Prequels and Laura Croft: A combination worth seeing?

Ah the joy of prequels. Yes there is nothing quite like the ability of Hollywood to go back in time, on a movie set, and to generally screw up the history and persona of any character or storyline that can make an extra buck. As you might notice, I tend to dislike prequels. They tend to be as good as revisioned movies, and you know I hate that word.

I know that everyone, including me, loved The Dark Knight. That had a lot to do with the script, which kept the theme of the Dark Knight series of graphic novels, more than Christian Bale. Though Bale did a great job. And honestly there wasn't that much of the storyline that was changed.

Another prequel that worked out well was the restart of the James Bond series of films. Of course Bond restarts every time there is a new lead. So the public can accept every change without it being a major revision. Still there is something lost in the action first, thought nowhere, Bond that is Daniel Craig.

The Superman restart was pretty much what you would expect. Not a revisioning as much as it was an attempt to draw attention back on the movie franchise. I never was a big fan of Superman to start with - he's too much of a boyscout for me - so I'll leave that alone.

But then there are movies like Wolverine, which was horrible. Yes lot's of action, and Hugh Jackman without a shirt for the ladies. But it was disappointing. The storyline was basically missing. It was just action for the sake of action. Dare I say that the majority of the film was boring. And as for any attempt at logic, well they really stretched it even for a comic book to movie conversion film.

It gets worse when you think of films like Star Trek. Lot's of action (note the recurring theme in these prequels) and angst. Not much logic or plot. Most of the things that made Trek so enduring were thrown out. And I really disliked this new version of Spock.

So to summurize, when Hollywood wants a prequel these days they load up on action, throw out the plot, ignore all logical actions, and rewrite (or revision) everything to ensure that a youthful audience will show up for the flash of skin and lots of explosions.

Thus we are led to what got me thinking about this in the first place. Laura Croft and the Tomb Raider series. Which is set to get revisioned - excuse me, a prequel is planned. A prequel without Angelina Jolie.

To be exact, Jolie is not confirmed to be out of the film yet. But unless there is some Spock-like temporal vortex, she is too old to play herself young enough to satisfy Hollywood executives. Especially with the current emphasis on more action and more explosions vs. plot (which the Tomb Raider movies were short on to start with).

Will the prequel work for Tomb Raider? Well it's hard to imagine it being worse than Cradle of Life. That film sucked. So in regard to that, there is a huge upside potential since expectations at this point are limited to a pretty woman with big boobs (likely fake enhancements as with Jolie) in a tight shirt with explosions going off around her. Sad to say but it is honest.

Of the potential actresses being rumored to take the Croft role, Megan Fox is at the top of the list. This is likely due to her performance (if it can be called that) in Transformers. A film which the director insisted

"It seems that [Michael] Bay feels women should have curves and look like a person as opposed to the near-anorexic looks usually found in actresses these days. In fact he is making Megan Fox GAIN 10 lbs. for her next film Transformers 2."

A similar need for food, and exercise, will be needed if she is to be the new buxom adventuress.

The only 2 actresses I think fit the bill are Malin Akerman, of Silk Spectre II (Watchmen) fame. Though she is too old.



And Summer Glau, of Firerfly (Serendipity)



But we will see, once the director and screenwriter are picked, how this prequel will be geared. Don't expect much.

Top entertainment news story of 2008

Sometimes you can only be saddened by the actions of the media. These days the media fails the public so often that the youth of the nation tend to think this is the way the news is supposed to be. You know, chasing down stories about nothing ad nauseum. Yet there were days when in a year of tragedy and triumph the best and worst of it all would be recorded properly, at least in a year end list.

So for this year, who might you think have taken the top spot of the most important entertainment news story of the year? And for everyone spurring into action to write the election of Obama, that's politics not entertainment.

Could it be the death of Charlton Heston? He was 84, had been in movies since 1941. He made an astounding 22 films in the last decade of his career. For some in Hollywood's top tier that is their entire career. In total he made 82 films, just missing a film for each year of his life by 2. He starred or was in 15 great films that have stood the test of time. And I won't even mention his television career of some 51 years. And of course there is his political activism since the 1960's.

Nope not him.

Might it be George Carlin? Younger than Heston he died at 71. He was an actor of modest means, an author of some acclaim, but a comedian among the best on any list anyone will ever make. He was the first person to host Saturday Night Live, and the first to have the mike shut off and censors racing to the stage. Though infrequently in films his career as an actor spanned 14 films in just under 40 years - proving more his influence on the American culture he discussed and joked about so well. In times like these the loose of someone who can make us all laugh must be #1.

