This week I finally had the opportunity to see the first six episodes of Gatchaman, courtesy of the DVD released by ADV. For those of you wondering what Gatchaman is, it was an anime series first aired in Japan in October 1972. The series was produced by Tatsunoko Productions Co. Ltd. The show's original title was Birdmen, but it was changed to the onomatopoeic word Gatchaman, meant to represent the crashing of metal objects. I have no idea why the name was changed, although it could have to do with the fact that in the Sixties a Hanna-Barbera cartoon called Birdman aired here in the United States on NBC.
Gatchaman followed the adventures of the "Kagaku ninja tai" or, in English, the "Science Ninja Team," a group of young people formed by Dr. Nambu to fight the terrorist organisation Galactor. The group was made up of five members or "ninjas," all of them with a bird theme. The Eagle, Ken, was the group's leader, also known as "Gatchaman." Jun, the Swan, was the only female member of the Science Ninja Team. Jo, the Condor, was headstrong and impulsive, the member of the group most likely to fly off the handle. Ryu, the Owl, was the group's pleasure loving pilot. Jinpei, the Swallow, was the youngest member of the group and not quite as skilled as the others--he often served as comedy relief. Together the Science Ninja Team travelled the world battling Galactor in their remarkable jet plane (it could even go underwater!) the God Phoenix.
Gatchaman proved very popular in Japan. It ran for a total of 105 episodes and two years. Indeed, Gatchaman would prove to be very influential. It was the first of the "Sentai (in English, "taskforce")" series, whether live action or animated, in which a group of individuals (usually teenagers) with super powers are gathered together to battle some evil. Gatchaman can then be considered the direct ancestor of Chodenshi Bioman and The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.
The initial success of Gatchaman led to its continuation in new series. Gatchaman II debuted in 1978 and lasted for 58 episodes. Gatchaman Fighter fighter lasted for 48 episodes in 1979. In 1994 there three OAVs or "straight to video" releases based on the series were produced
With regards to the United States, Gatchaman holds a rather unique place in anime history. First, it was one of the very few anime series to make its way to America in the Seventies. The mid-Sixties saw a good number of anime series make their way from Japan to America, starting with Astro Boy and including such shows as Gigantor and Speed Racer. By 1968 the flood of anime series to the States stopped, perhaps due to greater restrictions on violence in children's programming (Japanese anime series often being much more violent than American cartoons) and the failure of some of the anime series to catch on. In the Seventies, then, only a handful of anime made their way to the United States. Gatchaman would be released here in greatly altered form as Battle of the Planets.
This brings us to the second reason that Gatchaman holds a significant place in the history of anime in America. Of nearly all the anime which has made its way to American television, Gatchaman may have been the most altered from the original version. Ever since Astro Boy debuted in the United States, American producers have made changes to the original product. Names would be changed (for instance, Astro Boy was originally Tetsuwan Atom in Japan--changed here because there was already a DC Comics character called The Atom in the United States) and much of the violence would be cut out. In the case of Gatchaman, however, the very concept of the series would be changed and scene would actually be added! In 1978 Sandy Frank Film Syndication brought Gatchaman to the United States. In the wake of the success of Star Wars, the series' name was changed to Battle of the Planets. While the original Gatchaman featured the Science Ninja Team battling a terrorist organisation here on Earth, Battle of the Planets featured G-Force travelling to "other planets (which all looked suspiciously like Earth...)" to battle an alien threat. Scenes of the Phoenix travelling through space were added, as was a robot sidekick named 7-Zark-7 and scenes in a so-called "ready room." Ridiculous measures were taken to downplay the violence of the original series (for instance, the narrator might point out that all of the innocents killed in any given battle were actually robots....). As an adaptation of Gatchaman, Battle of the Planets was not particularly well done. That having been said, it did introduce a whole new generation of fans to anime and maintained interest in anime in America in the Seventies.
