21st century films

2001-04-22T14:23:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Easy Riders and Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind. I am reading the Chapter entitled Eve of Destruction which elaborates on how cocaine was practically everywhere in Hollywood in the late 1970s to early 1980s. Scorsese admitted to be a drug abuser citing that he needed to "take it to the extreme" since that was the lifestyle of Hollywood. The mantra of live fast and die a beautiful corpse was predominant all over Hollywood.
It is ironic that the heavy intake of cocaine by most in Hollywood resulted in some very good films such as Raging Bull from 1980. Generally speaking, I've noticed that throughout American History it takes a "quirk" to make big things happen. For example, had it not been for his rejection in the sports world of baseball, Fidel Castro may have never became dictator of Cuba. The aggravation and tension that could have been spared by a major league team letting him "play ball" would have been astronomical.
I also find it amazing that sometimes the films that required the most amount of work to produce ends up being a flop. Apocalypse Now (1979) was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and it was this film that caused Coppola's dream of a revamped studio system to be destroyed. After going over budget and shooting in hellish conditions (typhoons, disease) the movie never made up what Coppola's studio, American Zoetrope, put out. All the work and effort Coppola put out and demanded meant nothing but low box office results.
However, it is amazing that a film a director thinks will flop turns out to be a hit with audiences. When George Lucas finished and released Star Wars on May 21, 1977, he was convinced it would flop and that he would "eat the bill" even though production costs were low and he refused to go over budget like Coppola did. Lucas was proved wrong by the American public as thousands flocked to go see a film about droids and lightsabers. Viewers were introduced to characters that would become icons in film history; Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo, etc. These icons became so popular that they enabled a second trilogy to be released to theaters on May 19, 1999. Stars Wars was the founder of what came to be known as "merchandising a film". Star Wars action figures, T-shirts, mugs, etc. leapt off shelves faster than a store could stock them. It was this film that put Lucas "on the map" and established him as not a director of "twerp cinema" as Coppola called Star Wars when he first saw it. Many argue the Star Wars success made Coppola jealous and drove him to write the script for the doomed Apocalypse Now.
What is the lesson to be learned? Success always come from the people or things that one leasts suspects.

2001-04-18T09:47:00.000-07:00

A classmate remarked in my last film history class about "how crappy" movies have become in the past several years. He was correct and I agree with him in that Hollywood can do better. While the major studios are now entertainment companies there is n excuse for badly done films such as Dracula 2000 and Gone In Sixty Seconds. Both debuted last year and did not bring in the amount of money that Hollywood wanted it to. So badly done was Gone in Sixty Seconds that I was informed by my brother, who saw it, that the best part of the movie was seeing the cars, not the actors!! I was also told by a friend of mine that the only good part of Dracula 2000 was the chance to see Jeri Ryan's (Seven of Nine on Voyager) "rack".
I think that while the entertainment companies may be just producing movies like a factory assembles automobiles, it is almost impossible for independent companies to get "their foot in the door" or compete with the "Big Guns". I said almost. I think it is possible for small indy film companies to make their mark but it lies with two main ingredients: Promotion and Distribution. The audience must know the film exists and they must have a place to go see it. Without one or the other, I don't think the movie will succeed.
One can see this in the book publishing industry. Traditionally, self-publishing has been for non-fiction books and technical manuals since publishers don't like to get involved with putting them out. Today, publishers rarely hire "the new fiction author" (unless one signs a contract with a literary agent but even that is no guarantee) and would rather spend money promoting certain authors they think will bring them money. Result, many unknown authors are self-publishing their own fiction and promoting it, in some cases promoting it better than companies like DoubleDay or RandomHouse. The numbers of self-published authors are growing so much to the extent that Writer's Digest magazine holds the yearly Self-Published Books contest.
Why have I brought the latter up? Because there is a huge similarity. The entertainment companies (which own the majority of the big name publishers) and the big name publishers want to manufacture creativity, not find it or cultivate it. After a while, I think the public may get tired of films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and vampire novels. While the philosophy of "go with what works" is sound, it can not apply to the ever changing tastes of the American public. For example, if a teenager from 1980 was to hear Limp Bizkit for the first time he would probably say it is garbage. The same goes for a teenager in 2001 who would hear The Police for the first time. I also doubt that thirty or fifty years from now that Limp Bizkit will still be number one on the charts.
I think the entertainment companies should take a long, hard, objective look at what films they are producing and why the bulk of them, are very bad. Again, it is impossible to manufacture creativity. One must find the talent or develop the talent. I don't think being familiar with film history would hurt either. I think it would be a plus. Personally, I find myself going to the theater less and renting less. I love the movies but if it is a flop then why should I spend my money?
A wise person once said, "It is not failure, but low aim, that is crime". If Hollywood continues to aim any lower then they will sink their own ship.

