I’ve Had 2 ½ Hours of Sleep.

And that’s not all! I saw Harry Potter 7, Part 1, of 2, at midnight in an Imax.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted. School happened. I’ve done two film projects since last time. The lesson? Directing is stressful. I much prefer editing. Probably because I’m OCD and editing lets you be as freakin’ OCD as you want. (There is no such thing as overediting. Riiiight.) And my Internet was still having issues, though today we were told it was fixed for good. Until it breaks again, of course.

Also…I have seen…movies. LIKE:

• Red – nice little comic bit on old CIA retirees being chased by a new, younger squad of CIA employees. I was delightfully surprised at Brian Cox’s appearance and character, and seem to only remember there being a BA scene of Bruce Willis exiting a moving car and one John Malkovitch being obsessed with a pink pig. Kind of off the wall humor, which probably was a factor in why it didn’t pull in a ginormous amount of money. It wasn’t spectacular persay, but I still enjoyed it.
• Megamind – the recent animated flick by Dreamworks. Once again, not the greatest thing in existence, but I still laughed my tail off and enjoyed it. Megamind is a humorous, adorable character. Metroman I found questionable, I thought the plot might have been a bit difficult for really little kids to follow, and for some reason I vaguely remember thinking it would make a good live action movie. If the villain didn’t have a bulbous blue head, of course.
• …and that’s probably it, really.
• OH NO WAIT. Green Lantern trailer. – my reaction? Disappointment. This article goes on about how it looks as though the movie will be breaking the trend of superhero movies employing a sense of “realism.” Eh. Fantastic Four was a bit of stretch in my opinion, but I can still stomach it without flinching too terribly. This? I’d be concerned people won’t buy it. I’m thinking it might get slammed by critics for not having that realism audiences are used to. I personally feel let down because the posters look so damn serious and stoic. (It’s almost like Green Lantern observed The Dark Knight and ran in the opposite direction.) We will see this summer how it will fare, but based on that single trailer, I no longer am so excited to see it.

Yes I did reread and finish Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and do intend to have a discussion on the book and movie. Soon. I swear. Before my opinions leak out my ears due to my brain being overstuffed with stuff for finals.

Now, for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows P1… I will say upfront I intend to see this more than once. From the first viewing last night, I was not impressed. But then again, I was initially not pleased with the Half Blood Prince movie either, but it has since become practically my favorite of the bunch. My main complaint with this movie is that they had so much time by splitting the book in two and yet they still make everything extremely fast paced and stretch out silly or unimportant moments (when compared to the book and the overall story). I need to see it again in a not Imax theater to properly judge the visual elements, as we were so close I had to crane my neck a bit up to see the whole screen and it looked as though all the characters were leaning away from me they were so huge.

In short, I am still being forced to wait for the second half, which I knew would be the better of the two. I knew, and some how I tricked myself into thinking this movie would be fantastically the best thing to grace the earth ever.

I gotta quit getting excited for movies.

Hopefully over November and December there will be more posts, although I cannot say that they will come on any sort of schedule. Happy Friday, and go see the Deathly Hallows!

Books and Book-films

Though other writers would have you think otherwise, there are a number of instances in which I will argue that the book behind a movie is better than said film.

Other individuals would have you believe that mere print can’t invoke all of the emotions that seeing a moment played out on a screen would. I’ve never really cried at a Harry Potter movie. I was shedding tears so much through the last quarter of Deathly Hallows the book that my mother told me to go upstairs and finish if I was going to cry because she didn't want me giving the story away. I would argue the reasoning stands better with feelings of anger. I read up to the death of Sirius Black in Order of the Phoenix and nearly threw the book across the room. I didn’t finish the book until nearly two months later because I didn’t want to come to terms that my (at the time) favorite character of the series had died. Upon watching Order of the Phoenix the movie, I began to harbor an intense hate for the face of the woman who played Bellatrix, and to this day I still dislike watching Helena Bonham Carter, although I realize she is a wonderful actress.

