Can you feel the force...?
Enter Mark : everyman hero. A chubby loser works in film, making factual readings of pure historical true events. No lying means no imagination which means no fiction...if you're following me..??! Mark's bored too. At odds with his work, dating out of his league with generically attractive bird who has no qualms about telling him to his face that she doesn't find him alluring whatsoever. Then his secretary informs him he'll be fired later the following day, once his boss can get psyched up to do the deed. Last year Gervais followed the reasonably well recieved, and pretty damn good "Ghost Town" with "The Invention Of Lying" ("TIOL"). This time he's co writer AND co-director as well as star. Those who've been watching closely will be only too clear of this new hero of modern comedy's influences. Similarly his assertion that good comedy, that's comedy that matters to people, really needs to be about something. To connect, on some other level, even if those viewers aren't aware that it's doing such. This film rips along, as you would expect but from that light bulb moment on it's an altogether more bumpy, if enjoyable ride.
First the good news: The first act of TIOL has a freshness, a bizarre edge and a relaxed pace, whilst being genuinely laugh out loud funny. It's a pretty high concept, (...it's not like anyone would expect an American Pie is it..?) but Gervais grounds it in his usual style. The knack he has for the nicely grotesque, contradictory sides to human nature and behaviour are all very much front and centre. Plenty of those awkward "I can't believe I said that moments.." he does so well. Make no mistake that this is a sympathetic, sophisticated fantasy comedy movie. Think of it as Liar, Liar...just in reverse..?!?!The almost starry cast includes Jennifer Garner and the always value for money, Rob Lowe. There are great cameos too, by very talented big names. TIOL avoids the folly of Zombieland I mentioned a few weeks back.
This great concept gets very high and very fast when the plot takes a bold turn. Mark visits his ailing mother, so distressed and only too aware these were her last moments of life. To comfort her he invents the notion of the afterlife and a big beardy bloke in the sky, on the spot. His imagination just kicks in, with the purest of intentions....'cos of course he CAN lie!!. It doesn't stop there though.
However, it's also at this point the comedy slides. It becomes another movie, almost. One I can't help feeling is more aware of it's own cleverness, and that makes people feel like they're preached at, particular when you've just served them 40 minutes of agreeable-ish fare. Of course with the comedy stripped back we're left with a notion that not everyone watching is going to be comfortable with in their heads. Personally I enjoy it, am challenged by it and I applaud him for doing it but so stark a shift effectively pulls the rug from under his own feet.
After being so idiosyncratic and bold earlier on, this is a pity. Gervais own character, Mark is close to his "Andy Milman" from Extra's. However, it doesn't feel quite as satisfying this time out and I suspect that's because this film tries harder than it should to cover so many bases. As much as I respect Gervais, and enjoyed the movie, I can't help but feel that he's not quite made it to where he's supposed to be yet. Looking back to "Liar,Liar" it's cleverness lay in it's simplicity.
Though on the surface that was a much broader film, Invention Of Lying would've been a better one with a pinch more of the same. 3.5/5
As huge HD PLASMA and LCD screens gradually take over living rooms, DVD evolves into Blu-ray and you've got your disc of effects extravaganza "Avatar" on the shelf, Hadley's going to convince that you MUST see some B/W, SF from 40 years ago...?
...oh yes, so make yourself comfortable..!
Yes, I'll hold my hands up and admit I'm a child of the blockbuster age (..ermm, no not the rental place!) I'm one of the Star Wars generation, who's affection for material sometimes comes as much from the hype and the tie-in product, as the piece itself.
But I still see there's something special; magical about vintage TV. Beyond the curiosity value of seeing old cars that your Grandad may have owned, or the amusement at a silly haircut. Besides which, don't we all get fatigue from the "slickness" and sophistication of even the best of 21st century entertainment, from time to time..? My solution to this, as to a growing number of things I'm finding is, "everything in moderation".
Only last night I wallowed in a shamefully un-remastered episode of Steptoe & Son from 1964. Simple in it's presentation, by todays standards. So weathered and conspicuous on a 40+ inch screen, but it takes little of it's running time to acclimatise oneself to the contrast. The script and performances immediately grabbing a viewer in an intimate way which modern TV often abandons altogether, until some industry "visionary" looks back to these B/W days for inspiration when reaching for real longevity. Remember that not only were screens much smaller back then, but so were our living rooms. Often someone in the family would have to draw the curtains or tinker if there was just an interior aerial on the set, to keep the screen snow-free. There was the one solitary speaker so much "sssshhhhh-ing" and whispering was commonplace. You will not find a better example of this, than in the original seasons of Doctor Who, screened from late 1963 onwards. Unlike poor old Steptoe however, classic DW is all being gradually, painstakingly, faultlessly remastered and restored to look the best it ever has by a team working with BBC DVD. If the thought of watching material, be that movies or TV in anything but full colour fills you with dread, I'll be unlikely to change your mind. But I do ask you what's the worst thing that could happen if one of these DVD's made its way into your player, onto your screen...? Once you have your answer, I'll tell you alternatively, what the best could be. Particularly if you've come to love this particular series since it's return in 2005, or even it's "respray" this year, because DW in 1964, is different yes (I'd be mad to deny...!) but unmistakably the same series. It speaks the same language, has the same roots in classic literature and the popular culture of the day. It boasts the same sense of morality and fun as the Matt Smith episodes, and an air that we may just be "intimately" witnessing the beginnings of something approaching legendary here in 2010.
It places her right in the middle a society which fascinates her so, as she's attended by priests from schools of both "knowledge" and "sacrifice":the villain of the story Tlotoxl. Naturally, the sacrifice aspect doesn't go down too well with our Barbara, who's at this point becoming the heart and soul of the series. She believes perfectly placed and justified in quickening it's abolishment, with Autloc:priest of Knowledge, hanging on her every word. However this not only brings her into conflict with the rather blood-thirsty Tlotoxl, but The Doctor himself as He warns against trying to change so much as one line in established history.Of course it's all doomed from the start, right..??! We know this in hindsight, and it's this impending sense of the inevitable and the failing of Barbara's purest intentions which gives The Aztecs much of it's richness and sense of real drama, above thrill-of-the-week-type antics which the series had mastered up to now. This story assures DW's longevity just as much as that first Dalek story had.
It's very much Jacqueline Hill's time to shine playing Barbara Wright. She wrestles with her emotions, the status and power her assumed identity comes with. As well as personal responsibilities, particularly to Autloc, her devoted follower. Then there's her loyalty to The Doctor, whom by now she has come to respect after so much mutual distrust earlier in their relationship. As his patience with her turmoil turns to frustration at her stubbornness, it's simply magnetic viewing and represents the very best in earliest Doctor Who. Small scale, inter-personal drama which plays with the biggest ramifications.
It's not just the regulars that shine either, the story boasts a small but superb supporting cast. There's a memorable bad guy, you could almost root as he tries to undo Barbara's plans. Then there's Keith Pyott's touching performance as Autloc the priest, at odds with his faith. All played out amongst beautifully detailed sets and costumes.
