casey Affleck’s revelatory performance, which cements him as a formidable and versatile talent where before he was merely a bit player. He absorbs Bob’s complex layers of self-loathing and projects them outward to just the right degree, so we can still speculate as to what lurks beneath. Pitt is excellent as ever, and since this is his passion project he delivers particularly strongly. He exhibits more subtlety than ever before, his expressions often very nearly hidden but letting just enough show to pack a punch. Jesse becomes increasingly unhinged through the film, and Pitt conveys it without resorting to the manic intensity of his 12 Monkeys and Fight Club performances. Jesse’s own legend is a strait-jacket around his self-expression, and his battle with his own identity prevents him from such freedom apart from occasional outbursts of hysteria that are far more unnerving than anything else in Pitt’s career.

The duo has a magnificent supporting cast, with Paul Schneider and Jeremy Renner particularly strong as two James gang members. There is a twenty minute interlude in the middle of the film when the two stay with Renner’s father and his very young wife which is blessed with such a natural segue that its peripheral nature only occurs to us partway through. Schneider sells Dick Liddel as a seducer with a conscience, while Renner’s Wood Hite is a powder keg that we don’t think to monitor until it’s too late.

Many critics have argued that the sequence is overly indulgent and irrelevant, and perhaps it is. But while not overtly tying into the film’s larger thematic goals, it is a seductive and haunting piece that brings to mind the plantation scenes in Apocalypse Now Redux. I can’t dismiss the argument for its removal, but it is an agreeable sin in a film that otherwise justifies its nearly three hour running time. The sensual and entrancingly slow pace makes this film what it is, and it doesn’t outstay its welcome.

Also excellent are Rockwell and Deadwood’s Garret Dillahunt, whose two scenes with Pitt are absolute dynamite, and would have made me wish that he had been able to play his original role of Charley Ford (a TV commitment prohibited him) if Sam Rockwell wasn’t so affecting in the part. Rockwell typically plays an in-control oddball, but here he successfully breaks away from the mould with a loyal brother determined to keep a sinking ship afloat, and his expressions and gestures before the assassination as he realises what must be done rank among the actor’s very best work.

Unfortunately, the female cast members are barely seen, with Mary-Louise Parker and Zooey Deschanel afforded scant screen time despite their accomplished résumés. Were their scenes among the few that Dominik still had to cut? Or is this a film principally concerned with exploring masculinity and the relationships between powerful and powerless men? This is such a sensitive film that a sexist motivation on Dominik’s part seems incongruous, although the characters make no secret of their misogyny. Ultimately, Parker’s background presence works to the film’s advantage. Like the other female characters, she haunts the periphery until her agonising outburst upon discovering her dead husband. As this previously stoic woman is filled with grief and rage, Bob realises that the male power struggle he has just resolved has claimed other victims, and our dim awareness of her vital presence comes painfully into focus.

But despite this focus on the men, Assassination is not a boy’s own film. It is focused on universal issues and told in such a gentle and non-exploitative way that it is clearly not aiming for gun-loving male Western fans. Dominik uses the distance of the West to analyse how the corruption of fame is not a 20th century innovation, and that its costs are not limited to the age of mass media. Plus, it is yet another successful example of a legend being deconstructed without being robbed of its power, replacing the gun-toting hero with altogether different and more sinister masculine ideals. However, Jesse James himself clearly cannot live with what they turn him into, and so the blatant title becomes ever more elliptical. Is it an assassination? And who is the coward?

Even on the terms that Dominik set out with, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford could have been a noble-minded failure. But despite all the setbacks, he has made a film of great and lasting calibre. Although not perfect, it stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of other films in 2007, and must be seen on a big screen to savour both the cinematography and the ambience that Dominik conjures with a surprisingly wordy movie. This is a film that will transcend its current niche audience and enter the conversations about great films as the years pass.

Bits for the Last Two Weeks

2007-09-17T21:05:00.000+10:00

Reviews are forthcoming, I swear. Look for Inland Empire, Ratatouille, and Stardust very soon.

In stunning news, fantasy author Robert Jordan has passed away from a rare form of cancer called cardiac amyloidosis. I'd known that Jordan (whose real name is James Rigney Jr.) had been diagnosed with the disease early last year, but was under the impression that his health was improving. Tragically, it has not, and both the man and his series have been lost. Jordan was working on the twelfth and final volume of his Wheel of Time series, which began in 1990 and was set to conclude in 2009. Understandably, no plans have been announced yet for how the series will end, but perhaps an acceptable conclusion can be offered given his progress with A Memory of Light. But of course, condolences first and foremost to Mr. Jordan's family and friends at the end of a courageous and debilitating fight.

Although I parted ways with the series after the ninth volume, I hoped to one day catch up with the grand conclusion of a story I had invested so much time in. Maybe that can still occur, eventually.

The Emmy Awards have been announced, and the results have been as mixed a bag as the nominations. I failed to vent my anger at the noms in July, both because I would be beating a dead horse and because I feel that I should be accustomed to the Television Academy continually failing to see further than its own nose. It can't be blamed, as the system is inherently flawed: to entrust the adjudication of a medium's best to a body of busy voters who cannot possibly see everything there is to offer - either more than a sample episode or at all - is akin to ignoring half the lanes in an Olympic swimming championship. Emmy voting is a grotesque hybrid of a popularity contest and deranged idiosyncrasy. Whereas handing the awards over to TV critics would be a decidedly problematic idea for an academy designed to bestow industry recognition of its own, at least they have the time and critical faculties to evaluate the majority of what's out there.

As it stands, Deadwood, The Wire, Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Friday Night Lights, and The Shield continue to be shut out of virtually all major categories (the former two completely, despite being by far the best television had to offer in the last or any year). In the meantime, Grey's Anatomy, Heroes, House, and Boston Legal hog the limelight with demented grins as if they've just successfully bribed every single Emmy voter, while The Wire, the most acclaimed show in a decade, receives nothing, and the cancelled Deadwood - abandoned in the awards campaign by HBO following its cancellation - follows up a Best Drama and Actor nomination for its second season with sweet FA despite no drop in quality.

No doubt this just sounds like bitter whining that my favourites didn't get any attention from the grown-ups, but a quick survey of critical response to the Emmys shows that I'm not alone. And even if you're not impassioned about them, I utterly defy you to tell me that Grey's Anatomy is more worthy of recognition as a drama series than The Wire, or even that Heroes is better at what it does than Lost. Heroes is the zeitgeist, so it gets the nom - that doesn't make it right or worthy, especially since if the Emmys are about rewarding quality, then it should be implicit that such a goal entail shining a spotlight on underappreciated shows of quality. It occasionally does - the first season win by Arrested Development for Best Comedy, for example - but most of the time this farce is, as I said, a popularity contest.

Oh well, we know better. And at least one Best Drama nomination was semi-deserved: The Sopranos. Its final season was the best since its third, and its win on Sunday night was at least the best of a not-so-great bunch. And in a lovely twist, Terry O'Quinn won Best Supporting Actor for his role of John Locke in Lost, which felt like lovely vindication that genre shows can indeed have good actors, and Ricky Gervais won Best Comedy Actor for Extras!

And the very presence of creative nominations for Battlestar Galactica - Best Writing in a Drama Series for Ron Moore for the two-hour season premiere, and Best Directing for Felix Alcala for the jaw-dropping "Exodus Part 2" - was a wonderful surprise back in July and a kernel of hope for the institution that it can hear what's going on outside for time to time. Could Battlestar's final season yield a cathartic Emmy blitz? Doubtful, but we can hope, or perhaps the point is, it doesn't matter.

The Southland Tales trailer is finally here, and it’s an intoxicating if impenetrable melange of imagery and ideas. The editing is stunningly good, and hopefully master trailer-makers aren’t being employed to dress up a failure. There has been much speculation about whether Kelly’s extensive work on the film could possibly redeem a film regarded as unsalvageable at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, where a workprint was screened to the derision of most. A round-up of the response can be read here.

However, prolific and savvy Village Voice critic J. Hoberman lavished praise, and Donnie Darko was slammed at Sundance too. Hopefully Southland Tales is an underappreciated gem, or if it was dross at Cannes, that Kelly has saved it. Whatever happens, this looks to be a film of uncommon ambition and vision, and should be given a break on those terms alone.

Also, as you'll have seen above, Cinematical premiered the final one-sheet for Southland Tales too a couple of weeks ago and it’s a nifty bit of art. It’s floating heads yet again, but at least does something a little more creative with them, and the whole thing is a nice symbolic distortion of the American flag, which is allegedly the film in a nutshell. At least some thought went into this one.

And the LA Times has a terrific article on Kelly’s post-Cannes travails with the film.

There’s been ominous talk that Sci-Fi will split up the 20-episode fourth season of Battlestar Galactica, not with a month or two hiatus, but a year, with the second half being held over for early 2009. Ron Moore has confirmed that executives are discussing the option, and the combined factors of their sole prestige project soon departing and the imminent talent strike would certainly make stretching out Battlestar an attractive prospect. But a ten-episode season is pretty measly even by cable standards, so let’s hope they don’t.

James Hibberd of TV Week (not the Aussie rag of the same name, thankfully) has a good piece covering virtually all matters Battlestar with comments from Moore, where he confirms the discussions. Hibberd also reveals that Sci-Fi are considering bringing the Caprica spin-off out of mothballs. So keen are they to maintain their relationship with the in-demand Moore – who recently signed a huge deal with NBC Universal and has a couple of movie scripts in development - that they may greenlight the prequel drama set before the first Cylon War. They also speculate that its earthbound setting (pardon the irony) and lighter tone may attract a bigger audience than the original series.

SyFy Portal's Michael Hinman writes further about the strike's impact on Galactica and Caprica, and quotes a source's very salient point: delaying a show despite irritating its fans and filming a completed script (as Caprica's pilot is), however risky both moves may be, is better than having nothing to broadcast that year at all.

And Entertainment Weekly has a preview article of Battlestar Galactica: Razor.

The inevitable film version of Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer-winning novel The Road is gaining traction, with previously announced director John Hillcoat (The Proposition) and his producers in talks with Viggo Mortensen to star and Dimension Films to distribute. Mortensen hasn’t yet signed, but he’d be absolutely ideal for the part, although I fear for Hillcoat in having to make such a rigourously non-commercial film for the Weinsteins (they took their Dimension imprint with them from Miramax to The Weinstein Company).

But the stories of interference emanating from their new company have been slim to nil; even Todd Haynes is working with them again on I’m Not There after being shamelessly messed about on Velvet Goldmine. Perhaps being the underdog once again has mellowed them, and their promotional savvy could help a movie so bleak that it may struggle even to gain kudos from more conservative critics. But if Hillcoat and Mortensen make it – and they are both perfectly suited to it – then it has a good chance of being a seminal film.

Shooting for The Road will begin in January, so it’s snuck in as pre-strike project. In that vein, FilmJerk published a very interesting list that has been circulating Hollywood of 300 projects that the various studios are endeavouring to get made before the curtain falls on the industry for a while next June (and who knows for how long...). Some notable flicks that either haven’t been mentioned at all or for a while:

- Torso, directed by David Fincher, based on Brian Michael Bendis and Marc Andreyko’s graphic novel about Elliot Ness investigating the true-life Cleveland Torso serial murders (I know, I’m mystified why Fincher would tackle serial killers yet again after providing two such worthy and distinct takes on the topic in Seven and Zodiac. Perhaps he’s found a third. Fincher doing 1930s noir is a delicious prospect though).

- a new Gulliver's Travels films? Would that play?

- Life of Pi, a film of Yann Martel's novel directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie).

- a new Cameron Crowe (Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous) film, currently untitled.

- The Birdcage 2? I Dream of Jeannie? Ugh...

- Scott Pilgrim, directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), based on Bryan O'Malley's comic. Haven't heard about this for a while.

- both The Voyage of the Dawn Treader AND The Silver Chair before the strike? Seriously?

- Brad Bird moves into live action with 1906, about the San Francisco earthquake of that year, based on the fictionalised account by James Dalessandro. Bird is brilliant - sign me up. Didn't know this was coming so soon.

The worst-kept secret is out: George Miller will be directing Justice League (although Variety says he's only in final talks) and Batman and Superman will be recast. Motion-capture was considered, but they likely won't go that way. IESB says that Tom Welling is now out of the running to graduate to full Superman status - no tears here - and that Ryan Gosling is much desired for Batman - good bloody luck though. Plus, they hear that Superman: The Man of Steel has been postponed indefinitely. That makes more sense than whatever else we were hearing.

YES! Cynthia Watros will be making multiple appearances as Libby in the fourth season of Lost, presumably in flashbacks. The recurring status presumably means that her intriguing habit of popping up in completely unrelated backstories will continue. It's terrific that the writers will be able to resolve this particular A-bomb of mystery from the show's past (and hopefully they can justify why she was written out so suddenly with so little exposure up to that point, but I doubt it). With the return of Harold Perrineau's Michael too, there seems to be much t crossing and i dotting happening in the Lost offices. Thank goodness again for the end-date declaration.

While reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I was utterly convinced that Jim Broadbent must play Slughorn. Rarely have I been do determined to see an actor be cast in a role - he was just too perfect. I didn't see it mooted elsewhere - Bob Hoskins was linked to the role a while ago. And who will be playing Slughorn? Jim bloody Broadbent!! Ah, sweet vindication. Gloating has occurred offline.

Check out the gorgeous poster for Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood, starring Daniel Day-Lewis. The full trailer was also prematurely put on MySpace before being yanked, but a copy managed to get on to YouTube. There are a couple of copies of not great quality, so check them out if you're really keen. Expect an official Quicktime version soon-ish. It's not an earth-shattering trailer, but it is enticing, and it's so nice to have Day-Lewis back, and in such a meaty role. Plus, the material seems wonderfully timely.

Giovanni Ribisi has joined James Cameron's Avatar. I like that Cameron hasn't had to cast big names for this. The studio is sensibly relying on Cameron's name to draw the crowds (although I'm sure they had to be coaxed into that though, as ever).

Full circle time: Brad Pitt will be replacing the very busy Matt Damon in Darren Aronofsky's The Fighter, playing Mark Wahlberg's brother in the period boxing drama. Pitt famously left the first incarnation of The Fountain, which led the studio to abandon the project and production having to be shut down. Pitt and Aronofsky are presumably on good enough terms to reunite for this, and expect Pitt to stick around this time: walking out on a director twice is bad press that any star would want to avoid.