I was startled to read an article in my research on the decline of print media that stated books were unsatisfying to readers, because no matter how much you loved an author, you’d never be able to express it unless you met said author. I immediately thought of J.K. Rowling and how beloved an author she is, and I’d argue that sharing your love of an author with another is almost as good as telling the person themselves. Of course one author of a fantastic series can’t talk to all her fans. But sharing the love with others and having others read what you find, that’s an incredible feeling in and of itself. The way I think about it is almost spiritual, strangely enough: it’s okay if I don’t get to tell J.K. Rowling that I love her work because so many other fans already have. So many people appreciate her that I’m sure somehow she knows there are X amount of people out there that love her work even if she’s not met them. I recently read a quote somewhere, I think from Rowling’s interview with Oprah where someone came up to the author and said, “You are my childhood,” and she found it to be the most endearing thing. If I’d thought of it and I’d had the opportunity to meet her, I’d have said the same thing.

Then there’s just the fact that a film of a book will never equate to:

One—the experience of reading the book and the joy that one gets out of that (of course you would have to enjoy reading for this to apply to you, but given I do, it counts). Reading a novel lets you delve into a world both alike and unlike your own and lets you experience it as you so choose. If you imagine a character looks one way, your friend’s imagination very well might come up with another picture. Books, though creative themselves, allow the imagination to run wild.

Two—falls along the same line of thought; a director will never be able to perfectly match an author’s vision. This is especially true if the author is dead or if the story is especially fantastic and in need of CGI. Though Lord of the Rings the movie was beautiful, who can truly say if it was the late Tolkien’s real vision? And this is important because no one ever argues over the validity of a story. A million people will argue that Alice in Wonderland isn’t supposed to play out that way because it wasn’t like that in the book. If an author did the movie for their book, it’d be much less likely people would snap about whether or not things were “supposed to look that way” because the author, the person who invented the story fans cling to, made the visual for you. Though there might be the occasional argument that fans didn’t see some detail the way the author made it look, but the fault would subsequently fall on the reader/viewer for misunderstanding the text.

Three—many times a book is either too long or too short for a film adaptation, prompting cuts or additions that fans may or may not appreciate. Once again, this throws back to reason two.

Book-films are often enjoyable, even if they’re not done properly. It’s just a risky operation, increasingly so when the fan base of the story is bigger, because the filmmakers want to translate the story just right but they also want to be reasonable and cost-effective about it. I’m sure a “perfect” Lord of the Rings would have required about another two hours per film, but watching a 5-hour movie in a theater isn’t reasonable.

Then there’s the fact that some of my favorite films are based on books when I didn’t even realize they were. Bourne was originally a book series by Robert Ludlum. Yes it does make me feel a little bit like a hypocrite when I really enjoy a movie and then have no desire to read the book, but this often happens because I’m sure the book is more detail oriented and at this moment in my life I’ve not got the time for another book. (Excuses.) For cases like this, it’s more like I’m afraid the movie will let me down. I hold high expectations for an action-packed story like Bourne, but fear that the writing style may drive me away. Lord of the Rings, though a great story, the book was so heavily detail oriented that it was a struggle to get through. The story was still great, the scenes left out were wonderful as well and it made me sad that not everything made the cut. If I’ve watched a movie of a book first (especially if I’ve not realized it) it makes going to the book difficult because I’m afraid it will change my perceptions of what I thought was a great movie. (I will say my exception is with comic book-films. I happily flounce to the source material because I know it's easy to get through.)

Why do I do this? Maybe it’s because I’d like to think among all of the book-films that miss the mark, maybe that one is the one that did it. Maybe that one out performed its paper counterpart. Either way, book-films are sure to promote sales in both industries I love (which is something the book industry needs right now).

Have You Tried Turning It Off and On Again, Tiger?