2001-04-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Easy Riders and Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind. The first chapter of the book is about Warren Beatty and his "bad boy" image. Biskind informs the reader that this image almost ended Beatty's career. Between telling directors that their work was "crap" and sleeping with every woman he could get his hands on, to say Beatty was an interesting actor is an understatement.
I wasn't surprised by Beatty's antics or cynical attitude towards Hollywood. Actors after him have done the same or far worse. I think that promiscuity among the talent in Hollywood will always be there. What amazed me the most was that for all his recklessness, Beatty came up smelling like roses when Bonnie and Clyde debuted in 1967. The film intially was called trash and it was only through Pauline Kael, and others of her kind, that saved the film. Kael and co. were tired of the old Hollywood and wanted the New Hollywood, with its violence and wanton sex, to succeed.
I doubt that another Hollywood Revolution will come again and one can argue that the Hollywood we have today are aftershocks of that Revolution that began back in 1967. A revolution, that in my opinion, was for the best.

2001-03-27T09:49:00.000-08:00

While I didn't have time to watch the Oscars I caught a few clips of the ceremony on the news. This Oscar ceremony was different in that there was a new master of ceremonies, Steve Martin, and the production itself had a more slick yet classy feel to it.
Ceremonies such as the Academy Awards contrast such vile incidents in Hollywood such as Robert Downey Jr's run-ins with the law. Hollywood glamour hides the ugliness of an industry.
Hollywood scandals such as affairs, murders, and even fights on set make for newsworthy items on shows such as Talk Soup or The Drudge Report. Some have even been made into movies themselves! I'm not saying Hollywood is the only industry guilty of crime and immorality. The sports industry is littered with corruption and scandal as well as the U.S. Government.
I think singling out Hollywood as the sole reason for the loss of morality in America is wrong and does not make sense. Children learn from their parents and tv has little, if anything, to do with teens committing crimes or killing one another. To argue that 1999's "The Matrix" led to the Columbine High School massacre is unrealistic. Actors wearing trench coats and carrying firearms have been around for years. They appeared in early Westerns and even reappeared again in 1989's Tombstone starring Val Kilmer. I am tired of this ridiculous tradition of "blaming Hollywood." Yes, some of what the actors/actresses do is wrong but an argument can be made is that all they owe us is a good performance...That's it. However, a counter-argument can be made is that the reason the "stars" lives are on parade is because they sacrifice their own anonymity so to attain money and recognition. Americans won't admit it but we crave tabloids, smut, etc. because it strikes at the heart of our curiosity. I myself don't mind watching a tabloid news magazine and hearing about stars who have "slept around" or been caught smoking things they shouldn't.
I think the main observation that can be made about ceremonies like the Oscars and tragedies like Robert Downey Jr. is that people love the spotlight... .for better or worse.

2001-03-18T16:40:00.000-08:00

Control. That was what Hollywood was about in regards to making and producing films. Thalberg, Selznick, and their like were maestros of a large orchestra called the Hollywood studio. They were able to produce hit after hit but only through organized, sometimes dictatorial, control. Thalberg and co. set up systems that could not only create and preview films for future release but systems that could run without their presence. In short, their systems were so full proof that anyone could be in the driver's seat.
I found it amazing how the actors, directors, etc. were either treated like cattle or manipulated into thinking they had control in making and producing the films of the 1930s and 40s. Thalberg and co. were not evil or immoral in what they did but believed they could make more movie hits than the directors, actors, etc. were capable of. I think that this type of "system" still exists today. Films that are touted "Jerry Bruckheimer Production" or "Ivan Reitman Production" hark back to the days of Thalberg and when the "system" was in full control. I still believe film is a collective art and that many individuals, large or small role, contribute to making a film a success. It is my humble opinion that Hollywood is the only industry that I know of that benefited from dictatorship.