The third reason that Gatchaman occupies a unique place in the history of anime in America is that it is one of the few anime series--perhaps the only anime series--which made the trip across the Pacific not only once, but three times in different incarnations! In the late Seventies and early Eighties, Ted Turner's cable channel, WTBS, had aired Battle of the Planets. Once Sandy Franks Film Syndication's licence on Gatchaman ran out, Ted Turner bought the rights to do another American adaptation of Gatchaman. G-Force, Guardians of Space aired very briefly on TBS in 1986. G-Force, Guardians of Space was a much more faithful adaptation of the original show, even leaving some of the violence in tact. Scenes taking place in space and the robot 7-Zark-7 were gone. Unfortunately, in some respects, G-Force, Guardians of Space was a poor adaptation of Gatchaman. The dubbing and voice acting was not particularly good, and the original music was replaced by rather bad electronic music. G-Force, Guardians of Space aired for only three episodes in 1986, although the entire run would air on the Cartoon Network in the Nineties.
The United States would see yet another adaptation of Gatchaman in the form of Eagle Riders. In this case, it was not the original series which was adapted, but the two sequel series, Gatchaman II and Gatchaman Fighter. The series debuted in the U. S. in the fall of 1996 and ran for one year here. As in the case of Battle of the Planets, Eagle Riders made siginifcant changes to the original series. Indeed, while the sequel series featured the Science Ninja Team once more battling the terrorist organisation Galactor, Eagle Riders featured an alien threat known as Cybercon. The various foot soldiers of Cybercon are all said to be androids (in the original seires, Galactor's minions are human). Much of the violence of the original series was allowed to remain intact, although many of the hand to hand combat scenes were cut.
Fortunately, this year ADV Films started releasing an uncut Engilsh version of Gatchaman on DVD in the United States. Volume One was released on June 14, 2005. At last anime fans in America can finally see the series as it was originally aired.
In many respects Gatchaman is a rather goofy series. The animation is in some respects below par by today's standards. Indeed, often stock shots are used (particularly when Ken transforms into Gatchaman). Having been made in 1972, the characters all dress in those awful Seventies fashions. The dialogue is often rather cheesy. And many times the episodes are down right bizarre--just to give you an idea of this, the third episodeof the series is titled "The Giant Mummy that Summons Storms!" That having been said, Gatchaman has an energy that only a few cartoons--American or Japanese--possess. The episodes move quickly and there is a good deal of action in every one. And while much of the dialogue is awkward, Gatchaman at least possesses some character development. Indeed, the various characters have their own motivations. Jo is seeking revenge for the death of his parents at the hands of his parents. There is a bit of a mystery as to what happened to Ken's parents (it is revealed early on that his father was a pilot). Despite its shortcomings, it is easy to see why Gatchaman was a hit in Japan and is sitll considered a classic by American anime fans.
Sunday, September 4, 2005
Saturday, September 3, 2005
Friday, September 2, 2005
Robert Moog R. I. P.
Most of you may not recognise the name "Dr. Robert Moog," but you probably recognise the name of the device he invented--the "Moog syntesizer." Robert Moog died Sunday from an inoperable brain tumour at the age of 71.
Dr. Robert Moog was born in New York City. As a child he developed an interest in the theremin, one of the earliest electronic instruments (most often used to make the creepy sounds in horror and sci-fi movies). While still a boy he built gadgets with his father. He would go onto Queens College and Columbia University. He built theremins to help pay his college tuition. He was still a doctoral student majoring in engineering physics at Cornell University when he developed the Moog synthesizer alongside composer Herb Deutsch. It was in late 1964 that R. A. Moog Co. first started selling the Moog synthesizer.