(Haa, clever IT joke.) In 2012, we’ll be getting a reboot of Spider-man. Marc Webb will be directing, Avi Arad will still be on board as a producer, and thus far we have Andrew Garfield (27) as the new Peter Parker and Emma Stone (nearly 22) as the new Gwen Stacy. The movie as of right now is being called a ‘reboot.’

Really? It’s a bit soon, don’t you think, Sony? Oh no wait you’re a massive money-grabbing corporation.

So lets review the previous Spider-man films that the producers are now saying they’d like to start anew.

Spider-Man

• Released May 2002, directed by Sam Raimi, Avi Arad as executive producer.
• Starred Tobey Maguire (then 26) as Peter Parker, Kirsten Dunst (20) as Mary Jane Watson.
• There was this hilarious scene.
• This was Marvel’s fourth film with big studios released after the 90’s. Blade, Blade II and X-men preceded it.
• It broke all kinds of records when it opened. First to pass $100 million in a weekend, $821+ million worldwide by the time it was done in theaters.

Spider-Man 2

• Released June 2004, directed by Sam Raimi with Avi Arad as executive producer.
• Still starred Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, 29 and 22 respectively, at the time of release.
• The posters, in my opinion, got better.
• Marvel’s ninth movie (Daredevil, X2, The Hulk, and The Punisher all came out between Spider-Man 1 and 2).
• It made $783+ million worldwide, and won an Academy Award for effects.

Spider-Man 3

• Released (in the US) May 2007, directed by Sam Raimi with Avi Arad as producer, again.
• Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst still headlined, now 32 and 25 respectively. It also brought in Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacey, she 26 years old.
• There was this.
• Though the critical reception of the movie for the most part tanked, it proved to be the most successful worldwide.
• It broke money records, highest opening day, worldwide highest day-long gross, so on. Worldwide, it made $890+ million at the end of it’s run.

There’s really no question why Sony would want to continue the franchise. These things bled money, and that’s before you factor in the toy lines and such. I would just like to point out rebooting the series five years after the last movie does not qualify as a reboot. It’s essentially going down a different strain of story. The Batman films? The originals done by Tim Burton and concluding with a little humorous flick involving Schwarzenegger and Clooney versus the movies done ten years later by Christopher Nolan? That would be an instance that uses the word “reboot” properly to describe the situation. Here, the studio has said this adaptation is going to be more faithful to the comics from the 80’s-90’s. They’re redoing it because they screwed up the first three so badly they even recognized the error of their ways. As far as source material goes, I never read Spider-Man. It doesn’t concern me, although I can appreciate the director and producers trying to stay closer to that source.

Other than I think it’s incredibly too soon, I’m undecided on how I feel about this. Andrew Garfield is growing on me since I got the new Entertainment Weekly:

Sexy geeks? Always a plus. I’ve gotta see The Social Network.

I never really got into the first Spider-Man films because when the first one came out I was 11 and thought it was super scary. I remember seeing it at a friend’s house and then having a nightmare of the Green Goblin setting the house on fire. I don’t think I even saw 2 until the week of the 3^rd being released, because by then I was very into Marvel comics and wanted to see any and all put out. Funny how things change like that. I guess all in all, only time will tell if this proves to be a truly good idea or not.

The Internet Has Eaten My Braaain

My inability to keep a schedule with this blog frustrates me. When I was keeping a weekly post, it made me realize how quickly time was going by. I find myself in a conundrum.

Right, so once again the Internet went out, this time it died Friday night and didn’t come back until late Monday afternoon. Time and time again I was left grumbling and snarling about the shit connection in the apartment, and once again multiple people reminded me that I should have actually spoke to people who lived in my apartment before I moved in. But according to the managers, this problem didn't start happening until this year. The same managers that told me that their negotiations with the cable company shut out only Mac computers. Not sure who to trust. But the manager's nice. So it's hard to be mad to their faces. But then again it's not hard, because I'm taking an online class that is...online. And it can't be accessed when offline. Every two weeks we have about two papers and a project due in this class, that mostly take the form of webpages. It's not a big deal to me, I did the last project in maybe three hours, I'm used to coding pages, but still. The Internet we were guaranteed with rent needs to work. Especially given this is an apartment that caters to university students.