This being the first time I've watched it in a few years, it particularly brought to mind the 2008 episode "The Fires Of Pompeii", where David Tennant's Doctor also fell into conflict with his companion Donna, over changing history. A strand which would reach a powerful resolution in the following years "The Waters Of Mars". 
After all Toy Story 3 has been the biggest, best received AND reviewed movie, of any kind, this year...!
Well my conscience is clear, because if there's just one of you hovering about whether to see this theatrically or not, or worse still, who hasn't seen any of them yet, that I can swing it for, I'm justified!
TS3 finds us a decade on, in narrative terms as well as reality. As in the real world, things have changed in Andy's room. Sadly, Woody, Buzz and what's left of the rest of the gang just don't get out like they used to. Andy's 17 and moving on, so perhaps they should too...? Or face a different kind of "infinity and beyond", boxed up in the family attic.
The movie kicks off with a typically explosive, funny, eye-popping action sequence which instantly makes the 10 years since TS2 seem like 10 minutes. Followed by 100 minutes of top-class entertainment, with something for everyone and plenty left over. The ease at which we drop right back into that world, its language and iconography highlights the commitment to quality that persists at Pixar Disney Studios; the strength of this brand and the near legendary status and appeal of these characters. Destiny unfolds and our heroes cross paws and plastic with another vividly realised bunch of toys, led by a maniacal teddy bear who "smells of strawberries": Lotso, the Top Dog of the seemingly idyllic "Sunnyside Day Care Centre".
New additions to the roll call are all chosen in service to the plot and just as brilliantly realised and identifiable as Rex, Jessie, Ham and the others. How many adults must say to themselves or their partner "...I used to have one of those!" during these movies..? The character of Lotso being particularly compelling, with a strong back-story which I must advise, could upset younger ones.
Laughs and action come thick and fast all building to a natural, deliberately teary but life-affirming finale. Highlights come by the minute and I wouldn't want to spoil a single one by recounting my favourites here, but i will say that the words "demo-mode" will never seem quite the same again. Personally speaking, I laughed out loud, at the cinema, which I NEVER do. I also found myself brought closer and closer to the edge of my seat as the stakes got high as they could ever get.
In summary I can confirm that Pixar have achieved what so many fail to do with regularity. Rounding off a trio of films in a fresh but satisfying way. Consistent to what's gone before, that'll disappoint no one. We're often told how long it takes to put these films together, yet not one moment feels contrived or over-worked. Each plot point flows naturally from the last. As ever, the cornerstone is the strongest of story-telling and a script bursting with real characterisation. Other studios should hag their heads. Just compare this series to the celebrity voicing and movie send ups that have cheapened the Shrek series, for example.
The Toy Story regulars are never re-booted or upgraded and their appeal as movie icons is as built to last as Baloo the Bear's or even Marilyn Monroes'. Storywise, Pixar seem to have an uncompromising mission to explore childhood, adulthood....and toy hood, should you believe in such things, in a truthful and rounded way. Tapping into a darker side, just enough, as the most lasting of children's literature always has.
Toy Story 3 brings the theatrical movies to a natural end, making a timeless statement. I'm sure these characters will indeed live on, perhaps in short films or even on television. For the moment, Pixar should rest easy knowing they've delivered something special and lasting in this franchise over the last 15 plus years. Don't ask me which of the 3 is the better film either. Hell, I'm not even sure I have a favourite!! The series has proven to be more than the sum of it's parts. Each covering their own ground, rather than re-treading the same. To alter a mark out of 5 in relation to one another would be silly and plain unfair, because there's no question that TS3, like it's previous instalments stands tall in the landscape of modern cinema as an easy 5/5.
You can expect to find summaries of what's going on, and dips in and out of the vortex that is the 47 year history of Doctor Who. That most special of series, and aimed at anyone who's interested...
CHRISTMAS SPECIAL 2010
Starting this week with the news that filming has wrapped on this years DW Christmas special. We've still not got a title for the episode, once again written by Steven Moffat, but we've a cast list....and now a picture!
Matt Smith and Karen Gillan were guests of Chris Evans on his first time hosting BBC1's The One Show, just last night and brought an exclusive, and yeah hardly exciting pic with them (see left)
Still, it's confirmation that there's more in the can, for our delight on Christmas Day again this year.Matt and Karen traded quips with Rose's ex-husband and Alex Jones, mostly about the big snog scene from this years episode "Flesh And Stone". In a bizzare homage to the great British fish and chips, they also ran across 1000 litres of batter at the end of the show (..no REALLY!!!)
Unbelievably, this is DW's 6th Christmas special now.
The cast has been announced and will also feature Arthur Darvill, returning as Rory, and Pooky Quensel from aclaimed drama Five Days and who has a regular role on EastEnders as Max Branning's first wife.The big guest artists this time out are Katherine Jenkins (..whether shes playing herself, as many have, or not is anyone's guess!) and Dumbledore himself (..well, the 2nd one) Sir Michael Gambon...result!!
Filming on the 2011 series of DW is due to start about now!
Lastly, if you've been downloading and playing the Adventure Games from the BBC site, you may be interested to know that the 3rd one's being launched next week. Available from Aug 27th, it's called simply "TARDIS".
The press release teases....
"Since 1963, kids have wondered what it would be like to control the TARDIS.
Now we're handing complete control of the most powerful ship in all of space and time to a generation of children. Everybody duck. T
ARDIS is a brilliant, brilliant adventure. It's funny, touching, terrifying, amazing - everything a Doctor Who episode should be".
Happy gaming!
I'd not seen it for a couple of years, but watching it with someone else...?
Well, it gave me a window in on what it would be like to see it for the first time. In isolation as a piece of entertainment foremost.
Perhaps for the first time since it's release, and certainly the only time with zero anticipation or expectation on my part.
What I found was, in truth, still a sprinkling of the stuff that legends are made of, but more a magic that has rubbed off, rather than cast a fresh spell and a galaxy slightly further away than before....
The story follows veteran Jedi Master, Qui-Gon Jinn played by Liam Neeson, and his apprentice or "Padawan" (..try pulling that one out of the bag in Scrabble) Obi-Wan Kenobi as they attempt to resolve some trade dispute but quickly embark on a almost sweeping adventure. Taking in a serious amount of sand, but fortunately they're dressed for it...! Whilst trying to secure fresh parts for their damaged spacecraft they meet a young slave boy. It's Jinn who comes to realise this boy, one Annakin Skywalker, has a unusually strong, purely instinctive synergy with "The Force". The Force which, as we all know by now, is the cool stuff which "binds the universe together" to quote another movie.
The special effects remain special, even if you can see the joins more now that digital effects have progressed. John Williams music's as rousing as ever and the universe it brings before our eyes taps into that spirit of Saturday morning serials. Those which Lucas had sought to recreate originally in the mid 70's as he wrestled with the possibilities of bringing an epic space fantasy to the big screen.....that's the good news!