Matthew McConaughey will replace Owen Wilson in comedy Tropic Thunder following the actor's recent suicide attempt. He joins an amazing cast, including Stiller (who is also directing), Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Justin Theroux, Steve Coogan, and Nick Nolte.

Zoe Saldana will play Uhura in JJ Abrams's Star Trek. With this and Avatar, she's got some big projects coming out. Ironically, Star Trek will be released first, despite Saldana having been filming Avatar for months.

Brad Pitt and Edward Norton will reteam for State of Play, director Kevin McDonald's (The Last King of Scotland) adaptation of the massively acclaimed BBC political mini-series starring David Morrisey and John Simm and written by Paul Abbott (Shameless). Pitt and Norton were a dynamite on-screen team in Fight Club, so this has gone from very promising to must-see status. The script is by the suddenly ubiquitous Matthew Michael Carnahan, writer of The Kingdom, Lions for Lambs, and brother Joe's forthcoming White Jazz.

The Steven Spielberg-produced TNT mini-series version of Stephen King's fantasy novel The Talisman has been put on hold due to budgetary issues. Will it be made? And if not, will it return to film development where it originated?

Jon Stewart will host the 2008 Academy Awards.

It just had to happen: Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal will play siblings in Jim Sheridan's Brothers, the remake of Susanna Bier's Danish film about a man sent to fight in Afghanistan and his prodigal brother caring for his family. After Get Rich or Die Tryin' bombed, Sheridan could use a break, and it's nice that he was able to snag two such big stars, even if it is for another bloody remake. But setting the story in America will naturally add an interesting new dimension to the story.

This is GOLD. Mark Romanek is finally following up One Hour Photo with a new version of The Wolf Man for Universal, with Benicio del Toro in the lead and Andrew Kevin Walker (Seven) penning the script. Romanek says in an email to Harry Knowles (at the below link) that this project and Ed Wood are the two that makeup supremo Rick Baker has wanted to see made in his career, so naturally he's on board to transform del Toro into the monster.

Check out this picture of Del Toro play-throttling Baker at AICN. Note that this is without makeup or hair extensions.

WOAH!

Il est perfect, non? That is a staggeringly cool expression - del Toro was clearly born for this role. As Knowles says, imagine what he'll look like with makeup! I was wondering how this film will differ from An American Werewolf in London, which Baker also provided makeup for, but a quick search reveals that it will be set in Victorian England.

Holy cow - Victoriana + del Toro + Romanek + Baker + Walker = a monster movie I'm actually rabid for. It comes out in early 2009. With Watchmen, Avatar, and this, the first half of that year is looking incredible.

Not satisfied with the obnoxious glut of medical and legal shows on TV? Law and Order mogul Dick Wolf is here to help, with a new "medical-legal hybrid"! Oh WHEE!!

Not deterred by Pathfinder's implosion, Hollywood is giving the Vikings another go. Ryan Phillipe, Abby Cornish, and Sean Bean will star in Menno Meyjes's Last Battle Dreamer, about the Viking invasion of Britain. I have trouble picturing Phillippe as a Viking, but this could be cool. Could be woeful.

AMC has renewed the excellent Mad Men, about advertising executives in 1960 (it's much more interesting than that sounds), for a second season. Good news, since this is the closest that basic cable has come to the tone and sensibility of an HBO show. No surprise that Sopranos veteran Matthew Weiner is the creator.

I missed this when it was put up in July: Wizard Magazine arranged a roundtable conversation about Watchmen between Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, comic movie veteran David Goyer, and comics writers Brian K. Vaughan and Ed Brubaker. Great reading.

The second season Twin Peaks soundtrack is finally on its way. To be released on October 23 (the same day as the Galactica season 3 soundtrack - a good day or what!), it reportedly features unreleased cues from the pilot, season one, and Fire Walk with Me. A nicely lengthy track listing can be seen at Dugpa.

Pissed off with Warner's disinclination to do much for the DVD of The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky has released his own commentary track on his website, which should be a very insightful listen. It's already proven massively popular. Yet another reason for me to get the Fountain DVD when it finally comes out to buy in Australia next month.

And lastly, things may be happening with the HBO Preacher series. The last we heard, the uninspiring team of Mark Steven Johnson (Ghost Rider) and Howard Deutch (Grumpy Old Men) were at the helm. Then recently, there were whispers that Robert Rodriguez had been approached to direct the pilot and perhaps subsequent episodes. Now CHUD is reporting that HBO may be looking for an all-star roster of major directors, and that Deutch is out but Johnson is still in (writer Garth Ennis is apparently happy enough with his work so far though).

Check out who they're looking to attract to helm episodes: Brian de Palma (!), David Cronenberg, Danny Boyle, Alex Proyas, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (28 Weeks Later), plus Rodriguez.

Wowzers... will they succeed? The series has yet to be greenlit even for production of a pilot, but things are happening. HBO seems to want to do this. I'm still struggling to see the point of a rigourously faithful remake though, and am baffled as to how they plan to avoid the shitstorm of controversy they'll attract if they throw everything in there - this comic is often just FILTHY. Perhaps the all-star director roster is an attempt to convey its respectability despite appearances that may be to the contrary.

Plus, I don't think this is the kind of shows that critics will go for, in which case they wouldn't have that line of defence for the content. It will be a major love it or hate it proposition, especially since the pathos and heart of the series doesn't really kick in until the second half of the comic's run. We shall see.

TRAILERVILLE

- Iron Man!!!! This is essentially the Comicon preview, and it looks fantastic. A great cast and a nice take on tricky material. And seeing Iron Man fly is the kind of thing that makes comic-book movies worthwhile - it looks far more interesting and exciting in motion than on the page.

- the second non-redband Beowulf trailer.

- indie drama set in a very dull afterlife, Wristcutters: A Love Story. Looks just great.

- Jason Reitman's follow-up to Thank You for Smoking, Juno, starring Ellen Page (Hard Candy), Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, and Jennifer Garner. This looks really nice.

- a tantalising trailer for Heroes season two, which starts on Monday.

Bits for the Day/Week

2007-09-03T21:40:00.000+10:00

[Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, and Edward James Olmos at the premiere of Blade Runner: The Final Cut at the Venice Film Festival. Picture courtesy Reuters.]

Blade Runner: The Final Cut has premiered in Venice, and Ridley Scott's been his typically forthcoming/cranky self, declaring that science fiction cinema is dead because nothing new is being done, and that movies on mobile phones are a massive detriment to the nature of cinema.

While I agree with him on the latter point, I think the former is a little miserly. Originality is pretty tough after all, and while he should be hard on blatant, thoughtless imitation, he shouldn't decry the SF films that are really trying, like Children of Men, Sunshine, The Fountain, and A Scanner Darkly. The Guardian has a gentle retort that takes similar opposition.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford has begun screening for critics and at the Venice Film Festival, and the reaction is polarised. Emanuel Levy and Variety's Todd McCarthy adore it and proclaim it a masterpiece, as do others yet to publish complete reviews, yet David Poland and The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt find it an underwhelming, pretentious mess. It's probably too Malickian to have a decent shot at the Oscars, but this is clearly not a misfire, rather a film so elusive that it divides opinion.

A second trailer has also appeared shortly after the first, and it's an ideal encapsulation of how a film can be marketed in completely different ways. Whereas the trailer posted last week is contemplative and soulful, the new one positions the film as a Western thriller. Not since The Weather Man have I seen such a markedly inaccurate promotion for a film, if the advance word about it is to be believed. It's a safe assumption that one of these trailers is for the arthouses, the other for the megaplexes, if the studio deigns to open it wider into them.

The Wire has wrapped filming on its fifth and final season, and The Washington Post has a terrific article and a poignant video of the last day on the set, with comments from David Simon and members of the cast. Although I'm lucky enough to have two whole seasons of this masterwork still to savour, it's nonetheless a shame that this show is ending, albeit a triumph that it garnered the full five seasons that Simon wished for. I think it will be many years before this show is fully appreciated by the many who would have if they had merely known of it.

Incidentally, I'd suspected that the fifth season theme of the media would produce a new character to anchor the exploration, like Carcetti in season 3 and the four kids in season 4, and this article reveals him, and it's nice to hear that he'll be played by Clooney repertory player Tom McCarthy, from Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck, and writer/director of The Station Agent. Good snag, Wire.

AICN's Moriarty has some portents about what the hell the new Star Trek movie is about. Don't read if you want to remain utterly pure, but there's nothing hugely spoilery except in a conceptual way. Just think Ultimate... [And CHUD's Jeremy Smith has had confirmation that this is indeed the plot, or part of it. It's an interesting move, but I have to tenatively agree with Devin's editorial - we don't need any anchoring to the past franchise if you're just going to reboot it anyway. But then, it's also nicely audacious.]

There's ominous talk from cast members at a convention that Sci-Fi will be splitting up the fourth and final season of Battlestar Galactica, with 10 episodes to air early in 2008 and 10 held over until early 2009!! It makes a kind of sense to get the most critical love for the longest time, but a lot of people are going to be pissed off too - it's fairly tight. Not yet confirmed, though.

And also, vote for the cover for the DVD of the "Razor" BSG TV movie, if you give a crap. I picked the C. Sadly, as I discovered, the "exclusive clip" you get as reward for your efforts won't play if you're outside America. Nuts.

The new Lost cast members are: Ken Leung (Rush Hour, The Sopranos), Lance Reddick (The Wire), Jeremy Davies (Solaris, Saving Private Ryan), Jeff Fahey (The Lawnmower Man), and Rebecca Mader (er... dunno).

Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse speak to Entertainment Weekly's Lost guru Jeff Jensen about the new additions here. Fahey sounds like an interesting guy. He only acts occasionally, which explains his patchy filmography. Instead, he recently ran an orphanage in Afghanistan!

Oliver Stone is returning to Vietnam with Pinkville, a film about the My Lai massacre and subsequent inquiries and scandals, to star Bruce Willis and Channing Tatum. It's set up at Cruise/Wagner's new United Artists, which will soon face its first test with the release of Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs.

Time for this week's episode of Jack's Persistent Delusional Hopes: After a disheartening August 20 blog post recounting a demoralising chat with David Milch, Deadwood actor W. Earl Brown (Dan Dority) offered a little hope to Remote Access, and encouraging news that even the in-demand Ian McShane and Timothy Olyphant are keen as mustard for more Deadwood. While the prospect is highly tenuous and only comes from one source, for Deadwood salivators like myself, it's better than nowt, and things do seem to be happening; from a subsequent, brighter conversation with Milch, Brown speculated that "the next couple of weeks should let us know for sure".

Like Brown, I also had the naive hope that with John from Cincinnati capsizing, Deadwood's chances would be much brighter, but I shouldn't be surprised that this is not necessarily the case. HBO seems to be far more business-oriented these days, increasingly resembling the networks in its programming decisions even through subscribers, not advertisers, provide their revenue. And that's just in the case of the movies. If the series were mooted to return (as Brown still has hope for, curiously, and I can't help but irrationally root for), the original financial problems that led to its demise likely remain, now with the added factor of a renewal seeming like a step back, a capitulation for all concerned.

However, HBO is facing a major image problem at the moment, with its commercial and critical successes dropping like flies while rival Showtime reaps the rewards, to the point where The Guardian and The New York Times have published articles on its woes ("HBO-ver is a popular catch-cry in the industry). Perhaps the proper return of the last moderate commercial and massive critical success it had whose creator actually wants it to return could rehabilitate its reputation. The question would be whether the move would be likened to a renaissance, a triumphant heeding of the people's wishes or a resuscitation, a warming-over of past glories.

Regardless, this show still gets talked about a lot, surprisingly so for a show cancelled over a year ago. And I'm currently watching the show for the first substantial time since it ended (I have yet to re-watch the third season), and it's only reminded me how this show leaves absolutely everything - save The Wire - in the dust. It has fully exposed for me how John from Cincinnati did not just fail to match Milch's predecessor, but it never came close.

Deadwood was a finely crafted, exquisite jewel laden with beautiful coarseness and a pulsing, vibrant soul. I think HBO could do a lot worse than bring it back. Continuing down its current path clearly isn't working for them. Hopefully the next couple of weeks will yield something.

Sky One and AMC's remake of The Prisoner isn't happening. I was in a wait-and-see posture, but am shedding absolutely no tears.

The first review in English that I'm aware of of the Rebuild of Evangelion movies.

The New York Times on the long delay of John Turturro's musical comedy Romance and Cigarettes, with James Gandolfini and Kate Winslet.

There's a feature-length documentary out called The Pixar Story. WANT!

Keanu Reeves will be playing humanoid alien messenger Klaatu in the remake of Robert Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still, to be directed by Scott Derrickson (The Exorcism of Emily Rose).

....

GODDAMN REMAKES!!!!!! For the love of God, leave them alone.

The budgetary disputes and studio bafflement about Watchmen clearly haven't soured Warner executives on Zack Snyder: they've signed him to direct a new version of The Illustrated Man, an anthology film based on the stories of Ray Bradbury, to be produced by Frank Darabont (who's still trying to get his version of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 off the ground). Anthologies are usually commercial poison - will this one change that course?

Brandon Routh has work! Yes, the unthinkable has happened. Gregor Jordan has returned from post-Ned Kelly respite/exile to direct The Informers, a intersecting drama based on short stories by Bret Easton Ellis that will star Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Basinger, and Routh... as a vampire! Interestink. The interweaving ensemble drama is very old-hat right now, but vampires and Ellis source material should give the genre a much-needed and hopefully satisfying creative enema. And Jordan's Buffalo Soldiers was really good.

Newsarama has a serialised chapter from premier comics scholar Douglas Wolk's new book Reading Comics, which could be quite the authoritative text for the foreseeable future. The chapter focuses on Grant Morrison, particularly The Invisibles and Seven Soldiers - a nice coincidence since Morrison is bloody fantastic if utterly mad.

Bits for the Day

2007-08-25T11:29:00.000+10:00

At last, as we approach its long-delayed release next month both in America and at the Venice and Toronto Film Festivals, comes the second trailer for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and it looks quite beautiful. Directed by Australia's Andrew Dominik following his very different Chopper and starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck (who with this and Gone, Baby, Gone is up for a good couple of months), the movie has been put through the studio wringer but emerged reportedly intact thanks to its escape to limited release on the arthouse circuit after executives saw a film more akin to Terrence Malick than the Unforgiven-style bonanza they were expecting. Pitt and Dominik reportedly dug their heels in against mass cuts and succeeded in a nice change of pace.