2001-03-14T14:59:00.000-08:00

It was not until I read Celluloid Mavericks by Merritt that I realized how haphazard the movie industry was and still is. The haphazardness I'm speaking of is lack of experience in film making by the mavericks noted in Merritt's book.
For example, Roger Corman went to Stanford college and graduated with an engineering degree. Who would have thought that he would have had such an impact on the movie industry. Corman not only became the "Drive in Diety" but discovered and employed such talent as Robert Towne and even Martin Scorsese. Corman started "low man on the totem pole" and eventually worked his way up to become an influential person in Hollywood even if he was King of the B-movie.
Corman, Thalberg, Zukor and their like had no real experience with film and weren't even educated on its nuances. Most of them blazed their own trail and learned by trial, error, and experience. I find it amazing that they made films without any training or education. I think the true celluloid maverick is the one who has the intelligence, passion, and the marketing suave to make a film no matter what obstacle may come in his or her way. The most recent example of this spirit was 1999's Blair Witch Project.
As Celluloid Mavericks proves, a great idea can not be suppressed by social or class status. Many of the mavericks were just people who loved to watch and make movies. Most of the mavericks wanted to make a profit but it can be inferred that money wasn't the reason why they wanted to make the films they did. They made them because they wanted to.
Upon finishing the first half of Celluloid Mavericks I can't help but be reminded of a popular marketing quote put out by a large sneaker company---"Just do it."

2001-03-10T17:17:00.000-08:00

I recently watched a video on HUAC and its devastating effects on the careers of Hollywood actors and directors of the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s. I wasn't suprised by the persecutive tactics of McCarthy nor the ultra-paranoid fever known as McCarthyism. I think that HUAC did more harm than good and really didn't have any idea what it was talking about. For example, they made individuals testify because they were suspected of Un-American activities. What are Un-American activities? Better yet, what is an American? Ask these two questions to the American masses and one will probably end up with a myriad of answers.
Americans eventually grew to hate McCarthy and it was his own lust for political power that led to his demise but there is something to be learned about the period of the "Red Scare."
Americans love to be told what to think and say instead of thinking for themselves. The American masses feared a Russian communist takeover but no one bothered to ask what communism was? Also, how would they achieve a feat such as converting America to communism? The mentality, in short, was shoot first and ask questions later. Just as humanity is the ultimate self-deceiver we are also the most paranoid. We are so obsessed that we will lose our identity or possessions that it overtakes common sense. Paranoia, if nothing else, if the assassin of common sense. It deludes, perverts, and even misleads but worst of all it does not discriminate on whom it wishes to corrupt.
I think the first lesson that can be learned from HUAC is one should know what one is talking about before one opens his or her mouth. Secondly, if a monumental change is going to occur politically or economically then it will happen no matter what. The arrogant notion that humanity is master of its own destiny is an untrue, overused cliche'. If one disagrees with me then look to the 1929 stock market crash in the U.S. Everyone thought they had the economy figured out until the foundation was pulled out from under them. I'll admit, we can try to combat change or try to maintain the status quo but sometimes that may not work. Sometimes "rolling with the punches" may be the only option for surviving mammoth change.
The 21st century should be interesting.

2001-03-06T08:21:00.000-08:00

The screenwriters strike will be upon America this May and I am surprised that I have seen little attention to paid to it either by the media or by people I socialize with. I'm not surprised since the screenwriters themselves claim they are not treated fairly or even given respect. One could infer that they are treated like a toothpick. Once they are used they are conveniently thrown away.
I have been reading Genius of the System by Thomas Schatz and I wonder how his generation would have handled a strike as the one that is coming in May. In the days of 1930s and 1940s Hollywood the screenwriter appeared to be a valued asset to the collective art that was film. That seems to be the question on my mind....Does 21st century Hollywood still consider film a collective art? I think not since most films have such tag lines as "A Jerry Bruckheimer film" or "A Quentin Tarintino film"
What about the others who helped out? In addition to the screenwriters what about the producers, the make up artists, the special effects people, and even the archivists (if it is a historical film and/or a film relating to a certain time period). Where do they get the credit? Without those individuals and many others the film would not exist!
Dr. Glasker, who teaches on this campus, once said that humans are the ultimate self-deceivers. I think this can be applied to the impending strike. The Hollywood elite have convinced themselves that the strike is of no matter and that everything will be peaches and cream. I doubt it.
This strike will yield no winners, only losers. The screenwriters won't be writing movies or getting a paycheck. The studios won't be receiving movie scripts and they won't be making money either. A vicious cycle is about to begin in May unless one side attempts to compromise with the other.
Sadly, the movie viewer is the biggest loser of all.

