Well, they don't want just the core audience. That audience will show up regardless, at least to have something to complain about. They want to capture as much of the popularity of TNG as possible.
I dunno, TV is a different animal, but judging by the way JMS has handled the reins of the comics he writes (Amazing Spider-Man, etc.), Paramount wouldn't exactly be getting the kind of direction it needs to say, get it popular enough to justify movies again.
That said, I don't think he'd do a bad job. He'd stop the bleeding, satisfy all hardcore fans, maybe lose a few people by injecting some form of mythic good/evil, but basically stabilize the franchise- not grow it. And who knows, a good marketing campaign him and it wouldn't matter, and he'd get that general audience anyway and I'll eat my words.
For the most part though, if you feel compelled enough to comment on this topic, you aren't who Paramount is looking at. If you've watched every series enough to have an informed opinion on them, you'll probably try anything they put out.
Whats ironic is the lengths (namely, their own lawsuit) that Marvel had to go to get a piece of the action of the first Spider-Man movie. They sued Sony for it- mind you, since then they've been a lot smarter/had better lawyers and there's more money going their way from the films that followed, even dreck like Daredevil.
Its kinda funny, to complaine about the lack of depth in a blog rant. She was glib, but does she really need a better reason than "I want to" or "Look, every everyman in science fiction is white"? Race isn't a direct issue in Earthsea world, but its one in the world where her books are published, and she made her points not just in the plot, but the details. For the people who do think about race, positively or negatively, (and apparently, its important to Ursula LeGuin), it is something you notice.
Well, it sounds like she made a conscious decision to have her characters be non-white, and considers it a big part of the world she created. It may not be the biggest draw of the books, but it can be a pretty compelling part of the stories for readers, especially in a genre like fantasy.
And the text has been left alone for 30+ years now, but everytime its reissued or reprinted, she has to prod the publisher to making a cover that matches the text. So its also an issue that she has to deal with regularily, and its own her mind more.
Well, language evolves and changes, and meaning change. Regardless of how a word was used in earlier usage, we deal with the way terms are viewed by society now. Words mean what the user wants it to, but communication means that the other end has to be acknowledged too. If I use words delibrately with minor or different means- even if I believe them to be "correct" or "more correct"- I may not be doing a diservice to the word, but unless I want to invest more time in conversation to explain it, I'm basically purposely not communicating with the other person.
After all, the fact that certain groups can all each other nigger non-offensively doesn't mean that coming out of someone else's mouth its not offensive. Even if the speaker doesn't intend it to- and I don't want to dip too much into PCness, what it means, intends, or otherwise- but outward behavior is reflective of inner attitudes. If a white person uses the word nigger, for example, meaning pal or chum or mate or whatever- he or she intends it to be friendly. In a microcosm of a room and a close friend it can be accepted, but it can be still be insensitive, irregardless of intent- if not on a racist level then perhaps as one of disrepct to the passion that the audience feels with that word.
I believe I ought to be able to use any word I choose. But I believe my outward behavior is a reflection of my inner beliefs. So I pay attention to what words I use and how I can reasonably expect people to take them. I entirely mean what I say, and if I mess up then I try again when I'm trying to communicate.
- this doesn't preclude using words the way you want them to. Use gay for happy every chance you get, get your friends to use it. Reclaim its older meaning and make it the popular big one. But you can't ignore the influence of words (or majority opinion of them) either.
alternative Gaiman...Pullman?
on
2003 Nebula Awards
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hmm...I think American Gods is better Gaiman book. Neverwhere was adapted from a BBC miniseries he wrote, and while enjoyable, it ended up a bit too loose, it even ends with sequel bait. The plot is straightforward, but it feels like the setting is the star of the show. American Gods, while it has a couple of long digressions, has a stronger showing I think.
That said, I've read a lot of Gaiman, so whats vaguely uninteresting to me, may be new to other readers.
If we're going for younger fare, I've enjoyed what I've read so far of The Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman. Its not got the straight fun aspect of the Potter books, but the world from the start is a more adult and complex one.