The film's underdog status and the Malick comparisons, plus the haunting teaser trailer released 18 months ago, have made me eager to see this, and the new trailer confirms those suspicions. Watch it just for the snapshots of Roger Deakins's stunning cinematography which offers some startlingly evocative images - no wonder he's the Coen Brothers' preferred choice. Pitt and Affleck appear to be on great form, and we get a glimpse into the dynamics and themes that the film will be tapping into, although what this film will ultimately be is still a mystery. Snippets can also be heard of Nick Cave and Warren Ellis's score, no doubt hired because of their stellar work on The Proposition, and how exciting it is to have more scoring work from them so soon.

Download a hi-def version at Movie-List (which you simply MUST if you're able) or a small in-browser version at Coming Soon courtesy of AOL, where you can also find links to the teaser trailer. The above poster, also just released, is also thanks to Coming Soon.

Lotsa great trailers for y'all (no sign of the promised Southland Tales one yet though, sadly).

- the redband trailer (ie. for 18 years and over with violence and cussin') for the Coens's No Country for Old Men, from the official site. Thanks to Film Ick for the direct download link - you'll need Shockwave Player.

- the full trailer for Hitman, the video game adaptation starring Timothy Olyphant, from IGN. It looks fairly unremarkable, but apparently the script is quite exceptional, surprisingly so for any gun-toting movie these days, especially one directed by a Luc Besson protege (Xavier Gens). And Olyphant is always good value.

- the substantial Comicon trailer for Beowulf, in super hi-res Quicktime or not-so-good Flash, once again thanks to Film Ick (from the film's official site), who dutifully provide direct download links for virtually everything. This one's actually a Redband trailer, but I don't see why since the movie's PG-13. I won't be watching this though as I want to save as much of Beowulf for the big screen as I can, even if it turns out to be crummy. But it's there for them 'oose wants it.

- the UK trailer for Ridley Scott's American Gangster with Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, and it's a LOT more enticing than the American one from a couple of months ago, despite the blatant lifting of a song that Jackie Brown arguably made its own and the fairly manipulative use of choral music in the second half. And this is the first regular trailer I've seen in a long time with swearing. Interestink.... So yes, go. Hopefully this is Ridley Scott back on his A-game, and Crowe and Washington facing off should be a lot cooler this time than it was in Virtuosity. Thanks to Empire and yet again to Film Ick.

IESB is reporting that Smallville star Tom Welling will play Superman in the Justice League film - oh PLEASE. The guy makes an okay teenaged Clark Kent in a mediocre TV show, but even I'd make a better big-screen Superman than this guy. Brandon Routh didn't have a boatload of charisma, but at least he kinda sold Superman's statuesque awe. I don't believe Welling could, and he just brings too much baggage with him from the show. Plus, I really don't want to see him play the nerdy Kent persona - it'd be too painful. Perhaps the studio is in such a rush to get this thing made that they want to forgo the lengthy search to find another decent Superman that they're just going to cast the nearest existing approximation who doesn't already have a film series.

See, if IESB is on the money, the silver lining in this is that Justice League is thankfully considered an entirely separate affair to the Batman and Superman franchises - those films will continue unscathed, although like Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan ain't too happy about it, the LA Times says.

That article is actually a great examination of the pre-strike environment in Hollywood right now (with a slideshow of likely and iffy projects grouped by studio), where studios are frantically trying to get films made before June 30, 2008. Contracts with the Directors' and Screen Actors' Guild then expire and a strike may occur due to a number of factors, new home entertainment technology revenues being one of the principal ones. I've actually misreported this strike before - it's not just the Writers' Guild. Their contract ends in October, but writers will likely keep working until June so the three talent guilds can strike together for more clout, so this could be massive. The next few months should prove fascinating...

Stephen Sommers, director of the Mummy films and Van Helsing, is helming G.I. Joe. Oh yay.

Kevin Smith is directing an episode of Battlestar Galactica! That sure came out of nowhere (although he's very publicly a fan of the show. So are Robin Williams and Quentin Tarantino, by the way, who have both stopped cast members in the street to gush about the show). Any publicity from the move is only good, but he's quite the square peg in Battlestar's round hole. Not only is his style ill-suited to the show (he readily admits that he's not visually adept), but he hasn't been producing stellar work lately, as I have bitched elsewhere on this blog. Still, I'm sure they won't let him screw the show over. And if he delivers, then I'll be singing his praises.

As has been reported by a relative of Frank and Brian Herbert on the official Dunenovels.com forums for a while, legal negotiations have been going on to try and allow a new Dune film to be made! The studio has initiated the process with the estate, and while understandably few details are provided or known, much of the difficulty may lie with extricating the rights from the de Laurentiis family (if they still own them, that is, although I do recall that the mini-series came about because the producer was told in the late 90s that the movie rights were still off-limits). This is still a long way from happening, but a recent post by Byron indicates that a deal is forthcoming, if not a greenlight. A prominent director at a studio is apparently a huge fan, and given the appetite for epics, a Dune film may have a better reception today than it did, if they don't OD on the weirdness and market it as a good ol' action epic, elements of which it actually has in surprising abundance. Despite the idiosyncratic world that Herbert created, Dune is largely an archetypal, very human story.

Thing is, very few directors are attached to a studio in an entrenched capacity these days. Most move from place to place depending on the project. Could the director be Steven Spielberg, given his role in Dreamworks - recently bought by Paramount - who was instrumental in securing The Lovely Bones for the studio and insisted that Paramount restore The Godfather films so that the original negative was not lost? It could, naturally, be anyone with a multi-film deal, and I doubt Spielberg would be willing to undertake such a massive project this late in his career that he didn't originate himself - he does, after all, have original SF film Interstellar in development, with Jonathan Nolan scripting, plus the Abraham Lincoln film to get done. But who the hell knows? He may want to produce it.

Regardless, a Dune movie would have a huge uphill battle to get made, so there's no point raising a single hope yet. But as I discussed in my review of the two mini-series a while back, a new Dune movie could yield the definitive cinematic take on the book, and modern technology would help enormously.

Check out that entire forum thread for more information and implication. Thanks to Byron for sharing the information with us Dune fans.

A cool MTV video piece about comics writer Brian K. Vaughan (Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina), with a few famous people singing the modest guy's praises as Y approaches the big screen with Disturbia's D.J. Caruso at the helm. Vaughan deserves all the praise he gets, and every bit of intelligent attention that comics get from the mainstream is very welcome.

They have a nice article on Vaughan too, where a quoted fan suggestion blew me away - as good as the very-keen Shia LeBeouf would be as Yorick, Ryan Gosling is absolutely PERFECT for the role! I was trying to think who looked like Yorick as well as could match his temperament, and Gosling certainly does. He's a more suitable age too. Rarely has an actor fit a part so well - make it happen, D.J. Caruso! Check it out - he IS Yorick.

It must be done!

Noah Forrest has an excellent preview of the choice prestige flicks coming out before the end of the year. He's right - Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood will be a must-see, without a doubt.

Ang Lee's forthcoming spy flick Lust, Caution, starring Tony Leung Chiu-Wai and Joan Chen, has been rated NC-17 (essentially X) by the MPAA..... and Focus Features is fine with it. Say what?! Distributors usually contest the NC-17, or cut it down to an R, or release it unrated. But Focus are fine with it, which is refreshing, even though many cinemas and cinema chains will refuse to show the film due to the rating. Kudos for your conviction, James Schamus and Focus.

Carla Gugino notches up another role, taking the female lead in Jon Avnet's serial killer flick Righteous Kill, starring Pacino and De Niro. Worrying though is the addition of 50 Cent, who apparently was as bad in Get Rich or Die Tryin' as Eminem was surprisingly good in 8 Mile. Yegads...

A correction to my last Bits entry: Josh Olson and Todd McFarlane's Oz project will actually bear no relation to McFarlane's macabre and controversial range of toys. He wrote in to The Beat to make this clear.

Morgan Freeman reports that the film of Arthur C. Clarke's novel Rendezvous with Rama that he's been trying to get off the ground with David Fincher for years is still a going proposition for them, but studios still won't bite. Cerebral SF is still not a major moneymaker, after all, as sad as that is. Still, at least they continue to try.

Frank Miller's The Spirit has set a release date of January 16, 2009.

For a final bit of craziness, Christian Bale has said while promoting 3:10 to Yuma (almost certainly as a joke) that co-star Russell Crowe will cameo in The Dark Knight. Almost certainly a joke, but it's an interesting proposition rather than a ludicrous one (depending on the role), so it's not a great joke. Could it be? Probably not.

Bits for the Day

2007-08-22T18:49:00.000+10:00

[NOTE: despite the detail in which Lost is discussed, there are NO spoilers for the third season, so read on safely. You've got about as much idea as those of us who've seen the finale about where these characters are coming from.]

- TV Guide's Michael Ausiello reports that The Wire's Lance Reddick (seen above as the rather dour Cedric Daniels) will be joining the cast of Lost next season! He'll play the recurring part of Arthur Stevens (Daniels, Stevens... trippy), an intimidating corporate recruiter, whatever that means in Lost terms. A Dharma recruiter perhaps? Regardless, casting anyone from The Wire is a decision in a show's best interest, as that group of actors is uniformly excellent. Reddick should be a good foil for Michael Emerson, if they share scenes together, although hopefully his role here will be a bit looser than that of Daniels.

Lost has been demonstrating a lot of casting savvy in the last couple of seasons, casting nearly all the women of Deadwood in supporting roles, Oz's Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Mr. Eko, stage actor Emerson as Ben/ry, and the hypnotically cool Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliet. Long may it continue.

Alas though, Kristen Bell will NOT be joining Lost. Instead, she'll be on Heroes, bizarrely enough. Although I would take issue with why on earth she would pick the lesser of the two mainstream genre shows, this is a finite role of around 13 eps versus the likely open-ended Charlotte role on Lost and she's allegedly in major demand post-Veronica Mars, so a shorter role is more viable (and Hawaii is quite a move/commute).

She'll be playing Elle, a superpowered personage with ties to HRG/Noah Bennett and Peter's disappearance. Bell is a stellar addition to any cast, . She speaks to Ausiello about her Heroes role and why she turned down Lost here.

Finally, Rush Hour and X-Men 3 actor Ken Leung will join Lost in a mysterious recurring role that current Lost scoop magnet Ausiello claims is known only to Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. He turned heads with a deep yet occasionally manic guest starring turn in the final season of The Sopranos, and is likewise a solid addition. It's a relief that even without the cachet it enjoyed in its first season, Lost can still attract quality actors.

Still to be cast are Charlotte and a mathematician named Russell.

- the Justice League movie is gaining rapid steam. IESB says that George Miller is locked in as the director, and that casting begins as early as next week. Here's the thing though... this isn't Justice League as a showcase for second-tier DC superheroes. Batman and Superman are front-and-centre in this movie, yet Christian Bale and Brandon Routh WON'T be playing them. Moviehole reports that although they will continue to essay those roles in their solo films (implying that a JL film is NOT cancelling out a Superman Returns sequel), the roles will be cast anew for the Miller film.

Say what?!! This is sorta like Sean Connery playing James Bond in Never Say Never Again, except these will be new actors and all the films are from the same studio, which is both less and more baffling. I'd rather they leave Bats and Supes out entirely, and of the three options, recasting them while they are still in their own film series must be the worst.

At the 3:10 to Yuma junket, Bale appears frustrated with the Justice League project, wishing that they would wait until Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is complete. He unambiguously states that he has not been approached for the film, nor is he interested. There has been speculation about whether Bale and Routh's multi-film contracts include an option for a crossover film, but Warner Bros. look to not be even bothering to exercise it.

Also, Ryan Reynolds (Blade Trinity, Smokin' Aces), speaking to MTV, seems to know more than he's letting on about the project. He was the favourite for the role of The Flash when David Goyer was attached to write and direct, and he wanted it to boot. The film has since been assigned to the hacktastic Shawn Levy (A Night at the Museum), but Warner may be looking to Reynolds again for the Justice League film, which, like Thor, is being fast-tracked for a summer 2009 release.

Expect a lot of news on this in the coming weeks. Leaving aside concerns regarding the existing films, a Justice League film could be very impressive, as long as they don't rush it. Like Thor, this could have a dazzling, mythological scope, but given how quickly the script was bashed together, we have reason for caution. I'm no DC man, but Grant Morrison's run on JLA was a conceptual hyperdrive of spectacularly inventive and staggeringly epic story. If they draw on that run, and can balance the multitude of solo-movie-worthy heroes in a satisfying fashion, then this could be great. Miller (the luckiest surname in Hollywood, BTW) is certainly a stellar director, and Reynolds would make a tremendous Flash, so fingers crossed.

[Incidentally, a Justice League movie would inevitably feature Wonder Woman, especially if it's going to the lengths of including the already cinematically-established Batman and Superman. I wonder how all this ties into the studio's rejection of Joss Whedon's take on the character...]

- Frank Miller scores again with Eva Mendes (Hitch, Ghost Rider, Training Day) joining The Spirit as the love of the hero's life, and Samuel L. Jackson confirmed as the villain. Sin City has obviously done a great deal for the man's cred.

- IGN reported a while ago Russell Crowe is allegedly being courted for the villain role in JJ Abrams's Star Trek film. Fat chance, really, but stranger things have happened. IGN is usually a lot more reliable than, say, the English tabloids. At the 3:10 to Yuma junket yesterday, Crowe was inscrutable about the proposition. Big surprise.

- director Jon Favreau reports that the Comicon Iron Man footage will soon appear online in HD quality, although some of us saw a videotaped copy on YouTube before it was promptly yanked by the studio. I normally avoid such recordings, but Iron Man wasn't a huge priority for me and I was curious to see what all the fuss that weekend was about. After that (blurry) footage, knowing that every action shot but one were achieved practically, ie. without CGI, I'm much more excited, although Robert Downey Jr. in the lead and the rest of that cast meant I was fairly keen already, really.

- occasionally Australia gets damn lucky in the DVD department, and it's a pleasure to discover that Blade Runner is one of those times. We'll not only be getting the Final Cut release on December 5, a full 13 days before the American release, but the complete 5-disc set will be available both with and sans briefcase, meaning that about $100 can be lopped off the price for those like me who don't give a crap about toys and collectible shite, whereas American fans must make do with a 4-disc set or fork out for the briefcase. Thank you Warner Home Video Australia for not dicking us around.

- Wizard of Oz "re-imaginings" are everywhere. First Gregory Maguire's witch-centric novel Wicked! and the resulting stage show, then the forthcoming Sci-Fi Channel mini-series Tin Man starring Zooey Deschanel and Alan Cumming ("a sometimes psychedelic, often twisted and always bizarre take on The Wizard of Oz", according to the IMDB), and now the in-development feature film produced by Todd McFarlane based on his rather demented Twisted World of Oz range of action figures (thanks to CHUD for the info).