So this is nearly six days now in the past month that I've been without Internet, and on the one hand, I feel really really pathetic I can hardly make it a day without griping and getting upset that I can't get on the Internet. It's gotten to the point where I'm starting to disdainfully think a computer is worthless if it doesn't have an Internet connection (especially since I don't know where my Sims 3 disc is). I know this isn't right at all--computers have that inherent quality to compute things and they've got these nifty things that help write papers called 'word processors.' I've got photoshop and artistic ability, I could blow some time with art. But no, when the Internet dies I'm suddenly paralyzed and feel entirely cut off from the world. I'm left to check Facebook updates on my terribly slow connection on my phone (not a smart phone, so yes the connection there is bad) and run the battery down. For the past several days I've had to cart my laptop to campus and check email and do little bits of homework here and there, but when I know in the back of my mind the Internet doesn't work at home, there's such a finality to everything I do on the computer that I begin panicking that I won't get it all done between classes and then I'll be left in the dark when I go home.

It's terrible. I'm so paranoid it's just sad.

But on the other hand, knowing that I really can't go more than a day or two without Internet, I'm comfortable enough to admit this fact because I know a lot of people in my generation can't. Freaking digital age infiltration, and all. It doesn't bother me so much to say that because it's more accepted now. I've been hooked on the computer since I was a kid, and got into the Internet in my late elementary school years. I've always been a tech person.

And it just frustrates me to no end when I can't fix the problem. I think that--the fact that I had to call tech support over the weekend and they couldn't find the problem and couldn't send a technician until Monday--was comparable to twisting a knife in a wound. If I had access to the modem I could fix it. If I was at home, I could fix it, and then if I couldn't, I would be fine being mad at myself for not being knowledgeable enough about the hardware. Here? No. I'm left floundering in the darkness that is a broken Internet connection, having to wait for other people to come to the rescue when I know I'm perfectly capable.

On an unrelated note, I've started getting Nintendo Power magazines in the mail again after about a two year break. Huzzah! I'm excited and they're helping me expand my Christmas list. Also the latest Entertainment Weekly has The Social Network crew on the front, and I fully intend to see that movie soon and would be willing to do a little review. Then there's this upcoming assignment where we film students are going to be able to analyze any film we want in accordance to the Motion Picture Code developed in the '30s. I'm doing Iron Man 2 because it came in the mail last week and yes. Then I'm intending to shoot my second film project for the other film class tomorrow.

Fun times? Eh, sure. Stress? Hell yes.

So...be on the lookout for a possible post on the film shoot, and another on the wonderfulness that is Harry Potter (I've wanted to share my thoughts on it for a while, but figured I should wait until I refreshed my memory...and I started book 6 again this morning).

Happy Monday, everyone.

The Effects of Manifest Destiny

Once again, I saw Stef’s “Make It Up Monday” post and have decided to partake again. "Make It Up Monday" is an exercise in which she posts an image and readers are told to observe the image carefully and then write a caption, an explanation, or a story for it.

This was inspired by the likes of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and any and all Dracula movies set in yester-year. I’m starting to hate the teen-vampire thing, and because of the prolific-ness of vampires in young adult literature, I’ve come to really appreciate the older stuff again. And I'm really starting to think I'm just hard-wired for science fiction, seeing as both of these I've done have been of the sci-fi persuasion.

The Effects of Manifest Destiny

The four young children perched in and on top of the wagon would not realize what a hellish journey they had set out on until it was too late. Though the three boys had boisterously agreed to the adventure, the young girl, hardly capable of speech let alone coherent compliance, had simply giggled at the prospect of a cross-country, family, vampire-hunting journey.