The Moog synthesizer was not the first synthesizer. Others were already on the market in 1964. What set the Moog apart was that it was lightwweight, small, and very versatile. By 1967 the Moog synthesizer would be used on a pop music album for the first time, that album was The Monkees' Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, Ltd.. It was used ont he songs "Daily, Nightly" and "Star Collector." It was with the album Switched-On Bach by keyboard artist Walter Carlos in 1968, however, that the Moog synthesizer gained widespread recognition. Soon many other artists would be using Moog synthesizers on their songs. The Beatles used it on their album Abbey Road and The Who used it on their album Who's Next. By the 1970s Moog synthesizers were used frequently in rock music. By the late Seventies and early Eighties there would even be an entire genre of pop music reliant on the synthesizer as its primarly instrument--"synthpop" or "technopop," which included such artists as Soft Cell and the Human League. In movies, the Moog synthesizer was used for the score for A Clockwork Orange.
Dr. Robert Moog considered himself foremost as an engineer or toolmaker. He simply build tools used by musicians. In some respects I think this may be an understatement. The name "Moog" became associated with synthesizers in the same way that "Steinway" became associated with pianos or "Les Paul" became asssociated with guitars. Indeed, Robert Moog's invention revolutionised the music industry. Not only could it be heard in many of the classic rock songs of the Seventies and Eighties, but it had a profound influence on progresive rock and funk. Its existence pretty much created the genres of synthpop and techno. More than many other men in the field of musical instruments, Dr. Robert Moog had a profound effect on modern music.
Dr. Robert Moog was born in New York City. As a child he developed an interest in the theremin, one of the earliest electronic instruments (most often used to make the creepy sounds in horror and sci-fi movies). While still a boy he built gadgets with his father. He would go onto Queens College and Columbia University. He built theremins to help pay his college tuition. He was still a doctoral student majoring in engineering physics at Cornell University when he developed the Moog synthesizer alongside composer Herb Deutsch. It was in late 1964 that R. A. Moog Co. first started selling the Moog synthesizer.
The Moog synthesizer was not the first synthesizer. Others were already on the market in 1964. What set the Moog apart was that it was lightwweight, small, and very versatile. By 1967 the Moog synthesizer would be used on a pop music album for the first time, that album was The Monkees' Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, Ltd.. It was used ont he songs "Daily, Nightly" and "Star Collector." It was with the album Switched-On Bach by keyboard artist Walter Carlos in 1968, however, that the Moog synthesizer gained widespread recognition. Soon many other artists would be using Moog synthesizers on their songs. The Beatles used it on their album Abbey Road and The Who used it on their album Who's Next. By the 1970s Moog synthesizers were used frequently in rock music. By the late Seventies and early Eighties there would even be an entire genre of pop music reliant on the synthesizer as its primarly instrument--"synthpop" or "technopop," which included such artists as Soft Cell and the Human League. In movies, the Moog synthesizer was used for the score for A Clockwork Orange.
Dr. Robert Moog considered himself foremost as an engineer or toolmaker. He simply build tools used by musicians. In some respects I think this may be an understatement. The name "Moog" became associated with synthesizers in the same way that "Steinway" became associated with pianos or "Les Paul" became asssociated with guitars. Indeed, Robert Moog's invention revolutionised the music industry. Not only could it be heard in many of the classic rock songs of the Seventies and Eighties, but it had a profound influence on progresive rock and funk. Its existence pretty much created the genres of synthpop and techno. More than many other men in the field of musical instruments, Dr. Robert Moog had a profound effect on modern music.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Brothers Grimm
With the release of The Brothers Grimm, some may expect director Terry Gilliam to have finally gone Hollywood. After all, the movie features two big name stars (Matt Damon and Heath Ledger) and (for Gilliam, at least) a fairly big budget. But anyone who sees the film will soon realise that Gilliam, despite his stars and his budget, has not gone Hollywood. Indeed, The Brothers Grimm harkens back to his earlier films, such as Baron Munchausen and Brazil, with Gilliam's usual, unconventional filmmaking style.