McFarlane's meritless involvement (his creative record has not been stellar, or existent, over the last decade) is countered somewhat by the very talented Josh Olson (A History of Violence) writing the script. Tentatively titled Oz (although that will almost certainly change if HBO has anything to say about it), the film may, interestingly, be more of a sequel than a remake, according to Olson. Another stab at Return to Oz, perhaps? Oh, that twisted nightmare from our childhoods is a source of much joy for the nostalgic among us....

- news from ages ago that I forgot to report. Chris Mulkey (Twin Peaks's Hank Jennings) will be joining the cast of Friday Night Lights for its second season. Not sure whether it's in a regular or recurring capacity. HANK!

- the trailer (24 MB), at last, for Todd Haynes's Bob Dylan biopic, I'm Not There, featuring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, Ben Whishaw, and Marcus Carl Franklin, all as Dylan. Fascinating.

AT LAST!!

2007-08-19T11:56:00.000+10:00

Thank god for that - I was going mental with my not-seeing of it. No definite release date, but it will almost certainly be out in Region 1 by the end of the year.

Thanks to TVShowsonDVD.com.

Live Free or Die Hard

2007-08-18T21:42:00.000+10:00

“Less isn’t more. More is more.” – James Cameron

That infamous statement came to mind in the final reel of Live Free or Die Hard - known by the comparatively anemic title Die Hard 4.0 outside of America - as I watched Bruce Willis do battle with an F35 fighter jet in a devastated semi-trailer while the freeway collapsed around him. In today’s era of CGI-assisted excess, I’m surprised that Cameron’s extravagant philosophy hasn’t occurred to me more often. But something in Willis’s “ordinary guy” here pulling off jaw-droppingly superhuman feats while shrugging off horrendous near-misses and wounds gave it more relevance than I’ve observed in a while. The goal of the genre-less action film today - surprisingly rare commodity though it now is – has become to tease the limits of destructive potential, both human and property, while paying less heed to whether the sequences are nail-biting or exhilarating. More has indeed become more.

The Die Hard series itself serves as an ideal case study for this. The original 1988 film – rightly hailed as an action classic – prided itself on thrusting Bruce Willis’s amiable everyman into an action scenario not unlike the many that moviegoers had been enjoying over the last decade, but with the high-concept of confining the action to a single high-rise. John McClane was a stronger conduit for our own escapism than we’d seen in a long time – even Harrison Ford’s Han Solo and Indiana Jones were too cocky and innately skilled to be relatable as well as likeable – and so the already spectacular action sequences and storyline were garnished with a sense of wonder.

Nearly twenty years later, Live Free or Die Hard bears the weight of the innovation – good and otherwise – in blockbuster filmmaking. Two sequels were offered in the interim, but neither scaled the heights of the original, especially since Willis was beginning to occupy the superhuman action man territory dominated by Stallone and Schwarzenegger (Planet Hollywood symbolised this). Although Willis never lost his natural charm, McClane became less of a neophyte as he racked up ever-grander experiences.

The fourth film sensibly acknowledges this by offering us Justin Long’s fugitive hacker Matt Farrell as a new conduit. Being a novice at risking his life, he views McClane with a befuddled awe at how he can comprehend and react effectively to the chaos thrown at them. While this helps, the film still goes to great lengths to test McClane, to the point where he can so clearly survive anything that the tension vanishes. That F35 face-off is visually impressive and laugh-out-loud outlandish, but carries no threat since we’ve already seen him negotiate a shoot-out around a four-wheel drive dangling down an elevator shaft after just having the snot kicked out of him. Although McClane bleeds and Farrell points it out, his endurance and victory are never in doubt.

But Live Free wants its cake and eats it too. It wants the spectacle but also to milk McClane’s 80s origins and current age for all they are worth. The mass-scale computer terrorism threat is a perfect counterpoint to McClane’s wilfully old-fashioned ways, and the script tips its hat to the abundance of martial arts action since the last 1995 installment by pitting Willis against some serious “kung fu shit”, which he angrily endures before shutting it down by bodyslamming Maggie Q from behind and throwing her into some shelves – old school.

The storyline is perfectly serviceable and refreshingly engaged with real possibilities. Mark Bomback and Doug Richardson retrofitted the script for the Die Hard franchise from an original by David Marconi that was based on a Wired article about the potential for a virtual terrorist attack on the US. Live Free depicts such an attack and somehow manages to place New York detective John McClane in a key position without inducing groans, which warrants respect.

McClane’s contrast with Samuel L. Jackson’s reluctant accomplice was beneficial to Die Hard with a Vengeance, but works especially well here since Long’s character represents today’s technologically-adept youth. Considering that some of the audience for this film were only toddlers when the third film came out, the inclusion pays dividends, and Long and Willis’s chemistry is fun. Deadwood’s Timothy Olyphant is sufficiently cold and menacing as the architect of the grand plot, channelling a dark and driven version of Seth Bullock, but he’s no classic. The rest of the cast is nothing special, but they nonetheless deliver a far less infuriating series of performances than in director Len Wiseman’s inert Underworld series. Live Free or Die Hard is vastly superior to the disgracefully unwatchable first film in that series (I never subjected myself to the second), but they do share a lack of spirit. The fourth Die Hard entertains, but is nothing to rave about, although Willis is as effortlessly appealing as ever. He will always be one-note but has yet to be dull, and the Die Hard series can say the same.

Bits for the last several days

2007-08-17T17:44:00.000+10:00

New reviews are coming, I promise. Look for them over the weekend. In the meantime, permit me to be a complacent arse and catch up on news. There has been a lot, after all.

- John from Cincinnati has indeed been cancelled, a mere day after its finale aired - HBO had obviously made that decision a few weeks before. Milch is clearly still in HBO's good books though - and they in his - as he's already got a new series deal set up there. His next show will be set in the 1970s and follow a Vietnam veteran who becomes a cop, based on the experiences of long-time writing colleague Bill Clark. It's curious that HBO - so reticent about making a cop show before David Simon finally convinced them to make The Wire - is plumbing that well again. I'd wager though that like Deadwood wasn't really a Western, this won't really be a cop show. Just like The Wire too, actually.

What this means for the Deadwood movies is unknown. However, cast member Jim Beaver posted the following earlier this month on alt.tv.deadwood:

"As of a couple of weeks ago, Milch was having talks with HBO about more
Deadwood, in some form or another. I don't know the result of those talks.
I talked to McShane yesterday and he says he keeps HBO constantly updated on
his schedule in order to make sure they know when he's available, and he
said Olyphant does the same thing. Ian said he'd come back "in a
heartbeat." His prediction: It would be very smart of HBO to bring it
back, but who knows?"

It's very encouraging to know that Milch is still interested, and especially that McShane and Olyphant are still passionate about doing more despite their myriad movie work. They're the two key returning players, so let's hope that their interest syncs up with their schedules.

- several new pictures from The Dark Knight leaked today via a Brazillian fan site. Allegedly screencaps from the Wizard World Chicago exclusive trailer (and some quite awkward ones at that), the pictures are fairly interesting but not particularly revealing. We get some good glimpses of Heath Ledger in action, but only footage is going to demonstrate where that performance is going.

At the panel, Gary Oldman piped up by noting that Ledger's performance is extraordinary. Oldman's not the kind of actor to give undeserved kudos, so the word is good. Ledger himself was not there, no doubt to continue to keep the Joker a mystery. Bale, Eckhart, and Christopher Nolan were though, along with writers David Goyer and Christopher Nolan. Bale reportedly received a pandemonium of applause, and the group's efforts clearly made up for their cruddy convention contributions for Begins.

Today's leak, among other things, is evidence of the quite furious hunger fans have to know more about this film. Nolan's take seems to have inspired an unusual kind of passion, even for a comic book film. Plus, Batman seems to be the coolest of the superheroes to younger adults given its darker psychological undertones and greater embrace of the gothic, the bizarre, and the grotesque. And I don't think it's any coincidence that the character has spawned several seminal comic books and graphic novels. For all of Superman's influence, his notable comics have been surprisingly few. Batman, on the other hand, has been built further on further on the strength of individual works rather than the blanket effect of his mere existence.

Anyway, enough of that. Is it me or does Christian Bale look surprisingly thin in these pictures?

- Scarlett Johansson has been cast as the femme fatale in Frank Miller's adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit. Combined with Samuel L. Jackson's now-confirmed participation as the villain, this has gone from an esoteric niche project from indie studio Lionsgate to a major Hollywood movie. I'm skeptical about whether the public will embrace such an old-school superhero - The Shadow and The Phantom tanked - but maybe the climate is better for such a film now.

- following their recruitment of Star Trek's George Takei in the first season, Heroes will feature Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) in a recurring role in season two.

- Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard, Underworld) will direct New Line's remake of John Carpenter's Escape from New York, starring 300's Gerard Butler.

- the LA Times has clarified the Comicon implication that Edward Norton has written the Incredible Hulk script. Marvel Films head Kevin Feige explains that writer Zak Penn was unavailable to revise his script when director Louis Leterrier felt it needed more work. Knowing this, Norton offered to do the revisions as part of his deal, no doubt to tailor it more to his sensibilities. Feige claims that Norton is a strong enough writer that he'd work with him in any case. We'll see how it turns out on screen. (The link is to Coming Soon, as LA Times requires registration unavailable outside of America. Credit has been given though, obviously).

- David Slade (Hard Candy, 30 Days of Night) is in talks to direct a new film version of Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere. Initially announced by MTV as a done deal, Gaiman later clarified on his blog that they are only discussing the project with the director. Still, not a bad choice, if 30 Days of Night ends up delivering the goods.

- and in sad Gaiman news, Stardust has failed at the box office, opening in the fourth spot and being bodyslammed by Rush Hour 3, even when that picture didn't meet expectations either. It may have legs from word of mouth, but general consensus is that Paramount botched the marketing and it didn't have a chance anyway. A real shame, as Stardust looks to be one of the gems of the summer (we have to wait until September in Australia).

I hope this doesn't jeopardise future Gaiman screen adaptations, particularly Death and Me, directed by Gaiman himself from his Death: The High Cost of Living mini-series. With Shia LaBeouf unofficially attached to the co-leading role - he's gone around the studios pitching with Gaiman - it may get greenlit regardless, we hope.

- talking of Stardust, director Matthew Vaughn has been announced as helmer of Marvel Studios' self-financed Thor movie, which has kinda come out of nowhere. Accepted wisdom is that Marvel want to get it shot before the expected Writers' Guild strike next year, with production on Thor beginning at the end of the year from a raved-about script by Mark Protosevich (the upcoming Will Smith vehicle I am Legend).

It would be a shame if, after leaving X-Men 3 because of the insanely rushed schedule, if Vaughn has to endure another one for his next Marvel project. With its vast mythological scope, Thor can't be rushed, although thankfully Protosevich's script is reportedly epic and classy according to AICN's Harry Knowles (although take that with a grain of salt, as Harry is a little unreliable in his tastes these days...)

Shortly thereafter, rumours abounded that Marvel and Vaughn are clashing over casting, with the company wanting wrestler, Blade: Trinity cast member, and frequent fanboy dream pick Triple H in the lead, according to CHUD. Vaughn is understandably reluctant, and IESB reported soon after that new Punisher Ray Stevenson's Rome co-star Kevin McKidd is up for the role. Could this be Vaughn's preferred choice (it's certainly a good one)? Or is the whole thing bollocks? Doesn't Kevin McKidd have a new drama series on next month? With Thor's reported schedule, all should become clear soon enough.

[Hee - in their script review, IESB rates Thor "a Conan the Barbarian out of a possible X-Men 2, or 7 stars out of 10". Sublime.]

- Carla Gugino (Sin City) will play Sally Jupiter, Laurie's mother, in Watchmen. Initially I balked, but then remembered that Sally has quite a few scenes at Gugino's age, so the casting makes sense.

- HBO has ordered a full first season of Alan Ball's vampire drama True Blood, based on Charlaine Harris's Southern Vampire novel series. It's another odd choice for HBO, given that vampire shows have been done a lot (and continue to be with this year's Moonlight) and they have traditionally offered more offbeat programming. But Alan Ball's name will carry a lot of sway, and it stars Anna Paquin, who I heart, so perhaps this has a shot at non-cancellation. But nothing is safe on HBO anymore.

- in a move that will surprise no-one, a Voltron movie is now in development, although it may not just be due to Transformers. Many fans very tenuously speculated that JJ Abrams' Cloverfield was in fact a Voltron movie, so perhaps this reminded suits about the property. Voltron joins Thundercats and GI Joe as 80s cartoons set for big-screen adaptations. Sigh...

- the remake onslaught continues apace: this time it's Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon. However, this one looks a little bit creative. Shield writer Kurt Sutter will write and direct a modern film noir version of the story called Awaken the Dragon, about a "lone FBI agent who pursues a rogue Shaolin monk into the bloody world of underground martial arts clubs." [Thanks to Coming Soon.]

- Paul Giamatti is thankfully still keen to play Philip K. Dick in the planned biopic, made with the involvement of Dick's children. He says the script is now being written, and he would be absolutely ideal. For the record, Paul Giamatti is one of my absolute favourite actors at the moment. The guy is relatable as all get-out and picks great material.

- The Olive Branch goeth: New Line is back in discussions with Peter Jackson regarding The Hobbit, although things are obviously still far from final. Given New Line's cruddy record post-Rings and head Bob Shaye's shabby reputation in the industry, perhaps he's being pressure to mend fences with Jackson so a potential moneymaking flick isn't scuppered.

- Good God. The Pink Panther 2 not only exists, it's attracted a respectable cast. They've snagged Andy Garcia, Alfred Molina, Aishwarya Rai, and JOHN BLOODY CLEESE!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!! JOHN, WHAT THE HELL?!!

- amazing... Jurassic Park IV, with its bizarre gun-toting dinosaur plot, is actually beginning casting from a script by The Departed's William Monahan and indie god John Sayles. Everything about this project is absolutely nuts, with Monahan and Sayles's involvement narrowly taking the prize for most nutty, if only because they came up with that batshit concept in the first place. Laura Dern is rumoured to return, but not Sam Neill.

- after Rosario Dawson was forced to bolt the role written for her in Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Jason Bateman may be in talks for the Zack role. Hopefully the sublime Bateman can restore a bit of wit and charm to Smith's work.