Well, I have a feeling I was feeling peckish by the last paragraph. I think theres a mixture of pts between propaganda/consumerism going on in Starship troopers. Its criticism regarding the military in society though, is more relevant today than when it first came out, and I think it's now more US centric now. I kinda of wish it did come out now, as a corrective to some of the stiffer 'wars as good wars' movies that have come out lately.
Clearly talented, he does have a streaky track record. Consistently as he uses trashy, gratuitous sex and violence to criticize it and the audience that likes, he also likes it himself. Revels in it even. He knows it appeals. It muddies a lot of attempts to define him.
I do take his stuff as satire, the problem is, in his latter films, the straight man is audience member who doesn't get it. Starship Troopers is a bludgeoning sledgehammer if you've ever had concerns about that version of patriotis, in an enjoyable action flick. Its more important and interesting when you take into account the people who only see it as an action flick.
Lastly, don't lump this into a US-philistine/ Europe-enlightened hoohaa crappidity crap. Hell, don't pigeon-hole Starship Troopers into just a criticism of American culture. You think only America is vulnerable to the militarist/fascist tendencies criticism? America is only currently the most salient country dealing with the issue consciously and unconsciously for some. Its history, and likely future, is in a lot more places than in the US.
I have to say I was impressed with the dubbing job on Spirited Away. I like watching the original japanese, but I have a lot of friends who like watching it in dub to concentrate on the visuals first, and then sub-titled. And perhaps more importantly, we're pretty much all adults watching these kids movies (good for all ages, but meant for kids), and the dubs for them, not us.
That and it seemed from the extras on the discs that the people doing the dubbing really do care about a good job. But they need to get out more or do some background research or something...when I heard about the aformentioned "seal" exchange I couldn't help thinking...duh? The translation team got confused with the concept of asian signature seals? Thats a little sad...
If a major pt was that it was big and hairy, then it was probably Alan Moore. When did this pop up?
Psychohistorical Geography...really!
on
Voice Of The Fire
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Namely, and very simplistically, catalogueing the very interesting things that happen in time in the space, and mapping out ideas like they're places.
I think the Moore comic that best illustrates it is Snakes and Ladders, with Eddie Campbell (always mention the artist!) which is a comic version of a performance piece he did. From Hell's more mystical bits (namely, the long carriage ride through london history) is another great example of it, again with Eddie Campbell.
Anyone with interest in the Alan Moore should read the verbose extended version of his Onionavclub interview, where I almost understood it.
Coinciding with his fifitieth birthday, he's also said that he's retired.
And I'd like to pipe in with Promethea. Its not everyone's cup of tea, being an extended look into Moore magical theories, but its very interesting, and has one of the best artists (JH Williams) in the business who continually astounds me with what he does with layouts and illustration and style switching...
repectfully disagree...
on
Voice Of The Fire
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I would say that comic is the medium. I personally will use the two terms as a reference to the format- namely I call a comic book the stapled pamphlet or floppy or whatever it wants to be called. Generally, telling the stories in serialized form. Hence, Watchmen # 1-12 are individually a comic books, but Watchmen is a graphic novel to me.
But comic book and graphic novel are basically the same thing, but comic book is so much a pejorative that the term is often avoided in polite company.
Ah, well, Miramax will probably be delaying the dvd release and releasing the movie here in the US on the back of the oscar nominations.
Here it was mainly a festival circuit release (and therefore very small). It didn't get much ad support at all, though it did come out in 2002 I think. Even in New York, where I live, its only been supported by one theater, though for a long time. I suppose its critical reception was also a bit mixed.
I don't think they'll give it to Castle-Hughes at all. Beyond not wanting to curse her too early, I'd say her performance is stronger because of the sentimental influence of the movie, than her actual role. So much so I was surprised it got nominated. I mean, why not Raising Victor vargas then?
Besides, Theron just won the Golden Globes, at least against Whale Rider, that should cinch it.
Hmmm....I thought it was really well made, and Bill Murray's performance was great, just pipped by Sean Penn.