The plot centres around Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm, the two brothers famous for compiling German fairy tales (Jakob would also write the mammoth Deutsche Mythologie, one of the earliest works on Germanic mythology), before they became famous. This is hardly a biography of the two, as this is a total fantasy of what they life may have been like. In the movie the two brothers make a living by "battling" various "supernatural" menaces across the German countryside. They soon find themselves working for the French (who at the time occupied much of Germany under Napoleon) and investigating the disappearances of various young girls in a small German village. The plot unfolds wonderfully. Indeed, one of the strong points of the movie is its screenplay. The movie does not tip its hand too quickly when it comes to revealing the various mysteries of its plot, nor does it move too slowly. One of the best things about The Brothers Grimm is its pacing. But perhaps the best thing about the movie's screenplay is the way it toys with the fairy tales we all grew up with. Indeed, some of them are used in the most unexpected ways--the Gingerbread Man sequence being a perfect example (you'll never watch the two Shrek the same way again....). Indeed, the plot is based around of the best known fairy tales--see if you can guess which one.
The Brothers Grimm is greatly helped by its performances. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are both cast against type, with Damon as the more extroverted, rational Wilhelm and Ledger as the introverted, creative Jakob. Both are convincing in their roles, particularly Ledger whose Jakob has a tendency to believe that elements in his beloved folk tales are real. Kudos must also go to Lena Headey, as the resourceful Angelika, and Peter Stormare as highstrung Italian Cavaldi (one of Gilliam's typically off the wall characters).
Of course, the strongest point of The Brothers Grimm may well be Gilliam's direction. Gilliam puts his movie about as far as from the typical Hollywood blockbuster as he possibly can, with his usual unconventional style of filmmaking. There are the strange camera angles, incredible shots, oddball camera movements, and so on one might expect from a Terry Gilliam film. As might be expected, the movie has its share of over the top gags and strange characters. At the same time, however, there is nothing in this film that is self indulgent or unneccesary. Gilliam's strange shots and odd camera movements suit the movie's odd plot and atypical subject matter very well.
As stated earlier, this is one of Gilliam's movies with a bigger budget, and from the look of the movie, the money was invested quite well. The sets are huge and lavish. The costumes are intricate and detailed. Another one of The Brothers Grimm's strong points is its production design. This is a movie whose look is not only appealing, but suits the film very well.
The Brothers Grimm is obviously not going to be suited to every taste. Those who have little stomach for Gilliam's style of movie making probably will not like the film. But if one enjoys a movie with an original plot, off the wall direction, and a wonderfully skewed sense of humour, then this is the movie for him or her.
The plot centres around Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm, the two brothers famous for compiling German fairy tales (Jakob would also write the mammoth Deutsche Mythologie, one of the earliest works on Germanic mythology), before they became famous. This is hardly a biography of the two, as this is a total fantasy of what they life may have been like. In the movie the two brothers make a living by "battling" various "supernatural" menaces across the German countryside. They soon find themselves working for the French (who at the time occupied much of Germany under Napoleon) and investigating the disappearances of various young girls in a small German village. The plot unfolds wonderfully. Indeed, one of the strong points of the movie is its screenplay. The movie does not tip its hand too quickly when it comes to revealing the various mysteries of its plot, nor does it move too slowly. One of the best things about The Brothers Grimm is its pacing. But perhaps the best thing about the movie's screenplay is the way it toys with the fairy tales we all grew up with. Indeed, some of them are used in the most unexpected ways--the Gingerbread Man sequence being a perfect example (you'll never watch the two Shrek the same way again....). Indeed, the plot is based around of the best known fairy tales--see if you can guess which one.
The Brothers Grimm is greatly helped by its performances. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are both cast against type, with Damon as the more extroverted, rational Wilhelm and Ledger as the introverted, creative Jakob. Both are convincing in their roles, particularly Ledger whose Jakob has a tendency to believe that elements in his beloved folk tales are real. Kudos must also go to Lena Headey, as the resourceful Angelika, and Peter Stormare as highstrung Italian Cavaldi (one of Gilliam's typically off the wall characters).