- Unlikely Rumour Alert: Katie Holmes may be pursuing the lead in Wonder Woman because - get this - Tom Cruise is in Germany filming Valkyrie and thus unable to muscle his way into determining her career choices. Groan... Since the project is in the next best thing to turnaround after they booted Joss Whedon, I doubt they'd be thinking about casting just yet, and certainly not a Tabloid Bullshit magnet like Katie Holmes.

- Roland Emmerich will helm a remake (but of course) of 1966 sci-fi cheeseball flick Fantastic Voyage. Wasn't it already remade as Innerspace? But hell, that was the 80s, and as The Hitcher proved, that decade has now had its remake guard rails taken away. Some sanity has prevailed as the 90s thankfully still have theirs.

- there's a rumour going around that Alex Proyas will direct the Doctor Strange movie that Marvel is quietly shopping around. I'm afraid I can't remember the source - my apologies. It does make sense though, as the talented Proyas has no projects on the horizon and was allegedly courted for the Silver Surfer, but refused to work for Fox again after his painful experiences with chief Tom Rothman on I, Robot. But Dr. Strange, if memory serves, is part of Marvel's self-financed stable, so he wouldn't have to worry about Fox or any other major studio. He's a great choice for that particular property too.

- British variant Action Man is being included in the mooted GI Joe film for maximum international interest, and IESB reports that Jason Statham is being mulled to play him, of course. This is in addition to the producers approaching Mark Wahlberg some months back for the main role. Time will tell.

- [Wow, I should read IESB more often, despite accusations that it's just a shill for Fox. They end their script review of Y: The Last Man with the following:

"I give this film a The Stand - missing Blue Oyster Cult's song "Don't Fear the Reaper" out of a possible The Stand with "Don't Fear the Reaper" with more cowbell and no John Landis cameo, or 9 stars out of 10. "

Delightful!!]

- Richard Belzer has achieved something oddly impressive by carrying his John Munch character from Homicide: Life on the Street to a total of nine television series, namely Law and Order, Law and Order: Trial by Jury, The X-Files, The Simpsons, Arrested Development, The Beat, Sesame Street, and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, on which he has been a regular since the show began. Anyway, he's now adding a tenth by appearing in the fifth season of The Wire, back in the Baltimore stomping ground of Munch's first show, which was based on Wire creator David Simon's book Homicide. Full circle.

Nice an' all, but I'm shocked that Simon has agreed to this having been so dedicated to The Wire's separation from TV's frequently commercially motivated intertextuality and self-reflexivity to the point where he's made the gag reel verboten until the final season's DVD. That he would allow a character from myriad other shows to cameo on The Wire's intensively constructed, meticulous world seems baffling, and will appear very jarring even if Munch only appears for a scene. Harmless, but weird.

Whew. That's it for now. I hope you are massively enlightened and otherwise spent. Look for reviews of Inland Empire and Amazing Grace this weekend.

Bits for the Day

2007-08-08T18:41:00.000+10:00

- there's a rumour going around that Kristen Bell is up for a regular role on Lost next season, following the cancellation of Veronica Mars. Granted, all TV Guide's Michael Ausiello knows is that the producers have her in mind, but whether they'll approach her and whether she'd accept is a different question. She'd be a tremendous asset to any show with her formidable presence and wit, but I'm skeptical as to whether she'd take on another series so soon, and a supporting part on a long-established series to boot. But if it does happen, I'd be thrilled.

- Eighteen-year-old Anton Yelchin (Road to Perdition, House of D) will be playing Chekov in the new Star Trek movie. Fans are confused as to how Chekov can be in a prequel when he only joined the crew in the second season. But come on guys, a true prequel would mean using that original series bridge set, and there's no way in hell that that's going to happen. This must be more of a retcon/reboot than people are assuming. A full-on prequel is just implausible. But then, Leonard Nimoy is back too.... It's all very confusing.

- an in-house Warner Bros. promotional document reveals that six Batman anime short films will be released on DVD prior to The Dark Knight next year, Animatrix-style. It's a sensible move and will get the Batman fanboys hot and foamy, and it's clearly worthwhile after both the Matrix sequels and The Chronicles of Riddick did likewise, and look how they turned out. Seeing Batman done in an anime style, cliched as it has become for Hollywood to anime-ise things, will be thrilling, especially since superb comic scribe Brian Azzarello (100 Bullets and a terrific Batman arc) and A History of Violence screenwriter Josh Olson are involved. Can't wait.

- Jesus, the rumour that Ridley Scott was going to make a Monopoly movie is actually true! WTF?! It appears to be just a twinkle in his eye at this point, and perhaps some good comedic mileage could be wrested from the concept, especially if the plot involves giant dogs and thimbles terrorising London.

- George Miller (Mad Max, Happy Feet) is strongly rumoured to be directing Warners' rapidly developed Justice League movie. A good choice - they've clearly learned from hiring Nolan rather than Pitof. But will it be made? The back-and-forth about this movie versus a Superman sequel is getting tiresome. Let's just decide, guys, yeah?

- in the least surprising news ever, a Warcraft movie is on the slate for 2009. Expect it to be the highest-grossing video game movie ever, by far (unless the Halo film actually gets made). I know absolutely nothing about the game and intend to keep it that way not being a gamer, but if this ends up being a genuinely decent rather than hopelessly derivative fantasy flick then it's win-win. And check out this gorgeous concept art, which you've glimpsed above.
I find the mass obsession with World of Warcraft quite fascinating based on how spectacularly uninteresting it looks and the head-crushingly derivative fantasy tropes it contains ("Duskwood", "Dreadsteeds" et al). I'm tempted into making a kneejerk reaction but will refrain since I've never played it and am in no fair position to damn it. I did enjoy Devin Faraci's description though: "This isn't a game, it's an obsessive-compulsive disorder."

- John from Cincinnati's renewal chances are looking grim. If this means that the Deadwood movies get made (HBO says it's an either/or proposition), or even a return of the series (massively unlikely as that is), then I'll be happy. But if not - and even it so - it will be sad to lose this diverting bit of strangeness, especially as it begins to coalesce as the season ends. This will mark the first time that HBO has cancelled a drama after its first season. Factoring in the cancellations of Deadwood, Rome, and Carnivale, not to mention The Comeback and Lucky Louie (although I hear they were mercy killings), HBO is looking more like a regular network every day.

- Stardust director Matthew Vaughan introduced a screening of the film via recording at famous geek haunt The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas by apologising for leaving X-Men 3 in the hands of Brett Ratner. GOLD!

- I'm fairly disheartened with Ian McShane's post-Deadwood choices. The guy's one of the very finest actors around today, yet he's appearing in the woeful looking The Seeker: The Dark is Rising (yes, that's now the full title. Hollywood needs a colonoscopy - pardon the bad joke) spouting cookie-cutter dialogue, and now he's signed on to Paul W.S. Anderson's remake of Roger Corman's Death Race with Jason Statham and Tyrese Gibson. Sure, Joan Allen's in it too, but she doesn't quite tip it into respectable territory. Instead, her joining adds more fuel to the WTF fire. Come on Ian, you could be doing some really solid dramas with the rep you have. Well, unless he's less well-liked in the industry than his acclaim suggests. Who knows. Just make sure you're back for the Deadwood movies.

- JJ Abrams pal Tom Cruise may cameo in Star Trek as Captain Christopher Pike. Makes sense, looks kinda like him. Will it, won't it? Who knows. Could, couldn't, anything's possible. Just so y'all know.

- DID YOU KNOW: Gary Oldman was offered the role of the big villain in the seventh season of 24? Oldman naturally turned it down. Even if the show was on a critical high it'd still be implausible given his mainstream resuscitation with two big franchises, but after the alleged bellyflop that was season 6, they were nuts to even try.

And I am very pleased to report that I'll be seeing David Lynch's new film, Inland Empire, this Sunday thanks to the Brisbane International Film Festival. Although it was released in the US in December last year, it won't be released in Australia properly until the end of this year. It'll be glorious to see a new Lynch freakout with a full cinema of fellow neophytes. I've heard it likened to the final act of Mulholland Drive stretched out to three hours. I predict a restless sleep on Sunday night... Look for a review early next week.

The Simpsons Movie

2007-08-05T22:48:00.000+10:00

No current TV show’s decline has been more disheartening than that of The Simpsons. After the giddy heights of a solid eight years of nigh-flawless comedy, Matt Groening’s seminal creation gradually disappeared into itself, constantly feeding off its own freshness until it became a doddering, erratic, tuneless mess. Every episode became a race to the finish line, with actors phoning in rapidly paced lines with no enthusiasm, which was hardly surprising given that the jokes had been largely reduced to grunting noises and pointless asides. The show would continue to take potshots at culture and politics, but never made any points that the audience hadn’t observed long ago. Although the show’s writers happily proclaimed that the show was as good as it ever was, the lights had clearly gone down on the great comedy of the 1990s.

A Simpsons movie should logically have come during that critical and cultural peak, but to their credit, the writers waited until they could give it the attention it required. Despite this commitment and the return of many of the original writers, such as the great George Meyer and John Swartzwelder, I had no excitement for the Simpsons’ big-screen debut. The plot was kept secret until opening, and there were no early reviews to whet or kill the appetite. Given their very public delusions about the show’s evergreen nature, I suspected that the writers had merely churned out a bigger-scale version of their weekly disappointments.

Then I was sitting in the cinema starting to laugh. A lot. Perhaps the amusement was amplified by shock at its existence, but there was still little doubt: The Simpsons Movie is absolutely a return to the show’s glory years, a miraculous recapturing of what once made the show a masterpiece. It’s not perfect, with some lazy writing still sneaking in, but this movie, ironically enough, is largely the TV show that so many of us used to love.

In case the plot hasn’t been revealed to you since the release, I won’t unfurl it here. However, the stock rationale that the plot isn’t important is refreshingly unnecessary. One of the many surprising things about The Simpsons Movie is that it is actually an honest-to-God movie, with a script committed to delivering an emotional arc across a three-act structure. Even the most random setpieces play a role in later developments. The writers have also wisely exploited the broader canvass, telling a story with a large visual and geographic scale. Being animated, The Simpsons never had any problem taking regular jaunts around the world or staging massive explosions, but the transitions between locales spurred by emotional developments make the scope much more epic.

Thankfully though, the script doesn’t merely create that scope and consider its job as a movie complete. Its most impressive aspect is that it resurrects the heartfelt characterisation that was the unsung hero of the early seasons, which is now virtually gone. Character developments didn’t used to be superfluous plot devices in this show; you really felt them, even while laughing at them. The episode where Bart desperately tries to redeem himself in Marge’s eyes after he is caught shoplifting is still one of the most touching sitcom episodes of the last decade (and it’s a cartoon to boot). Executive producer and occasional film director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as it Gets) is credited with insisting that emotion be part of the show’s makeup, and he was right to even if it seemed passé. A major factor in the popularity of The Simpsons is arguably our attachment to the characters, not just our love of the jokes.

The movie script – to which Brooks contributes – plunges headfirst into the relationships that the show has created over the years, doing what the best TV-show movies do and reflecting on what has come before and suggesting that change is necessary. Homer is the film’s protagonist, and his arc hinges on an epiphany about his two-decade streak of oblivious selfishness, both to solve the movie’s plot dilemma and to save his relationships. A speech by Marge (you’ll know the one) probably ranks as the single most poignant moment in the show’s entire history, partly because it counts on our investment in these very basically rendered but well drawn people. Incidentally Brooks – directing the voice cast for the first time since the early seasons – demanded over one hundred takes of this scene from Julie Kavner, confirming the devoted, perhaps fanatical attention to performance (I should mention that the film’s overall director is David Silverman, a veteran of the series and co-director of Pixar’s Monsters Inc. He transforms a sitcom into a movie with aplomb in yet another instance of old blood bringing back the old juice).

Pretty heady stuff for The Simpsons Movie, right? But worry not, this isn’t Homer via Merchant/Ivory. The characterisation is merged seamlessly with the true determinant of a successful Simpsons outing: it’s incredibly funny. Not as many jokes are crammed in per minute as the current episodes, but that’s all the better. The pacing of script, animation, and performance has been dialled back to the show’s early years, giving the gags room to breathe and the setpieces more time to wind up for massive payoff. There are still flat non-sequiturs and moments of hackneyed buffoonery to be found - such as the fishing and eye-hammering bits seen in the trailers - but they are few and far between. Some motifs that appear clichéd or overbearing (such as Homer bonding with a pig) are actually mined beautifully, and depart at just the right moment before they become laboured.

Spider-Pig, as he’s become known, is a perfect example of how throwaway ingredients suddenly become pivotal. Homer’s blasé care of the pig actually precipitates the entire plot, although that particular incident is wilfully ridiculous. Given the script’s dedication to being a cohesive movie, these lazy plot turns are less forgivable than in disposable weekly installments. More extreme and thus logical measures for Homer to screw up could easily have been found, and his solution at the climax too is nonsense on an operatic scale. But even on the big screen, The Simpsons shouldn’t demand rigourous scrutiny, so even the nitpickers shouldn’t object to these plot holes. And that climax looks amazing.

But cohesiveness is just one of the pillars of The Simpsons Movie; enthusiasm is another. The producers have mustered a passion and a commitment for the film version that has been missing from the show. Even if next season continues on the same ambivalent trajectory, this film stands as one last reminder of how rewarding and entertaining The Simpsons has been, and its perhaps brief return is most welcome.

The End of History

2007-08-05T21:42:00.000+10:00

When addressing the new live-action Bratz movie (yes, it exists), it's sorely tempting to passionately rant about the doll/cartoon/random product phenomenon's disgraceful encouragement of materialism, consumer hunger, and premature sexualisation in pre-teen girls, and how thankfully right and left are united in their disgust at the corporate exploitation and development of a hollow, superficial lifestyle that expects girls to put out and shut up, all except for the vultures making money off of this crap and the parents who foolishly buy it for their kids without even considering the connotations thereof.

But this is a film blog, not a platform for moralising, so instead let's just point and laugh at the hapless film 'adaptation' currently enjoying a 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, courtesy of a delightfully sane bunch of film critics.

Now, is anyone else astonished that they managed to find an actual human who looked exactly like a Bratz character? Observe the implausible facial contours to be found on the movie poster:

Jeez, they must have combed the country for her. Or are girls actually getting plastic surgery to look like Bratz? If Daddy's given them the standard-issue credit card, then anything's possible.

And the following quotations nicely sum up the critical reaction to this cinematic abomination (starring Jon Voight!). If I had confidence that no-one I email would get the wrong idea, I'd add them as my permanent signature - they slay me.

