I love films. With a passion. Not quite as much as I love books, but close. I will watch films of any genre, from any era and any country. I love a wide range of films, from cheesy horror to more profound works of art. I read film magazines and am fascinated by makings of and books about film.
However, I am perplexed by the preponderance in Hollywood for remaking and rebooting films. Some of which do not need to be remade or retooled. I understand that the bottom line for film companies and production companies is to make money. If any business is to survive then profit making is a natural element of survival. But, is there really a dearth of original ideas for scripts? Is this even a sensible question to ask when it seems like every comic book published is being made into a film and every bestselling novel gets optioned?
In the last few years we have had numerous remakes of horror films. Some of the 1970's low budget films can be given a glossy make-over and work well for audiences who weren't around at the time. I would argue that it is better to introduce younger spectators to the older films and let them appreciate the differences in culture and era. There are over 40 horror remakes in production at the moment, including Nightmare on Elm Street. Do we need remakes of good films? If a film is that much of a classic and has defined its own iconography then probably not. Remaking an obscure film that didn't work that well the first time can be effective, but updated effects and music video style visuals do not a great film make.
As for remaking and rebooting bona fide classics then we enter a whole different ball game.
There has been fan ire about a proposed Alien remake. Although the stories have been revised to indicate that it is a likely prequel rather than a straight remake. Apparently there are proposals for a new Buffy movie. Buffy the film was pretty poor. Buffy the TV series was pretty damn fine. Joss Whedon created a wonderful and dynamic show. Now a Buffy movie spun off from the show could conceivably work, but a new Buffy movie without any involvement of Joss Whedon, the man who made it all work, seems a ridiculous idea.
There are plans to reboot Tomb Raider with a new actress. The films weren't great, but weren't as bad as is generally made out. They were dumb, fun flicks. But is there any need for a reboot? In the same way that Hulk was rebooted recently, there comes a point where logic seems to have left the film industry. I can see the validity of remaking a film from thirty odd years ago, but rebooting a property from four or five years ago shows a lack of imagination and creativity. Superman Returns was a fantastic film and a worthy entry into the franchise. Bryan Singer directed a beautiful film that showed a love for and understanding of the character. Yet, Superman is one property slated for a reboot.
I unashamedly love genre films. SF, horror and fantasy are the genres that get my juices flowing, but I want to see unique and original ideas. Things like The Orphanage or Pan's Labyrinth. It is interesting that some of the more intriguing films are coming from outside the Hollywood system. But given Hollywood can make a considerable amount of money from genre films you would hope that someone, somewhere would plump for something new.
I guess having an easily identifiable brand name and recognisable franchise makes marekting and sales of movies very easy and straightforward. But it shouldn't have to be. At least some interesting ideas still spring forth. Like Moon, directed by David Bowie's son, Duncan Jones. It looks like an SF throwback to classic thought provoking films.
When a film comes out that bucks the trend then we celebrate. But we should also celebrate the classics and educate audiences who may not have seen the originals as to why they are good and still valid today.
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Trekking
I posted about some of my problems with the new Star Trek movies. Two reviews are far more eloquent than I at expressing issues with the film and reinforced some of my impressions of an entertaining film that wasn't actually Star Trek. One is by Adam Roberts, the author.
http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-2009.html
The other is
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
Both are very astute on analysing the main problems. I am glad it is not just me who wasn't totally convinced by the film. People I know who have seen it all loved it. Reviews have all been positive. At least there is some common sense in the world.
After pondering and thinking about all the plot holes and having had some more time to process the film I have come to realise it isn't even a great film. It is okay, but certainly not one of the best films of the year.
At least I always have the Shat.
http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-2009.html
The other is
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
Both are very astute on analysing the main problems. I am glad it is not just me who wasn't totally convinced by the film. People I know who have seen it all loved it. Reviews have all been positive. At least there is some common sense in the world.
After pondering and thinking about all the plot holes and having had some more time to process the film I have come to realise it isn't even a great film. It is okay, but certainly not one of the best films of the year.
At least I always have the Shat.
Cancellations and curiosities
Well, TV executives make the strangest decisions. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles has been cancelled after two seasons. I really enjoyed the show; when my digital box receiver wasn't breaking up the signal that is. It has some excellent episodes and a particularly strong first season. The second season did get bogged down with intricate story arcs and convoluted at times. I suppose when you are dealing with the multiple effects of time travel and changing the future things will get complicated. Nevertheless, the show was a decent extension of the first two Terminator films, which are both classics. If it had continued it could have gone in some very interesting directions.
Would it be cynical of me to think that the launch of the new Terminator film and its possible franchise might have played a part in the demise of the show? How viable is it to have the same property running simultaneously in differing guises? The movie has got a lot of buzz and some mixed reviews. The old ratings weren't good enough for the TV show to survive reasoning will have been the ultimate arbiter of the final decision.
Although Dollhouse has had atrocious ratings in the US and has been given a second season, so ratings are not necessarily a barrier to a shows continuance. Look at BSG. That lasted four seasons without being a major smash. Perhaps Sarah Connor needed to be on a smaller niche network to have had a chance of a longer term survival.