Not even close.

Well perhaps we need to look more political and philanthropic, like Paul Newman? Another logical justifiable choice considering that he was in films since 1952, was a director/producer of 12 films, and 11 of his 64 movies are unquestionably great - still drawing audiences from youth that have never heard of his name. And he was a race car driver of some skill. And he was an active philanthropist giving away millions, in fact tens of millions, long before Oprah made it fashionable. Then we have to add his political activism, for the left which Hollywood loves, and his support of gay marriage - a hot button issue in Hollywood these days.

Such a choice would be cold as ice.

Now you might start making wilder guesses. Maybe someone Black since Obama won and is not eligible in this category. Bernie Mac was a young 50. His death was sudden and shocking. He had just finished a film. He was part of the hugely successful Ocean's trilogy of films. He had huge success in television, in spite of the way in which it continues to maintain an overall view of America as if in the 1950's. He was a successful stand-up comedian, and had been in the business for 30 years. He was a family man, and had no issues. He was only in movies for a decade, but he made 27 films of which at least half were decent if not better.

You were better off picking Obama.

No the number 1 entertainment news story in America for 2008 was in fact.... Heath Ledger's death.

Because Heath ledger killed himself with an overdose of drugs. He was 28, had made 19 films of which most people could only name 8 at best. He was best known for his role as a gay cowboy, and as the worst Joker ever (in my opinion). His death was used to slather on hype to a sequel far inferior to its predecessor.

If the media were truly honest they might say that Heath Ledger won because he made them a lot of money. The movie studios used his death like a flag to rake in money, and no one would dare say anything against their film because Ledger was dead (except me). And they have kept the story going since January, fueling the chance (almost definite) of Ledger winning an Oscar - because he is dead and made a great movie about being gay. Hollywood can't resist that combination.

Maybe I shouldn't care, but I won't drink sand because the major media tells me it's water. Ledger may have been a great person, but I didn't know him. All I do know is that he was a rising star, that had performances that meant nothing to me. His last role was all hype, and he killed himself with drugs. That does not place him above a massive philanthropist and exceptional talent. it doesn't even place him above moderate talents with better resumes and longer careers.

But lest you think me too harsh, the top 10 entertainment list of 2008 as picked by the media goes on as follows:

• The writer's strike ends - money and media jobs
  
• Dark Knight becomes a blockbuster - money and inferior to Iron Man or the orginal
  
• Saturday Night Live becomes popular again - money and politics
  
• Britney Spears - making parenthood a joke and drugs interesting
  
• Paul Newman - he is BELOW Britney - HOW!
  
• TV is on the Web - money
  
• George Carlin - Way down on the list
  
• Tim Russert died - which was big news and one of the media's own
  
• Jennifer Hudson's family dies - horrible and sad.
  [Charlton Heston did not make the list likely because he was a known staunch Republican. Hollywood hates that.]
  

Out of the dozens and dozens of entertainers and celebrities that died or made real news in this past year Ledger is number 1? People who contributed more to the art and society than Ledger ever tried to do died this year, but the media can't stop talking about him. It's an insult to so many that died, and to the public the media is supposed to serve.

Any death is sad, but ranking hype and money over substance may be worse.

Heath Ledger will win an Oscar - who is surprised

Ah the Oscar rumours are starting to pour out. And in yet another year of generally poor movies the majority of films being selected are yet again probably those you have never heard before.

Though there is one exception this year. Batman: The Dark Knight. That film will get an Oscar nod. Everyone is sure of it. And Heath Ledger will win posthumously. Everyone is sure of that too.

Since the moment that Ledger was found dead, there has been nothing but hype about The Dark Knight, and his performance as the Joker. I believe I said at the time that he was sure to win, and that the movie will bring in tons of money. It seems this will happen.

But I continue to believe that the movie was horrible. I thought the Ledger Joker was the worst version I have ever seen. The animated Batman series has a better Joker, and that is a kids version.

But that will not stop the Oscars from handing him an award. He's dead and there was way too much hype. He has to get the award lest Hollywood be called an unsympathetic place for drug addicts. Well maybe Ledger was not an addict, though he did die from a drug overdose. Close enough.