"Bratz is like being raped by MySpace." - Josh Tyler, Cinema Blend

"This is why the terrorists hate us." - Nathan Rabin, The Onion AV Club

Amen, gentlemen, amen. If you take your children to this film, please reconsider the direction of your lives.

[I realise now that I'm judging the film without having seen it, which is exactly what I deplore about cretins who roar that a film must be banned for reputedly offensive content without seeing frame one. But I like to think that we know enough about the Bratz phenomenon walking down the aisles of our department stores to justifably cast a skeptical eye on this crass product-pimping bit of celluloid. If this actually had some artistic aspirations, or wasn't trying to desperate shoehorn in a moral to the staunchly amoral Bratz ethos ("like, totally talk to some dorks and stuff!"), then maybe it deserves the benefit of the doubt. But I would venture to say it it doesn't. Call me rash.]

Bits for the Day

2007-08-03T19:04:00.000+10:00

- The Twin Peaks: Definitive Gold Box Edition specs are here! (shame about that title) And they're better than we could have reasonably hoped for. Not only do we have a feature-length doco and 4 deleted scenes, but the Georgia Coffee commercials, the Saturday Night Live skits with Kyle MacLachlan as Cooper, a map of the town featuring video of the locations as they exist today, and more. Some will complain about the Lynch-standard lack of commentaries and the horrible cover art (which is allegedly official now), but who cares - this is more than we ever expected in the limbo years waiting for season 2. Good for you, Paramount.

- Charles de Lauzirika gives a great interview about the work undertaken on Blade Runner: The Final Cut and its massive DVD set. I can see why Warner Bros. has the number one reputation with DVD fans - they even paid to license the temp music used back in 1981 for the workprint. That's keen.

- Frank Miller has cast the quite young Gabriel Macht as Will Eisner's The Spirit for his film adaptation. Conforming to a well-worn pattern, Macht has a supporting role in a filmed yet still upcoming movie (Whiteout) and has been snapped up as a lead in this project. I know The Spirit only by reputation. I've read a few strips but they didn't wow me. I think that engrained classics like Eisner's early work need to be read quite thoroughly before they begin to be appreciated.

- the premier yet strangely unnamed fansite for The Wire has scored three on-set cast interviews. Wendell Pierce (Bunk) gives some great insight about the show's dichotomous reception within the industry; Clarke Peters (Lester) offers some rare thoughts (probably rare though because these actors barely ever get asked for interviews, sadly); and Dominic West (McNulty) is highly amusing in an unusually Wire-centric discussion. Observe:

JK: "300" certainly should have changed how you're viewed by Hollywood. That was a big hit.
DW: Yes it was. I suppose that marked my transition from sort of "drunk boy friend" to "evil rapist," which is a natural transition, I suppose.

And on a more serious note:

DW: I thought season 4 was really in a different league, even for The Wire. It really elevated it. It really has taken television to a deeper level, [even though] that may be a bit pretentious to say.

ARGH!!! Release the DVD, HBO!! I'm dying here!

- in that interview, West implies that Zack Snyder has asked him to take a role in Watchmen following their 300 collaboration, and that West is going to get back to him about it. Since the interview was conducted on July 26, he likely wasn't up for one of the roles recently announced. I'm racking my brain trying to think of what West might be considered for....
Woah, just realised - Captain Metropolis! A dozier West would be ideal for the hapless leader of the original Minutemen, who receives a demoralising reality check from the Comedian. Google- Image-Search-him and tell me he's not suitable for it, Watchmen fans. You heard it here first! (well, only sorta. Technicality!)

- Michelle Rodriguez (Lost) and Stephen Lang have joined the cast of James Cameron's Avatar. With this role Rodriguez just about justifies her movie-star insistence to only work on Lost for one season; appearing in Uwe Boll's Bloodrayne certainly didn't do the job. By the way, if Beowulf fails to meet expectations this November (and I pray that it does meet and surpass them), I hereby wager that fanboy critics will immediately shift their gaze to Avatar as the proof of the performance-capture pudding. No doubt.

- Michael Imperioli (Chris-ta-PHUH from The Sopranos) has joined the cast of Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones as the detective investigating the murder that kicks off the story. Jackson's assembling an astonishing cast here, indicating that his artistic reputation in Hollywood is undiminished.

Incidentially, I love how, going back to the Lord of the Rings, Jackson has not only brought in obvious, stellar names, but real out-of-the-box people as well. For every Ian McKellen and Cate Blanchett, there was a Sean Astin and a Brad Dourif. You had Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody in King Kong, and then there was Jack Black and Kyle Chandler. And now we have awards darlings Rachel Weisz and Ryan Gosling... and Stanley Tucci and Michael Imperioli. Love it.

BTW, don't be surprised if his role as the killer utterly revitalises Tucci's career following a spate of bland, disposable roles, Forest Whitaker-style. Once again, you heard it here first. :D

- Tim Minear, AKA The Unluckiest Showrunner in TV, gives a very insightful interview looking back on his work on Angel. It's been a while since I've seen any of the show, and now I think back to it, it strikes me as strangely out-of-phase with the years in which it was made, along with Buffy. Those shows were genuinely ahead of their time, and that feels more justified as time passes.

The indisputable proof of this is Heroes, a mainstream success that happens to tell stories in precisely the same fashion as Buffy and Angel, intermingling plot and character in a grand, serialised story. Heroes really does feel like the child of those show, except its parents did the job far better. Lost owes a lot to Whedon's shows as well, but it's more stately and has found its own voice. Heroes, to my mind, is a sugarcoated, mainstream approximation of a prior cult phenomenon. Even the cinematography looks the same.

I do enjoy the show, and I'm not accusing them of plagiarism (except with regard to Watchmen). I'm rather voicing my realisation about the massive influence that the Buffyverse has had not just on cult properties, but on the zeitgeist. People have been saying so for a long time but I think the proof is really here now. Thoughts, folks?

- Jeez, the flood of bankable supporting and indie actors landing TV series gigs has hit a new high. Not content with snagging Holly Hunter for Saving Grace, basic cable network TNT have now signed William H. Macy for a comedy-drama pilot about a pillar of the community who moonlights as a criminal (that concept will be decided in the execution, I tell ya what). As strong an advocate as I am of TV's potential, movie actors seem almost too quick to jump ship - Macy was in Wild Hogs, for goodness's sake, which was a massive hit, and he's a go-to low-budget and supporting player. The paradigm continues to shift....

[PS: The above image was the first Google Image Search result for 'Twin Peaks'. Talk about awesome luck. It was too good not to use. Apologies for its freakiness. Frank Silva is officially the scariest man ever.]

Bits for the Day

2007-08-01T18:30:00.000+10:00

Sunday provided very little news at Comicon, so let's press on with the other notable news and links from the week thus far.

But first though, a tip of the hat to the legendary Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni, who both passed away on Monday within hours of each other. What a day for film... Rest in peace, gentlemen.

Ain't It Cool and CHUD score the only one-on-one interviews with Zack Snyder following his appearance at Comicon. Not too much revealed, but Snyder's clearly a very self-aware, switched-on guy. Watchmen needs that, so it's encouraging. And the American R-rating appears to have been a godsend in more ways than one, as the studio have largely left Snyder alone since committing to it. Granted, he has less money to work with, but non-interference is key, especially when they openly confess to not understanding the project.

The film of Hunter S. Thompson's early novel The Rum Diary is finally moving ahead, with Johnny Depp starring as long planned, reprising his role as, essentially, Thompson, although his character's name this time is Paul Kemp rather than Raoul Duke. Bruce Robinson (Withnail and I) is scripting and directing.

The pleasantly 70s-esque poster for We Own the Night is here. The early trailer looked horribly formulaic, but trailers often do.

Twin Peaks Archive speaks to Matt Haley, artist of the aborted season three graphic novel project, and includes some astonishing pencil artwork. The Laura picture is an uncanny combination of modern Marvel heroine art (think Terry Dodson) and Sheryl Lee's exact likeness. And I want that picture of BOB on my wall. Haley also reveals some choice morsels about where the third season would have gone, both on television and in comic form since staff writer Robert Engels was tapped to script. Some of the ideas sound decidedly ropey though. Perhaps the show was right to go out when it did. As frustrating as that cliffhanger is, it also leaves us with a profound and indelible image that any continuation would have an uphill battle to deal with in a satisfying manner.

Warren Ellis gives a typically cantankerous and hilarious interview to Publishers Weekly about his comics work and his first novel. A sample: "You people believe you gained your independence from us. That’s actually a joke. We invented America because we didn’t have television."

Some purty character posters for The Golden Compass can be found at IGN, although they don't do a very good job at conveying the darker tone of this story. I shouldn't be surprised about that though.

An article about the legendary French comic artist Moebius and the documentary he has inspired. I'm gagging to read an actual Moebius comic (surprisingly hard to find) and see this doco to learn more.

Jeff Smith discusses his follow-up to Bone, the SF comic RASL.

Francis Lawrence (Constantine, the upcoming I am Legend) will direct an Eastern-flavoured take on Snow White called Snow and the Seven, about a British girl being raised in 19th century Hong Kong who comes to be trained by Shaolin monks to destroy an evil force. I guess the monks are the dwarves because otherwise there's no link to Snow White, and that could be pretty offensive, now I think of it. Shall reserve judgement for now though, naturally. And at least it's not some lame update/remake as everything in Hollywood is these days. The fact that it's set when and where it is suggests that there are more creative juices in this one than other projects of its ilk.

Ridley Scott is interested in a Blade Runner sequel...... PleasegodnoRidleyshutupnownotgoodidealet'smoveonnow.

Comicon Day Two

2007-07-29T13:51:00.000+10:00

Another day, another load of cool Comicon business. Some have been commenting that this year’s been an anticlimax in terms of news, and perhaps it has since so much was leaked beforehand, but I’ve found this year’s con particularly exciting. Maybe I’m just paying even closer attention than in previous years. Anyway, here’s the skinny:

The Dark Knight teaser debuted at the Why So Serious site, coinciding with an event outside the Comicon hall where fans were made up in Joker makeup as part of the film’s viral marketing. A Gotham City Police Department Report on the site states that the gathering was a rally for the Joker to gather troops, but that he was killed shortly beforehand. Another version of the report available during the countdown featured photos of a differently made-up Heath Ledger looking fairly dead in a ditch. Where does this come in the film’s storyline? Does the incident turn bank-robbing Joker into the homicidal psychopath we best know him as?

Photos of the ‘troops’ and their ‘aliases’ can be seen on the site. A skywriting plane even drew a phone number in the air above the Con, which began an hours-long information treasure hunt for the gathered fans. Sounded like fun, and the initiative is laudable, marking perhaps the first large-scale viral marketing campaign a film has undertaken (correct me if ‘m wrong). But some are miffed that the film didn’t make an actual panel appearance at Comicon; not even the trailer was shown for the gathered fans. Some are suspicious following Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan’s borderline contemptuous taped message at the 2004 con, but hopefully the approach is deliberate rather than aloof on the part of the director and cast. Having the viral stuff speak for the film rather than up-front statements is certainly a more innovative and mysterious strategy. And we were once again reminded that the Joker will return in December…

The teaser itself was the very definition of the word, with no actual footage. Instead, the gradually illuminated new Bat-logo was accompanied by a new voiceover by Bale and Michael Caine about the mob turning to a new, bizarre force in the wake of Begins. Thankfully at the end we hear Ledger in character for the first time, and the logo explodes sending a Joker playing card with it. Ledger sounds promising if weird – he’s never done a manic performance like this before, and I can almost hear him straining against his usually reserved demeanour. But I refuse to conclude anything until the end credits roll. It is a great cackle.

An easy YouTube copy can be seen here, or a Quicktime version can be downloaded at whysoserious.com. Don’t bother with the in-browser version at that site – too jerky.

Simultaneously, a new still from the film was released featuring Ledger and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, a snippet of which you can see above. It’s pretty snazzy. Nice to see he’s in the trademark purple.

OK, other stuff. Charles de Lauzirika can be heard speaking at the DVD Producers Panel about Twin Peaks, and the mention of hours and hours of newly created and discovered extras is tantalising. The recording also includes a clip from his feature-length doco, and it sounds just like the contextual retrospective I’ve been longing for. Yes! We’re even getting the hallowed Georgia Coffee commercials (though, having now seen them on YouTube, I fail to see what the fuss is about). Thanks to Pete Vilmur at the Dugpa forums for uploading his recording.

The trailer shown at the Con for the Dangerous Days doco is now online at Yahoo, and includes a snippet of an Olmos deleted scene and a great final note from Harrison Ford. It looks immensely interesting. Yahoo also has the remastered Zhora chase sequence, but I’m going to wait until the DVD for that and the other new clips they have.

Plus, the official site for the release has gone live. Most of it hasn’t opened, but there are some bitchin’ wallpapers.

Bits and bobs from the Watchmen panel with Zack Snyder and actors Malin Akerman and Jackie Earle Haley (both of whom sadly received no questions):

- The release date is March 6, 2009. Warner are obviously hoping for a repeat of 300. They are also firmly behind the R-rating, which also partially explains that date.

- Additionally, Warner support the decision to set the film in 1985 and in the midst of the Cold War. I love that choice.

- Snyder is trying to secure the money to shoot the Tales from the Black Freighter pirate comic interludes for the DVD. Great effort, but I fail to see the point if they’re not interspersed with the main narrative, and they would likely be too cumbersome within the film anyway.

- Also, CHUD sorta reports that 300 star Gerald Butler will end up in the film after all... sorta – he may well be playing the vengeful castaway from Black Freighter. Good casting.

- Dr. Manhattan will be achieved with a motion-captured Billy Crudup, with the actor appearing on-screen normally for the flashback sequences.

- Thankfully, the film will not be shot 300-style against green-screens. A New York set is being built on a backlot in Vancouver, although Snyder will naturally be using green-screen for the Mars and Antarctica sequences. In a cool touch, he said that we should refer to Seven more than Sin City for clues about the visual style. He also plans to use the comics panels a lot to frame shots.

- Snyder rationalised his decision to cast younger actors as he will be able to age them up and down with makeup and effects to accommodate the story’s broad timeline. He cited Patrick Wilson as an example, that he will look older in most scenes than he does in real life. Good news.
He described the casting as ‘perfect’. He’s relieved that the studio allowed him to cast ‘real actors’ instead of stars, and said that he cited 300 to them as justification. That’s either spin or Akerman is genuinely accomplished, which will be a relief.