Would it be cynical of me to think that the launch of the new Terminator film and its possible franchise might have played a part in the demise of the show? How viable is it to have the same property running simultaneously in differing guises? The movie has got a lot of buzz and some mixed reviews. The old ratings weren't good enough for the TV show to survive reasoning will have been the ultimate arbiter of the final decision.
Although Dollhouse has had atrocious ratings in the US and has been given a second season, so ratings are not necessarily a barrier to a shows continuance. Look at BSG. That lasted four seasons without being a major smash. Perhaps Sarah Connor needed to be on a smaller niche network to have had a chance of a longer term survival.
On the curious side is the decision to award Heroes a fourth season. The first season of Heroes was entertaining and well produced. The second was a mess and a disaster. The third less so, but still pretty crappy. The producers always seemed to want to top themselves and create rip roaring cliffhangers at the expense of character development and logical storytelling. I normally find a show and stick with it, but gave up on Heroes as it became less and less enjoyable and more and more ridiculous.
At least Supernatural is back for a fifth season. As this show has gone on it has grown in confidence and has become a very well executed premise. Apparently this will be the final season. At least Eric Kripke and the creative team seem to have a specific plan in place and ending the show on a high before it has jumped the shark is potentially a good idea.
Another show I gave up on a few years ago was ER which has become comfortable. Too much so. Storylines were being rehashed and it was getting way too melodramatic at times. When Romano was squashed by a falling helicopter and no-one noticed was about the time I started to think oh no. I persevered for a couple more years and drifted away. One reason was that Channel 4 in the UK dumped the show onto one of its digital channels. But, this week in the UK sees the final ever episode of ER. I may tune in to see how it all ends and although I haven't watched it for a while it still was a staple of my viewing habits for a considerable number of years and just deserved a mention and a fond farewell.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Star Trek
I saw the new film on Friday. And I have mixed feelings. It was not as bad as I had feared. Some aspects of the film were very good. Some were not so good.
If you have read my earlier post, you know I had major concerns about the film. Then the early reviews started coming onto websites and into magazines and the general verdict was that Star Trek was very good. The only negative comments I have read are on George RR Martin's blog.
So, my verdict. I won't go into a plot synopsis. There were a number of elements that worked well. I had raised concerns over new actors playing iconic roles. That was one area that really surprised me. Chris Pine played Kirk very well and found a fine line between being a cocky, arrogant young man and a rounded person. Zachary Quinto created a recognisable Spock, but showed the conflict between logic and emotion effectively. Karl Urban was a very good Bones, but underused. Uhura was fine. Sulu and Chekov were both okay. My concerns about the characters were completely unfounded. Bruce Greenwood provided some gravitas as Christopher Pike and Eric Bana was unrecognisable, but good as Nero. But like some of the other actors was underused.
There were some cute nods to the history of the show and films to appease the fans.
The new Enterprise design worked well, although I'm not completely sold on the bridge.
The film was exciting and flew by. But...
The science and the plot left something to be desired. The use of black holes to time travel was dodgy and the fact that Spock arrived exactly twenty five years after Nero only to find Nero waiting for him was a little convenient. The use of the old time travel plot device chestnut is becoming a tired cliche for Star Trek plots. I understand that it was a clever way to set up an alternative timeline for the Trek universe, but I think I would have been happier to have seen a complete reboot with the new actors rather than an effort to pander to the fans in this way. The red matter was, again, convenient and only existed as a lazy way of keeping the plot moving.
And move it did. The pace never let up. Which was a shame as some of the character moments were lost and some of the moral concerns that could have been utilised were not given a chance to be aired. We saw the destruction of Vulcan, yet it was curiously unemotional and if you are to destroy one of the central tenets of Star Trek, surely you need to pay a lot more attention to it.
Simon Pegg as Scotty felt as if he had walked in from a different film. He was okay, but nothing more. Sulu's fight scene was a bit strange. Yes, he fenced in the original series, but would he really have taken a sword on a mission where he has just plummeted through a planet's atmosphere? Chekov's accent was a mouthful or two too far and it was a bit far fetched to see him as a mathematical genius.
The meeting of original Spock and Kirk was nicely done, but Spock meeting Spock was somewhat superfluous. It made for a wow moment, but didn't seem to serve any other purpose.
Another problem was the direction. The handheld shaky camerawork was so rapid that a lot of the interesting visual design was lost. I know that the sensibilities of modern Hollywood are for this style of filming, but some sense of location and some attention to the sets and effects would be nice. And what the **** was it with the lens flare? At times the lighting felt amateur. Yes, it is a stylistic decision, but after a while just looked lame and coupled with the rapid whip pans meant that more visual information was lost.
The plot doesn't stand up to much scrutiny when you really look at it.