2001-02-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

I recently saw an episode of Jackass which is shown on Mtv on Sundays. It is a game show which shows person(s) subjecting themselves to doing stupid or dangerous acts all to attain a cash prize. After seeing one episode I am convinced that tv networks and/or writers are desperate for new ideas. I like watching mindless tv now and then but Jackass makes pro-wrestling look like a forum for philosophical debate.
Long gone are the days of Mtv when they used to show nothing but rock videos 24 hours a day. Back in the early 1980's, the idea of polluting Mtv with lousy programs and stupid game shows was unthinkable. Mtv played such a crucial role in the music industry that to see it the way it is today is like seeing a dying relative on life support.
I am not stating that all tv programs have to be serious or have intellectual value but shows like Jackass are just vile. I admit I don't mind seeing adult situations in films or tv but seeing an individual submit himself to being stung by a thousand bees, like in Jackass, is just ridiculous.
Instead of criticizing I offer a suggestion. If the tv industry is desperate for ideas why not take submissions from young, aspiring communication majors who are in school or have just graduated. Being open to suggestions from tv viewers is not a bad idea either. Essentially, new blood is the only thing that can keep the heart of television beating. Presently, I think it is on the verge of flatlining.
There is a fine line between innovation and the extinction of common sense.

2001-02-24T10:41:00.000-08:00

After putting the trash out I realized that in the next 15 yrs I will have quite a problem on my hands. What to do with my VCR?
Ever since DVD's debuted in the mid 1990s they have been a success. They not only have a crystal clear picture that does not use of tv lines but such interesting features as Easter Eggs. An Easter egg is a hidden piece of video on the DVD that contains either a special performance by the actor or lost footage. For example, in Jim Carrey's 1999 film Man on the Moon there is an Easter egg on it that features a lost 1973 performance by the late Andy Kaufman at a New York comedy club.
DVD's are in overwhelming demand and the future for the video cassette looks bleak. My brother and I both have videotape collections and he recently bought a playstation 2 which also can play DVD's. I do enjoy DVD's but I also don't want to trash my videotape collection because VCR's will no longer be manufactured in the near future. As far as I know, there will be no "conversion" of one's old tapes to blank DVD's. I don't even know if such a process exists?
Just as a Betamax owner in the early 1980s was a victim of VHS' dominance so to will I be a victim of the DVD revolution. I don't like it but on the other hand the DVD is superior to a video cassette. The only option I foresee is to buy the latest VCR model when it comes out and hope I can make it last a lifetime. I also may have to find out if there are still any VCR repairmen alive just in case it breaks.
It is easy for one to say "just throw them away!" but I have invested too much money in my collection to throw it in the trash. Progress versus stability......the battle rages on.