Of course, the strongest point of The Brothers Grimm may well be Gilliam's direction. Gilliam puts his movie about as far as from the typical Hollywood blockbuster as he possibly can, with his usual unconventional style of filmmaking. There are the strange camera angles, incredible shots, oddball camera movements, and so on one might expect from a Terry Gilliam film. As might be expected, the movie has its share of over the top gags and strange characters. At the same time, however, there is nothing in this film that is self indulgent or unneccesary. Gilliam's strange shots and odd camera movements suit the movie's odd plot and atypical subject matter very well.
As stated earlier, this is one of Gilliam's movies with a bigger budget, and from the look of the movie, the money was invested quite well. The sets are huge and lavish. The costumes are intricate and detailed. Another one of The Brothers Grimm's strong points is its production design. This is a movie whose look is not only appealing, but suits the film very well.
The Brothers Grimm is obviously not going to be suited to every taste. Those who have little stomach for Gilliam's style of movie making probably will not like the film. But if one enjoys a movie with an original plot, off the wall direction, and a wonderfully skewed sense of humour, then this is the movie for him or her.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Box Office Slump
Where the movie industry is concerned, this summer could well be remembered more for the past several months' box office slump than any of the movies released in the same time period. Until last month when The Fantastic Four was released, box office revenues had been down for 19 straight weeks. Unfortunately for Hollywood, The Fantastic Four brought only a brief reprieve, not a full recovery; profits from movies have still been down from previous years. Even the latest Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, considered by many to be among the best of the franchise, could not raise box office revenues to the levels that they once were.
The current box office slump has been blamed on many different culprits. Among the foremost of these is the increasing popularity of DVDs. I have to admit that this could be one possble reason that people are not going to the cinema as often as they once did. I know many people who, rather than going to the theatre to watch a movie they want to see, simply wait for the DVD to be released and then rent the DVD or buy it. And with many movies being released on DVDs after only a few months after they are released to theatres, these individuals do not have to wait long. That having been said, I do not think that DVDs are the only factor which have led to the current box office slump. Many people I know, who usually wait for movies to come out on DVD before seeing them, went to see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith on its opening night at the theatre. Now I will admit that much of this is because most of the people I know are fervent Star Wars fans, but I think it could also point to the fact that if a movie is good enough, if a movie is remarkable enough, people will go to see it in the theatre. Indeed, last year saw record breaking box office revenues, despite the fact that DVDs were selling well too.
While many might wait for movies to come out on DVD, others might simply wait for them to be shown on one of the many cable outlets. Most movies debut on one of the premium movie channels (HBO, Starz, Showtime, and so on) about a year after their initial release and often on Pay-Per-View sooner than that. It seems possible to me that many people may simply be electing to wait until a movie is shown on the premium movie channels or Pay-Per-View before watching it. Still, as with DVDs, it seems to me that if a movie is good enough or intersting enough, people will go see it in the theatres rather than wait for it to be shown on a premium channel or Pay-Per-View. Again, I know of many who went to see the latest Star Wars movie even though they don't usually go to the cinema.
Another factor could be rising ticket prices at theatres. In many places ticket prices at cinemas have risen with every passing year. In fact, in many places it is not unusual for a family of four to spend over $100 on a night at the movies, after buying the tickets and a trip to the concession stand are factored together. With the cost of day to day living what it is today (especially the price of gasoline...), many families may not feel that they have the money to spare on too many trips to the movies. Going to the movie theatre then becomes something they do only once in a great while.