- Stephen McHattie (300, The Fountain, A History of Violence) will play Hollis Mason. Great visual match.

- Snyder talks regularly with Dave Gibbons, who has read the script and is behind the project. He also spoke of Alan Moore’s non-involvement: he holds out no hope that Moore will ever support a film version, but respects his stance.
Gibbons also drew a Comicon exclusive poster. Find that here along with pictures from the panel.

- The official site has gone live. Only a synopsis and the cast there at the moment, though.

Warren Ellis is taking over from Joss Whedon on Astonishing X-Men!! I still love the guy, but Whedon’s run has been really underwhelming, so hearing that Ellis is taking over is tremendous news. The guy’s a sardonic idea factory and I never thought I’d see him on the X-Men given his very public disdain for the superhero genre, although it’s not as surprising as it once would have been given his other recent work at Marvel (Newuniveral and Nextwave sound brilliant). He’s on for at least twenty-four issues (!) with big new artist Simone Bianchi.

Edward Norton and Liv Tyler appeared at the Incredible Hulk panel, and Norton surprised everyone by being very savvy about the Hulk, praising the TV show and citing the Bruce Jones comics run and Hulk: Gray. The most startling news is that Norton appears to have done a rewrite of Zak Penn’s script! No word on how extensive that is, but he came in suggesting ideas as a fan, which led to a suggestion that he take a shot at the script. This may well have been a condition of him to sign on the dotted line. Hopefully this is only good news – it’s certainly consistent with Norton’s track record of taking a, um, firm hand in the creative side of his movies.

Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard and designer Stan Winston debuted footage from Iron Man at the Marvel Movies panel. Given that virtually everything from the Con has appeared online, don’t be surprised it this does. I can’t wait to get a look at what Favreau and Downey have been up to, especially since the cinematographer is Matthew Libatique, who shot, nay, painted The Fountain.

Joe Madureira’s huge gatefold cover for The Ultimates 3 can be seen here. His run with writer Jeph Loeb will start in December, though sadly the plan for Mad to do volume 3 and Ed McGuinness to do 4 has been scrapped. Instead, each will be pencilling one half of volume 3. It’s still a tantalising project, given the courageously different choice of artists.

Contrary to my previous comment to Alicia, Disney will be filming all seven Narnia novels at the rate of one a year. Given that the franchise’s financial longevity has not yet been proven, it’s a bold commitment. They can always renege, though.

Everyone’s returning to their shows! Lucy Lawless will be back on Battlestar Galactica next season for at least two episodes.

Also, actor Richard Hatch revealed that Ron Moore was seeking a two-year commitment from SciFi for Battlestar, but they couldn’t deliver one. To be on the safe side, he opted to resolve the story in the one season he was guaranteed. Makes sense.

Kevin Smith will be writing and directing the first episode of Heroes: Origins, the four-episode anthology series that will follow the main show's second season finale in May. Each episode will introduce a new superpowered character, and the audience can vote on which one will be included in the third season cast. At the panel, Smith once again plumbed the same damn well by saying that Hiro and Ando must be gay, right? Jesus….

Neil Gaiman says that Miracleman is sadly still embroiled in legal woes, and that every time he thinks they’re nearly resolved, a new snag reveals itself. He still wants to finish his storyline though, which is nice to hear. He also said that Terry Gilliam can now film Good Omens (the novel Gaiman wrote with Terry Pratchett) for $17 million, but still no studio will give him the money. It’s a shame. If Johnny Depp attaches himself as he unofficially did way back when, I’m sure the money would appear.

Richard Kelly unveiled the poster for Southland Tales at Comicon, adorned with its shiny new release date of November 9. It’s a nice piece of art – note that "Dwayne Johnson" is The Rock. He’s apparently distancing himself from his wrestling persona, which is a good move really, since he can actually act.

CHUD also have a great exclusive interview with Kelly. I’m pleased that with the new visual effects money and the Box deal, Kelly’s back in the fast lane (for the first time really – he’s been dicked around ever since he shot Donnie Darko). I hope Southland surprises people and that it delivers on its own ambition, especially after all this time. A trailer is forthcoming.

The 5-minute Comicon preview of The Golden Compass – the first adaptation of Philip Pullman’s distinctive fantasy trilogy– is now online. Don’t watch it if you haven’t read the book (known in Britain and Australia as Northern Lights) though, as it gives away most of the story beats. If you have though, take a look – it’s quite dazzling, and Dakota Blue Richards is uncannily Lyra-like.

Joss Whedon has put Ripper back on the front-burner! He’s putting together the Buffy spin-off Giles TV movie with an eye to the BBC broadcasting it in 2008. It’s not yet confirmed, but it has a good chance of happening. No word on whether it’s intended as a one-off or a pilot for an ongoing series. Regardless, the Buffyverse may well be back, people.

Whedon is also writing a horror script with Buffy and Cloverfield writer Drew Goddard. He claims that Cabin in the Woods will be “the horror movie to end all horror movies… literally”, whatever that means.

Johnny Depp is starring in a film version of long-running 60s vampire TV show Dark Shadows. Uh, okay...

Steven Spielberg and the cast’s rather nice live message to Comicon via satellite from the Indy 4 set can be seen here.

Frank Miller says that the reason for the Sin City 2 delay is the Weinsteins. Didn’t know that, but it’s not a surprise.

Universal have switched the release date of The Mummy 3 and Hellboy 2, with the latter now bowing in the coveted early July time period. A vote of confidence, perhaps? We’re told that the sequel is much more in the vein of Pan’s Labyrinth than the original, after all…

The poster for Whiteout, the adaptation of Greg Rucka and Steve Lieber’s much-loved graphic novel about a murder in Antarctica. Clever tagline that combines cliché and wit. The poster actually recreates Frank Miller’s cover to the first issue – even his pencil strokes are preserved in that photography. Hollywood loves Miller.

And that’s it for Saturday at Comicon. Last day tomorrow, although the news will likely be less. Gawd, like that news retrospective, this has turned into a far bigger endeavour than I expected. I hoped it stimulated and entertained then, and that my square eyes were not for naught.

Comicon Day One and other bits

2007-07-27T17:05:00.000+10:00

Wow, I’ve been ODing on amazing news today. It’s been one thing after another. And Day One of Comicon isn’t even over yet! Click below for a quite ridiculous amount of exciting info.

The full Blade Runner specs are here, and they’re almost identical to the dreamy list prematurely unveiled by EzyDVD a couple of months ago. Here’s the cream of the crop:

- Five cuts of the film: the 1982 theatrical cut, the more violent international cut, the 1992 Director’s Cut, Ridley Scott’s new Final Cut, and the infamous workprint whose unearthing led to the creation of the DC.

- Three commentary tracks on the Final Cut with Ridley Scott, the screenwriters, and design personnel. No actors, sadly.

- A 3 and a half hour Charles de Lauzirika documentary on the film, Dangerous Days, featuring interviews with the entire cast, including Harrison Ford.

- 47 minutes of newly discovered deleted scenes (holy shit!!!)

- Featurettes on Philip K Dick

- And loads more.

The set will be available in three versions: a 2-disc set containing the Final Cut, the commentaries, and Dangerous Days; a 4-disc set that adds a disc of three other cuts and a disc of miscellaneous wondrousness; and a 5-disc briefcase set adding the workprint and a doco on the various cuts.

The only downside of these releases is that the workprint is only available in an edition that costs twice as much as the 4-disc one, for which you get a spinner model and other collectible crud in a Deckard briefcase/toybox. Collector photos and miniatures and all that rubbish bore me silly. It’s a shame that fans have to spend so much to get the whole lot, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I can live without the workprint anyway. Also, the acclaimed Channel 4 doco On the Edge of Blade Runner was going to be included, but now isn’t, sadly. But since we’re getting the massive Dangerous Days, it would be spoiled to complain. I was going to say that it’s on Youtube anyway, but I just checked and found that Warner Bros have requested its removal. Maybe it’ll be snuck on to the DVD after all.

Against all expectations, de Lauzirika revealed that his Twin Peaks: The Complete Series box set will include deleted scenes from both seasons of the show!!! AND a feature-length documentary called Secrets from Another Place: Creating Twin Peaks!!! I’ve longed for a doco on the making of this seminal show but never thought a studio would bother, yet they have! And it’s a de Lauzirika production too. Sweet merciful Zeus, I’m happy.

The set will also include:

- a roundtable discussion with David Lynch, Kyle MacLachlan, Madchen Amick, and a mystery person not yet revealed.

- Richard Beymer’s glorious photographs from the final day of shooting.

- Both the TV and European versions of the pilot, fully remastered.

- Interviews with even more cast and crew as yet unfeatured on the DVDs, including Joan Chen, Lynch, Angelo Badalamenti, and perhaps more, and more footage of the interviewees already showcased.

- And other extras yet to be announced. A full spec list has not yet been seen, but de Lauzirika said “we got away with murder” in terms of what they were able to squeeze on. Oh, at last!

In other very surprising Peaks news, illustrator Matt Haley revealed in an interview that he mounted a project to tell the third season of Twin Peaks in comic book form! He had Mark Frost on board, Fire Walk with Me co-writer Robert Engels set to write, the studio in agreement, a publisher interested, and the promise of packaging the story with the upcoming DVD box set. But then Lynch put a stop to it! Who knows how it would have it turned out, but I hope you knew what you were doing, David, because this could have been awesome!

Take a look at this delicious piece of art by Haley before the project was shut down. The image of Cooper and his other work, as seen in the above interview, show how superb he is at capturing likenesses. Dugpa confirmed the project as legit, and that he was asked not to mention it and chose not to when it fell through. Wow, what could have been….

Harold Perrineau appeared in person at Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse’s Lost panel – no wonder they wanted to reveal his return there – and confirmed that Michael is back as a regular cast member! Great news. He’s got quite an uphill battle with the other castaways. I won’t mention their comments about the game-changing season finale, knowing that some readers haven’t seen the whole third season yet. Suffice to say, it was good news. Cool stuff unrelated to that is that Libby’s story will be tackled in season four, and Rousseau will be getting a flashback and perhaps playing a bigger role in the story.

Zachary Quinto is officially Spock in the new Star Trek movie, although Leonard Nimoy will play him too! Although he’s been retired from acting for years and hasn’t played Spock since 1991, Nimoy has returned – presumably for framing scenes – based on JJ Abrams being at the helm and the strength of the script, which has been garnering raves. Kirk has not yet been cast, and Shatner will be included if a suitable way can be found to do so.

Someone I spoke to today made the good point that Spock’s scenes could be set post-Next Generation, since Spock is still alive in that time and it would account for Nimoy’s aging. Since Kirk died in Generations, he could logically not be included in Nimoy’s scenes. Interesting…

Oh, and a new poster was displayed. Nothing special, but that familiar font confirms along with Nimoy’s participation that this will have greater ties to the original incarnation of the franchise than previously assumed.

Another viral marketing site for The Dark Knight has gone live, featuring a rather cool recruitment poster by the Joker and a countdown from ten hours, as of this writing, that allegedly coincides with Warner Bros. Comicon panel, although Dark Knight has put off showing its wares until next month’s Wizard World Chicago con. Is it the debut of the trailer, or is something unexpected happening at the panel? Or will the site itself reveal something?

The poster’s statement ends with the following: “Bring your sense of humour, but don’t worry – we’ll supply the smile.” In light of the Ledger photo released a while back, that’s wonderfully creepy.

As rumoured, Karen Allen is returning as Marion Ravenwood for Indiana Jones 4. A picture of her and Spielberg on set has been released, and she looks terrific, like only a few years have passed since Raiders. Coming full circle does seem to be the order of the day.

There’s been surprisingly little interesting comics news actually. This is the first year where I’ve been following Comicon coverage for the TV and film side rather than the comics. That event’s metamorphosing more and more every year.

Check back over the weekend for more goss, and get keen for the Dark Knight teaser! A crappy copy has already been leaked to YouTube, but don’t lower yourself to that shite. A nice Quicktime version should be out on Saturday, Australian time, I predict.

And so it begins...

2007-07-26T17:49:00.000+10:00

Perhaps wanting the trades to still get their exclusives just as fans are queuing up for the relevant panels, studios have started releasing some of the big Comicon news.

- the Watchmen cast has been announced, and the fansites were right on the money, although one name is new:
Rorschach - Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children)
Nite-Owl - Patrick Wilson (Little Children, Hard Candy)
Dr Manhattan - Billy Crudup (Almost Famous)
Laurie Juspeczyk - Malin Akerman (uh... see other posts)
Ozymandias - Matthew Goode (Match Point)
The Comedian - Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Grey's Anatomy, Supernatural)
Fairly good choices, none of which scream "WRONG!" except for the big question mark of Malin Akerman and to a lesser extent Morgan and Goode. Here's hoping that Snyder is creatively happy with these choices.

- although exact specs aren't yet out, the Blade Runner Final Cut DVDs have essentially been announced, appearing in December in 2-, 4-, and 5-disc editions preceded by a Venice Film Festival berth in September and a limited US theatrical release in October (please go international, please go international...). There's a terrific article summing up the intent of the project at Variety and some likely cover art for the three editions at Zona DVD (the Variety article gives us a look at the innards too). Full specs will hopefully be released after today's panel.

- Harold Perrineau is confirmed as returning to Lost next season as Michael! No word on whether he'll be regular or doing guest spots, but that may emerge at today's Lost panel. It only came out early because TV critics at press tour were pissed off that a fan convention was getting all the news and they got nothing. Apparently the ABC President called Damon Lindelof to ask if he could tell them and he got the OK. Unexpected power dynamic there, unless it's just spin.

- Zachary Quinto seems sewn up as Spock in Star Trek XI. Hate to be harsh, but casting a TV actor in a major role in what is supposed to be the rebirth of a TV-based franchise in movie-form doesn't exactly send the right message. And just because he looks a little like Nimoy doesn't mean he should get the part. Hell, if you're daring enough to recast those characters for the first time you might as well be adventurous - you'll be attracting fan bile whatever you do.

- talk of the devil, they've released a Beowulf trailer! I hope this becomes more than a feature-length video game cut scene, as certain portions of this trailer unfortunately indicate. Other parts are very impressive though.

Stay tuned for more.

San Diego Comicon 2007

2007-07-25T20:38:00.000+10:00

For those who may not know, the San Diego Comicon has not only been the premier comic convention for the last thirty years - and thus home to most of the major announcements by comic companies for the year - but it has recently metamorphosed into a mass pop culture expo, with studios debuting footage from upcoming geek-oriented films and holding panels with major stars and directors. Such is the influence of Comicon in publicity terms – thanks to the disseminating power of the Internet – that even decidedly non-geek films are setting up shop there. Geeks are indeed taking over the world.