2001-02-22T17:20:00.000-08:00

Americans hate endings. Whether it be the end of a great football game or that party last night where you met that hot blonde wearing that short cut dress.
Endings, generally speaking, are not liked but for some things endings are good. Television would be a classic example. It is impossible for a tv program to continue infinitely. While some tv programs have lasted ten, twelve, or even thirty years they must end. They end either because of no more money, lack of interest among the viewers, or the actors, writers, etc. are just tired of doing the program.
I keep these factors in mind when I watch the X-files, especially this year. The X-files debuted on the Fox network in fall of 1992. The program starred David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson who play Agents Mulder and Scully. The X-files was a sleeper tv hit and it made Duchovny and Anderson overnight success stories. Both had struggled for years to make their "mark" in the entertainment industry and now they had done what had eluded them for so many years. The show grew in immense popularity and its creator, Chris Carter, was slowly becoming a celebrity like Duchovny and Anderson. No one cared or knew who Chris Carter was until a year into the show's run. The X-files range from stories about ghosts, aliens, vampires, and even human oddities. I've been watching the show since I was a freshman in high school and there were many friday nights that I would plop myself on the floor with nachos and salsa and delve into the weirdness that was the X-files.
I still watch the show but I am coming to the realization that it is becoming redundant and flat. Some of the stories regarding the "alien conspiracy" are beginning to trip over each other in regards to continuity. The episodes about ghosts and human oddities seem to lack the viewing luster they once had. Even the addition of Robert Patrick to the cast appears to be less than stellar. I personally thought he was better in T2 myself.
I like the show but I find that the X-files desperately needs an ending. As I said, endings are bad in somethings but in the case of a tv program run amok, it is not a bad idea.
The X-files has had a glorious run and they even had a feature film back in summer 1998. I think Chris Carter and his team are suffering from a case of burn out and they either need to end the show or bring in new creative minds. Six years ago I would not have said this about the program but now its age is beginning to show. This is similiar to an older athlete who refuses to give up playing the game he loves. It is only by tragedy's hand that the elder athlete retires either because of death or devastating injury. I fear that if Chris Carter does not plan to wrap up the story of the X-files that it will continue to go on like a dying horse needing to be put out of its misery.
If Carter thinks endings are bad that is not true. During Babylon 5's run from 1993-1999 creator J. Michael Stracyznski let it be known that the show was only going to last five and a half years and that when Babylon 5 was over it would be over, not even a spin off. Stracyznski was one of the few writers that believed that prolonging stories past the point of what they were about was counterproductive. He also believed that it ruined the show in the long run. While Babylon 5 did have a short run in television terms, it is still considered classic sci-fi and the Babylon 5 video collection still brings Stracyznski decent royalties. This thinking also enabled him to pursue his love of writing. Stracyznski currently writes Rising Stars which is a product of Top Cow comics. He also works for Marvel comics writing Amazing Spider-Man.
Chris Carter should take a lesson from Stracyznski. There may be life after X-files and he just doesn't know it.

2001-02-17T16:51:00.000-08:00

It is amazing how something can come from nothing. Many movie viewers know very little what goes into a movie in present day 2001. Many of the actors, props, or creatures are not even real.
The computer plays a huge role in the creation of movies. The computer can do anything its user wishes it to do and given time one may wonder why Hollywood still uses actors? The turning point for computers and movies was 1991's Terminator 2 starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Patrick. Robert Patrick played the T1000 which was composed of "liquid metal." The character of the T1000 was created by a process dubbed "morphmation." This process literally created a character that could move and bend beyond the average 360 degrees. Morphmation worked better than expected.
The computer was given another test in 1993's Jurassic Park with the usage of computer generated dinosaurs to give the illusion that an island was populated by them. At present, the crowning achievement for computer special effects was 1997's Flubber starring Robin Williams. The special effects company contracted to do Flubber was not only asked to envision what Flubber would look like but how it would move, act, and interact with humans. Flubber, it could be argued, was the first computer generated actor. The largest usage of computer generated effects on record so far was 1998's Titanic starring Leonardo Dicaprio. The majority of the Titanic was computer generated as were the extras, and several of the lead characters.
While 1971 was the Hollywood Revolution it was 1991 that was the Computer Revolution. It was the latter that has now made some special effects companies the equivalent of a prestigious law firm. Their price is high but the results are well worth it. Despite the technology, if a film does not have a strong story then five star special effects can not compensate. To have a movie plot and special effects work in unison is the equivalent of watching a stage play on Broadway.
Is the digital actor far off? No one seems to know for sure. A major difficulty in computer generating humans is hair. Not producing hair itself but getting the hair to "flow" naturally. Many special effects companies are attempting to create the perfect "hair" but none have come close. Some argue that this is what holds back the digital actor from becoming a reality.
It would be interesting to show the film "Flubber" to a 1973 movie audience and see their reaction. Then again, no one had any idea that computers would have ever made it to the big screen.