But his personal problems are not what the awards should be about. It's about the acting. And while he was good in a role that was written horribly and directed without the dark manic humor that defines the character, it was hardly Oscar quality. But when you are in a desert and all you have is sand to drink.

Still there is hope. The Wrestler is still getting mostly rave reviews, Seven Pounds has yet to hit theaters and The Soloist has yet to be mentioned. But if there has to be an action film, based on a comic book that must win an Oscar for 2008 (because I believe 2009 will go to the Watchmen) then I would pick Iron Man. That was far superior to The Dark knight in all respects.

But since I'm not a member of the Academy, we will see.

The Joker - an example of speculating and not collecting

Do you recall back in the day when you would play with a 3 inch Yoda doll that was part of your Star Wars collection? I’m talking about the toys based on the original movie, before they paid attention to which chapter they represented. They were fun and cool and everyone wanted a Darth Vader or Boba Fett (which came out before the second movie as I recall).

Perhaps you were more interested in the G.I. Joe dolls. Each stood about 6” tall and some had special abilities like ‘karate action’ or an ‘eagle eye’ or simply a 'fuzzy' beard. Again this is before the cartoon series that spawned a new version of toys, a mere 3” tall.

If you do recall these toys, or others like them, with joy in your heart don’t search on eBay. The prices these then-modestly priced items go for now will astound most. But some want to search around for the latest in the Batman: Dark Knight series of toys, or the X-Men, Hulk, Spiderman and so on. They should choose carefully.

There are hordes of would be collectors buying up the various items each movie spawns, hoping that one of their purchases will one day broker their dream vacation. A great example of this is the current craze for all goods that are the Joker, bearing a likeness to Heath Ledger. Honestly I think such pursuits are a waste.

Collecting generally happens either because of a rarity of an item, it’s representation of a significant event in time, age, or it’s value as an item of fond memories – even if those memories are second or third hand. That’s why you can sell a good condition Dr. Seuss Green Eggs and Ham first edition book for several thousand dollars. Or why certain stamps are priceless. The same can be said of the above mentioned Star Wars, G.I. Joe, and various coin collections. There is a value that can stand the test of time.

But today there is a rush based on minor activities and passing curiosity. Not unlike the comic book craze in the late 1980’s that caused comic book prices to rise dramatically, and then all but the older, rarer books to have that value nearly evaporate within a year or 2.

Heath Ledger is dead. It is a shame. But he did not die, say like Bruce Lee – at the top of his career, rising in legend and acclaim, in the middle of filming what might have been a classic film. Mr. Ledger died of a drug overdose that he gave himself. No mystery or glamour to it. His death was no Marilyn Monroe event. He was no mega-star. Thus there is no significant event that can survive time.

Thus anyone hoarding the Joker toys is making a massive bet that Ledger will be remembered in an historic manner in 5 years, thus giving a value to their collected items. I’m sure they are also hoping that the millions of other items produced before his death, and more than a few after, will all wind up in the trash as little Jonnie or Jane grow up. But considering many of the Joker items, and Batman as well, were snapped up by hopeful collectors (or speculators might be better to describe them) the chances are slim for rarity. Thus the hope of selling an item in the future to die-hard Heath Ledger fans diminishes.

Since the Joker items have just come out along with the movie, age is something that won’t happen for another decade or more. And considering the trend of Hollywood to ‘revision’ older successful films, it’s highly likely that by the time any item today becomes a fond memory of a middle- or later aged adult, there will be at least one more version of Batman corralling bad guys on either a small or big screen.

So overall the chances of a Heath Ledger Joker item becoming a collectible of worth are unlikely. Now I don’t say this to diminish the memory of Heath Ledger, but this is the most recent and dramatic point that can be made right now.

Collecting is not speculation. It should not be done with the hope of a reward in the future. That kind of wait-and-sell is best suited for the stock market, and your odds are far better there. Collecting should be done for the sheer joy of it.

I recently sold a few of my Magic The Gathering cards. I owned them from my time in California (in the early 1990’s) when I started to play the game and collect the cards after I had broken my leg in a motorcycle accident. I had no idea what the value was then, and even less now. But when I sold them – clearing away some things as I moved into a new house – I found out that just 3 of my cards alone were worth $200. That was more than I had spent on the whole collection. And I honestly had a hard time selling them.

I think that is the real value of a collection. The emotion it provides the buyer, and holds for the seller. If you start a collection for any other reason than that, you’re probably wasting your money and time.