Television Cycles

From time to time in this blog I have discussed cycles in television. I've discussed the spy cycle of the Sixites and the Western cycle of the Fifties among others. For those of you who are wondering what a cycle is, it is basically a trend or direction; in the instance of television it is ususally a trend or direction in the genres or formats of TV shows. Here I must point out that television is not the only medium in which cycles take place. Motion pictures have had their fair share of cycles. There was the gangster cycle of the Thirties and the fantasy cycle of the Eighties. Comic books have had their fair share of cycles, too, the most obvious example being the Golden Age of comic books when superheroes were in vogue. I suppose another way of looking at cycles, whether they are in television, movies, music, or some other medium, are as fads of a sort. The primary difference between a cycle and a fad that I can see is that fads tend to have a lot shorter life span.

One thing that cycles do have in common with fads is that it is sometimes difficult to determine what causes them. In some cases, the cause may be fairly obvious. As I see it, the Western cycle of the Fifties was pretty much the result of at least three things. The first thing was the continued popularity of the Western in motion pictures, books, and comic books. From the Silent Era to the Fifties, Hollywood probably produced more Westerns than any other genre, even though the majority were admittedly B movies. Western authors, such as Max Brand, Zane Grey, and Louis L'Amour have always have large followings. It was perhaps inevitable that television would start making Westerns in large quantities. Second, 1952 and 1953 saw two major motion pictures in the Western genre top the box office--High Noon and Shane respectively. With two Westerns being fairly respectable hits at the box office, television producers and the networks might well look to the genre as a possible source of hit TV series. Third, there were three Westerns that debuted in 1955: Cheyenne, The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp , and Gunsmoke. All three of these things perhaps led to the Western cycle of the Fifties, although I have to wonder if the third may have been the most pivotal in the creation of the cycle. Let's face it, if Cheyenne, The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp, and Gunsmoke had flopped, there would have been no Western cycle. While debut more shows of the same type as shows that have bombed?

In fact, I think more often than not cycles result from television producers and the networks rushing to create more series of the same type as the latest hit. There is perhaps no more obvious example than the police procedural cycle of the past few years. Law and Order and its spinoffs have performed relatively well over the years, and then in 200 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation debuted. The show became a hit and as a result the networks rushed to create yet more police procedurals. Another example is the reality show cycle of the past few years. Survivor was the hit of summer 2000. As a result, the networks debuted yet more and more reality series.

Of course, sometimes the cause of any given cycle may not be blatantly obvious. This seems to me to be true of the majority of medical show cycles in the history of television. It seems to me that cycles in medical shows simply spring out of thin air, with two or three series debuting at once. Unlike the Western cycle of the Fifties, there are no hit movies one can look to as a source of inspiration. Unlike the police procedural cycle of the Naughts, there is not one single hit show (in this case, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation), that one can look to as having sparked the cycle. It seems to me medical shows cycles just spring up with no discernable cause. By way of example, both Dr. Kildare and Ben Casey debuted in 1961, even though there were no movies with a medical theme that had been hits at the box office. The fact that both of those shows were hits did create a small medical cycle in the early Sixties, although it produced no hits. In 1994 both E.R. and Chicago Hope (I think yet another medical show may have debuted that season as a mid-season replacement, although I may be wrong on that...), even though there was no apparent interest on the part of the public in medical shows. Again, both E.R. and Chicago Hope were hits and sparked a small cycle towards medical shows. I am sure that there was something that sparked both the medical show cycles of the Sixties and Nineties, but it is not one that seems to me to be blatantly obvious. I rather suspect figuring out the cause between both cycles could prove very difficult.

As to whether cycles in television are a good thing or not, that is difficult to say. On the one hand, there have been cycles that hae produced a number of classic series. The Western cycle of the Fifties, the spy cycle of the Sixties, and the imaginative sitcom cycle of the Sixties all produced their fair share of classic shows. On the other hand, cycles can force shows of other genres off the air until, in the end, the television schedule is dominated by shows of one single genre. This happened with the Western cycle of the Fifties. There were seasons during the Western cycle when there was virtually a Western TV show every night, but a noticeable lack of police or medical shows. The same was true to a lesser degree of the lawyer cycle of the Nineties. There were a lot of lawyer shows on the air, but very few sci-fi shows or mysteries. Worse yet, it seems to me that the lawyer shows of that time were largely derivative. As to whether any given cycle is good or bad, I suppose that depends on one's point of view. Obviuosly if one hates lawyer shows, then he or she will not like a cycle towards them.

It is difficult to say what cycles will arise in television in the coming years, although the success of Lost and Desperate Housewives may offer some clues. At any rate, as long as the public gets swept in various fads and crazes, I rather suspect the television industry will have cycles in programming. It seems to me that it is an established part of the television industry probably will never change.

Superheroes Coming to a Theatre Near You

It seems obvious to me that Hollywood is going through another cycle of superhero movies. Last year saw the release of Hellboy and Spider-Man II. This year will see the release of Batman Begins and The Fantastic Four. Next year will see the release of Superman Returns. And, believe it or not, more superheroes might make it to theatres.

Wonder Woman has been around since 1941, but she never has made it to the big screen. She has apparently held more appeal for the television industry than movie makers. William Dozier (producer of the Sixties Batman TV show) produced a pilot for a comedy featuring the Amazing Amazon. With regards to cartoons, she appeared on the various Superfriends cartoons of the Seventies, as well as a guest appearance on The Brady Kids (don't ask...). More recently she has been a regular on the Cartoon Network's Justice League cartoons. Of course, there was also the Seventies live action TV show featuring Lynda Carter in the role. But there has never been a major motion picture featuring Wonder Woman. Now it seems that there may well be. Warner Brothers has signed Joss Whedon (creator of both Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly) to write and direct a Wonder Woman feature film. Whedon has yet to determine the setting for the script. There has also been no one cast in the role of Wonder Woman yet. Rumours have had Jessica Biel, Charisma Carpenter, Eliza Dukshu, Rosario Dawson, and even Kim Basinger considered for the part.

My own thoughts on a Wonder Woman movie is that it should be set during World War II and remain somewhat loyal to creator William Moulton Marston's conception of the character. I have always thought Wonder Woman seemed out of place in modern times--she is just too much a product of the World War II era. Indeed, I think the TV show featuring Lynda Carter went way down hill when it moved to CBS and a 1970s setting. As to the casting, I favour either Charisma Carpenter or Eliza Dukshu. Definitely a brunette should be cast in the role. That pretty much leaves Kim Basinger out, who may well be too old for the part anyhow (I always pictured Wonder Woman has being twentyish).

To read more on the story go to Yahoo News.

In other news, it seems The Flash might make it to the big screen, too. Warner Brothers has signed David Goyer to write and direct a Flash feature film. Goyer has written such films as Dark City, the Blade movies and this summer's Batman Begins. Fittingly, he has also written comic books, most notably JSA (the current Justice Society of America title, in which the original Flash is a featured character).

Like Wonder Woman, The Flash is not a new character. The original, Golden Age Flash first appeared in 1939. Unfortunately, superheroes declined in popularity in the late Forties and The Flash's titles were cancelled or changed to different formats (Westerns, funny animals). He would make his last appearance for a nearly a decade in 1951, in the pages of All Star Comics (the original Justice Society of America title). In 1956 National Periodical Publications revived the "Flash" name with a new character, complete with a new costume and new secret identity. The first appearance of this Flash is generally accepted as the beginning of the Silver Age of comic books. And it was in the pages of the Silver Age Flash's magazine that the Golden Age Flash would reappear. The Silver Age Flash died in 1986 saving the world, where upon his sidekick, The Kid Flash, then became the newest Flash.

Also like Wonder Woman, The Flash has never appeared in a major motion picture. He appeared in the later seasons of the Superfriends cartoons. And he has been a regular on Cartoon Network's Justice League cartoons. During the 1990-1991 TV season there was a TV series based on the Silver Age Flash featuring John Wesley Shipp in the role.

For more on this story, go to E Online.

Beyond reading that David Goyer has been signed to direct and write The Flash movie, I have not heard anything else. I don't know which incarnation of The Flash will be featured in the film and I guess its possible that all three could. That having been said, I suspect that it will be based on the Silver Age Flash, who is admittedly the most famous of the three. While I am a fan of the Golden Age Flash, I can't say I would be displeased whichever Flash is featured. I love all of them.

At any rate, provided both movies are well done, I look forward to both of them. I was never a big fan of Wonder Woman (although I hate to admit I watched the Lynda Carter series regularly--hey, I was going through puberty...), but I can see how a feature film done properly could be interesting. As to The Flash, I've been a fan of all three incarnations of the character. A movie featuring any of them would be a movie I would go see. Now if they can only get a Green Lantern movie off the ground...

Instant Messengers

I recently tried to download ICQ 5. I say tried because it would not let me complete the download. ICQ 5 requires a minimum of 128 MB RAM to run and I only have 64 MB RAM. Now ICQ does still offer ICQ 2003b, but it has always crashed on my computer. Two thoughts occurred to me with regards to this. First, ICQ 5 must be overloaded with unneccesary features to need 128 MB RAM to run. All I require of an instant messenger is reliablity, an ability to send offline messages, a history in which to store past chats, the various statuses (Online, Invisible, Not Available, and so on), and the ability to send files. The first ICQ build I ever used had all of these and only needed 8 MB RAM on which to run. ICQ 5 must then have a lot of things an instant messenger does not even need.