2001-02-13T13:24:00.000-08:00

Just as an older generation asks where are my movies I ask where are my comedies? Whatever happened to films like Ghostbusters, Weird Science, and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? Are they relics of a previous generation or are they not practical to make anymore?
I want to compare two films; 1980's Caddyshack starring Bill Murry, Chevy Chase, and the late Ted Knight and 1998's Something About Mary starring Cameron Diaz, Matt Dillon, and Ben Stiller. Both are comedies and both have profanity and sexual situations but there is a slight difference that I have noticed.
Caddyshack is a comedy about members of the Bushwood Golf Club who get into competition with one another while Something About Mary is about Ben Stiller's character and Matt Dillon's character competing for the affection of the same woman. The plots are the first difference but it is the humor devices that are the big difference.
In Caddyshack most of the gags revolve around the pesky gopher and his battles with the insane groundskeeper played by Bill Murray. There is also a hysterical scene where Chevy Chase explains to his caddy, Danny, about the zenlike philosophy of "being with the golfball." Rarely are these funny situations driven by sex as in the case with Something About Mary.
In Something About Mary most of the gags revolve around sex and/or sexual related ideas. There is one scene where Mary, played by Cameron Diaz, mistakes Ben Stiller's character's semen (hanging off his ear) for a trendy new hair gel. There is another scene where Mary's dog dislikes Stiller's character so he lunges for Stiller's groin and bites it viciously.
My question is why do some comedies of the 1990's and even now rely on sexual gags to evoke a laugh? Why is it that screenwriters, directors, or whomever need to rely on sex and/or sexual ideas to express their humor. Make no mistake, I am not a moral crusader. I have seen my share of hustler's and XXX flicks when I was younger and sometimes still do. Someone could say to me that I am "not with the times" but I think that is a cop out. It seems that movie viewers today crave mass production over quality. It is not surprising that some of the sexual gags are even repeated in 1999's American Pie. Some even border on the unrealistic, what horny guy is going to attempt to "make love" to an apple pie. At least give the single male bachelor some credit in the department of common sense. Such overuse of hackneyed and/or uncreative ideas make it difficult for such original films like The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects to get a break in the business.
So where have my movies gone? Technically nowhere since I can still rent or buy them. But honestly, they no longer exist because the people that wrote them are either dead, retired, or possibly fed up with Hollywood as a whole. They are probably victims of progress and trends. I am not against progress but the problem with it is that sometimes some of us eat its dust.

2001-02-08T09:51:00.000-08:00

On Feb. 3, 2001 Vince McMahon made history by being the first wrestling promoter to officially launch his own football league...the XFL.
McMahon made the XFL announcement last February and received much criticism including those who hate pro-wrestling with a vegeance such as NY Times columnist Phil Mushnick. The critics claimed McMahon knew nothing of football and that it would be hokey just like his WWF.
It was the Maniax/Rage game last Sat. night that proved the critics wrong. The game was fast paced and the competition was fierce. Granted, east coast viewers only got to see the 4th quarter since the Hitmen/Outlaws game was deemed for east coast viewing.
The XFL and the WWF are two different sports entities. To attempt to compare pro-wrestling and football is like me trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The XFL is football and has none of the aspects the WWF does. However, the XFL does have different rules than the popular NFL.
XFL training camp is not paid. The motto is that if you don't like it then leave. We only want those who truly love football. Instead of a cointoss to determine possession the football is placed mid-field while one player from each team stands twenty yards away from it. At the sound of the ref's whistle both men run and whoever secures the ball first wins possession. Instead of kicking the extra point the teams must pass for the extra point. Players jerseys are allowed to have nicknames on them such as big dog, he hates me, I am cool. Even the salaries are low, the team that wins the XFL super bowl only gets one million dollars to be split amongst the entire team. These are just some of the changes that the XFL implemented to stand apart from all other football leagues.
XFL is unique in that it is minor league football on a prime time network. XFL did score very strong ratings on its debut and one could argue that Americans are tired of sports leagues that are plagued with overpaid players or players who have attitudes and have been in and out of a courtroom more times than I blow my nose. It was a severe blemish on the NFL's reputation to have the super bowl MVP, Ray Lewis, be a murder suspect in the killing of his wife. Lewis was found not guilty but the damage was done. I am not saying the XFL will not have its Ray Lewis' or other problems but it seems the way the league is structured that problems may be slim and none. Many XFL players and coaches are those who have served in the NFL or weren't "good enough" to make it to the NFL. There are even those players who don't want to be in the NFL but love the game of football.
I found it quite comical that the American media, due to the fact they hate pro-wrestling because it is able to bring in huge ratings, attempted to segeway how the XFL is like the WWF and how it will continue to promote violence and sex. Muckrakers the media is not. However, throwing muck is what they do best when it comes to being objective about pro-wrestling and ventures like the XFL.