When questioned as to why they had taken up the whirlwind of Manifest Destiny after vehemently refusing to leave the coast, each of them would sigh in response and then mutter how something had come up that required they leave home immediately. Most assumed the farm had taken a southerly turn. Few listened when they complained about vampires destroying their cattle. None believed them when they said they were going west to take out those who had preyed on their loved ones.

Though there was the occasional passer-by who gave them a look… A bright-eyed look veiled in a knowing shadow. Though no words were exchanged, often they’d get a tip of the hat or a happy nod from these folk. It should come as no surprise that the vast majority of these folk were spotted more often than not bearing pitchforks and playing with fire. No one knew if the family would be successful. No one knew if they would die in their convoluted efforts.

A week into the family’s journey, no one would ever hear of them again.

Ensemble Casts, In No Way Are They Losers

This past weekend, after being advised by a fellow blogger, I rented The Losers. It was released in April 2010, and I certainly remember seeing previews last spring, but somehow I never made it around to seeing it. Imdb describes the plot as follows: “After being betrayed and left for dead, members of a CIA black ops team root out those who targeted them for assassination.” It's yet another comic book adaptation that hit theaters this year. Initially attracted by the cast, the review I read here on Blogger sparked my interest again because of the comments made on its style. While it does display some stylistic elements, I would argue it acts as a timid precursor to the likes of Scott Pilgrim and was nowhere near as stylized as earlier films like The Spirit.

So let me return to the cast. The three big names (to my knowledge) were Chris Evans, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Zoe Saldana. Morgan has been in his share of Grey’s Anatomy episodes and had the key role in Watchmen the year before. Saldana had just come off of Avatar and Star Trek. Evans had been in Fantastic Four and would be named as the future Captain America. There were other faces I recognized but didn’t know the background for as well. Point? This is the very definition of an ensemble cast. Actors who can hold their own and whose characters get a share of the screen time equal to their fellow actors.

I enjoy ensemble casts in movies because it allows audiences to look into each of the lives of the characters and safely deem any of the characters as their favorite. They also let any of the characters interact with each other, which can lead to a huge variety of comedic encounters and/or dramatic outcomes. It’s interesting to watch how one character plays off of another but could then turn around and be a completely different person with another.

In The Losers, there were several pairings that were heavily emphasized. (And on a side note, all of this is making me think about when I was a kid playing Super Smash Bros…I would play as one character and pick another, say Link and Fox, and make up some fictional back story on why they would be fighting together.) Morgan and Saldana’s characters—Clay and Aisha—were one for sure, and then there was a fantastic scene partnering Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and Jensen (Evans). Actually, Jensen was a moderator for all of the characters and played off each of them very well, though there was a definite negative vibe between him and Aisha, and thus the two were never seen alone.

But really, if you think about it, The Losers employing an ensemble cast is really just part of a bigger picture in which I’d argue that all comic book movies employ ensemble casts to ensure the movie sells. Really, just think about it for a second!

• X-men: Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, and Ian McKellen were the top billed actors. But Patrick Stewart and Famke Janssen had respectable careers before, too.
• Spider-Man: Tobey Macguire, Kirsten Dunst, and Willem Dafoe. James Franco and the gang got a fair amount of fame on top of what they had already done in Hollywood, and I’ve seen J.K. Simmons around a lot more since the trilogy.
• Batman: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Kim Basinger. Tim Burton (who directed the first two) gained considerable attention after the films as well.
• Hellboy: Ron Pearlman, Selma Blair, and Jeffrey Tambor.
• Watchmen: it’s difficult to pick the top three billed, as the producers wanted unknowns for their characters. But again, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley had some semblance of a career before it.