My second thought is that ICQ must be abandoning many Windows 98 and Windows ME users. After all, most Windows 98 and Windows ME users I know only have 64 MB RAM. Those that can use ICQ 2003b probably will continue to do so. As for folks like me, well, I guess I'll continue to use Trillian to access ICQ.

The shame of all this is that I am a long time ICQ user. ICQ came out in 1997 and I started using it in 1998. It was a good way of keeping in touch with friends and family. And for the most part it has proven reliable for me. Over the years I have tried other instant messengers, but I have always come back to ICQ.

One of the instant messengers I have tried is Yahoo Messenger. In fact, I used to use it regulary a few years ago when I was active in a Justice Society of America Yahoo Club. I always liked Yahoo Messenger. It is reliable and has all of the features I want in an instant messenger. And I still know a lot of people who use it. In fact, I think it is second only in popularity to ICQ among my friends.

I never have liked AOL Instant Messenger, also known as AIM. The last time I used it, which was admittedly years ago, it did not even have the ability to send offline messages. I don't even think it had an Invisible Mode. Worse yet, it seemed a bit slow. Curiously, it is supposed to boast more users than any other instant messenger, even though I know of no one who uses it. I have to wonder if the statistics are not a bit over inflated. Consider this, every AOL user and every person who downloads the Netscape browser gets AIM whether they want it or not. Now every person on AOL automatically has an AIM account. It seems possible to me that every one of these people is being counted as an AIM user, even if they never, ever use AIM. It's either that or AIM simply isn't popular with my friends.

I never have used MSN Messenger. My brother did a few years ago and he wasn't really too impressed. His thought it was a good as a very basic instant messenger, but a bit too simplistic. He thought most people would prefer ICQ or Yahoo Messenger.

I guess I should mention Trillian as I have been using it ever since ICQ came out with the last few builds of ICQLite (whose message histories would not save whole chats). Trillian is a bit hard to describe. I suppose the best way to describe it is as a instant messaging client that can log into ICQ, Yahoo, AIM, and MSN (all at once if you want to). It can also log into IRC. Trillian is very stable (I have never had it crash) and it has all the features I want out of an instant messenger.

Anyhow, I am disappointed that ICQ's latest build is so bloated that it requires 128 MB RAM. I can't even see people with a good deal more RAM than that being pleased with an instant messenger that uses that much RAM. I have a feeling that they'll find many people either sticking to ICQ 2003b or using Trillian to access ICQ. I know I for one will be using Trillian..

Ray Bradbury

As a kid and a teenager I read a lot of science fiction. I cannot say that I liked everything I read. Too often the stories and novels were far too much science and too little character or too little action for my taste. I can honestly say that Asimov bored me. There were a few science fiction authors who kept my attention: Robert A. Heinlein, Roger Zelazney, and Larry Niven among them. Delving into sci-fi books did lead me to one, great discovery: the works of Ray Bradbury. Looking back this seems strange to me. While Ray Bradbury is often counted as a science fiction writer, he is probably better classed as a fantasist.

Indeed, most of Bradbury's works contain little to no science, and often a good deal of fantasy. Even The Martian Chronicles is probably better classed as fantasy than sci-fi. At the time Bradbury wrote the various short stories that would become the novel, it was already a certainty that there was no intelligent life on Mars. I think the fact that Bradbury is a fantasist rather than a sci-fi writer is much of the reason he still holds so much appeal for me.

Ray Bradbury was born on August 22, 1920 in Waukegan, Illinois. His family would eventually move to Tuscon, Arizona and eventually Los Angeles, but Bradbury still regards Waukegan as his hometown. In fact, one can see the influence of small town life in much of Bradbury's work. I would say that the one thing Bradbury introduced to the fantasy and horror genres was the blending of American, small town life with fantastic elements. Long before Stephen King wrote any of his books, Bradbury had already set fantastic stories and novels in small town settings.

Bradbury was first published when he was very young. He was only 20 when his first story was published in Weird Tales. His first collection of short stories, Dark Carnival, was published when he was only 27. Not only was Bradbury first published when he was fairly young, but he is also very prolific. He has published over 500 works of literature and written screenplays and teleplays on top of all that.

Although much of Bradbury's work is characterised by a blending of the fantastic and the ordinary, there is a good deal of variety in his work too. Fahrenheit 451, a novel set in a futuristic society where all books are banned, is the one of Bradbury's works that is clearly science fiction. The Martian Chronicles, although often classed as sci-fi, is perhaps better considered a futuristic fantasy. Bradbury's most famous novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, is a horror novel with strong fantasy elements. This variety can also be seen in his many short stories. "The Burning Man," in which two people on a drive through the country side encounter a raving, old man, is perhaps best considered horror. "The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit," dealing with a suit that gives the wearer an extraordinary feeling for life, is clearly fantasy. "Zero Hour," dealing with the subject of alien invasion, is perhaps best considered sci-fi.

As mentioned earlier, Bradbury also wrote screenplays and teleplays. He wrote the screenplay for the 1953 version of Moby Dick. He also wrote the screenplays for Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland and The Halloween Tree. A proposed screenplay for Gene Kelly provided the basis for Something Wicked This Way Comes. Bradbury also worked a good deal in television. He wrote two episodes for Alfred Hitchcock Presents, episodes for The Twlight Zone, and two episodes for The Alfred Hitchcock Hour. He served as the host for Ray Bradbury Theater and the series adapted many of his short stories. Many of his works have provided the basis for feature films, among them It Came From Outer Space, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, Fahrenheit 451, The Illustrated Man, and Something Wicked This Way Comes.

I honestly don't think too many writers from the 20th century will be remembered in times to come. In my humble opinion, Ray Bradbury will be one of them. He was one of the first writers to blend the ordinary and the fantastic. His writing style is lyrical, almost poetic, yet at the same time very easy to read. And he has written in a wide variety of genres, never sticking only to one. I do think Ray Bradbury's works will be read for centuries to come.

Coca-Cola: the Real Thing

I have been a big fan of Coca-Cola ever since I was a child. I can't say that it was the first soft drink I ever drank, that would be Double Cola. It wasn't even the soft drink that I drank the most, that again would be Double Cola. But it was and still is my favourite soft drink.

Coca-Cola was a well established part of American society and American pop culture when I was born. Indeed, it was already a well established piece of Americana when my mother and father were born. Coke was invented in 1886 by Dr. John S. Pemberton. It was first served at the soda fountain in Jacob's Pharmacy in Atlanta, Georgia. While Pemberton invented the drink, he would not be the one who turn into a million dollar business. Ill in health, Pemberton started selling stock in the company. Among the buyers was one Asa Candler. It would not be long before Candler would have control of the company. It was under Candler that Coca-Cola Company was incorporated in 1892. It was also under Candler that Coca-Cola went from only being served at soda fountain to be sold at stores in bottles. It was also under Candler that Coca-Cola went from a regional drink to a national one. By 1908, it was difficult to go anywhere in the United States without seeing some sort of advertising for Coca-Cola.

Such success naturally created imitators. In fact, Coca-Cola company eventually found itself suing other soda drink manufacturers over the use of the word "cola." The company sued both Royal Crown and Pepsi for the use of the word. After literally years, Coca-Cola Company would lose the lawsuits on a technicality. Strangely enough, as jealous as of Coca-Cola Company was over the word "cola," for years they discouraged people from using the nickname "Coke" for their product. The company's objection to the nickname was simple; "coke" even then was a slang term for cocaine. Finally, in the Forties, Coca-Cola Company gave up and embraced the nickname they had once disliked.

Of course, part of Coca-Cola's success lie in the company's advertising. In fact, perhaps no other company has such a rich history of great advertising slogans. Its earliest slogan was a simple but effective "Drink Coca-Cola." By 1922 Coca-Cola ads would boast, "Thirst knows no season," but it was in 1929 that Coke's ad men developed one the soft drink's two quintessential slogans--"The pause that refreshes." One of the most successful advertising slogans of all time, it is still associated with the soft drink. The other quintessential slogan for Coca-Cola was developed in the late Sixties, although the phrase "the real thing" had been used as early as the Forties: "It's the real thing." Of course, Coca-Cola Company did not employ slogans alone to sell the soft drink. Some of the best art in the Twentieth Century was created simply to sell Coke. Gil Elvgren painted a bevy of lovely ladies for Coca-Cola advertisements. And Haddon Sundblom's paintings Santa Claus remain famous to this day. Of course, like nearly every other major product of the Twentieth Century, Coca-Cola used celebrities in their advertising. Cary Grant, Jean Harlow, Claudette Cobert, and Clark Gable all appeared in ads for Coke.

Coca-Cola has gone through many Golden Ages, but I would guess that I was born during one of them. In 1961 Coca-Cola received even more exposure in Billy Wilder's Comedy One, Two, Three. In 1961 the company introduced Sprite, which has gone onto become one of the more successful soft drinks out there. And the company had two very successful advertising campaigns. In 1963 ads for the soft drink boasted "Things go better with Coke." And, as mentioned above, the late Sixties saw the introduction of the slogan "It's the real thing." Nineteen seventy one may have marked a high point for Coke advertising. It was that year that the classic "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial aired on television.