2001-01-31T09:01:00.000-08:00

2002 if nothing else should be an interesting year for 'franchise' film. By this I am referring to Spider Man (directed by Sam Raimi), Star Trek X, and Star Wars: Episode II. It is not debated that Episode II stands to collect the most money of the three. Presently, Episode II is slated for a May release. This has caused Paramount to push Star Trek X to be released Thanksgiving Eve fearing they will not be able to compete with Episode II if they chose to release it in June as had been already thought about. Marvel, on heels of X-Men's success in summer 2000, had signed with Sam Raimi that same year to direct and produce Spider Man which contains some known and unknown actors. Raimi is best known for his work on Evil Dead I and II and on his syndicated shows Hercules and Xena: Warrior Princess. Tobey Maguire plays Peter Parker/Spider Man, Kirsten Dunst play his girlfriend; Mary Jane Watson, James Franco plays Harry Osborn (Parker's best friend and son of industrialist Norman Osborn), and William Dafoe recently signed to play Norman Osborn/Green Goblin. Marvel.com has announced it will be released in the summer but I think it may not fare well against Star Wars--a movie empire that has been in existence the same year I was born. Star Wars and Spider Man are both well known in American culture but not everyone is a comic book collector. Time will tell whether Marvel changes the date or not.
Star Trek itself is fighting to stay on tv and on the big screen. The next star trek film will be directed by veteran John logan whose credits include Bats and Any Given Sunday. Logan was purposely brought in by Paramount so to infuse "new blood" into the franchise. Also, 1998's Star Trek: Insurrection did well but did not gross the millions of money that Paramount had wanted. Paramount is not saying what the script is about or who the main villain will be. Logan himself stated he was very influenced by 1982's Star Trek II and that he will be basing Star Trek X on this. The next star trek series is rumored to be about the birth of the federation and ABC, reported by cinescape.com, may be interested in buying the show for prime time. Fans of the genre and critics have argued that Star Trek is "burned out" and that a "blackout" may be order so to recharge creativity. With the success of newcomers like Chris Carter (x files) and J. Michael Stracyznski (Babylon 5) one wonders if the masses are just tired of Star Trek or just want it to end.
Star Wars: Episode II is slated for a May 2002 release and will feature the return of actors Ewan McGregor and Samuel L. Jackson. It will continue to chronicle to adventures of Obi-wan Kenobi and a young Anakin Skywalker. George Lucas will be directing it as usual and has stated in interviews that fans will like this one better than the first. Star Wars, despite being off screen until May 1999, has a loyal following and even Doubleday books has continued to publish adventures under the Star Wars name to satisfy fans appetites. Essentially, Star Wars success is because it is Arthurian legend and concepts set in space. For example, if one removes Darth Vader's helmet and chest respirator he is indentical to a 12th century Norwegian Knight. Basically, it is "astro-Camelot".
I think, in my humble opinion, that Star Trek should take a five to ten year blackout or break. Take time to refresh ideas and see what other options there are for stories. This may be considered since Brent Spiner, who plays Commander Data, announced that Star Trek X would be his last film. Spiner told this to cinescape.com and cited old age and family time as reasons for his leaving, not salary issues. Marvel comics appears to have a bright future in film. David Goyer and Dimension Films have already started writing and will distribute Ghost Rider which may star Johnny Depp. Director Ang Lee stated he expects to have The Incredible Hulk released by 2003. Blade II: Bloodhunt comes out this fall. X Men II may be out late 2002 or summer 2003. Star Wars, after Episode III comes out in 2005, has an uncertain future. Lucas publicly stated he would make no more but money talks and.......you know the rest.
While I think Spider Man and Star Trek X will do well Star Wars will be the biggest winner. Star Wars demonstrates that if one can incorporate simple ideas into a well made screenplay then "The Force will be with them."

2001-01-30T09:52:00.000-08:00

From 1990 up until 1999 the American movie industry has transformed tv series into big budget Hollywood films. The Flintstones, Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver....these are just some examples of what has been remade to attract new and old audiences. While some of these remakes have been good there have been bad ones. I can not help but think that this onslaught may be to compensate for the poor scriptwriters. Films like Red Planet and Gone in 60 seconds not only had poor stories but utilized explosions and special effects in place of good storytelling. Is Hollywood that desperate that they must make a movie about carjackers? Better yet, well dressed and very clean carjackers....how unrealistic is that??
In short, just because one can reinvent something does not mean it will be better the second time. Originality will defeat duplication any day of the week. Also, writers should put story and plot before merchandising sales. I think it would be a gamble to write a film just to promote the sales of t-shirts and coffee mugs. I think merchandising should be secondary and the quality of the film should be primary. It probably is not easy to write a good script with good actors but someone once said pain is temporary but pride is forever.