Granted, there’s only so much that one can experience vicariously about Comicon, but the news that comes out of it and the footage that often shows up online shortly after means that the weekend is an international hub for mainstream film news that substitutes adequately for not hearing it firsthand. This year in particular looks to be very interesting. Here’s some of the highlights that we can expect to hear about between this Friday and Monday (Australian time).

- The Watchmen panel with director Zack Snyder should at the very least reveal the cast, perhaps even in person, and hopefully some other choice morsels.

- The Dark Knight teaser debuts, and should be released online shortly thereafter.

- A Blade Runner panel with director Ridley Scott, Sean Young and other actors, and DVD producer Charles de Lauzirika! The full specs should undoubtedly be unveiled here, along with some other choice goodies. Designer Syd Mead will be holding his own panel about his work on the film, moderated by Paul M. Sammon, author of the indispensable Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, which will be getting a most welcome second edition later this year to cover The Final Cut and new interviews Sammon has conducted with Ridley Scott and even Harrison Ford! I am so psyched for this DVD set that I can scarcely draw breath.

- Lauzirika will also appear at the annual Digital Bits DVD Producers panel, where he will also be showing some footage from the upcoming Twin Peaks: The Complete Series box set and hopefully reveal the specs and other info.

- The first Iron Man footage should be seen at a panel fronted by director Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. If the footage blows the roof off, don’t be surprised to see it surface online via the studio soon after, as happened with X-Men 2 in 2002.

- I’d be surprised if any Incredible Hulk footage is screened as filming has barely begun, but the panel will not only include director Louis Leterrier, but even stars Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, and William Hurt! With that star wattage I would be surprised if something wasn’t shown….

- Screenwriters Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary will reveal the first footage seen anywhere of Robert Zemeckis’s motion-captured Beowulf, to be released in November. I’m stunned that there hasn’t been a trailer for this yet. Hell, the first two stills only came out today.

- Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse will discuss the mind-bending third season finale of Lost for the first time since it aired and also talk up season four.

- The word is that Pixar will announce the long-awaited DVD of its short films at Comicon.

- A Battlestar Galactica panel with Ron Moore, David Eick, Mary McDonnell, Katee Sackhoff, and Tricia Helfer. You know it’ll be good.

- Plus the usual delicious comics announcements and who knows what else. Left-field news is common at Comicon.

Looking through the schedule, I’m agog at how many spectacularly interesting panels there are on animation and the craft of comics and graphic novels, particularly on the recent explosion of interest in the bookstore market. I reckon my first trip to America, whenever it comes, would do well to occur in July….

News, news, and additional news

2007-07-25T19:49:00.000+10:00

The latest film and TV news for y'all, as I actually promised and am living up to. Will wonders never cease!

- Rumours abound of a sequel to Pixar’s Cars. Please, NO! Cars was their first genuinely average film, so please don’t subject us to more. Continue cranking out original concepts for us in defiance of Hollywood rules, I implore you!

- The teaser trailer for The Dark Knight is announced as debuting before The Simpsons Movie, with a probable screening at Warner Bros’ panel at Comicon on the same day. OH YES!!!

- Michael Moore suggests that his next documentary will take on right-wing Christian anti-gay nutjobs – YEAH!!!

- David Duchovny again mentions that a new X-Files movie is forthcoming. He is supposedly receiving a script next month and filming will begin in November for a summer 2008 release – woah! If true, that’s fairly late to announce a summer release date in this day and age. And I maintain that any new X-Files movie will be a big flop. I honestly can’t see why Fox would greenlight it. Even the original, released at the height of X-Files fever, only grossed $137 million. Maybe it’ll be lower-budget or something so that it can turn a profit. Still, I’ll be amazed if this even gets made.

- A Young Ace Ventura movie has been announced. Oh please GOD!

- Director of South African flick Tsotsi and the upcoming Rendition, Gavin Hood, is announced as director of the Wolverine solo film. Bizarre choice, but an encouraging one, as Fox finally remembers that going to a proper filmmaker pays the best dividends for superhero flicks (except for Superman Returns).

- Alex Proyas is reportedly being courted for a Silver Surfer solo flick. Is this just old word that predates FF2’s mediocre box-office performance and has only now surfaced, or is this still a possibility? I’d be very surprised if Proyas did another Fox film after complaining bitterly about his experience with them making I, Robot.

- In other Proyas news, the long-mooted Dark City Director’s Cut is still coming, with a reportedly greater overhaul than anyone expected, including new effects. Hmm...

- Knocked Up star and Judd Apatow rep player Seth Rogen is announced as writer of The Green Hornet with partner Evan Goldberg, which will adapt of the radio series and TV show that starred a then-unknown Bruce Lee. Kevin Smith was previously attached but backed out in fear of the massive directorial challenge. Rogen may even star as the Hornet, and he wants Kung Fu Hustle director and star Stephen Chow to appear as Kato. What a strange project.

- Avi Arad confirms that Hilary Swank and Samuel L. Jackson are cameoing in Iron Man, lamenting that the secret is out, particularly since Jackson’s appearance as Nick Fury was supposed to be “the biggest secret of all”. While it will only get fanboys and audiences more pumped for the film, it’s a shame that we couldn’t have found out on screen as we were supposed to.

- Matt Damon says that he’s not up for the Kirk role in Star Trek XI, and that they are casting younger, around 20-ish.

- Several rock-solid Watchmen rumours appear in quick succession, including Jackie Earle Haley confirmed as Rorschach (great choice), Matthew Goode as Ozymandias, and the relatively unknown Malin Akerman as Laurie, known only for a couple of token blonde roles in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle and Entourage. The word is that Zack Snyder has been forced to accept a reduced budget, which perhaps priced Jude Law out of the film (although he’s such a huge fan that I’d have thought he’d do it for virtually nothing – the guy even has a Rorschach tattoo). Snyder’s pledged to use the limitation as an asset to force him to be more creative, but the casting of Akerman is a little concerning. She hasn’t shown any particular aptitude in her roles thus far. Did she sufficiently wow Snyder in her audition that he’d be comfortably pairing her with Crudup and Wilson? Or has he been forced to eat studio shit? Regardless, we’ll know for sure at Comicon, although if they are true, all the major casting has now been leaked. Hopefully the panel will yield some new info though.

- Rome’s Ray Stevenson is pseudo-announced by the very-reliable Latino Review as the new Frank Castle in the Punisher sequel (they also broke the Akerman story and other sites are taking both stories as rote). Stevenson’s a great choice, and suits Castle’s age and demeanour far more than Thomas Jane. Hopefully director Lexi Alexander (Green St Hooligans) will deliver a more satisfying instalment than the panned original. I wonder if this one will ignore the first film like The Incredible Hulk is….

- Todd McFarlane continues to talk up a new Spawn film, hinting that he’ll even finance it himself if need be. That may actually get it released, as a studio could acquire it for a song, since they certainly won’t develop one on their own. Superheroes may be huge at the moment, but Spawn is utterly a product of the 90s. Despite a recent Vertigo-esque revamp of the comic that has drawn good reviews, the world has largely moved on.

- Disturbia director DJ Caruso and writer Carl Ellsworth are announced as helming a film version of Brian K. Vaughan and Pia Guerra’s stunning Vertigo series Y: The Last Man for New Line. Considering that Disturbia star Shia LaBeouf has been publicly keen on the role, this news joins quite a few dots. Don’t be surprised if LaBeouf is announced as the star. There could be worse Yoricks, and he’s got charisma to spare. If Yorick’s distinctive sense of humour is preserved in the script, he could be ideal.

- Oh my god!!! Southland Tales has a release date! It’ll bow on November 9. Who knows how it’ll do, but at least it’s coming out. A trailer should be here soon.

- Check out the spectacular 3:10 to Yuma poster. In an age of one-sheets that merely group headshots together, it’s refreshing to see such an elegantly designed piece of promotion.

- After the commercial flop of Equilibrium and the every-aspect-flop of Ultraviolet, Kurt Wimmer could be crawling back with the sale of a spec script to Columbia with Terry George (Hotel Rwanda, the upcoming Reservation Road) in talks to direct and Tom Cruise up for starring. Edwin A. Salt is about a CIA operative accused of being a Russian sleeper agent by a defector.

- Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie begins filming in Berlin, and my colossal scepticism about Tom Cruise playing this part was alleviated significantly by this comparison shot of the real Von Stauffenberg and Cruise in the hair and makeup he’ll wear for filming. Spooky, huh? If he can do a decent accent this might not be so inappropriate. The release date is confirmed as August 8, 2008.

- HBO renews Big Love for a third season. No word yet on John from Cincinnati, which started a week earlier…

- Another week, another potential Ridley Scott project. Scott Free Productions acquires the rights to a trilogy of vampire novels by Jordan Ainsley that begins with The Passage. This guy sold the trilogy to Ballantine for $3.75 million based solely on a 400-page partial manuscript and an outline. The first book doesn’t even come out until summer 2009. The film rights are already sold. Bastard….

- Naomi Watts joins Clive Owen on Tom Tykwer’s The International.

- In a charming display of consumer contempt, Warner Home Video announces on the bare-bones Zodiac DVD that a 2-disc director’s cut with numerous special features will be released in 2008. Bet everyone who bought that felt VERY grateful.

News Retrospective, Part Three

2007-07-13T11:54:00.000+10:00

And to bring us right up to the present day, the July news bits and the word on Deadwood (well, lack thereof, to be accurate)

July

- Peter Berg’s Will Smith superhero flick Tonight, He Comes is renamed John Hancock. Boooooooring.

- Bob Hoskins lets the cat out of the bag and reveals that he’ll be making a motion-captured A Christmas Carol with Robert Zemeckis directing and Jim Carrey as Scrooge. The trades confirm it a few days later, and that Carrey will also play the three ghosts, Hanks-in-Polar Express style. Zemeckis loves him some motion capture, and Carrey could use a hit.

- A Sex and the City movie is actually being made. I was about to muse whether anyone still cared, but on second thoughts, I know plenty do.

- Paramount Pictures releases a mysterious trailer before Transformers that, a few weeks beforehand, AICN’s Moriarty reveals will be for an out-of-nowhere project produced by JJ Abrams tentatively called Cloverfield, which will be a moderately budgeted monster movie shot with camcorders from the perspective of civilians. Viral marketing websites pop up too, but as of this writing even the title isn’t confirmed, although it may be simply the film’s release date – 1-18-08. Rumours abound that the film is a new Godzilla film, a take on H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos, or something else entirely. Some even speculate it’s a Lost spin-off! (but the two projects are from different studios, so this is about as likely as the theory that Lost is a sequel to Stephen King’s The Stand). The trailer has finally seen an official release online, and it’s a great piece. The film will be directed by Abrams’s Felicity co-creator Matt Reeves and written by stellar Buffy scribe Drew Goddard. The secrecy around this thing was and continues to be impressive. Colour me excited.

- William Shatner reveals that after all the talk of him cameoing in JJ Abrams’s Star Trek film as an older Kirk, Leonard Nimoy will be in fact be appearing and he won’t! Shatner’s said such varying things about this project though that we shouldn’t assume anything until the official announcement.

- CHUD insists that Billy Crudup has been cast as Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. If so, that’s a great, great choice.

- Director Rob Zombie undergoes a week of reshoots for his Halloween remake three months before release. Not a good sign.

- The producers of Bryan Singer’s Harvey Milk biopic, The Mayor of Castro Street – about the first openly gay San Francisco city supervisor – say that it’s next on the director’s schedule after Valkyrie, which calls the status of the Superman sequel into serious doubt.
However, soon after Variety reports that Kevin Spacey intends to return as Lex Luthor for the sequel and that Singer is about to pitch to it to the studio with an eye to filming next year, meaning that he will be potentially shooting three films consecutively. Holy jebus… That’s if Warner greenlights, that is.

- Rob Schmidt, director of Wrong Turn, is attached to make a film version of Stephen King’s novel Insomnia, an interesting gambit since it’s apparently so deeply tied into the Dark Tower series that it won’t stand alone well at all. But that didn’t stop them from filming the Ted Brautigan part of Hearts in Atlantis…

- The trailer for Ben Affleck’s directorial debut, Gone, Baby, Gone, starring brother Casey, Michelle Monaghan, Ed Harris, Morgan Freeman, and Wire alumni Amy Ryan and Michael K. Williams (Omar!), is released. It’s based on a Dennis (Mystic River) Lehane novel, though be warned that apparently the trailer is quite a misrepresentation of the film, which is much less formulaic than it appears. He may not be a stellar actor, but Affleck’s a smart guy and this is solid material with a great cast, so I’m keen.

- And with a short, fairly unrevealing video, my backflip proceeds by a few more degrees. Just that one glimpse of in-film footage (from the bloody video village, no less!) gives me more hope that Indiana Jones 4 can really work.

- The first footage from the Pegasus-centric Battlestar Galactica TV movie Razor emerges. It’s not much, but I’m tantalised. The Pegasus three-parter ties with the New Caprica arc as Galactica’s high point, so revisiting it – and perhaps finding out some more about the one-year gap in orbit of New Caprica – should be riveting. Razor airs on Sci Fi in November and arrives on DVD on the following day.

- Peter Jackson casts the lead in The Lovely Bones: thirteen-year-old Saoirse Ronan. This project is just rocketing along.

- Zachary Quinto – Sylar from Heroes – is strongly rumoured for the role of Spock in JJ Abrams’ Star Trek film. Not a great choice – I couldn’t believe how un-menacing he was in that pivotal role, even with some meaty bad guy dialogue. And he’s back for season two – enough already!

- Alex Proyas signs to direct Dracula: Year Zero, a project that sounds like a heinous DTV flick but is apparently an excellent script about the life of Vlad the Impaler. Proyas is a solid choice – I just hope he’s given a freer hand than he was on I, Robot so some of his style can make it to the screen.

- At press tour, HBO dodges making any commitments about the Deadwood movies despite hammering from the attending critics. The execs mention the John from Cincinnati factor and that if it’s renewed for a second season, Milch will need to get writing again very soon (gaps between seasons of anything more than a year are apparently not feasible for HBO anymore for some reason). That renewal is clearly up in the air though, given their hypotheticals, the dismal ratings, and the critical response. They eventually concede that the movies have a 50-50 chance. Bloody hell! Just bring the whole damn show back! You could use something that actually rates!
*veers back into the calm realism lane after momentary excursion into flight of implausible fancy*