One would think that as well established as Coca-Cola was, as much of part n of Americana as it was, as much of an icon as it was, that Coca-Cola Company would not want to meddle with the product. Amazingly enough, they did. In 1985 Coca-Cola Company introduced "New Coke." "New Coke" was intended to replace the original Coca-Cola, even though it was still the most successful soft drink in the world and even though it was clearly an American institution. The reaction of the public was, quite simply, outraged. Coca-Cola Company was flooded with phone calls and letters demanding the return of the original Coca-Cola. People (including myself) began hoarding the original product. Within three months Coca-Cola Company was forced to announce the return of the original Coca-Cola under the name "Coca-Cola Classic." As to New Coke, let's just say it is no longer being manufactured...

The reaction to New Coke taught Coca-Cola Company something that apparently everyone else knew. Coca-Cola is as much a part of America as baseball and apple pie. While there are those who favour Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, or some other soft drink, it is Coca-Cola that has always sold the best. And it is Coca-Cola that figures the most in American pop culture, from songs ("Rum And Coca-Cola," being one example) to movies (the aforementioned One, Two, Three). Somehow I get the feeling that had Pepsico decided to replace their original product with "New Pepsi" in 1985, the reaction would not have been quite so extreme...

Blinkies

With the new, modified template and the second sidebar you might notice that I have picked up a lot of blinkies. All of them are adopted except for two--The Prisoner ("I am not a number...") and The Avengers blinkie ("Mrs. Peel, we're needed..."). If anyone wants to snag them (including my own), go right ahead.

I only learned about blinkies awhile back. It seems as if they just started popping up on blogs and websites. I suppose that there is a regular blinkie fad taking place. Of course, the internet has seen its share of fads before. I remember that it was not long after I first got connected that everyone had to have web pages with black backgrounds. And, of course, animated gifs (which blinkies are) had their time in the sun. I have to wonder who created the first blinkie. Given the nature of the internet, I suppose no one will ever know. Whoever it was does seem to have started an outright craze.

Anyhow, I obviously like the idea of blinkies. They seem like a handy way of letting people know about one's interests and even one's personality.

A New Look and Paul Henning

Well, any regular readers out there will notice that I have once more changed my layout. This particular template comes from Window of Appearances. I like it because its appearance doesn't change too drastically in different resolutions and it scrolls well. I do have to warn anyone who is interested in using this template that it is literally a bare bones template. You'll have to add your own colours and so on to get it to look the way you want it.

In other news, this week has seen the passing of two major figures in television. The first was a a fellow Missourian and literally a television legend. Paul Henning, creator of The Beverly Hillbillies, died at age 93 after a prolonged illness. Paul Henning was born and raised in Missouri, growing up in Independence. Graduating from the Kansas City School of Law, Henning found himself in radio rather than practising law. He submitted a spec script to Fibber McGee and Molly, leading to a 15 year career with the show. He also wrote for The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, and accompanied Burns and Allen when they moved to television. Paul Henning had a fairly successful career as a writer in television. He wrote for The Dennis Day Show, The Ray Bolger Show, Where's Raymond, and The Real McCoys. His big break came as producer of a series featuring a fellow Missourian, The Bob Cummings Show (Cummings was born in Joplin).

While The Bob Cummings Show was successful, it would be dwarfed by Henning's very own creation, The Beverly Hillbillies. In its very first season, The Beverly Hillbillies became the number one show in television. In fact, some of its episodes still rank in the top 100 highest rated programmes of all time, a remarkable achievement for any show. The Beverly Hllibillies ran nine years, spending most of that time at the top of the ratings. In fact, when it was cancelled it was not due to low ratings, but because CBS had decided to do away with rural programming. While The Beverly Hillbillies was attacked relentlessly by crtics when it was first on the air, it has since been avenged. Many TV historians now consider the series a witty, Capraesque attack on modern American, urban society.

As if the success of The Beverly Hillbillies wasn't enough, Henning had further success with Petticoat Junction. Although not nearly as big a hit as The Beverly Hillbililes, Petticoat Junction had respectable ratings until its star, Bea Benaderet passed on. Contrary to popular belief, Henning did not create Green Acres, although he did serve as the show's executive producer.

Henning also had some success in movies. He wrote the screenplay for one of the best Doris Day/Rock Hudson moives Lover Come Back, for which he received an Oscar nomination. He also co-wrote the screenplay for teh Marlon Brando vehicle Bedtime Story.

I must say that Paul Henning's impact on my life is immeasurable. The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, and Green Acres were among the earliest shows I can remember. In fact, The Beverly Hillbillies still numbers among my favourite shows of all time. Alongside Sherwood Schwarz (creator of Gilligan's Island and It's About Time), Paul Henning was television's master of the absurd. Through the lens of unreconstructed hillbillies in Beverly Hills or socialites in the middle of Hooterville's countryside, Henning attacked the contradictions of modern society, its foibles, and its follies. No one was immune, not bank presidents or movie stars or hippies or even the United States military. In many ways, The Beverly Hillbillies commented on modern society better than the so called "relevant" sitcoms that followed it. While he had a rich and fruitful and long life, I still mourn Paul Henning's passing.

The other major figure from televisonn to pass on was comedian Barney Martin. He died on Monday at age 82 from cancer. He was not the first actor to play Morty Seinfeld, Jerry Seinfeld's father on Seinfeld, but he played the role the longest and he was the actor most identified with the role. Martin began as a police detective in New York, but in the Fifties found himself writing for such shows as The Steve Allen Show. He eventually moved into acting, appearing on such shows as Car 54, Where Are You? and The Alfred Hitchcock Hour. In 1968 he got his big break, appearing in Mel Brooks' film The Producers. From there he appeared in Broadway, in such shows as The Fantasticks, South Pacific, and Chicago.

Martin did not abandon television, however, as he continued to make guest appearances and appear as a regular on various series. He guest starred on The Odd Couple, Happy Days, Barney Miller, St. Elsewhere, Murphy Brown, and The Wonder Years. He was a regular cast member on Zorro and Son, Sydney, and Daddy Dearest.

I always did like Barney Martin. He was a very talented and very funny actor. Much of the appeal in watching Seinfeld was his interaction with his parents. Those interactions would not be nearly as funny if an actor other than Barney Martin had played Morty Seinfeld.

Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I am fascinated by the age of piracy. Indeed, I suspect most men of my generation wanted to be pirates when they were children. Unfortunately, the truth is that there are very few good pirate movies out there. The Crimson Pirate, The Black Swan, and Disney's version of Treasure Island number among the very, very few truly great pirate movies. It is an unfortunate, but most pirate movies are, well, bad. Fortunately, Disney added another pirate movie to the list of such great movies, Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl.. Based on the popular Disney land attraction, Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl goes far beyond the amusement ride to be a truly entertaining and well done pirate movie. Naturally, I had to get it on DVD.

Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl centres on down on his luck pirate Jack Sparrow. His ship taken from his from the villainous Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Much of the plot concerns Sparrow's effort to get his ship back. Johnny Depp, as Jack Sparrow, is definitely the star of this movie. Much of what makes Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl such a great film is Depp's performance as Sparrow. Basing Sparrow on aging Rolling Stone Keith Richards (who always kind of reminded me of a pirate anyway), Depp plays Sparrow as seemingly lacking in concentration and discipline, and yet cunning, witty, and crafty. Sparrow is also arrogant, and there is little reason to say he shouldn't be. When he boasts at being a great pirate, it is hard not to believe him as he outwits one foe after another.

Of course, Depp's great performance as Sparrow would have been for naught if it weren't for a great script. The writers crafted a script that is full of excitement, but also full of depth. The characters are all very well developed. Furthermore, they convincingly reproduce the age of piracy. The script is full of historical pirate jargon and various details that the average pirate movie would conveniently overlook. As my best friend said, it is the most accurate pirate/zombie movie ever made! Gore Verbinski's direction greatly helps as well. In the hands of another director, Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl might seem corny and unbelievable, even with a good script. Verbinski's fine direction greatly helps suspend the viewer's disbelief.

The authenticity of Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl is greatly aided by the film's production values. The ships, buildings, costumes and many other details of the era are faithfully reproduced. The special effects are also excellent. Without being obvious, they make a scenario that might otherwise seem farfetched. Disney invested a lot of money into Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl and it shows.

I have yet to watch the Two Disc Collector's Edition's many extras, but they look very interesting. Included are a commentary with director Gore Verbinski and star Johnny Depp, selected scene commentaries with producer Jerry Bruckheimer or stars Keira Knightly or Jack Davenport, the prerequisite "making of" documentary, behind the scene looks at the ship Interceptor and actor Lee Arenberg's experience on the film, an interactive history of pirates, the episode of Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color featuring the opening of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, and much, much more.

Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl is best scene on the big screen (which is where I first saw it). As an epic pirate movie with great production values, it can only truly be appreciated in a movie theatre. But the DVD is a good substitute, particularly with its many, many extras. If you haven't seen Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl yet, I urge you by all means to do so. If you're a fan of the pirate genre, interested in the age of piracy, or simply love great movies, you'll love this film.

Changes

Well, regular readers may have noticed I've changed the appearance of my blog again. I was somewhat dissatisfied with the Mist template I got from Eris. The print was very small and it scrolled oddly to me. I have returned to my old Rounders/Herbert/Split Pea hybrid, with one modification. I turned the "Profile" box into a box where my counter and links to such things as Technorati and Blogdigger can go. You can reach my profile from there...just click on the little alchemical symbol for Mercury (sort of a visual pun on my nom de guerre). Anyhow, let me know if any of you serious dislike this set up and I can figure out another solution...

Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real

Before I go on, I must post a word of warning. Here there be spoilers. If you have not see Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real yet and you don't want it spoiled for you, read no further.