It's often said to me that there are lots of problems with TPM. That's not strictly speaking true. It being more accurate to confirm that there's just two or three, but they're critical ones. Unmissable quantities which no amount of special editions, new scenes, pimped up effects or re-scoring are ever going to put right.
The simple fact is that whilst TPM leaves many other family blockbusters standing in terms of spectacle and box-office, it's a mostly a flat experience compared to a multitude of others. As if Lucas directed from a big comfy arm chair and chewing on his Werthers originals, rather than the frontline hyped up on Smarties.
The scene moves, time after time like a travel log but only really crackles with signature Star Wars vitality at two points in the whole show: the nail-biting, if predictable, pod-race and the duel of the fates as our two Jedi are drawn into a final confrontation with the demonic Darth Maul. Both key junctions in the film I grant you, but the contrast is SO stark that TPM shows itself up as an over-worked, over story boarded film.
Those two occasions are the only times in the whole 2 hours that you really feel inside the story, rather than spectating.
Such mismanagement also is apparent in the frankly idiotic plotting of the thing. Billboards famously boasted, a whole year previously to lampoon Godzilla (1998), that "PLOT MATTERS"....and who'd argue with that...? However the plot of TPM is needlessly dense with political nonsense and bizarre ideas (...a symbiotic circle...?!) Together they mire the mood, dilutes much of the vitality I referred to, and sadly makes it uneasy bedfellows with the other films in the series. It wouldn't be so bad if any of it made any sense. The fact that we're told so much, in such monotone a voice as Portman uses as Queen Amidala, but see so very little, gives a sense that it's the stuff happening off screen that's more interesting. All giving the illusion of real plot, and serious issues but in truth it's just words for the sake of words to cover the joins.
Even the nature of the force itself is altered and explained at microscopic level, when it was completely unnecessary. Here the mystical, romance of The Force as we knew it acquires a controversial association with a biological element, namely the microscopic "Midi-chlorian" organisms. No one needed to know any of this either
Leading us to the bigger problem. All of the above could maybe have been pulled off better had it not been for one thing: that dialogue. It's appalling. Better scripting, truer characterisation could've made even this plot seem more interesting. Or at least made us care for the implications for the core characters and their way of life. There's plenty of brooding and ringing of the bells, yet we're never really sold on it somehow. Speech slides from matter of fact to the plain idiotic or both, witness Annakin's mum's total disinterest in the fact she's immaculately conceived a child. See the resignation in the eyes of the Pernilla August as she tries to sell that one!
Now you could argue that Star Wars, as a fantasy, is inherently ridiculous..? I don't buy that for one moment. There was truth to the way the characters spoke to us in the original trilogy of films. They were familiar archetypes, in many ways (the unsatisfied farm boy, the jumped up Princess etc) but the words seemed to leap from their mouths in contrast. Remember this is, whilst a galaxy far,far away from our own.....still supposed to be the same one and only a couple of decades earlier, rather than a couple of centuries. Natalie Portman is particularly badly served.
Then there's the scene where Jinn introduces Obi Wan to Annakin. So awkwardly composed you half expect the characters to turn to the camera, shake hands and wink at us. Characters seem manoeuvred into situations to hit the requisite marks, stitching the saga together. Whether it serves the plot, or seems natural being by the by. The preservation of such moments has proven counter-productive, I believe, to Lucas's wish for his legacy. A huge contributing factor to the reason why the saga is still, five years from it's finishing in cinemas, still referred to as two different series as films: "Prequel Trilogy" and "Original Trilogy". These films seem to not have the confidence or relevance as tales worth telling in their own right without the "prequel" prefix. To dilute the pathos of this franchise is quite a feat, and a huge shame.
Speaking of the icons from the original trilogy brings me to my final point and the biggest piece that's missing from TPM.
Namely "The Harrison Element". Yes, because every fantasy needs its purveyor of swagger, as personified by the magnificent Harrison Ford as Han Solo. It's this edge that TPM so badly needs to really jump-start the plot, and take us proceedings from a chain of incidents to genuine adventure, with real jeopardy. Exactly who are we supposed to be rooting for here...? Who is our "way in" to a story which, I mentioned earlier, we are merely observing. Someone to rally behind, or even against would have added that heart and passion which itself would've heightened audience interest. Convinced us not only that the characters were in real jeopardy, but that we actually cared one way or another. Palpatine, for example, may be a very nasty man but he's a potentially fascinating character,played by a superb actor.
It's clear (well.....clearish!) from certain points in the film that, on paper, this was perhaps supposed to have been the department of Qui-Gon Jinn.
For whatever reason, and at the expense of fan favourite Obi Wan, it was he Lucas intended as our hero. To pass the baton to Annakin. Once again though we're told, rather than see for ourselves, of his reckless streak and a maverick status amongst his peers. Okay he tells a couple of porkies, but his expression rarely changes and his arms are practically always folded. Liam Neeson is more than capable of delivering on this count. Had had he been given the stimulus of a decent script and real characterisation he'd undoubtedly have given TPM the striding, chance taking, classic romantic hero that it so badly needed. Jinn should've been Indiana Jones like and dragging Obi-Wan by his braids through trial after trail, answering for errors after the fact. As it is on screen it's more like seeing the universe with Michael Palin, just without the laughs or the odd bare buttock.
So there we have it! The Phantom Meance all fixed...? ...again...!!! (...note that I resisted banging on about Jar Jar too!) You know what though, for everything that disatisfies me about the film, I've never not enjoyed watching the thing. Not once, and that has to count for something I'm thinking. 
It's an enduring film, as I'm sure the children of 1999 will be telling us as they reach adulthood, but how much of this is by association...?
As a neutral starting point, from which things would get better, darker and indeed lighter, perhaps it is the right entry point for children who will now come to the saga as a 6 film opus. You only have to look across at the early Chris Columbus directed Harry Potter movies as better examples of the same principle. No matter what, we're stuck with it and it's "might've beens".
2.5/5
This last weekend at the huge "Celebration V" event in Orlando, George Lucas announced the release of all 6 Star Wars films, all freshly polished for the Blu-Ray age. Yes, they can be yours to own etc......again! 
"The Great Beard" also unveiled the first of what will probably come to be significant new extras for the set.
In this case the long talked about missing scene of Luke from the beginning of 1983's Return Of the Jedi. You may groan, but I guarantee if you're a true fan, and who isn't..?!, it'll give you a couple of goosebumps during it's 58 seconds.
As long as there is fresh new SW footage being found, it seems all is right with the world.
This occasion strikes me as good as any other with which to commence my occasional, gradual coverage of all things Star Wars. The franchise which, as genre fans, kind of defines us, whether it's our favourite or otherwise.
Truth is it's just a coincidence, but I'm not sure Yoda believed in them.