As to the ultimate reason for this year's box office slump, I suspect it may be the quality of this year's releases more than anything else. Indeed, it seems to me that in some respects Hollywood has been showing an amazing lack of originality the past several years, with many movies being simply sequels to prevoius movies, remakes of previous movies, or remakes of television shows. I do believe that this summer has not seen as many sequels as last year, but there were still a few, XXX: State of the Union and Herbie: Fully Loaded among them. Among the remakes of old movies there have been The Longest Yard and The Bad News Bears. As to remakes of old television shows, it seems to me that they have nearly been a dime a dozen this year. This summer alone has seen movies based on The Honeymooners, Bewitched, and The Dukes of Hazzard. It occurs to me that many people might simply not want to pay money for something which they have essentially seen before. Why go see the new version of The Longest Yard when one can simply rent the original on DVD? Why go see the cinematic remake of The Dukes of Hazzard when it is still in reruns on various channels or one can see many of the episodes on DVD (of course, I don't know why anyone would want to see the TV show or the movie based on it, but that's a whole different story...)? While many sequels and remakes are very successful (Shrek II and Spider-Man II from last year are two examples), it seems to me that many others simply fail at the box office. I suspect the reason for that is simply that people often won't pay money for something they perceive as having essentially seen before.
Of course, even when a movie is a remake or a sequel, it seems to me that people will go see that film if it is actually good. As I pointed out above, both Shrek II and Spider-Man II were hits from last year. This brings me to what I feel is the underlying cause for this summer's box office slump; whether a remake, sequel, or a movie based on an original idea, many of this summer's crop of movies simply have not been very good. The Bad News Bears, The Dukes of Hazzard, Stealth, and many other releases this summer have received simply wretched reviews from critics. And while the public often disagrees with the critics, it seems that this year they might well agree with them more often than not. Both The Bad News Bearsand Stealth failed at the box office. The Dukes of Hazzard did well its opening weekend before seeing its box office take plummet. While some films recieved bad notices from crticis, yet others recieved mixed reviews. Bewitched is a prime example of this. Many critics felt that its idea was sound and that the cast was good, but that it simply fell short of what it could have been. Regardless, it performed poorly at the box office.
It then seems to me that if Hollywood wants the box office to peform better, then it simply has to start making better movies. To me this means cutting down on the number of sequels and remakes they release. Was XXX successful enough to warrant a sequel? I'm not sure it was. Was anyone out there demanding a movie based on The Dukes of Hazzard? I suppose there could have been, but I rather doubt it. This also means simply taking greater care in making movies. Hollywood is going to have to see to it that the scripts are better, the directors are better, and the casts are better. It seems no secret to me that many of the most successful movies this year had good scripts, good casts, and competent directors--just look at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I said earlier, if a movie is good enough, people will go see it.
Of course, the unfortunate fact is that I don't know that Hollywood will take these steps in an effort to improve box office receipts. While the movie industry has produced many classics over the years, and has even produced many quality films in recent years, the fact remains that most movies over the many years have not been that good. Like any industry, it seems that Sturgeon's Law holds true for the cinema: 90% of everything is crud.
The current box office slump has been blamed on many different culprits. Among the foremost of these is the increasing popularity of DVDs. I have to admit that this could be one possble reason that people are not going to the cinema as often as they once did. I know many people who, rather than going to the theatre to watch a movie they want to see, simply wait for the DVD to be released and then rent the DVD or buy it. And with many movies being released on DVDs after only a few months after they are released to theatres, these individuals do not have to wait long. That having been said, I do not think that DVDs are the only factor which have led to the current box office slump. Many people I know, who usually wait for movies to come out on DVD before seeing them, went to see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith on its opening night at the theatre. Now I will admit that much of this is because most of the people I know are fervent Star Wars fans, but I think it could also point to the fact that if a movie is good enough, if a movie is remarkable enough, people will go to see it in the theatre. Indeed, last year saw record breaking box office revenues, despite the fact that DVDs were selling well too.