Anyhow, as a child I have been interested in mythology and folklore since childhood. I have also been interested in pop culture since childhood. Naturally, these two interests meet when it comes to the subject of dragons. Dragons are very much a part of mythology and folklore, myths and tales about them being found among virtually every culture on the planet. Perhaps because of this, dragons have played a large role in pop culture, in movies (Dragonslayer, Dragonheart), games (Dungeons and Dragons, Everquest), books (Dragon Riders of Pern), and even songs (Puff the Magic Dragon). It was then natural that I was anxious to see the special Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real on Animal Planet.

I must say that I was not disappointed. Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real is a pseudo-documentary that treats dragons as if they actually existed. The framing story for this pseudo-documentary is that a group of scientists discover the body of a dragon in a cave in remote Roumania. As the scientists study the body, we are provided with both a history lesson on dragons and scientific explanations of how they may have been able to fly and breathe fire. I must say that everything sounds very plausible. I have never been good at science, but their explanations sounded reasonable to me.

Dragons: a Fanstasy Made Real is made all the more convincing by computer animation of dragons interacting with other dragons, other animals, and their envirnoment. The CGI work is very good, so much so that it hard to believe that the dragons aren't real. Disbelief is suspended even more given the script, which is well written and unfolds as any good nature documentary should, unfolding fact one at a time, from explaining how dragons breathed fire to how they died out. Kudos must go to Patrick Stewart, whose magnicent voice lends even more credence to what many might find implausible otherwise.

As I said, I found their explanations plausible, although I do have a few caveats. According to Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real, dragons breathe fire by releasing the hydrogen contained in their flight bladders, which is then ignited by platinum (which they eat precisely to be able to breathe fire). While this explanation sounds quite reasonable to me, I can see one problem with it. Platinum is very rare. I think it would be more realistic if they had chosen a different means of ignition, such as an eletrical charge (which is seen in nature--look at electric eels and electric rays). I was also disappointed with the lifespan they gave dragons. It seems to me that, unless I am mistaken, dragons only live 40 to 80 years. I have always loved the legends and folktales which have dragons living thousands of years. I have to admit that this probably would not be plausible had dragons actually existed, but would 100 to 200 years be out of the question? Just look at the lifespan of some tortoises...

Another caveat I had is that Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real was just too short. It was only about ninety minutes, with another half hour consisting of a "making of" documentary. I think it could have been a good half hour longer. They could have added a few interviews with "experts," discussing the habits and physiologies of dragons. They could have also recreated some of the legendary battles with dragons (Beowulf, St. George), rewritten as if dragons had actually existed.

Regardless, I did enjoy Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real very much. I think it is quite possibly the best thing that both the Discovery Channel and Animail Planet have ever done. I would recommend anyone interested in dragons to see it at once.

A Few of My Favourite Things

I have gone on record on this blog as not particularly liking the musical The Sound of Music. That having been said, I do love its score. One of my favourite songs from that score is "A Few of My Favourite Things." Essentially, the song is just that-- a list of a few of Maria von Trapp's favourite things. I thought for today I'd depart from my usual discussion of movies, TV, music, and so on just to list a few of my own favourite things. These are those little things I enjoy that make life worthwile.

The Feel and Touch of Long, Blonde Hair: I think I have made no secret that I prefer natural blondes. And I have to say that it isn't entirely due to the way it looks on women. There is something about the texture of blonde hair that sets apart from the other colours, a special softness to it. It feels so nice pressed against a cheek or brushed against my chest. It is one of those things about blondes that I love most.

Snow at Yuletide: While many people hate snow, I must admit that I have always liked it myself. Oh, I don't want seven inches of the white stuff in a 24 hour period, but a good one to three inches is nice. It is fun to get out and frolic in it, to have snowball fights and make snow angels. And snow is so beautiful, especially as it is falling down. As for myself, there is no better time for snow than Yuletide. It brings to my mind my childhood and being with family, not to mention images from dozens of Yuletide movies, songs, and even lithographs. To me, it isn't quite Yule without snow.

Sunset on a Farm: One of the things I hate about living in a town, even as small as Huntsville is, is the inability to see the horizon, especially at sunset. This is because I grew up on a farm, where come evening I could look west and see the sun slowly sink into the horizon. The sky would be painted with pinks and purples and blues. There are very few things that are quite as beautiful.

Cats Purring: I have alwyas loved cats, ever since I was a child (I must say that I love dogs, too). For me one of the most pleasant and comforting sounds is the purr of a cat. Much of this is because it reminds me of the various cats I have owned over the years and how they would purr when they sat on me and I petted them. Much of it I think is simply because it is a comforting sound, a slow, low, gentle rumble. There are few sounds I like as much.

The Feel of Some Women's Shoulders: Like most men, I do like the feel of members of the opposite sex. But I think one overlooked part of the feminine anatomy are the shoulders. In the right woman, the feel of the shoulders can be electric. With just the right amount of firmness and softness is found in a woman's shoulders, touching them can be most enjoyable. And cuddling can be even more enjoyable. Of course, it does take just the right woman...

Rain in the Summer: If there are any long time readers of this blog, they know that I hate summer in Missouri. Summer here can be summed by two words: hot and muggy. Rain is then a godsend. For there a few things better than a rainy day in the middle of July, especially if it is a nice, heavy, cool rain. Under the right circumstances, I can positively feel like Gene Kelly.

Babies: Call me a softie or overly paternal, but I love babies. They are so cute and cuddly. And they seem positively happy to be in this world...alert, curious about everything. I enjoyed seeing my nephew in his infancy and I enjoy getting to spend time with my best friend's daughter. If only everyone could keep the kind of innocence and wonder at the world that infants have...

The Smell of a New Book: In my time I have been a voracious reader, sometimes reading more than one book at a time. I enjoy both fiction and nonfiction. For that reason it should be no surprise that I love the smell of a new book, the smell of fresh ink. For me it promises adventure and escape from my everyday life or, in the case of nonfiction, knowledge to be learned. I guess it should be no surprise I love the smell of bookstores, too.

Going Home: It is sometimes nice to get away from home, whether it is simply to go see a movie or go shopping, or to make a day trip to some tourist attraction. But as much as I like to get away from home, going home can be even better. Some of my fondest memories as a child were returning home to the farm after we'd went into town to shop. It was so pleasant watching the countryside go by, knowing soon I would be safe at home.

I suppose that it is for now. Tomorrow or later this week (whenver I make my next entry), I'll go back to the usual discussion of movies, television, music, and so on....

The Ten Greatest TV Characters of All Time IMHO (American TV Only)

Although anthology series were once common on American television, for the majority of its history TV has been dominated by series with regular characters. I suspect that there are two basic reasons for this. First, American television was modelled after American radio. On American radio the dominant format for shows were those with regular characters. Or at least regular hosts. Second and perhaps more importantly, I suspect most people take comfort in being able to tune into the same characters week after week. I suppose to a degree it is like visiting old friends for many people.

In its nearly sixty years of existence, American television has produced its fair share of memorable characters. I've been trying to think of what characters I would number among the greatest television characters of all time. I've narrowed it down to ten indiividual characters and two emsembles of characters. I've arranged the list of ten characters by chronological order, as it was difficult enough deciding on the ten greatest, let alone deciding how they would rank....

1. Lucy Ricardo (Lucille Ball, I Love Lucy): There were sitcoms on televison before I Love Lucy, but it was the first major hit of the genre. And much of the reason for the sitcom's success was its central character, Lucy Ricardo. Married to Ricky Ricardo, Lucy (whose only talent seemed to be a flair for comedy) was constantly trying to get into her husband's shows. And she would do nearly anything, no matter how ludicrous, to accomplish accomplish that. Of course, she also had other hair brained schemes as well. Lucy was the lovable goof that all of sometimes believe ourselves to be, always hopeful but somehow never quite getting things right.

2. Brett Maverick (James Garner, Maverick): Before Maverick, the hero of the average television Western was brave, honourable, trustworthy, and quick with a gun. Brett Maverick was none of these. A professional gambler and master swindler, Maverick preferred to get out of situations with his wits rather than guns. In fact, while he was cunning as a fox, Maverick was not particularly brave. At a time when television was overfilled with brave, trustworthy heroes, Brett Maverick was a breath of fresh air.

3. Barney Fife (Don Knotts, The Andy Griffith Show): If it wasn't for the fact that Barney was the cousin of Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry, it seems highly unlikely he would have ever had a career in law enforcement. High strung, hot tempered, not particularly brave, and with a tendency to go too much by the book, Barney would seem an unlikely canidate for a deputy sheriff. Indeed, Andy demanded that Barney keep one bullet in his pocket because he could not be trusted with a loaded gun! And yet it is hard to picture Andy with anyone else as deputy or to picture Mayberry without him. A wonderful bundle of nerves, occasional bravado, and an obsessive compulsion for rules, The Andy Griffith Show seemed emptier when Don Knotts left the show.