But I noticed Lost in Translation got nominated for screenplay as well, and so I expect it to win it. Every year a movie I respect for craft, but who's screenplay I think is manipulative cheap toys (yes yes, all movies are manipulative, but I'm not supposed to see the strings DURING the movie...) wins.
But if you liked Lost in Translation, I suggest you all go out and rent a Wong Kar-Wai movie, start with Chungking Express. Very similar, with a greater sense of fun- a different kind of cool though. More leather jackets and sunglasses, than NY east village a la Lost in translation.
Fellowship was my personal favorite. Boromir's storyline, well, jsut the arc of the first one in general managed to keep the scope of the movie grand and personal at the same time. By the third one, I was being swept along, but it felt more big than grand.
Still, its the way of he Oscars, they often like to reward people after they've missed their best chance.
Not only was it mainly young actors, all but a couple weren't actors before they were picked to appear in the film.
That said, City of God is a movie from a long time ago that suffered from bad support. Ah, the vagaries of the near meaningless oscars...
Anyway, I think it was visually stunning and strong, but City of God wasn't as impressive a feat of as RotK, let alone the trilogy (which is what they would be rewarding Jackson for with an oscar, rather than just this one film). If you thought City of God was something, check out Bus 174. Everything short of the biggest moments in City of God, is a cakewalk compared to that.
Actually, for the most part, its a money reasons that they make remakes are made this way. Every foreign film that isn't released in the US is seen by the studios as a kind of trial run, the foreign country being simply a rather large focus group. Thus, the Ring, and various others.
American studio budgets, and attendant risks are a lot larger than virtually any foreign film anywhere. Thus, when studios want to make movies, they want a tried and true (with the American audience) approach. And you know what, you can send these remakes with higher production values back into the world and make even more money.
The film market is such that picking a foreign film in its original form, distributed in the US, will chances are make nowhere even a close amount to making even a mediocre American movie with decent distribution.
Me, I personally like better reasons for remakes. But I don't have millions to spread around and risk.
Slashdot Mirror
...and totally lost touch with the core audience.
Well, they don't want just the core audience. That audience will show up regardless, at least to have something to complain about. They want to capture as much of the popularity of TNG as possible.
I dunno, TV is a different animal, but judging by the way JMS has handled the reins of the comics he writes (Amazing Spider-Man, etc.), Paramount wouldn't exactly be getting the kind of direction it needs to say, get it popular enough to justify movies again.
That said, I don't think he'd do a bad job. He'd stop the bleeding, satisfy all hardcore fans, maybe lose a few people by injecting some form of mythic good/evil, but basically stabilize the franchise- not grow it. And who knows, a good marketing campaign him and it wouldn't matter, and he'd get that general audience anyway and I'll eat my words.
For the most part though, if you feel compelled enough to comment on this topic, you aren't who Paramount is looking at. If you've watched every series enough to have an informed opinion on them, you'll probably try anything they put out.
and a few other sites has some good takes on the case:
The best of the lot is The Comics reporter at the Pulse
And little btis more or links:
The Comics Reporter
The Beat
Whats ironic is the lengths (namely, their own lawsuit) that Marvel had to go to get a piece of the action of the first Spider-Man movie. They sued Sony for it- mind you, since then they've been a lot smarter/had better lawyers and there's more money going their way from the films that followed, even dreck like Daredevil.
I'm more concerned by the fact that half the people picked can't act.
Oh, the Mormon bit is alright.
Its kinda funny, to complaine about the lack of depth in a blog rant. She was glib, but does she really need a better reason than "I want to" or "Look, every everyman in science fiction is white"? Race isn't a direct issue in Earthsea world, but its one in the world where her books are published, and she made her points not just in the plot, but the details.
For the people who do think about race, positively or negatively, (and apparently, its important to Ursula LeGuin), it is something you notice.
Well, it sounds like she made a conscious decision to have her characters be non-white, and considers it a big part of the world she created. It may not be the biggest draw of the books, but it can be a pretty compelling part of the stories for readers, especially in a genre like fantasy.
And the text has been left alone for 30+ years now, but everytime its reissued or reprinted, she has to prod the publisher to making a cover that matches the text. So its also an issue that she has to deal with regularily, and its own her mind more.