So there you have it! Another convert to the wonders of that faraway galaxy, that just seems to get bigger by the year. Well, possibly! Every new person that a single Star Wars production entertains, and brings back for more assures it's legacy. I'm looking forward to watching Episodes II through to VI over the coming months, and taking in various side-projects along the way.
I'm not quite done with Episode I first though....just in case you think I'd given it an easy ride. Check back here in a couple of days for my own full review of a film which, whatever else we think of it, is a genre essential.
MONDAY 9 AUGUST
When Doctor Who isn't on air, our hungry minds seem to wander to the nearby shores of Torchwood...
It's been over a year since the last series aired, to huge ratings and similar acclaim. Then everything went decidedly quiet. John Barrowman answered the call from Desperate Housewives (...that's a show, not a facebook group! ) and Welsh geek goddess Eve Myles announced her pregnancy.
However, the successful SF drama series which span off from DW, has recently, finally been confirmed for a 4th series. Enitled "Torchwood : The New World" Once again the new run will air on BBC1 though will comprise 10 episodes. That's double the length of last years 3rd series.
It's a mold-breaking, 3 way deal involving BBC Cymru Wales, who have produced the first three series in house as they do Doctor Who, and BBC Worldwide, that's the corporations commercial arm who crucially retain the rights to distribute TW globally. The 3rd, partner being USA premium entertainment network, Starz Entertainment. The ten episodes are described in the press release as "very fast paced, telling a self-contained story.
Obviously this is excellent news for the little series that just keeps getting bigger, and those who follow it...
No matter what each of us think of the show and it's strengths, weeknesses, triumphs and mis-steps, you'd be deluded to not recognise how important it's become to UK schedules and in furthering the legacy of British TV science fiction that started with Quatermass, back in the 1950's. Or not acknowledge it's influence and the importance of the nature of this latest recommision as a co-production between it's BBC originators and its new US associates.
I notice though that there's already plenty of disinformation floating round about the future of TW, so in this entry I'm going to pull all the hard fact about the Series 4, into the one place. No speculation (...well, not until further down!,lol) just the facts as announced. Seeing as we're closing in on the 5th anniversary of the original announcement of Torchwood, we'll have a little look back to what's gone before too.
So, let's start with the most obvious question. 1:who's starring in it....?
At the moment confirmed casting is just the return of both the ever shy and retiring John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness (...last seen picking up that bloke from Being Human in the new Years Day Doctor Who special) and Eve Myles as the heart of Torchwood, former police officer Gwen Cooper. Though there will be new cast members to replace all the ones bumped off along the way, in previous runs. Here's a recent quote fleshing out the remit, as featured in the Hollywood Reporter, from Russell T Daves (..returning showrunner and contributing writer) and Julie Gardner, executive producer and long time collaborator.
"The new story will follow a CIA agent (Rex) and analyst (Ester) who tackle an alien-related global issue. Torchwood, having been destroyed and disbanded, is "like a legend now ... it's like something that's ceased to exist and is now spoken of only in whispers." Soon, Rex and Ester are on the run and are seeking out the help of Captain Jack and Gwen.
"The two teams coming together is a big part of the story -- are they friends or enemies? There's a lot of sparks and excitement."
"We definitely have a really big story to tell," added executive producer Julie Gardner. "It's absolutely rebooted to welcome in a new audience."
The case is promising to "tie the two remaining Torchwood members to the CIA, and will expand into a world-wide threat".
Mention of the ever-present pen of Russell T Davies, or "RTD" as affectionately known, brings us to the next question...
2: who's writing it...?
Well, according to sources, including the Chicago Tribune, the writing team for series four of Torchwood has been selected by Executive Producer and Lead Writer RTD, as follows. Firstly there's John Shiban and Doris Egan, who are both veterans of Smallville as well as covering such US series as House and The X-Files amongst others, between them. Additionally there's UK writer John Fay who also wrote two episodes of Torchwood: Children of Earth. Other work includes episodes of Clocking Off, Blue Murder and Robin Hood.
Last, and perhaps most impressively, there's the name Jane Espenson. For those not in the know, she's a lady approaching god-like status amongst fans of the SF and fantasy genre after a five-year stint as a writer and producer on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for which she shared a Hugo Award. Further to that she's contributed to a myriad of serial dramas and comedies including recent Battlestar Gallactica prequel, Caprica. As most of us already know, it was Buffy that heavily influenced RTD's original take on Doctor Who when looking to reinvent it so succesfully in 2003/4 and he's been vocal in his admiration for her.
Will any of the above, familar faces from the Doctor Who and Torchwood universe, reappear in the forthcoming series...? Time will tell.
So far so good eh...? Hang on though, with all this change 3:will Torchwood still be Torchwood....?
Millions of us loved the series as it was, thankyou very much! What if it's unrecognisable after all this excitement..?
After all, the press release promises that whilst previous series were based on location in Cardiff, Wales, Series 4 will see storylines widen to include locations in the U.S. and around the world. In short, Torchwood's going global!
Well, here's what the suits have to say......
- Jane Tranter, EVP, BBC Worldwide Productions: "Torchwood has attracted remarkable attention and loyalty in both the UK and U.S., and in this new partnership with Starz, the next chapter will not only reward our current fans, but also introduce new viewers to the most impressive instalment yet."
"We're committed to programming exceptional television that is entertaining, imaginative and provides a premium TV experience, and by any measure the new concept for Torchwood fits that mandate,"
-
Ben Stephenson, Controller, BBC Drama Commissioning said: "We have a long history of working with many U.S. networks but it is incredibly exciting to be working with Starz for the first time, as well as to be reunited with the best of British in Russell, Jane and Julie. Torchwood will burst back onto the screen with a shocking and moving story with global stakes and locations that will make it feel bigger and bolder than ever"
-
Russell T. Davies Creator and Lead Writer, has left Britain for Los Angeles. He states confidently in these quotes from USA Today it "will be faithful" to the BBC original. Explaining that the story itself "had been ticking away in my mind for a long while...not been planned as a Torchwood story at all. Suddenly I thought, there's a popular show, there's a great story, let's put them together...It felt like it definitely could move forward and become new again."
"Though it will be newer and bigger, the tone won't change", Davies reassures long term fans. Barrowman's Jack will still be TV's only bi-sexual hero and humor will still play a large part in the show's make-up....It will always be a cheeky show." So could being on Starz, makers of Spartacus:Blood and Sand, mean the show could potentially take advantage of looser standards for nudity and violence....?
"I've always had loose standards and practices," Davies said. "If the story demands intimacy or savagery, we will go there absolutely ... [but] there's nothing better than a great big global thriller that stops for a sex scene -- it's probably hard to make that happen in a thriller."
Okay, so they're all press releases. What did we expect they'd say...?
However, it does ring true when you look at the path TW has taken up to now. The fact is that this series has evolved with each consecutive series in a pretty drastic way. Certainly more so than most British drama series, with their formulas, static (..actually make that falling!) budgets and tried and tested writers.