4. Hoss Cartwright (Dan Blocker, Bonanza): Each of the Cartwrights had his own distinct personality. For the most part, however, they were fairly typical of Western heroes of the time. Ben Cartwright was the father and the centre of the clan, the stable voice of reason for his sometimes strong headed sons. Adam was the sombre, serious son who was quick with his wits and his gun. Little Joe was the romantic of the group, a bit too quick with his temper and also quick with his gun. On the other hand, Hoss stood out. Part of this was due to his size. Hoss was fairly large and very strong. But most of it was due to his personality. Hoss was not stupid by any means, but he did seem to lack a good deal of common sense. Very gullible, he was an easy mark for any con man to come along. At the same time, however, Hoss was perhaps the best hearted character on television. He was always willing to help those in need, a personality trait which sometimes caused no end of problems for his family. Hoss was easily the most popular character on Bonanza. In fact, many TV historians think it was more due to Blocker's untimely death that Bonanza was cancelled rather than its change in time slot. As a fan of the series, I can believe it.

5. Jed Clampett (Buddy Ebsen, The Beverly Hillbillies): I've often thought that there were three basic formats for sitcoms. The first is what I call the I Love Lucy format, in which there is a cast of relatively sane people centred around a slightly left of centre goofball. The second is what I call the Gilligan's Island format, in which the entire cast is slightly left of centre. The third is what I call The Beverly Hillbillies format. This is the exact reverse of the I Love Lucy format. Instead of a cast of sane people centred around a goofball, in The Beverly Hillbillies format, one sees a cast of lunatics centred around the sane voice of reason. In The Beverly Hillbillies, Jed was that voice of reason. His mother in law Granny was an unreconstructed Confederate with a hot temper and a passion for bootlegging (although she brewed rheumatism medicine, not liquor...). Nephew Jethro was as stupid as a box of rocks and had a tendecy to latch onto every fad and craze that came along. Daughter Ellie Mae was a tomboy who preferred animals to people. Banker Milburn Drysdale was totally obsessed with money. Out of everyone, only Jed was sane and reasonable. When things got out of hand, it was always Jed who reined things in, acting as both the voice of reason and the voice of morality. He was the perfect straight man for a whole posse of gagmen.

6. Endora (Agnes Moorehead, Bewitched): If ever there was a wicked mother in law, Endora was it. An ancient and powerful witch, she was very unhappy that her daughter Samantha married mortal Darren Stephens. In fact, she put Darren through no end of trials. She shrank him. She aged him into an old man. She made it so he could only tell the truth. And while Endora may have been unhappy with her daughter's choice of husbands in the beginning, one got the sense that after time Endora grew to love Darren. While she might make his life miserable, she seemed to take exception to any other witch or warlock who did so. For all her arrogance and strong headedness, Endora did have a soft spot in her heart after all...

7. Dr. Miguelito Loveless (Michael Dunn, The Wild Wild West): Quite possibly the greatest villain to ever appear on television, Dr. Miguelito Loveless was hardly the largest. In fact, as a midget he stood shorter than everyone else. But he made up for his small size with a gigantic intellect and a large dose of megalomania. In The Wild Wild West: the Series by Susan Kesler, Loveless' creator John Kneubuhl explained the back story for the mad doctor. The son of an upper class, Mexican woman, Loveless' father robbed him of his rightful inheritance and even his heritage and culture. Furthermore, Loveless was angry at God for compounding matters by making him a midget. Although this back story was never spelled out on the show, it made perfect sense, for Loveless sought world conquest with a vengence. He created a powder that would drive anyone exposed to it insane. He attempted to create a war between the U.S. government and Native Americans. He developed a substance that killed all animal and plant life. It is safe to say that had it not been for Secret Service agents James West and Artemus Gordon, the United States might well have become the nation of Loveless...

8. Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy Star Trek): Alongside Lucy and Gilligan, Mr. Spock may well be one of the most recognisable television characters of all time. Even people who have never seen an episode of Star Trek can recognise the Vulcan. The reason is simple. Spock is one of the most complex television characters of all time. The son of Vulcan Sarek and Earthwoman Amanda, Spock followed his father in accepting the Vulcan philosophy of total logic. To this end, he surpresses his emotions in an attempt to live a life of total reason. And though Spock shows little emotion, there can be little doubt of his love of and loyalty to his fellow crewmen. A character often in conflict over his heritage, Spock was certain in his friendships.

9. Detective Lenny Briscoe (Jerry Orbach Law and Order): Television has seen many police detectives, but perhaps none were as beloved as Lenny Briscoe. Briscoe was always ready with the glib remark or sarcastic comment, and yet he remained compassionate towards others. This is perhaps because Briscoe himself was fallible. In fact, what little we know of Briscoe are his failings and failures. He was a recovering alcoholic, who had been divorced twice. His only child, a daughter, died during the course of the series. If anyone had reason to be angry at life, it would be Lenny Briscoe, yet he finds reasons to go on and even to laugh at life. For all his disappointments, Briscoe seemed to love his job and to truly love life.

10. Jim Profit (Adrain Padar, Profit): Profit only aired for four weeks during April 1996, yet anyone who had the fortune to see it cannot forget its protagonist (who was also its villain), Jim Profit. Profit was the Junior Vice President of Acquisitions at Gracen and Gracen, a large multinational corporation. He is also perhaps the most evil character to ever appear on television, willing to do anything to get ahead at Gracen and Gracen. In the first episode alone, Profit framed Jack Walters for the "murder" of Wayne Gresham, who actually died of natural causes! The origin of Profit's evil rests in his childhood. Profit's father took so little interest in him that he made the child (born Jimmy Stokowski) sleep in a pen made out of a cardboard packing box. Indeed, even as an adult Proft still sleeps in a cardboard box. It would seem that under the lupine exterior of one of television's vilest predators was the broken heart of a little boy. Profit was cancelled before the character could be fully explored, but in the four episodes that aired viewers got to see one of television's greatest villains. Fortunately, the complete series (all ten episodes) is available on DVD on August 9, this year!

As I said above, I was also going include two ensembles of characters on this list. The first are the castaways of Gilligan's Island. It has been argued that the castaways of Gilligan's Island are more stereotypes or archetypes than fully fledged characters. There is the village idiot (Gilligan), the stuffy millionaire (Thurston Howell III), the pretty girl (Mary Ann), and so on. Despite this, for many the characters of Gilligan's Island seem more real than those seen in more serious TV shows. I suspect the reason is simple. In being played broadly and simply, the characters of Gilligan's Island often remind us of ourselves. All of us have felt like bumbling idiots like Gilligan at times. And all of us have known people like the Professor or even the Skipper. In making his characters as broad as possible, creator Sherwood Schwarz made it possible for nearly everyone to identify with at least one of them.

The other emsemble of characters are The Monkees from the sitcom of the same name. There have been very few TV sitcoms that have focused on young men in their twenties. And too often on more "serious" shows young men in their twenties have been little more than cardboard pretty boys for girls to swoon over. The Monkees were guys that young men could identify with. An often down on their luck rock group, The Monkees each had their own distinct personality. Mike was the leader of the group and the intellectual, blessed with a dry sense of humour and a skewed view of the world. Micky was the crazy one, with a penchant for celebrity impersonations and off the wall humour. Davy was the romantic of the group, constantly falling in love with some girl or another. Peter was the Gracie Allen of the group, not terribly bright but terribly kind hearted. The four of them played off each other perfectly, taking turns playing gag man and straight man. In fact, they were so perfect an emsemble that it is impossible to picture the group without any one of them.

I have to say that this was a difficult list to create. In fact, among the ensembles of characters I could have included are the cast of The Simpsons (although there is probably enough written about them on the internet already). Although television is derided as a simplistic, even debased medium, and there is a little truth to that, it has created a number of memorable characters over the years. I have no doubt that it will continue to do so.

Disney

Today it is sometimes fashionable to knock Walt Disney Studios. They have been mocked for being overly family friendly. They have been derided for their sometimes less than stellar movies. Even their legendary founder, Walt Disney himself, has come under attack from time to time. But while Disney has released some less than classic films from time to time (anyone out there remember The Monkey's Uncle or The Aristocats?) and while there can be no doubt Walt had his faults (who doesn't?), there can be one thing that cannot be disputed. Walt Disney and Disney Studios were one of the most powerful forces shaping American pop culture in the 20th century.

Like most people born after 1929 (when Mickey Mouse made his debut), I grew up watching Disney products. And like many people I have enjoyed many of the animated shorts and feature films prdouced by the studio. Indeed, in some ways Disney's presence was more immediate for me. Walt Disney's hometown, Maceline, MO is just 43 miles from Huntsville. Disney's presence can be felt everywhere--even their elementary school is named for Walt. While Walt has had an impact on Marceline, Marceline had its impact on Walt. Disneyland's main street was based on that of Marceline!

While the Disney name now brings to mind major motion pictures and the amusement parks, it all started with animated shorts. Disney first produced a series of shorts based on Alice and Wonderland for M. J. Winkler and later her husband Charles Mintz. He later produced a series of shorts featuring the character Oswald the Lucky Rabbit for Mintz, eventually losing the character to Mintz. Fortunately, Walt would create a new character who would be more famous than Oswald ever was. Initially called Mortimer, the character was finally named Mickey Mouse.
Mickey Mouse made his debut in 1929 in the short "Steamboat Willy." It was on that cartoon that the Disney empire was built. Mickey swiftly became the most popular cartoon character around.

The Disney animated shorts aren't seen often, so I rather suspect most people have forgotten how brilliant they were. Most people my age were lucky to see some of them on The Wonderful World of Disney in the Sixties and Seventies. Disney Studios was one of the first to synchronise animation and music ("The Skeleton Dance" from 1932 being a prime example). They were also pioneered the multi-plane camera technique, first utilised on the short "The Old Mill." They were even among the first to use colour ("Flowers and Trees" being the first colour Disney short). Besides all of this, Disney introduced some of the most enduring cartoon characters in the history of film. As popular as Mickey had been, Donald Duck would prove even more popular. Eventually, he would have an entire family, from nephews Huey, Duey, and Luey, to sweetheart Daisy. Beyond Micky and Donald, there would also be Goofy, Chip and Dale, Pluto, and yet more.