While many might wait for movies to come out on DVD, others might simply wait for them to be shown on one of the many cable outlets. Most movies debut on one of the premium movie channels (HBO, Starz, Showtime, and so on) about a year after their initial release and often on Pay-Per-View sooner than that. It seems possible to me that many people may simply be electing to wait until a movie is shown on the premium movie channels or Pay-Per-View before watching it. Still, as with DVDs, it seems to me that if a movie is good enough or intersting enough, people will go see it in the theatres rather than wait for it to be shown on a premium channel or Pay-Per-View. Again, I know of many who went to see the latest Star Wars movie even though they don't usually go to the cinema.
Another factor could be rising ticket prices at theatres. In many places ticket prices at cinemas have risen with every passing year. In fact, in many places it is not unusual for a family of four to spend over $100 on a night at the movies, after buying the tickets and a trip to the concession stand are factored together. With the cost of day to day living what it is today (especially the price of gasoline...), many families may not feel that they have the money to spare on too many trips to the movies. Going to the movie theatre then becomes something they do only once in a great while.
As to the ultimate reason for this year's box office slump, I suspect it may be the quality of this year's releases more than anything else. Indeed, it seems to me that in some respects Hollywood has been showing an amazing lack of originality the past several years, with many movies being simply sequels to prevoius movies, remakes of previous movies, or remakes of television shows. I do believe that this summer has not seen as many sequels as last year, but there were still a few, XXX: State of the Union and Herbie: Fully Loaded among them. Among the remakes of old movies there have been The Longest Yard and The Bad News Bears. As to remakes of old television shows, it seems to me that they have nearly been a dime a dozen this year. This summer alone has seen movies based on The Honeymooners, Bewitched, and The Dukes of Hazzard. It occurs to me that many people might simply not want to pay money for something which they have essentially seen before. Why go see the new version of The Longest Yard when one can simply rent the original on DVD? Why go see the cinematic remake of The Dukes of Hazzard when it is still in reruns on various channels or one can see many of the episodes on DVD (of course, I don't know why anyone would want to see the TV show or the movie based on it, but that's a whole different story...)? While many sequels and remakes are very successful (Shrek II and Spider-Man II from last year are two examples), it seems to me that many others simply fail at the box office. I suspect the reason for that is simply that people often won't pay money for something they perceive as having essentially seen before.
Of course, even when a movie is a remake or a sequel, it seems to me that people will go see that film if it is actually good. As I pointed out above, both Shrek II and Spider-Man II were hits from last year. This brings me to what I feel is the underlying cause for this summer's box office slump; whether a remake, sequel, or a movie based on an original idea, many of this summer's crop of movies simply have not been very good. The Bad News Bears, The Dukes of Hazzard, Stealth, and many other releases this summer have received simply wretched reviews from critics. And while the public often disagrees with the critics, it seems that this year they might well agree with them more often than not. Both The Bad News Bearsand Stealth failed at the box office. The Dukes of Hazzard did well its opening weekend before seeing its box office take plummet. While some films recieved bad notices from crticis, yet others recieved mixed reviews. Bewitched is a prime example of this. Many critics felt that its idea was sound and that the cast was good, but that it simply fell short of what it could have been. Regardless, it performed poorly at the box office.
It then seems to me that if Hollywood wants the box office to peform better, then it simply has to start making better movies. To me this means cutting down on the number of sequels and remakes they release. Was XXX successful enough to warrant a sequel? I'm not sure it was. Was anyone out there demanding a movie based on The Dukes of Hazzard? I suppose there could have been, but I rather doubt it. This also means simply taking greater care in making movies. Hollywood is going to have to see to it that the scripts are better, the directors are better, and the casts are better. It seems no secret to me that many of the most successful movies this year had good scripts, good casts, and competent directors--just look at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I said earlier, if a movie is good enough, people will go see it.
Of course, the unfortunate fact is that I don't know that Hollywood will take these steps in an effort to improve box office receipts. While the movie industry has produced many classics over the years, and has even produced many quality films in recent years, the fact remains that most movies over the many years have not been that good. Like any industry, it seems that Sturgeon's Law holds true for the cinema: 90% of everything is crud.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Brock Peters 1927-2005
Actor Brock Peters died yesterday at the age of 78. He had been fighting pancreatic cancer since January. Peters is perhaps best known for his role in the classic film To Kill a Mockingbird, in which he played the man falsely accused of rape.