So here's where my opinion comes in because I believe it was change driven mostly by the necessities. Both of it's increasing profile and a natural growth it would've been foolish to deny, less it stagnate. Torchwood as it stood in 2006, would doubtfully be still running now had it not developed in this way.
Torchwood was initially announced with this image (left), on 17 October 2005: Controller of BBC3, Stuart Murphy, described it as "sinister and psychological...As well as being very British and modern and real." RTD further described it as "a British sci-fi paranoid thriller, a cop show with a sense of humour. [...] Dark, wild and sexy, it's The X-Files meets This Life."
It would be just over a year until we could judge for ourselves and there's no getting away from it..! Some of Series 1 (2006) was preposterous, even by cult TV standards. To the point where it resembled spoof fantasy series Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Yes, there's a lot of people who liked TW as this slightly seedy, raunchy (....god, I love that word! Whenever I say it in my head it's always as Rik Mayall ) and schlocky series that approached guilty pleasure status. 
There were highpoints, yes but it was uneven in it's tone, and the sexual content jarred with the rest lending the whole production an adolescent quality. It brought out the schoolboy in all of us.
Sounds fun doesn't it..? And to be fair, a majority of it was, but the fact is that much of that wasn't intentional.
Commisioned for and broadcast firstly on digital channel, BBC3, it delievered its best audience figures at that time and carved out a niche for itself. It's place in the cult TV panthenon, assurred.
By Series 2 (2008), TW switched to mainstream BBC2. Ratings had been so high it was a no-brainer.
It was a much smoother and satisfying affair which struck the balance between thrills and genuine drama almost sensitively (.....I say again, almost!).
Recurring, supporting cast included bubble-butted TARDIS graduate Martha Jones and devilish Captain John Hart, as played by James Marsters.
Again it was made up of individual episodes but the themes which formed the loose continuing aspects flowed much more naturally. All building to real heady climax the way the DW finales have. The main cast too were all given their own arc's, some of which destined for uncompromising tragedy.
The 3rd run in 2009, "Children Of Earth" consolidated this by being tighter scripted, taut with real angst and an unsettling truth usually only found in the heaviest of drama. 
All set alongside imagery and topics reminiscent of the work of science fiction TV pioneers like Nigel Kneale.
The world it existed in seemed more real than ever. The danger to humanity, more thought-provoking and the light it shone on the darkest instincts of our psyches, uncomfortably bright. It wasn't perfect, but it was event TV which straddled genres with a swagger you couldn't help but be swept up in. All this and it was now in primetime, promoted again to BBC1, and stripped across one week. For all intents and purposes, a mainstream drama hit.
I feel justified, when looking back on this, in stating those who are anticipating more TW on any level should keep the faith, and leave their minds wide open. 
And if you loved the old incarnations of the series that much...?
Well, that's what the DVD box sets are for.
So the final question must surely be " So Dan, when can we watch ....??????"
Simple one that, if not that precise. We're promised filming will begin in January for transmission later in 2011.
If you push me to guess, I'd say the Autumn so that's just over a year to wait. I'll be watching it's development, and following up the piece when casting takes shape. Though I'll be careful to avaoid the spoilers, as ever.
WEDNESDAY 4 AUGUST 2010
Right....I'll cut to the chase, I really enjoyed Zombieland.....!
There 'ya go. If that's enough for you fair play, but be my guest and read on for the customary "buts" and "maybes" because the film comes with a disclaimer..!
In case you don't know, or can't guess by the cryptic title (...sarcasm, me, surely not..?! hehe) this is another entry into the horror-comedy canon courtesy of Columbia. Once again the global population appear to have been turned into zombies, relatively recently. We get the back story filling out the origin of the new world dis-order from out the mouth of our lead character, " Colombo" in a very matter of fact way. The why's and wherefores are hardly relevant, and it's a neat if disturbing idea...unless you're a vegetarian.
It's all narrated in the first person, and rather effective as Jesse Eisenberg has a great line in these everyman "I just want a quiet life" types.
What follows are some great moments of slapstick, though black enough comedy in a nice riff on the buddy/road movie....just with zombies! All played by a small cast with noticeable chemistry, if one playing character types we've seen before in other stuff. There's even something approaching real "thrills" in fits and starts. You WILL care what happens next, which isn't always a given. It's got a lean running time of just over 80 minutes, and uses terrific graphics and flashbacks as Colombo explains his tried and tested rules for daily survival in this totally hostile world.
At the centre of the mayhem there's a standout turn from Woody Harrelson, as Twinkie fixated cowboy "Tallahassee". If Burt Reynolds had played Han Solo, this is what he'd be like. As we know from past roles, Woody has 2 types of characters he plays. There's (1) the loveable buffoon and (2) the balls-out maniac! Here he challenges us with a cocktail of those: a "loveable maniac" who predictably gets most of the best lines and moments. When he's not on screen you do notice....!
So why so reserved in referring Zombieland, you may ask...?
Simply put, the film loses it's nerve and tries to be clever-funny at a crucial point, when just more funny-funny would've more than done. It's called "Zombieland" for Yoda's sake, no one expected "Being John Malkovich". Broadly speaking there's not enough horror for gore-hounds and not enough comedy in the mix for it to inject the fresh blood into either genre that it was capable of. That's frustrating when so many pieces of the puzzle fit so well. If you already have Shaun Of the Dead, From Dusk 'Til Dawn or Tremors you may be better off just watching those again instead. However much I liked this movie, they're all better and then some. There's scope for a sequel or two here though, even if I won't rush to see them theatrically.
Good news is it all rallies for the final push and my adrenaline was well-pumping again for the obligatory shoot-out as our road-trippers reach their destination
3.5/5
WEDNESDAY 14th JULY 2010
MICHAEL VS. JASON
I'd even venture that no other genre depends quite so wholly on the continued vitality of the others, than horror.
Having said that though, when a horror film gets it right, it can be massively satisfying. Perhaps the clue in achieving this comes with an awareness of precisely where that fine line between thriller and horror resides...? Hitchcock knew this, as do the likes of Wes Craven and David Cronenberg. Similarly the line between comedy and horror, I'm thinking Craven (again!) Romero (...at his prime) Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson off the top of my head. However for every 2 or 3 that get it right, dozens get it wrong on both counts.
"Friday the 13th" (2009) isn't a period remake, as those of Amityvillle Horror and the aforementioned Chainsaw Massacre had been, but the conventions of the modern age are sensitively afforded minimal impact on the general lay of the land. The producers may kid themselves it's more than a remake, but the truth is it's all about getting a bunch of unlikeable, horny teens (played by 20 somethings, in the noble tradition!) into isolation and then polishing them off in various unsavoury ways. And you know what, Nispel delivers so stylish a film it almost succeeds in making you forget you've seen it all before.....they key word there being "almost".