From animated shorts, the next natural step would seem to be an animated feature film. Suprisingly, this was not the traditonal wisdom when Disney first announced Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. For the entirety of its production, it was called "Disney's folly." Many expected it to fail. It came as a surprise to all but Walt and his crew when the film was a success. This was a considerable feat, given it took four years and $1.7 million to produce, during the Depression at that! Disney would follow Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with yet other classics. Surpisingly, with the exception of The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, I would not get to see any of the classic Disney animated fetaures until adulthood. Fortunately, through re-releases, VHS tapes, and the Disney Channel, I have gotten to see most of the classic Disney features. Beyond Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the only one I've gotten to see in the theatre), my favourites would be Sleeping Beauty and Dumbo. To me Sleeping Beauty is one of the great animated feature films, with beautiful animation, well developed characters, and even a bit of action. Dumbo is the classic story of an outcast. I really had to feel sorry for the poor fellow and I was happy when his ability to fly redeemed him in the eyes of others. I have yet to see Pinnochio or Bambi, which I have on the word of others are the greatest Disney films of all time. Indeed, I have heard many describe Pinnochio as the greatest animated movie of all time. I have heard that Disney has shut down its hand drawn animation unit and is switching entirely to computer animation. I truly hope this is not the case. While I love computer animation, I still think there is room for old fashioned, hand drawn animation. Indeed, the beauty of such films as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty beg for more such films to be made.

Eventually Disney would start making live action feature films in addition to its animated features. Fortunately, I got to see many of these on The Wonderful World of Disney over the years. Of course, Walt had combined live action and animation in the old Alice shorts. And in 1941 The Reluctant Dragon became the first Disney feature to combine live-action and animation. It should not have been a surprise when Disney Studio released their first live action film in 1950, Treasure Island based on the Robert Louis Stevenson classic. Disney's version of Treasure Island is the definitive movie version in my mind. Another of Disney's early live-action features is another one of my favourite films, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Directd by Robert Fleischer, the son of Disney's old animation rival Max Fleischer, it is a great film. To this day I cannot think of Captain Nemo without picturing James Mason. Disney would even look to the old West with Old Yeller, perhaps the best film about a boy and his dog. Eventually, Disney would produce comedies as well as adventure films. The Absent Minded Professor remains a classic to this day in my mind. I've always thought that the quality of Disney's features declined quite a bit in the Seventies, with several Love Bug sequels and such films as The World's Greatest Athlete, but the studio would eventually recover. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is the greatest pirate movie this side of The Crimson Pirate, while I still love Hidalgo as a good, old fashioned adventure film (a shame it didn't do better at the box office).

Of course, eventually Disney would conquer television as well as theatres. In fact, like the majority of my generation, my first introduction to Disney was The Wonderful World of Disney. Walt Disney appeared on television as early in 1950, in the special One Hour in Wonderland, promoting his new film Alice in Wonderland. This would be followed by The Walt Disney Christmas Show in 1951. In 1955 Disney Studios would become the first major Hollywood movie studio to enter television production. Disneyland debuted that year, beginning an incredibly long run. While its name changed over the years, The Wonderful World of Disney (the name with which I am most familiar) remained essentially the same. It would show segments specially made for the series (the Davy Crockett series being the most memorable), Disney's feature films, and classic animated shorts. Watching The Wondeful World of Disney is one of the fondest memories I have from my childhood. It seems to have been for many others as well. Althogh cancelled many times, it keeps returning to television.

Of course, Disney would also produce other series as well. Nineteen fifty eight would see the debut of Disney's version of Zorro. The series would prove to be one of the most durable shows made for children, joining The Lone Ranger and The Cisco Kid among boy's favourites. I have very fond memories of watching it as a child...well...I have fond memories of watching it as an adult, too. Disney would also produce The Mickey Mouse Club in 1956. Not having been born yet and never seeing it until it aired on the Disney Channel, I don't really have fond memories of it. And I was much too old for its revivals.

Arguably, Disney Studios may well be the most successful Hollywood studio of all time. While all of the studios have produced their share of classics. And while Warner Brothers and MGM can boast their own cavalcade of animated stars, it seems to me that Disney Studios is the only one that has seen success in animation, live action features, and television. In fact, for the longest time Disney was the only studio to produce animated features! Regardless of what anyone else thinks of them, I must say that I will always have a place in my heart for Disney, even when their fortunes may not be as good as they once were.

EverQuest Turns Six

Yesterday, March 16, EverQuest turned six years old. For those of you who have never heard of EverQuest, it is perhaps the most popular MMORPG. As to what an MMORPG is, the acronym stands for Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. It is essentially a computer role playing game, taking place in a virtual world, in which a large number of people can play. The earliest such game was Meridian 59, although Ultima Online was the game that brought MMORPGs to the forefront.

EverQuest itself was the creation of Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost. EverQuest proved incredibly successful. By December 1999 it was already more popular than Ultima Online. Indeed, the game proved so successful that the company McQuaid, Clover, and Trost founded to produce the game, Verant Interactive, was eventually purchased by Sony Online Entertainment.

I have never played EverQuest myself, although I know people who do. According to a certain beautiful, green eyed blonde, the game is positively addictive (the term EverCrack comes to mind). Indeed, the first time I heard of the game was several years ago when KOMU did a news story on MMORPGs. Some of the players that they talked to would come hope from work Friday evening, start playing, and continue playing all weekend with the exception of eight hours asleep at night. The KOMU story also addressed the phenomenon of in-game artefacts being sold on eBay. By January 2001 the practice was so rampant that EQ's creators asked eBay to stop listing such auctions.

The success of EverQuest even led to the development of another game, EverQuest II. I really don't know all the differences between EQ and EQII, but I am told that the graphics are better for the most part on EQII and there differences is in the classes, world, et. al.

I don't know how long EverQuest will continue to be popular. It is possible that some day another MMORPG might overtake it (I don't know which is more popular--EQ or EQII). Regardless, I do think MMORPGs are here to stay. In fact, I have to wonder that as the games grow more sophisticated and more complex, they can only grown in popularity.

A Brief Entry

This is going to be a brief entry. Tonight finds me a little down. I haven't heard from my favourite green eyed blonde since Saturday and I am a little bit concerned about her. Her health hasn't been the best of late and I am so afraid she may have taken a turn for the worse.

Anyhow, I do have some good news to report. Quentin Tarantino will not be directing a Friday the 13th movie. New Line talked to him about it, but he turned them down. He says that he likes Jason, but that he has no interest in directing a movie. Here's the story.

I suppose I should also mention that I saw the trailer for Revenge of the Sith Saturday, before Robots. I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed in both Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones (I swear the movie came to a dead halt every time Natalie Portman was on screen), but I am actually hyped into seeing the third film in the trilogy. Indeed, I have to admit that I am even more interested in seeing it since George Lucas says it may be the first Star Wars to be rated PG-13. Supposedly, Revenge of the Sith is going to be the darkest Star Wars movie ever made. Of course, given that it chronicles the transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. I just hope I am not disappointed this time around.

Lord of the Rings the Musical?

Before anything else, I must apologise to any regular readers of this blog (all one or two of you) for not updating in the past few days. Unforuntaely, I am still somewhat under the weather. In fact, I don't think I've felt worse in my life, at least not for a long while, than the past several days.

Anyhow, today I read a news story that just astounds me. There is going to be a £11.5 million stage production of The Lord of the Rings. What's more is that it is a musical, the most expensive musical in the history of man. Fortunately, producer Kevin Wallace says that there will be no singing or dancing Hobbits. They are going to use traditional music, drawing on ethnic traditions.

As much as I love Lord of the Rings and musicals, I can't picture a musical based on the book. The biggest hurdle I can see is that it took Peter Jackson three separate movies, each around 3 hours each, to adapt the book. And even then Tolkien purists complain that he left things out. I don't see how a stage musical could manage to adapt the entire book, especially when one adds in the songs necessary to qualify it as a musical. Another hurdle I can see is that the idea of a musical based on Lord of the Rings also brings to mind that episode of The Simpsons in which Troy McClure performed in a musical version of Planet of the Apes (the original with Charlton Heston, not the remake with Marky Mark...). In other words, even without singing and dancing Hobbits, I fear it could come off as just plain silly. Of course, I suppose if someone had told me twenty years ago that there would be a musical based on Phantom of the Opera, I would have thought that silly, too...

Anyway, here's a link to a news story on the musical: Yahoo News: Lord of the Rings Musical

Rivalry Songs

A recurring theme in songs since the beginning of rock music seems to be romantic rivalries between two people over another. Most of the songs have been written by men about two men vying for one woman, although the women have had their fair share of rivalries as well (Leslie Gore's "It's My Party" comes to mind). I think their continued popluarity is due to the fact that most of us have been there. Indeed, I must say that I have had rivals for a woman's heart from time to time.

Of course, the best rivalry songs are more than just "I love you and he doesn't." They have a bit of originality to them. A perfect example of this is "Running Scared," written by Roy Orbison and Joe Melson and performed by the late great Roy Orbison. The song deals with the fear that accompanies the return of a loved one's ex-lover. What heightens the tension in the song is the fact that the music continues to build and build, as do Orbison's vocals. Fortunately, with the climax, there is a happy ending--she does not go back to the ex-lover.