Peters was born in New York City on July 2, 1927 as George Fisher. He attended the Music and Arts School in New York before attending the Ciry College of New York as a physical education major. Peters received a role in the classic musical Porgy and Bess in 1943. In 1949 he left college to go on tour with that show. By 1954 Peters made his screen debut in the film adaptation of Carmen Jones.
Peters played a number of memorable roles on film. Besides To Kill a Mockingbird, he also appeared in The L-Shaped Room, Porgy and Bess, The Pawnbroker, and Soylent Green. In the series of Star Trek movies he appeared twice as Admiral Cartwright.
On televison Peters made several guest appearances throughout the years. He appeared on the TV shows Daniel Boone, Mission Impossible, Night Gallery, Gunsmoke, and The Pretender, among others. On Star Trek: Deep Space Nine he had a recurring role as Commander Sisko's father, Joseph Sikso. He also did a good deal of voice work on cartoons, including work on Galtar and the Golden Lance, Gravedale High, and Samurai Jack. He was also the voice of Darth Vader in the radio series based on Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope.
On stage Peters appeared in Kwamina and King of the Dark Chamber". He received a Tony nomination for his role in Lost in the Stars.
Peters was one of the most talented actors of his generation, playing a wide variety of roles. He was capable of bringing a great amount of emotion to the parts he played. This can be seen in his most famous role, that of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Robinson is not simply a cardboard cutout created for Gregory Peck's character, Attcus Finch, to defend, but a three dimensional characters with his own concerns, his own feelings, and his own motivations. Appearing as recently as in the 2002 telefilm The Locket, I find it sad that Peters has passed on. He was a talented actor who could have continued acting for many more years.
Peters was born in New York City on July 2, 1927 as George Fisher. He attended the Music and Arts School in New York before attending the Ciry College of New York as a physical education major. Peters received a role in the classic musical Porgy and Bess in 1943. In 1949 he left college to go on tour with that show. By 1954 Peters made his screen debut in the film adaptation of Carmen Jones.
Peters played a number of memorable roles on film. Besides To Kill a Mockingbird, he also appeared in The L-Shaped Room, Porgy and Bess, The Pawnbroker, and Soylent Green. In the series of Star Trek movies he appeared twice as Admiral Cartwright.
On televison Peters made several guest appearances throughout the years. He appeared on the TV shows Daniel Boone, Mission Impossible, Night Gallery, Gunsmoke, and The Pretender, among others. On Star Trek: Deep Space Nine he had a recurring role as Commander Sisko's father, Joseph Sikso. He also did a good deal of voice work on cartoons, including work on Galtar and the Golden Lance, Gravedale High, and Samurai Jack. He was also the voice of Darth Vader in the radio series based on Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope.
On stage Peters appeared in Kwamina and King of the Dark Chamber". He received a Tony nomination for his role in Lost in the Stars.
Peters was one of the most talented actors of his generation, playing a wide variety of roles. He was capable of bringing a great amount of emotion to the parts he played. This can be seen in his most famous role, that of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Robinson is not simply a cardboard cutout created for Gregory Peck's character, Attcus Finch, to defend, but a three dimensional characters with his own concerns, his own feelings, and his own motivations. Appearing as recently as in the 2002 telefilm The Locket, I find it sad that Peters has passed on. He was a talented actor who could have continued acting for many more years.
Monday, August 22, 2005
"I'm a Loser"
This morning I find myself not in the best of moods. It seems like a good time for a Beatles song. "I'm a Loser" is one of my favourite songs from the early part of The Beatles career. Regrettably, I mut admit that I have had reason to identifiy with it.
"I'm a Loser"--The Beatles
"I'm a Loser"--The Beatles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