Well, the idea seemed to be to consolidate an identity for a series which had staggered through a sequence of increasingly "by numbers" sequels throughout the 80's, to the point where few can seperate one from the other in their memory, and potentially move on from there. So the more memorable bumpings-off from the entire canon are re-presented, with Nispel's signature flair. More crucially, the origin of hockey-masked big bad Jason is streamlined. Drastically so, and the trimming of so much fat from events that originally took 3 films to unfold, does indeed lend the character a little more of the stuff of legend which his peers have benefitted from. Nispel's part in it all seems just the hired "eye", and there's nothing other than gloss to characterise the whole experience in any way, nor differentiate it from the herd.
The intention may've been to restart a once lucrative cash-cow but to my eyes all that's been actually delivered is a final word on "Friday the 13th" and confirmation that there's not nor ever will be, anything new or worth seeing/exploring here.
So when I said it wouldn't bother me if I never saw another slasher movie ever again, how did I come to belatedly see "Halloween" (2007) just a short while later? Am I that fickle...??!
Well, to quote Vicki Pollard "...yeah, but no". With Halloween, I will make what appears to be at first glance, the exception.
Fast foward to Halloween (2007) and Rob Zombie had taken the unenviable challenge of remaking that genre classic. I'd caught a little of a previous movie of his years ago, and to me it seemed to epitomise everything that was wrong with modern horror. It screamed excess, boasted appalling acting, made no descernable sense.....and offered nothing actually affecting, let alone scary. However, I can't deny Zombie was clearly someone bursting with a creativity and sometimes, when some people are given parameters and tasked to meet a brief, that creativvity can be directed with huge impact. As such, his version of Halloween, I'm pleased to state is a league ahead of Nispel's Friday in every respect.
It's still a remake, clearly, but Zombie comes at the material from a different point. In fact the first 3rd of the film effectively becomes a prequel containing a wealth of new insights and exploring the reality behind the making of the monster from a man, or in this case a boy. It's sympathetic, beautifully acted (particularly by the young actor playing 10 year old Michael Myers) and shot with restraint where's wise. All creating something coming closer to horror as events unfold, culminating in the events on Halloween night, 15 years later.
So in summary, Halloween may not match the original film either, but it has a bloody good go. It feels like a fresh slant, worth seeing and leaves us with some quite startling scenes and a nail biting last act. Even if you know what's coming! Personally I'd say that allowing us to identify quite so strongly and almost sympathise with Myers in his youth, is admirable enough. The intention of depicting real mental torment and the road which many diagnosed as pyschopathic do indeed take. Though perhaps it walks a fine line when you consider some choices Zombie makes with regards to how the women in the film are treated and objectified.
Halloween: 3.5/5
WEDNESDAY 7th JULY 2010
The GARFIELD Zone
Previously : A couple of weeks ago I was musing over super-heroes...
Not that unusual in itself, granted. When I'm not imagining what I'd do if I was one, and what power I'd like most, seems like I'm reading about them, or watching them. On that occasion I was talking specifically of the casting of such icons of the comic book and the desire, nay rabid need, to get it right. "The Downey Jnr Factor"...
Then a short time afterwards there's a huge piece of casting announced regarding one of what are the BIG 3, and certainly still the biggest Marvel property : Spider-Man
Andrew Garfield was announced as the new Peter Parker, in a short but busy round of publicity and greeted with universal sentiment "...Andrew who.....?" Well, Garfield's a British/American actor, reportedly bagging "just" (...I'd STILL have done it for half this!) 500,000 dollars for tugging on the tights in the first of 3 contracted films. "Spider-Man", as it's known for now, will debut in 2 years time and in 3D.
Hurrah!!!!....or not....???
Within minutes the news had been dissected, Garfield googled (...inlcuding by me, I confess) and backs well and truly pushed up, by folk who seem to spend their lives with that as their preferred state of being. It's predictable, and all part of fun at it's most innocent, and when the dust settles (relatively quickly in this case..) we ALL go back to hating Jar Jar Binks.
But it means from now that this project enters into a unique kind of limbo...
Despite the fact that Garfield's work is easily found, in fact most geeks will already own at least one appearance in a 2007 Doctor Who, we know little of him and he's had nothing which you can reasonably describe a leading role. Just a buzz around forthcoming David Fincher movie about the founding of Facebook (...no, I don't know why either but I see it as the pre-cursor to a biopic of Bill Gates where the young Gates is like Harry Potter, crossed with Reed Richards) Bolstered by, let's be honest, a decent enough track-record in officially acclaimed work and by those who are allowed to acclaim it, rather than those who rant, rave or both online. Director and creative force Marc Webb isn't much more known, with one well liked and distinctive movie under his belt and a parade of music videos which all adds up to an unknown mass we're waiting 2 calender years to see.
Peter Parker, as he's been portrayed in the many cartoons of Spidey over the years
It all makes fans ansty, even nervous.....and of course the media loves it when fans of anything get nervous, so they can play to it. Probably, uniquely in the UK whip it up a little into real negativity to the point where we're convinced it'll be a "flop" (another all too common phrase in media journalism, which I'm tempted to write a whole blog on in itself!) just because we've been told so. Ambiguity does perhaps understandably not sit well with those who hold a property such as "SM" dearest.
This limbo between announcement and at that first teaser, I'm officially designating "The Garfield Zone", in his honour and just because it would seem I like doing such things!!
Those who have decided they "ggrrrr....hate reboots", like it's a new trend equivalent to hitching your jeans underneath the cheeks of your arse, will use it's duration to reinforce endorsement of their own mindset. Oblivious to the reality that "reboot" is just a newish term for something that's been done successfully and creatively in movies for decades. The rest of us sit on our hands, and will probably alternate between bemusement that Webb hasn't had the decency to pick an actor he's worked with before so we could've predicted it, a slight disappointment that our previously voiced and therefore "obvious" choice (mine was Zac Efron, in case you wondered...)wasn't chosen and a fresher, cautious optimism.
At this time we've no concrete reason to suspect the fusing of this latest actor to our beloved Peter Parker, surely the "geeks-geek", won't be triumphant. Certainly as much a "glove fit" (there I go again!) as his predecessor, the likewise "unknown" but liked, un-obvious choice Tobey Macguire.
The bottom line is that Andrew Garfield is a name few of us recognise and for those who practically insist on being given the opposite, that's unsettling. Despite the fact it's worked out more often than not and traditionally so with franchise properties. People like predictability. They're comfored by it, to the point of feeling validated by it maybe...?
But if you were Avi Arad and his cohorts, what would you rather...? Sign Efron, Jamie Bell or one of the other names we all know from something else, with their requisite baggage, expectation and price tag? Or be first to make a star out of someone before another studio recognise his rising......? I'd go with the latter, but if you disagree I'm all ears.
From the small screen, with Nicholas Hammond on TV in the early 80's,
to Tobey Macguire's hugely popular performances in the recent movie series.Andrew Garfield is just the 3rd actor to take the role in a live action production.