Those that only banked on one, two, three actors have tended to do more poorly at the box office or were more poorly received. Nicolas Cage seemed to be single handedly carrying Ghost Rider, though I enjoyed Sam Elliot’s performance much more than Cage’s. The film was regarded as a huge fail, save for the effects. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen rested on Sean Connery’s broad shoulders (and proved to be his final movie before retiring). It only made $68 million in the US and Canada. I’m still undecided on Daredevil, because I feel like the casting choices weren’t the best. It seemed to very well and solidified Marvel characters in Hollywood, but the reception wasn’t the most assuring. (Elektra on the other hand, was disastrous, making less than $60 million worldwide, banking on the Daredevil connection and Jennifer Garner’s attempt at a Grecian assassin.)

As much as I’d like to say, “Come on, Hollywood, take a risk…we don’t need A-list stars playing the not-to-be-taken-seriously B-movie comic characters,” I’m just going to keep my trap shut. History has proven that having the respected actors and having lots of them is the way to keep the franchises alive. Its just a sticky situation, thinking that someone out there may be able to embody the character better than say, Hugh Jackman, who will undoubtedly draw in the crowds and the money. So, for now, I’d rather the casting directors get it half-way right and the studios keep making the movies, if only for the possibility that we may realize someone may play Character X just right, than the movies not be made at all.

(It’ll only take one screw up for me to retract that entire last paragraph…one royal screw up for me to be out for someone’s blood… X3 comes to mind, but it wasn’t the actors who were primarily to blame there.)

Decorating

Seeing as I’m a fan of movies, it should come as a surprise that I often consider movie memorabilia to fall under the category of “décor” and that I often times see movie posters as art.

I moved into my first apartment back in August and still haven’t done much as far as decorating goes. The kitchen and living room area are done in red and black, and my room is white and turquoise. Thus far my room has a painting I did several years ago of a V for Vendetta poster. I’m torn between keeping things minimalistic and going all out.

But what really concerns me are the actual living spaces…where the walls are a flat white and have…nothing on them at all. Last year I picked up a beautiful poster from The Spirit that I intend to hang, but because of how much space is available and the location of the light switches on this one wall, I’m thinking of getting another poster to go with it to space across the wall next to the dining table.

Now, The Spirit wasn’t a particularly great movie as far as story goes, but I enjoyed the warped humor and the stylization. It did poorly for a comic book adaptation; it didn’t make money at the box office two years ago, but I still saw it the day after Christmas 2008 or some where in the vicinity there. Then we bought the DVD and I’ve probably watched it three times since it came out. (I think I just wait long enough to fool myself into thinking that it wasn’t nearly as bad as everyone says.) But forget the story—the art and the stylization was what drew me in.

Again, the living areas are done in red and black. Now I just need another poster to go with the one I’ve got. I’ve looked at the other Spirit posters (actually I’ve posted half of them here) but I’m not certain about having multiple posters for a movie I didn’t really like. Then I’m not sure if these are too busy or aren’t strong enough next to the “my city screams” image. I took a step back and googled black and white posters for an hour or two over the weekend, and the best ones I could come up with are below:

Now these three are all from movies I really like. Chicago was probably the first musical with real live people that I saw (both the movie and some months later I saw the theater performance). The music’s good and the story’s (corruption in criminal justice) great. I haven’t seen it in years because we lost the DVD, but I do remember enjoying it. Good Night and Good Luck I saw two years ago I believe, when I was trying to get into watching the award-winning movies. I’m a little fuzzy on how the story goes (it involves the government and early television broadcast medium), but I remember that the final speech by David Strathairn was incredibly powerful and moving. I intend to buy the movie as soon as I come into some extra money. Then there’s Sweeney Todd, a dark musical about a murderous barber featuring Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman—two of my favorites.

I think the Sweeney Todd image fits well as far as style goes, but I don’t like the blue in it and I’m not so certain on having a poster about a bloody musical next to the dinner table. It could unnerve guests. Chicago’s poster is a bit more yellow than The Spirit, but there’s some yellow elements in the kitchen as well. I personally like Good Night and Good Luck the best of the three movies, I think simply because of the message in it, but I don’t think the poster is stylized enough.

Anyone have any opinions on the matter? I’m happy to listen to suggestions, or other black/white/red posters I may have over looked.