Another great rivalry song is The Beatles' "This Boy." There are no threats to take the girl back in this song, no macho posturing. Instead, there is the simple certainty that because This Boy really loves the girl and That Boy simply wants to see her cry, This Boy will win her back. It is a tribute to the simple, pure love that exists in fairy tales and movies of Hollywood's Golden Age, and with any luck in real life as well.

The Beatles also recorded "You're Gonna Lose That Girl." In this case, a fellow has noticed that a boyfriend treats his girlfriend less than well. Because of this, he plans to take her away by treating her right. In song it seems that men cannot abide poor treatment of women.

"He Can't Love You" by The Michael Stanley Band has as its theme the simple, romantic belief that true love will win every time. This song tells a classic story of rivalry. An "ordinary guy" finds that his girl is being wooed by a guy who "knows how to mystify." Naturally, the ordinary guy warns his girl off from the rival, with the simple words "He can't love you like I love you." What is wonderful about this song is that the word love is sung differently in the "he can't love you" portion than it is in "like I love you" portion. In the "He can't love you" part the word "love" sounds insincere, perhaps reflecting the rival's feelings, while in the "like I love you" part it is strong, convincing.

While I have never cared for pop metal that much and for Autograph not all, I still have a weakness for "Send Her to Me." The song is simple and straightforward. All the song's hero asks is that after the rival has broken her heart (of which he is certain the rival will do), that he send her to him. In some ways it is a variation on the themes expressed in "This Boy"--the horror of one's beloved being with someone else who will inevitably hurt her and the desire to have her back.

A more vicious rivalry song of the Eighties was "Wild Child" by W.A.S.P. In this case, it would appear that he is in love with a woman who already belongs to someone else. Regardless, he is going to "take" her "love from him." There is no uncertainty here! Indeed, the hero of "Wild Child" describes himself in almost mystical terms, riding "the winds that bring the rain" and a "creature of love..." And as might be expected of a W.A.S.P. song, there is a bit of eroticism in the lyrics...

If the hero of "Wild Child" by W.A.S.P. is vicious in his attacks upon is rival, the hero of "When We Dance" by Sting is even more so. He is also a bit more cerebral. He makes it clear to the woman he loves that the rival does not love her, but only counts her as another possession. On the other hand, the hero's love takes on religious overtones. He is apparently willing to risk damnation to win her back! I've always thought the song owed a lot to Edgar Allen Poe...

Of course, for sheer viciousness, no rivalry song can surpass "Ex-Lover's Lover" by Voltaire. Here there is no talk of winning the girl back. There is no talk of how the rival will break her heart. No, instead the protagonist of the song simply wants to kill not only her current lover, but apparently all of her lovers. Indeed, he promises to pile them high to the sky. I would assume that most listeners are relieved to realise at the end of the song that it is a fantasy that the protagonist probably will never realise...

As I said, rivalry songs have existed since the beginning of rock music. And I would assume that as long as romantic rivalries occur between people they always will. Fortunately, it would seem that in songs, as in the movies, the best man (or woman as case may be) always wins in the end

Friday the 13th Meets Pulp Fiction?

Today I read an entertainment news story that rather disturbs me. Quentin Tarantino, director of Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, is talking with New Line Cinema to possibly write and direct an entry in the Friday the 13th franchise. He is meeting with New Line executives later this week. If the deal goes through, it will be the first movie Tarantino will ever make outside of the Miramax studio.

I have to admit to having very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am a big fan of Quentin Tarantino's films. Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction rank among my favourite films and I enjoyed the two volumes of Kill Bill (especially volume one). It is hard for me to see Tarantino making a bad movie. On the other hand, I abhor the Friday the 13th movies. Quite frankly, I think they are dull, uninspired rip offs of Halloween. Indeed, I cannot understand how Jason Voorhees has become a horror icon. Quite simply, to me he is simply a killing machine with no personality whatseover. It is hard for me to see any Friday the 13th movie being a good one.

For me the question is whether or not even Tarantino could take Friday the 13th and turn it into something viable. I am not sure he could without drasticlaly altering the franchise. And I am not sure that New Line, even as desperate as they may be to revive the franchise, would be willing to go along with such changes. And if Tarantino could not alter Friday the 13th, then I am afraid that all we would be seeing is another boring Friday the 13th movie, but with better direction. Quite frankly, I would rather Tarantino tackle something like a Kill Bill sequel or the next Bond movie (too bad they turned him down...).

My Illness and the Death of a Writer/Producer

I can't say how many blog entries I'll be making this week. The past several days I have been sick. It seems that I have some sort of respiratory illness that attacks my eyes, head, nose, and throat. I think the sore throat is the worst part of it...I can barely talk. Anyhow, at the moment I don't feel much like sitting at the computer...

At any rate, a woman who paved the way for other women in the film industry has just passed on. You may not have heard of her, but more than likely you have seen one of her movies. Screenwriter and producer Debra Hill died today at age 54 after a long battle with cancer.

Hill began her film career in Hollywood as a script supervisor on such films as Goodbye, Norma Jean. Her big break came when she co-wrote Halloween with director John Carpenter. Not only did the film spawn a number of sequels, but it started a whole cycle towards slasher films. She also co-wrote The Fog with Carpenter. Among the films she produced were Escape From New York, The Dead Zone, Clue, and The Fisher King.

As both a writer and a producer, Hill made several movies that I dearly love. Indeed, at the time that she was working with John Carpenter I do believe the director was at his best. She also made her own way in an industry that, in the Seventies, was largely dominated by men. The fact she did this starting from the very bottom (script supervisor not being the most glamorous job...) is even more of a tribute to her. It is sad that she had to die so young.

Gene Kelly Versus Fred Astaire

Among fans of Hollywood musicals it is often said that there are two camps: Gene Kelly fans and Fred Astaire fans. I really cannot say I belong to either camp myself, as I admire both men equally. I really cannot say one was superior to the other, either as a dancer or an actor. I certainly cannot say I prefer Gene Kelly to Fred Astaire or vice versa.

In fact, when it comes to dancing, I think that comparing Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire may be like comparing The Rolling Stones and The Kinks. Just as The Rolling Stones and The Kinks are two fine rock bands with different styles, so too were Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire two dancers with two different styles of dancing. Gene's style of dance tended to be very athletic and low to the ground. Indeed, when I think of Gene Kelly dancing, I think of him as doing so without a partner. The two dance sequences from his films that come to my mind are the Alter Ego sequence from Cover Girl and the "Singin' in the Rain" sequence from Singin' in the Rain, both of which are performed by himself.

While Gene's style was very atheletic, Fred's style was more about grace and elegance. While Gene's style tended to be low to the ground, Fred's style tended to be a bit higher. And while I usually think of Gene as dancing without a partner, I always think of Fred as dancing with one. The dance sequences from Fred's movies that stand out in my mind for the most part are those in which he had a partner, whether Ginger Rogers, Judy Garland, or Cyd Charisse. It seems to me that Gene was most impressive dancing solo or, at least, alongside others. Fred was at his best when he had a beautiful woman in his arms.

Not only were Gene and Fred's styles fairly different, making comparisons difficult, but their images were even different. In most of his movies, Gene appears to be strictly working class. When I think of Gene Kelly, I tend to think of him in T-shirts and khakis. I imagine in a later era he might have actually wore blue jeans. And while Fred Astaire preferred informal wear in real life, the image most people have of Fred from his movies is that of a man in top and tails. Gene Kelly once said, "If Fred Astaire is the Cary Grant of dance, I'm the Marlon Brando." With respect to their dancing styles--Gene's athletic, dynamic style and Fred's graceful, elegant style--as well as their images, Gene's quote would seem to be true. Gene Kelly was definitely a working class dancer, while Fred Astaire characterised a more upper class style of dance.

Insofar as their dancing styles and images go, then, I believe that Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire were two very different performers. For me, at least, this makes comparisions between the two very difficult. In some ways comparing them to the Stones and the Kinks may have been flawed. Perhaps it is better to say that it would be like comparing Led Zeppelin and Nat King Cole--Gene and Fred belong in totally different genres of dance.

Beyond their dance styles and images, I can look at their movies. While I still can't say I prefer Gene to Fred or vice versa, I can say that I prefer Gene's movies to Fred's movies. Two of the movies in which Gene starred and which he also directed are counted as the two greatest musicals of all time--Singin' in the Rain and An American in Paris. At least as I see it, Fred only starred in one movie that was nearly as great as either of those two--The Band Wagon. Beyond such classics as Singin' in the Rain, An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon, it seems to me that Gene's movies were superior in quality for the most part to Fred's movies. Cover Girl, On the Town, and Anchors Aweigh are all better than most of Fred's films, Easter Parade, Holiday Inn, and Top Hat being notable exceptions. When it comes to the quality of their movies, then, I would say that Gene Kelly has the edge over Fred Astaire.

One point of comparison that I have not brought up yet is their respective appearances. To tell the truth, as a heterosexual male, it really doesn't matter to me what Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire look like. I have observed that among female fans of musicals, however, Gene actually has the status of being a sex symbol. Quite simply, Gene is considered a "hunk (or whatever word they're using today)." Most women I know do not find Fred Astaire incredibly sexy. As I said, this makes no difference to me, although I must admit that I find it slightly amusing. I have always joked that I would like to look like Gene, but I would want Fred's wardrobe...