There's no getting away from the fact he's quite older than Peter is supposed to be, particularly at the time in his life when we've been told the new film will reset the character to. That may change also, who knows....? For the right actor, and they must think he's the right one otherwise they'd not have picked him. The photos I've seen range from Garfield looking his age and then some, to being noticeably youthful and undeniably like he's been drawn by John Romita Senior. How irritating!!! Then again, the man makes a living from "pretending" and changing himself......
Webb too is an exicting and potentially huge talent. One who's already redefined the romantic comedy for those in the know (...not me, I've not seen 500 Days Of Summer yet) which is no mean feat. It's fair to say he could've picked his projects up to a point, but he's confident and feels justified enough, at a crucial stage in his career to take on a 50 year icon and lucrative property. This and follow one of the most successful and loved sequence of block-busters in recent times......??!?! I know he's not doing it for free either, but I still think it takes brass bollocks.
Before exploring all this, and sharing it with you, I was tempted to seek out more of Andrew's work as I'm sure a huge amount on bloggers and jounro's have. However, that would colour my judgement as it would inform me. Thus defeating the object of drawing attenton to this zone in a movie's development and the true place, even in the age of the net, where everyone but cast and crew exist. I've put up my deck chair in the zone you see, and whatever the weather turns out like I know there's sweet FA I can do about it. No one's forcing me to see it.
Damn sure I'm not going to worry, let alone mither, about it in between. I consider the fact of the matter could be that on whichever side of the fence you sit, it's all part of the fun....
THURSDAY 1ST JULY 2010
WONDER WOMAN AT 600
In case you'd not guessed by now, my favourite TV series of all-time, by some way is Doctor Who. Always will be......and it always was....!!! Well, I say always but I'm about to disclose something that I've never told anyone before.
Don't tell a soul, but there was one programme before I got the DW bug. One character that grabbed my imagination, for any hour every Friday evening in dazzling colour and she looked a damned sight better in a basque than Tom Baker......!!
Yes, my confession is that originally my favourite series was Wonder Woman, starring the gorgeous Lynda Carter. I was only about 6 years old, but I knew I fancied her and more importantly I'd seen her in the DC comics my Grandad occasionally brought me back from the paper shop. That's when you could still buy US comics outside of specialist shops in the UK. She was incredible, and the series was so slick to my little awe struck eyes. In relative terms, it didn't last that long. Once Tom took a dive and turned into that guy from "All Creatures", allegiance well and truly shifted (...whoooa hang on, he can change his FACE...?!?!?!?)...but I never forgot Wonder Woman.
Though I'm very much the casual buyer of comics now, I really sat up to attention when I heard not only that iconic heroine was about to clock up her 600th issue (due to some nifty renumbering comics publishers do now) but that she was about to be rebooted once more. Or is that "reimagined"...? This time the man in the chair is former Babylon 5 guru turned comics powerhouse J.Micahel Straczynski.
She's been retooled a few times over the decades, probably most radically as a special agent in the early 70's complete with Emma Peel jumpsuit, but this is something with what appears to be a bigger M.O. More than just a costume, although that's been redesigned too. And it strikes me as not only hugely bold but potentially the chance that this character, who is still seen more as someone people dress up as on hen nights, could become as respected and celebrated as DC's Superman and Batman.
In the press release "JMS" says of his new back story for the 70 year old creation as follows:
"The Gods removed their protection from Paradise Island (...WWs birthplace as always), and left it vulnerable to attack.
And attacked it was. Led by a dark figure, a veritable army descended upon the Island, equipped with weapons that could kill even the Amazons. Out gunned, doomed, Hippolyta gave over her three-year-old daughter to a handful of guardians who spirited her away as Hippolyta led one last desperate battle against the forces that had come to destroy all she had created. In that final battle, she and most of the Amazons were killed, though some managed to escape."
" Twenty years later: Diana has been raised in an urban setting, but with a foot in both worlds..... She knows only what she's been told by those who raised her On the run, hunted, she must try to survive, help the other refugee Amazons escape the army that is still after them, discover who destroyed Paradise Island and why …"
And here she is....Wonder Woman 2010, as redesigned by comics legend Jim Lee.
I have to admit I reckon this sounds and looks wonderful....or is it just me...?Full of the angst and mythology yet with a truth and scope for telling great "super-human" interest stories. You see, I believe WW is a sleeping giant that could one day be a blockbuster movie as other, sometimes lesser, characters have been.
Attempt after attempt, sometimes by very talented creators with track records in both strong female leads (such as Buffy-man Joss Whedon) or in movies generally have floundered and think I may be able to see why. I consider that this new status quo courtesy of DC could be a way in ensuring that she will finally reach the big screen.
Although Wonder Woman has moved with the times, her previous origin was still pretty much based around the notion that it's still enough to be a "woman in man's world". The harsh reality is though, that's probably not enough now to draw people in. Anachronistic to women of today perhaps and even the young girls who you want to make them want to be Wonder Woman when they grow up. It just wouldn't be anywhere near cool enough for boys and I suspect that this combination has been why no movie project has felt satisfying enough to finally trigger a green light.
The new origin and take on the character I can see on the big screen. Aside from the threads which wouldn't risk "fallout" every time she kicks some ass, Wonder Woman 2010 has tragedy and real loss, as all the stories the public take to their hearts really do. There's still enough scope to tap into the mythology, but now it sounds more romantic somehow. I notice it mirrors changes in Marvel's Thor property to a less radical extent, but there's also something of the Harry Potter's at work as Diana encounters and learns from these "guardians". The "woman with one foot in both worlds" will no doubt fracture the psyche of the character in a way she just wasn't built for, as was. If handled as well as we know JMS is capable of, it could make for great reading and even better viewing. Boasting that distinctive and relevant angle and pathos which she has lacked, I don't think it's unfair to say.
Despite the fact that fewer and fewer fans were sticking with the comic under the old story, some will cry foul over this. They always do, and yeah the JMS take is unlikely to remain in the comics permanently. However, I stand by my gut instinct that DC and Warner's will be watching this one very, very closely. Refining it's composite parts, sounding out script writers and examining fan and media feedback closer than usual....
Personally I don't think DC are promoting it quite ENOUGH. This should be a full-blooded "Secret Origins" mini-series like the recent Superman one. This is no less radical a change than what's been done, undone then done again to Krypton's last son over the last 25 years.
So I will close this with another picture of Lynda Carter (..just cos I can!), the lady who I tell myself I've got to thank for my discovering comics, amongst other things. My final words on this other than "Happy Birthday!" must be to watch for that green light.
The BIG BANG:
A spoiler free countdown....
That's got to have been one of the longest weeks in Doctor Who history, hasn't it...?
No real clips, no new footage in the teaser advert on BBC1. Just a couple of very ambiguious stills and non commital responses from the cast and crew at interviews.
Which is, of course, how it should be...Isn't it...?