Well, language evolves and changes, and meaning change. Regardless of how a word was used in earlier usage, we deal with the way terms are viewed by society now. Words mean what the user wants it to, but communication means that the other end has to be acknowledged too. If I use words delibrately with minor or different means- even if I believe them to be "correct" or "more correct"- I may not be doing a diservice to the word, but unless I want to invest more time in conversation to explain it, I'm basically purposely not communicating with the other person.
After all, the fact that certain groups can all each other nigger non-offensively doesn't mean that coming out of someone else's mouth its not offensive. Even if the speaker doesn't intend it to- and I don't want to dip too much into PCness, what it means, intends, or otherwise- but outward behavior is reflective of inner attitudes. If a white person uses the word nigger, for example, meaning pal or chum or mate or whatever- he or she intends it to be friendly. In a microcosm of a room and a close friend it can be accepted, but it can be still be insensitive, irregardless of intent- if not on a racist level then perhaps as one of disrepct to the passion that the audience feels with that word.
I believe I ought to be able to use any word I choose. But I believe my outward behavior is a reflection of my inner beliefs. So I pay attention to what words I use and how I can reasonably expect people to take them. I entirely mean what I say, and if I mess up then I try again when I'm trying to communicate.
- this doesn't preclude using words the way you want them to. Use gay for happy every chance you get, get your friends to use it. Reclaim its older meaning and make it the popular big one. But you can't ignore the influence of words (or majority opinion of them) either.
Hmm...I think American Gods is better Gaiman book. Neverwhere was adapted from a BBC miniseries he wrote, and while enjoyable, it ended up a bit too loose, it even ends with sequel bait. The plot is straightforward, but it feels like the setting is the star of the show. American Gods, while it has a couple of long digressions, has a stronger showing I think.
That said, I've read a lot of Gaiman, so whats vaguely uninteresting to me, may be new to other readers.
If we're going for younger fare, I've enjoyed what I've read so far of The Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman. Its not got the straight fun aspect of the Potter books, but the world from the start is a more adult and complex one.
But I want it all now! Who wants to wait for posterity?
Well, I have a feeling I was feeling peckish by the last paragraph. I think theres a mixture of pts between propaganda/consumerism going on in Starship troopers. Its criticism regarding the military in society though, is more relevant today than when it first came out, and I think it's now more US centric now. I kinda of wish it did come out now, as a corrective to some of the stiffer 'wars as good wars' movies that have come out lately.
Verhoeven's a hard director to like (but I do).
Clearly talented, he does have a streaky track record. Consistently as he uses trashy, gratuitous sex and violence to criticize it and the audience that likes, he also likes it himself. Revels in it even. He knows it appeals. It muddies a lot of attempts to define him.
I do take his stuff as satire, the problem is, in his latter films, the straight man is audience member who doesn't get it. Starship Troopers is a bludgeoning sledgehammer if you've ever had concerns about that version of patriotis, in an enjoyable action flick. Its more important and interesting when you take into account the people who only see it as an action flick.
Lastly, don't lump this into a US-philistine/ Europe-enlightened hoohaa crappidity crap. Hell, don't pigeon-hole Starship Troopers into just a criticism of American culture. You think only America is vulnerable to the militarist/fascist tendencies criticism? America is only currently the most salient country dealing with the issue consciously and unconsciously for some. Its history, and likely future, is in a lot more places than in the US.
I have to say I was impressed with the dubbing job on Spirited Away. I like watching the original japanese, but I have a lot of friends who like watching it in dub to concentrate on the visuals first, and then sub-titled. And perhaps more importantly, we're pretty much all adults watching these kids movies (good for all ages, but meant for kids), and the dubs for them, not us.
That and it seemed from the extras on the discs that the people doing the dubbing really do care about a good job. But they need to get out more or do some background research or something...when I heard about the aformentioned "seal" exchange I couldn't help thinking...duh? The translation team got confused with the concept of asian signature seals? Thats a little sad...
If a major pt was that it was big and hairy, then it was probably Alan Moore. When did this pop up?