Ultimately, it seems to me that I still cannot say I prefer Gene Kelly to Fred Astaire or vice versa. For me at least, their dancing styles are two different for comparison and I happen to like both of their styles equally well. I do prefer Gene's movies and I do prefer Fred's wardrobe (I always wanted to dress in top hat and tails), but when it comes down to Gene and Fred as performers, I like them both equally. I think both Gene and Fred were equally talented performers, whose influence is going to be felt for years to come in both musicals and dance. I suppose that is the only conclusion I can draw in comparing the two men.

The Beatles

It was twenty years ago today,
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.
They've been going in and out of style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile.
So may I introduce to you
The act you've known for all these years...
(Lennon/McCartney, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"

In this blog I have already mentioned The Beatles many, many times. I've reviewed three of their four movies (A Hard Day's Night, Help!, and Yellow Submarine) and referred to them in my articles on the British Invasion, the Age of Anglophilia, animated feature films, and Sunday morning cartoons. Part of the reason I have mentioned them more often than other musicians, or any other artist in any other medium for that matter, is the impact that they had on the late twentieth century world; however, I must admit that most of the reason I've mentioned them so often is that they probably had a greater impact on my life than any other artists in any other medium.

Given when I was born, this should not be surprising. I was born a week from today in 1963. When The Beatles arrived, I would have been just shy of being one year old. Indeed, given that my parents regularly watched The Ed Sullivan Show, my first exposure to The Beatles could well have been that fateful night in February 1963 that they appeared there. Even if I was fast asleep in the crib at the time, there would be almost no way I could avoid The Beatles in the next few years. My older sister bought their records and their music was constantly being played on the radio. In 1965 a Saturday morning cartoon based on the Fab Four debuted on ABC. I can remember watching it loyally, both on Saturday morning and later when it moved to Sunday morning. I remember listening to "Yesterday," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "She Loves You," and many more songs. I can even remember the TV spots for the landmark animated film based on their music, Yellow Submarine. To a large degree, I suppose I was programmed to be a Beatles fan.

Of course, The Beatles had broken up several years before I was old enough to buy records. That did not deter me in my love for the band. The first album I ever bought with my own money was Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I bought their other albums too...Meet the Beatles, Revolver, Rubber Soul... I watched their movies as a child--CBS showed Yellow Submarine every July 4th for many years. I remember being outraged as a teenager at that travesty of a movie called Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I knew who Sgt. Pepper's Band was, and they weren't The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton.

It is difficult for me to say why The Beatles appealed to me as a child and why they still appeal to me as a nearly 42 year old adult. I can point to the brilliance of their lyrics, the sheer creativity of their harmonies and chord progressions, the diversity of styles to be found in their songs, and so on, but ultimately words fail me. For me at least, it might be sufficient to say that The Beatles made more listenable songs than any other band and did it better than anyone else. Cultural snobs might mock me, but I can find more artistry in "She Loves You" than Bach's Concerto in D Minor.

And it would seem that I am not alone. The Beatles were a veritable phenomenon. As I pointed out above, their music was to be heard everywhere. The Beatles were so popular that they paved the way to the United States for a horde of other British bands. American artists would not retake the charts until 1966. The Beatles made feature films. They were the first living people to have a Saturday morning animated cartoon based on their likenesses. Ever since 1964 there has been some form of Beatles merchandise available to the public, from the dolls Remco made in the early Sixties to lunchboxes to Todd McFarlane's series of toys based on Yellow Submarine. In fact, it may be a mark of The Beatles' impact on society that John Lennon's death was not merely referred to as a murder in the American media, but an assassination, as if he had been a head of state or government official.

Given The Beatles' impact on my life, it should be no surprise that the murder of John Lennon was a signifcant day in my life. I had the flu that day and so I was going to stay home from school. Lying in my bed, my brother burst into my room and uttered the words, "John Lennon is dead!" My initial reaction was to tell him that he was lying (well, actually my words were stronger than that, but they aren't family friendly...). When he persisted, I walked into the living room to see the Today Show and the awful truth. John Lennon had been shot and murdered. I remembered that for the rest of the day I listened to my Beatles albums. And I cried. I had never met John Lennon, but I cried as if I'd known him all my life. When George Harrison died four years ago, even though I was 21 years older and well out of school, I cried again.

It is difficult to say what the future holds, but I have a feeling that The Beatles will be remembered for a long time to come. They may be the only rock group to be so remembered, but I have no doubt that they will be. I am guessing that they will become a permanent part of Anglo-American culture, alongside William Shakespeare, Lord Byron, and Charles Dickens. Somewhere, some place, the music of The Beatles will be playing.

The Wonderful World of Harry Potter

Every now and again a children's book or a series of children's books come along that appeals to adults as well. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, L. Frank Baum's books on the land of Oz, C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, and Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time and its sequels have all been enjoyed by children and people of all ages. The latest such books would seem to be the Harry Potter series, written by J. K. Rowling. In fact, I daresay Mrs. Rowling may have more fans who are over 15 than those who are under 15!

I was introduced to the Harry Potter books by my friend Brian. If it was not for the fact that our tastes in reading material are generally the same, I might well have been sceptical. After all, it seemed to me that the last children's book published that appealed to both children and adults was probably the last book written by Dr. Seuss. Here I must point out that this was before Harry Potter mania really hit--before the merchandising and movies, so all I had to go on was Brian's word. As it is, I found that I could not put down Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (I do prefer the original, British title of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...). It was quite possibly the most compeeling work of fiction I have read since Clive Barker's Great and Secret Show.

As I see it, the Harry Potter books appeal to both children and adults on many levels. Perhaps their greatest appeal may be their sheer originality. In most other children's fantasy books, the magical and mysterious is to be found in another land, usually accessed through some unusual portal. In Through the Looking Glass, Alice enters a strange, new world through a mirror. In Alice in Wonderland, she does it through a rabbit hole. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Narnia is reached through an old wardrobe. In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is swept away to Oz by a tornado. But in the Harry Potter books, the magical and mysterious are right next door. Wizards live right beside Muggles (that's non-wizards for those of you not familiar with the jargon), all the while keeping their society and their magic hidden form them. In fact, the school which Harry attends, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, is not reached through a rabbit hole or a wardrobe, but by train! Rowling crafted a world in which magic exists side by side with the mundane and I think that is much of the appeal of the Harry Potter books. It gives the reader the opportunity to believe that wonderful things, magical things, do indeed exist in our nine to five, timeclock world. Indeed, the reader can easily imagine that he or she might just be a wizard himself or herself.

Another part of the Harry Potter books' appeal is an outgrowth of Rowling's idea of having the magical coexist with the mundane. Quite simply, she has created a wonderfully complex society for the wizards and witches of the Harry Potter universe. The wizards' society has its own history, culture, and customs, quite separate from those of muggles. We know that wizards and giants do not particularly get along. We know that a house elf may be freed of his or her service by granting him or her clothes (an idea J. K. Rowling drew directly from folklore). We know a good deal about the civil war among wizards which Voldemort (or perhaps I should say "He Who Must Not Be Named" just to be safe...) precipitated. Perhaps Rowling's world is not as complex as Tolkien's Middle Earth, but it is fairly complex for any book, let alone a series of children's books.

Of course, as much as the magic and the magical society that goes with it in the Harry Potter books appeal to their fans, I suspect much of the series' appeal may be a bit more down to earth. Beyond the wizardry and witchcraft, the Harry Potter books are about coming of age. Harry must adjust to the idea that he is a wizard (which isn't too far removed from most of us who went through puberty, I suppose...). Like most of us Harry had a crush on someone, unrequited at that (I don't think he'd won Cho Chang as of the last book...). Like many of us he has faced bullies in his time (Draco Malfoy and his cohorts from House Slytherin). And like many of us Harry has felt himself to be the outsider at times. His aunt and uncle, the Dursleys, are Muggles and have always mistreated Harry because he is a wizard. At Hogwarts, Harry is known as the one person to survive Voldemort's attacks and later as the school's resident hero. Indeed, Harry's really close friends can probably be counted on one hand. Anyone who has felt like an outsider in his or her life can easily identify with Harry Potter.

This brings me to another part of the Harry Potter series' appeal. Quite simply, Rowling has created some of the most interesting and complex characters in the history of children's books. We have Hermione Granger, the child of Muggle parents, who more often than not prefers to do things by the book. We have Ron Weasley, part of a large wizard family, who usually does not care much for rules. Even the instructors at Hogwarts have their own personalities. For me perhaps the most interesting is Professor Snape. From the beginning it seems as if Snape has it in for Harry. But as the books progress, it seems to me another picture of Snape has developed. I don't think Snape dislikes Harry--he simply wants Harry to achieve his full potential and does not want Harry lured to the "Dark Side" as Voldemort was. I suppose this is just an example of the compexity of Rowling's characters. The reader can speculate about their motivations for literally hours.

The Harry Potter books have proven enormously popular for the reasons I have give above, as well as others which I haven't mentioned. Beyond the books, which are always at the top of the bestseller lists, there have been the very successful movies, tons of merchandising, and an incalculable number of web sites and email lists. I do not think that Harry Potter mania is just a fad. I do not think that many years from now people are going to be asking who Harry Potter was. Instead, I think the Harry Potter books will join the Oz books, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Hobbit, and others as classics of children's literature. I think 100 years from now, people will still be reading them.