I'm all for hype and building a buzz, but can't stand spoilers particularly when a series is actually airing, you know..? I mean, what's the longest your going to have to wait to find out for yourself,on screen as those telling said story intend ! I suspect the appeal of spoilers is the notion that, particularly with regard to something so popular and widely consumed as DW, the one who gets this informations knows something very few others do. Makes them feel that little bit closer to it...? As Kryten would say "engage smug mode"...?
A friend of mine mailed me last night assuming that a certain classic series foe will be returning tonight, but he's a casual fan in his late 30's with no insider knowledge at all. Not even the kind that gets onto forums. The fact that he's been thinking about it, to whatever degree this last 7 days, means Moffat has got it so right. I answered him, very confidently with a "no!"...but within minutes it planted the idea in my head that his suggestion may actually be possible. Unlikely, but possible...I decided as I tidied up after my kids. To me this speculation, whether you're a veteran fan or have only been watching since March or less, is so essential to the fun of following DW.
Or have I got it wrong...? Are spoilers just as much part of the fun for some, and more detatchable from the actuality of viewing the show, when Saturday comes than I realise...? On the odd occasion I've had stuff accidentally spoilt for me, I've always found it slightly deflating when the thing's aired. Knowing I'd have enjoyed it more not seeing it coming, but hey it wouldn't do for us all to be the same right...? Spoiler-junkies, enlighten me....
Anyhow, back to the plot and The Doctor's sealed inside The Pandorical, TARDIS has exploded with River inside it, just as Vincent warned and Amy....!?!!?..is she really dead...? Blimey!!! In fact, aren't we all dead...? In which case who's writing this...? What's that I can hear.....silence.......??,hehe.
The 31st series of Doctor Who concludes this evening, from 6:05pm on BBC1..
THURSDAY 24TH JUNE 2010
"The DOWNEY JNR. Factor"
Nothing's been confirmed about a Dr.Strange movie, other than it's one of a couple of dozen Marvel is "developing". But I can't be alone in finding this prospect, whilst initially quite random, a "glove-fit" scenario seconds later.
I'd never have thought of him myself, as he remains pretty much off my radar on "Greys Anatomy", but I reckon Marvel should, and probably will leap on his interest like a robbers dog. Because the tide has well and truly turned with regard to casting superhero flicks and it seems to be mostly the fallout from Robert Downey Juniors own charismatic "glove-fit" as Tony Stark in the Iron Man series.
Demspey may not be in RDJs' league as an actor (...only may, it's unfair of me to nail that one down!) but casting him may prove a master-stroke by the same standards. Not only is he allegedly keen to do it, perhaps 3 parts knowing it doesn't hurt to have a multi-million pound franchise ticking along in theatres while you pursue other work to 1 fondness for the comics, but also he comes with a guaranteed fan base. A different one demographically perhaps than RDJ's but a similarly mighty one in terms of getting those bums on seats.
Downey was an almost A-lister from a bygone decade. Liked, despite his troubles. Respected even, though never quite achieving the recognition his talent and ego deserved before slipping into the red and gold. Probably widest known in the years up to then for a recurring role in Ally McBeal. A series which had similar appeal to Greys Anatomy, where Dempsey has been setting hearts a flutter for years. But if you can get Mum into the cinema, as Dempsey almost certainly can, then you can get the whole family and that's how those blockbusters happen. He's also done enough decent work before hand not to be an unwelcome prospect for the blokes out there. I can't see Dr.Strange being any higher up on that fabled Marvel list than any other of those Avi Arad has talked up so far, but I can picture this in my head now. Dr. Strange is a property the general public have no preconcieved ideas about either, making acceptance easier. Patrick Dempsey could make Stephen Strange his own and if I can see how it could work, so you can bet Marvel can...
Broadly speaking it seemed at one time it was thought that you couldn't cast a lead actor over 25 in anything so populist as a superhero movie, never mind someone pushing middle age.
Now every potential project will be looking for it's "Downey Factor": that "glove-fit" in the wake of Iron man's continued success.
Outside the box thinking, you may say! Or, depending on how you look at it, inside the box! Recently we've had "Lost" survivor Daniel Dae Kim express similar "interest" in Namor:Sub Mariner (...perfect!) and now Nathan "Castle/Firefly" Fillion and the Desperate Housewives stalwart Eva Longoria Parker look set to be cast as Hank Pym and Janet "Wasp" van Dyne in The Avengers.
Still don't know if I'm convinced about Chris Evan's hand fitting Captain America's glove so snug, but my mind's wide open.......
SATURDAY 19TH JUNE 2010
Pandorica Day!
If this were an Elm Street movie, that would be followed with an maniacal laugh. I'm doing one, you'll just have to trust me on that!,lol
Yes, you may have thought that the Pandorica opening this evening was enough excitement the geek community could take in one warm (...okay, warmish!) Summer evening. My finally opening this blog could just be the cherry on top. And of course as the finale of Doctor Who is the biggest event in the genre calender, certainly on screen, this next couple of weeks, I can't think of a better place to start.
We're less than 2 hours away as I type this and obviously I'm expecting something big! Traditionally bigger than pretty much anything else on British TV and bigger than the average DW episode. Previous years upped the ante, probably as far as you could've gone down that particular road. By that of course I mean that specific RTD way of capping a series off! I'm not knocking it! It worked beautifully and I've loved them all, but if Journey's End didn't call take things up as far as they could go as regards invading alien armies, The End Of Time definately did....right...?!
...or am I...!?!? Could you have taken more...?
And what are you expecting this time out from either this or the 2nd episode next Saturday..?
I'm still expecting something BIG in spectacle, but with something noticeably different at the epicentre. Then there's all the horses, stone circles and smoke in the trailer. All points towards something less George Lucas and the "SAGA" favoured by RTD and more British. Douglas Adams crossed with JRR Tolkien...? Plenty of Steven Moffat's "fairy tale" angle, tapping into mythology, reflected in the very word "pandorical".
It's doubly delicious that the Radio Times, sacred organ of the DW enthusiast, hasn't printed a cast list. A few suprises, and perhaps some dead certs, will be present later on. Not just the glorious River Song! Talking of whom, I wonder what little bread crumbs the Moff will slip out regarding her..? We know that the Pandorical happens for her chronologically BEFORE The Time Of Angels, and of course before Silence in the Library, but the character twists and turns with each appearance. In a way, I'd like something nailed down before the credits roll on episode 13.....but another part of me could watch Kingston exchange quips with incarnation after incarnation of the last of the Time Lords!
The nation waits with baited breath and you can smell the tension as tens of thousands of us happy anoraks simultaneously touch-cloth. Whatever happens it's guaranteed to be more fun than England V Algeria....!
Incidentally, I am not remotely interested in spoilers. So by all means let's here some theories, what you enjoyed and what you didn't, but any little nugets of info, just keep tucked away to yourself like a Squirrel does his nuts.
Otherwise, Happy Pandorica Day, wherever you are and whenever you're reading this....!