Spock and Uhura. Mmmmm. This was an interesting choice. The writer's certainly seemed to have put the main focus on the Vulcan, but a smart young woman getting her commission on the Enterprise only because she is in a relationship with Spock diminishes her independence. It was also a shame that they spent so much time telling us how smart and qualified Uhura was, only to get her in her underwear at the earliest opportunity. It is nice to see an attractive woman in her underwear, but this character didn't need to be sexualised in this way. It was enough to see a smart woman make her way on her skills. And smart is sexy.
The film missed a lot of the elements that made Trek great. The moralising, the exploration of the human condition, debating issues of prejudice, politics and the suchlike. Did it actually do anything that was really that new and fresh?
As an energised Hollywood blockbuster it ticked all the boxes. It has reignited the Trek brand. But it has also missed many of the ingredients that made Trek what it was. So, it was a fun summer movie; an okay Trek movie; but it wasn't quite Star Trek.
Interestingly, I watched Balance of Terror from the original series a couple of days later. And realised that a degree of intelligence was missing from the film. it was all show, but was missing some heart. Trek could be very hokey and silly, but at its best provided thought provoking and boundary breaking episodes. Any sequel should try to hook into these aspects, but I'm guessing it will be another action packed adventure.
If you have read my earlier post, you know I had major concerns about the film. Then the early reviews started coming onto websites and into magazines and the general verdict was that Star Trek was very good. The only negative comments I have read are on George RR Martin's blog.
So, my verdict. I won't go into a plot synopsis. There were a number of elements that worked well. I had raised concerns over new actors playing iconic roles. That was one area that really surprised me. Chris Pine played Kirk very well and found a fine line between being a cocky, arrogant young man and a rounded person. Zachary Quinto created a recognisable Spock, but showed the conflict between logic and emotion effectively. Karl Urban was a very good Bones, but underused. Uhura was fine. Sulu and Chekov were both okay. My concerns about the characters were completely unfounded. Bruce Greenwood provided some gravitas as Christopher Pike and Eric Bana was unrecognisable, but good as Nero. But like some of the other actors was underused.
There were some cute nods to the history of the show and films to appease the fans.
The new Enterprise design worked well, although I'm not completely sold on the bridge.
The film was exciting and flew by. But...
The science and the plot left something to be desired. The use of black holes to time travel was dodgy and the fact that Spock arrived exactly twenty five years after Nero only to find Nero waiting for him was a little convenient. The use of the old time travel plot device chestnut is becoming a tired cliche for Star Trek plots. I understand that it was a clever way to set up an alternative timeline for the Trek universe, but I think I would have been happier to have seen a complete reboot with the new actors rather than an effort to pander to the fans in this way. The red matter was, again, convenient and only existed as a lazy way of keeping the plot moving.
And move it did. The pace never let up. Which was a shame as some of the character moments were lost and some of the moral concerns that could have been utilised were not given a chance to be aired. We saw the destruction of Vulcan, yet it was curiously unemotional and if you are to destroy one of the central tenets of Star Trek, surely you need to pay a lot more attention to it.
Simon Pegg as Scotty felt as if he had walked in from a different film. He was okay, but nothing more. Sulu's fight scene was a bit strange. Yes, he fenced in the original series, but would he really have taken a sword on a mission where he has just plummeted through a planet's atmosphere? Chekov's accent was a mouthful or two too far and it was a bit far fetched to see him as a mathematical genius.
The meeting of original Spock and Kirk was nicely done, but Spock meeting Spock was somewhat superfluous. It made for a wow moment, but didn't seem to serve any other purpose.
Another problem was the direction. The handheld shaky camerawork was so rapid that a lot of the interesting visual design was lost. I know that the sensibilities of modern Hollywood are for this style of filming, but some sense of location and some attention to the sets and effects would be nice. And what the **** was it with the lens flare? At times the lighting felt amateur. Yes, it is a stylistic decision, but after a while just looked lame and coupled with the rapid whip pans meant that more visual information was lost.
The plot doesn't stand up to much scrutiny when you really look at it.
Spock and Uhura. Mmmmm. This was an interesting choice. The writer's certainly seemed to have put the main focus on the Vulcan, but a smart young woman getting her commission on the Enterprise only because she is in a relationship with Spock diminishes her independence. It was also a shame that they spent so much time telling us how smart and qualified Uhura was, only to get her in her underwear at the earliest opportunity. It is nice to see an attractive woman in her underwear, but this character didn't need to be sexualised in this way. It was enough to see a smart woman make her way on her skills. And smart is sexy.
The film missed a lot of the elements that made Trek great. The moralising, the exploration of the human condition, debating issues of prejudice, politics and the suchlike. Did it actually do anything that was really that new and fresh?
As an energised Hollywood blockbuster it ticked all the boxes. It has reignited the Trek brand. But it has also missed many of the ingredients that made Trek what it was. So, it was a fun summer movie; an okay Trek movie; but it wasn't quite Star Trek.
Interestingly, I watched Balance of Terror from the original series a couple of days later. And realised that a degree of intelligence was missing from the film. it was all show, but was missing some heart. Trek could be very hokey and silly, but at its best provided thought provoking and boundary breaking episodes. Any sequel should try to hook into these aspects, but I'm guessing it will be another action packed adventure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)