Showbits

The Half-Blood Prince was the only Harry Potter book that left me looking forward to the sequel. But before I take that step forward this coming weekend, I took a step back and watched the film adaptation of the series' most boring entry, The Order of the Phoenix.

The movie's opening is fashioned after one of the novels' most lamentable traits: a complete lack of introduction or context. Anyone who is just a casual fan of the series — that is, those who read the books only once each — will have trouble recognizing Dudley Dursley or Nymphadora Tonks in the opening scenes. Indeed, many characters' roles have been reduced, Potter's love interest is of little note, and the titular Order is rarely seen or referenced.

Most disappointing than these cuts, necessary to adapt this behemoth of a book to film, is that the parts cut were the parts I liked. Ginny Weasley speaks not a single word in the entire film, whereas in the novel, she provided a helpful connection between Potter's current dilemma and the one she faced in The Chamber of Secrets. Potter's hesitancy to pursue lessons with Snape is absent, yet that motivation is vital to understand the depth of Voldemort's manipulation. And though we know the Dark Lord is seeking a weapon, but the movie never solidifies what the weapon is, or its value and implications (including to Neville Longbottom and Professor Trelawney).

The Potter films often serve as a useful refresher to anyone who hasn't memorized the source material, and in this case, I was hoping to be satisfied by the movie in a way I wasn't by the book. Though the film was well-acted and had some nifty special effects, its lack of detail — or rather, its choice of detail — left me hoping the silver screen has not overwritten my memories of the original text.

New Line Cinema, the studio that brought us the Lord of the Rings film adaptations, has released a teaser trailer for its December 7th, 2007 release: His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass.

The film is based on a book originally published in the UK in 1995 — two years before Harry Potter — under the name Northern Lights. This work of young adult fiction is about an orphan whose titular golden compass (or "alethiometer"), like Wonder Woman's magic lasso, reveals the truth. What won't the nations of this fantastical world — or, true to the trilogy's roots in a passage of "Paradise Lost", worlds — do to possess, or destroy, such a powerful artifact?

Though any children's fiction is likely to be overshadowed these days by the behemoth of a boy wizard, Philip Pullman's book is not without its recognition: it earned a Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in 1995, and a popular poll of all 70 previous Carnegie Medal winners awarded Northern Lights top honors.

The success of other fantasy films this millennium has paved the way for more adaptations of this genre; I can only hope this movie serves to bring more people to the original work in a way I previously have not been. My popular knowledge of fantasy and fiction, accrued from a lifetime (albeit a short one) working in bookstores, visiting libraries, teaching high school English, and late nights deep in pages of such adventures, has not crossed my path with that of The Golden Compass. If I'm bold enough to be any indication, it's likely most people will acquaint themselves with this series via its cinematic form, not the undoubtedly superior source material.

I rarely read novels twice, be it the Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter. So perhaps I'm not hardcore for the genre (though I'd beg to differ) and thus my ignorance can be dismissed. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate insight and advice from anyone more familiar with Mr. Pullman's works. Is the movie worth seeing? Should I read the book first? How excited are you for this adaptation — and the inevitable sequels, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass?

Courtesy TrekToday.com comes the news that Patrick Stewart will star in a modern-day filmed adaptation of The Merchant of Venice. Captain Picard in Las Vegas reciting William Shakespeare?… Well, two out of three ain't bad.

I have a love-hate relationship with the Bard — he almost kept me from graduating from high school — but I find his works more palatable when correlated with my preferred media of musical and film. Engaging in five community theater productions a year, I enjoyed my most recent experience participating in Cole Porter's Kiss Me, Kate — a musical version of The Taming of the Shrew. (But I've not seen the more modern, less musical adaptation of his classic tale, that being Ten Things I Hate About You.)

I extended this penchant for connections and adaptations a few years ago, when I took a remedial college course on Shakespeare and his work. The professor offered us a number of topics on which to write our term paper, but none of them were about Hamlet. Having learned the prince's famous monologue from watching Johnny Carson, I noticed three movies take their titles from the soliloquy: To Be or Not to Be; What Dreams May Come; and The Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). I focused on one and produced a paper comparing Hamlet to Jack Benny's role in his 1942 comedy (not Mel Brooks' 1983 remake). The paper, entitled "Your Country or Your Life", was fun to write and even more fun to present — with selected clips from the film — at a regional Shakespeare conference.

So I guess my qualm isn't with the material, but with the presentation. Put it in a more popular, easily consumable format, and I'll happily bear witness to the staying power of the Bard. But as originally written? Give me The Complete Works of Shakespeare (abridged) anyday.

I'm a big fan of Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations With God books — not solely due to their content, which to a better trained eye may be unremarkable, but because these books initiated me into the realm of philosophical texts. If everyone is fortunate enough to have an eye-opening experience that teaches them there are more things in Heaven and Earth than they'd dreamt of, this was mine.

So imagine my disappointment when, ten years later, the film adaptation, released last month on DVD after a limited 2006 theatrical release, turned out to be a big yawn.

(more…)

Perhaps it's old news, but I just recently learned from Game Informer's review of 2006 that Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run has been cancelled.

This film, once to be directed by John Woo, would star Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Supposedly the film was cancelled due to its video game counterpart, to which Mr. The Rock also lent his talent, being a steaming heap of unplayability.

This film being cancelled is disappointing in two regards. First, the original Spy Hunter, and its original, modern remake, were both classic examples of genuinely fun and challenging games. The license starting losing its lustre with the remake's sequel; this latest (lack of effort) flushes the franchise down that drain.

Second, The Rock is capable of genuinely entertaining films. The Scorpion King was a silly but fun romp in the tradition of the Hercules television series; The Rundown, with Seann William Scott, was a similar combination of action and humor. Heck, he was even on Star Trek: Voyager. Wrestlers are often stereotyped as having as much potential as actors as actors do politicians; but far from being a snarling animal, this wrestler is capable of greater films than Hulk Hogan's No Holds Barred. At least, I'm hoping The Rock as my castmate makes me look good when our first collaborative effort, The Game Plan, hits theaters later this year. (I'm the only extra to not be one of the film's other thousand extras.)

What's your take on this actor, or others who have attempted a similar transition? (The game-to-movie transition is a whole 'nuther can of worms, to be dissected in another post.)

I recently watched all three original Star Wars films for the first time since seeing them in theaters in 1997 (I bought the DVD set in the fall of 2004). But before watching episodes IV and V, I read the novelizations, as I also did immediately after episode VI. In any such converstion of media, the source material is almost always superior, and this was no exception: the books were vastly dependent on the on-screen action to detail what was happening. The most enjoyable novelization of the three was Return of the Jedi, which offered some useful insight into the characters' thoughts: Han Solo's evolution toward selflessness; Luke's struggle with the Dark Side; Vader's machinations against both his son and emperor. I had hoped for a bit more detail into Vader's final redemptive act, but none was forthcoming.

The only other movie novelization I've ever read was Attack of the Clones, which had numerous exclusive scenes (both deleted from the movie and created by the book's author). I guess I was hoping for a similar treatment from the original trilogy.

In related news, IGN.com recently posted its "Top 25 Movie Franchises of All Time". George Lucas had the winning entry, of course.