Namely, and very simplistically, catalogueing the very interesting things that happen in time in the space, and mapping out ideas like they're places.
I think the Moore comic that best illustrates it is Snakes and Ladders, with Eddie Campbell (always mention the artist!) which is a comic version of a performance piece he did. From Hell's more mystical bits (namely, the long carriage ride through london history) is another great example of it, again with Eddie Campbell.
Anyone with interest in the Alan Moore should read the verbose extended version of his Onionavclub interview, where I almost understood it.
Coinciding with his fifitieth birthday, he's also said that he's retired.
And I'd like to pipe in with Promethea. Its not everyone's cup of tea, being an extended look into Moore magical theories, but its very interesting, and has one of the best artists (JH Williams) in the business who continually astounds me with what he does with layouts and illustration and style switching...
I would say that comic is the medium. I personally will use the two terms as a reference to the format- namely I call a comic book the stapled pamphlet or floppy or whatever it wants to be called. Generally, telling the stories in serialized form. Hence, Watchmen # 1-12 are individually a comic books, but Watchmen is a graphic novel to me.
But comic book and graphic novel are basically the same thing, but comic book is so much a pejorative that the term is often avoided in polite company.
Ah, but he's no Alan Moore!
2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 if memory serves, isn't Clarke getting a bit old?
Um...so what?
Ah, well, Miramax will probably be delaying the dvd release and releasing the movie here in the US on the back of the oscar nominations.
Here it was mainly a festival circuit release (and therefore very small). It didn't get much ad support at all, though it did come out in 2002 I think. Even in New York, where I live, its only been supported by one theater, though for a long time. I suppose its critical reception was also a bit mixed.
I don't think they'll give it to Castle-Hughes at all. Beyond not wanting to curse her too early, I'd say her performance is stronger because of the sentimental influence of the movie, than her actual role. So much so I was surprised it got nominated. I mean, why not Raising Victor vargas then?
Besides, Theron just won the Golden Globes, at least against Whale Rider, that should cinch it.
Hmmm....I thought it was really well made, and Bill Murray's performance was great, just pipped by Sean Penn.
But I noticed Lost in Translation got nominated for screenplay as well, and so I expect it to win it. Every year a movie I respect for craft, but who's screenplay I think is manipulative cheap toys (yes yes, all movies are manipulative, but I'm not supposed to see the strings DURING the movie...) wins.
But if you liked Lost in Translation, I suggest you all go out and rent a Wong Kar-Wai movie, start with Chungking Express. Very similar, with a greater sense of fun- a different kind of cool though. More leather jackets and sunglasses, than NY east village a la Lost in translation.
Fellowship was my personal favorite. Boromir's storyline, well, jsut the arc of the first one in general managed to keep the scope of the movie grand and personal at the same time. By the third one, I was being swept along, but it felt more big than grand.
Still, its the way of he Oscars, they often like to reward people after they've missed their best chance.
Not only was it mainly young actors, all but a couple weren't actors before they were picked to appear in the film.
That said, City of God is a movie from a long time ago that suffered from bad support. Ah, the vagaries of the near meaningless oscars...
Anyway, I think it was visually stunning and strong, but City of God wasn't as impressive a feat of as RotK, let alone the trilogy (which is what they would be rewarding Jackson for with an oscar, rather than just this one film). If you thought City of God was something, check out Bus 174. Everything short of the biggest moments in City of God, is a cakewalk compared to that.
Actually, for the most part, its a money reasons that they make remakes are made this way. Every foreign film that isn't released in the US is seen by the studios as a kind of trial run, the foreign country being simply a rather large focus group. Thus, the Ring, and various others.
American studio budgets, and attendant risks are a lot larger than virtually any foreign film anywhere. Thus, when studios want to make movies, they want a tried and true (with the American audience) approach. And you know what, you can send these remakes with higher production values back into the world and make even more money.
The film market is such that picking a foreign film in its original form, distributed in the US, will chances are make nowhere even a close amount to making even a mediocre American movie with decent distribution.
Me, I personally like better reasons for remakes. But I don't have millions to spread around and risk.