Faraci’s piece on David Foster made me wonder; who are the people that I don’t know personally, but would still give a damn should they die? When people like Heath Ledger and Bernie Mac kick the bucket it’s not nice news. But it’s not news that makes me feel like I’ve lost something. I say something because I’m not losing someone, these are not people I know. But there are those total strangers whose death would deliver unto me that feeling of loss. They are as follows:

James Cameron

Cameron’s death would be a giant kick in the nuts. Especially, and this is selfish, if it happened before Avatar is finished. I only like half his films, but those that I do I can’t get enough of. I’ve never looked forward to any film as much I am for Avatar. Coupled with the fact that if this dude were to buy the farm we’d be losing one of, if not the pioneer for mainstream 3D. The guy is fighting to bring back the spectacle and after the apathy inducing 2003 CGI blitzkrieg, it would be nice for him to succeed, then continue making more films now that the technology hurdles are on their way to being overcome.  

Michael Mann

If I had to pick a favorite director, this would be the guy. He’s consistent. He’s digital (there’s a common thread emerging here). I love how he’s gone and taken the rough digital look and thrown it up in front of mainstream audiences. Watching Collateral makes me believe that a digital feature is not out of the question for someone like me in the future, not just because of the lower costs (yes, I know how much Collateral cost) but also because the more people see this aesthetic, the more they will become comfortable with it. If Mann were to cark it tomorrow, we’d be losing a champion of the new aesthetic. A director who will continue to grow and learn (...after Miami Vice). Also, I think Heat is flawless (with the exception of one bad blue screen shot). Flawless.

Steven Speilberg

He doesn’t like digital. But he helped build The Model and I’m all about The Model. He is important. He’s not consistent but with the amount of films of his I love, I’m not concerned about consistency. Of all the directors to waste $180million on a shitty movie, he’s the one I give a total pass to. If The Golden Jew to pass away tomorrow I’d be calling in sick to have drinks and watch his finest with my mates. And it would suck. (Don’t die Steven!)

David Fincher

He gets better with every film. That is rare. So many directors stagnate, so many sit around on a pedestal fashioned from some film made 20 years ago. Not Fincher. He’s creates special effects shots we haven’t seen before. He’s the one word argument against people who believe commercial directors getting features are a bad omen. Fincher cannot die because he improves with each film, and when I think about the kind of film he’ll be making in fifteen years I get excited.

Christopher Nolan

I want the film he does after Batman 3. Aka: The Film Where Nolan Does Whatever He Wants and No-One Tries To Stop Him. That’s going to be a film to get excited about.

I look back at this list and see the selfishness riddled throughout...’Don’t die because I want to keep being entertained.’ But then again, they are entertainers, aren’t they? People who I think do things differently, helping to set up the future of cinema as I hope to see it.

Sarah Palin becomes McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate...so what does the internet do? Ads for ‘Would you do Sarah Palin?’ Photoshops of Sarah Palin nude, taken up the cooter etc. www.iwoulddosarahpalin.com. By ‘the internet’ I don’t mean every single person on it. I’m sure in some corners of the net some site, possibly run by women, is praising her for her political achievements. But in the circles I’m traveling in; the top-ten-focused, quick-byte-entertainment, waste-time-at-work sector of the net...Sarah Palin is a piece of meat to be treated with the utmost disrespect.

If you’re a female sportcaster, expect coverage to be about your tits, what your tits looked like in this top, what your tits looked like in that top. If you read the weather, expect videos of you in slo mo wearing tight clothes. If you’re a woman who’s accomplished anything at all in your life, expect the primary focus to be on your body and the fantasy of fucking you.   

Worst thing about being a woman on the net is not site generated content, it’s user comments. In a pic posting forum for sportswomen I found a picture of Stephanie Rice. You may know her as the Aussie swimmer who won a bunch of gold in the pool last month. Underneath her photo were the comments, one in particular I couldn’t find in order to link or reference here, so I’ll be accurately paraphrasing;

   ‘She won’t be using her shoulders when she retires, she’ll be using her mouth only on

    me...’

Cool bananas, Mr Annonymous Internet Guy, you’ve made a comment insinuating that Rice will be spending her retirement sucking your dick. She suuuuure will.

ScriptGirl, currently posting on her own youtube channel as well as being featured on AICN is a prime example of asking for this kind of treatment. The woman knows that she can pull off some cleavage, she also knows it will increase her views. So she continues to do it. And AICN members, week in, week out, post comments about her boobs, what they’d like to do to them, where they’d like to stick it. Oh, and why she deserves their cock in her mouth. Yeah man, she deserves it, she needs it, just because she’s a woman.  

However she isn’t helping, she deliberately reveals her cleavage to get people’s attention. But then again, would people read it if she was covered up? It’s just information that you can get from many other movie sites, with the twist of having a rack on display. Is this what she deems necessary to get attention? Here’s the kind of attention it gets her:

‘Can you just turn down the thermostat already?
by Piltdown Joey Sep 6th, 2008
11:20:24 PM Let's see some nips pushin' through that nice little spaghetti strap top!’

Thank you Piltdown Joey for that wonderful ditty. Can you turn your car exhaust on and just sit in the garage for a bit? Let’s see some pathetic net-dwellers found dead in their cars wearing nice little Voltron tops!

Take CHUD blogger Julia Marchese. Does she think more people are going to read her blog because her photo shows her with (a hint of) cleavage? Julia, do you? You’d think that sort of thing wouldn’t matter here. You’d think.

Bah, but what are ya gonna change.? I’m just so shitty that there’s a fucking site for ‘doing’ Sarah Palin. That and seeing female site members being told just how hard they need to be fucked in the ass. Who knows, in ten years the combination of internet anonymity coupled with porno might just bring about a world where some people think it’s okay to say this shit in real life. Then again, in ten years we’ll be living more of our life online than we currently do. Neither of these bode well.  

...get/like/understand popularity of etc that everyone else seemed to.

These are the films where I and others don’t see eye to eye. I’m not talking about critics here. I’m talking about the greater web movie-community. Not site-specific opinion, more a general feel, a consensus. First up;

Pineapple Express.

It’s so, so, stupid to feel like this needs a disclaimer, but here it is: I wasn’t high. Nor should I be. I didn’t need heroine to ‘get’ Trainspotting, coke wouldn’t make Scarface better and people don’t drink when watching Leaving Las Vegas.. And so, this is one of the worse movies I’ve seen this year. Kinda fits somewhere near ‘Van Wilder’ on the comedy rank ladder.  

My beef: too loose. I know the trick, where you run the camera and wait until something golden slips out, but PE was the worst example of this. Scene structure was loose, too many times I was waiting for the cut. Scenes filled with nothing going on, and lines of dialogue filling empty space, surprisingly devoid of jokes. Worst example: the end diner scene. There wasn’t even a joke they were heading towards, it was simply ‘This is what we did,’ on repeat. Oh, and they bonded. And there’s my next beef; the friendship bond wasn’t genuine. When Rogen’s said that the only reason he talks to his dealer is because he gives him drugs, that was the truth. Nothing after that, aside from guilt, kept him from coming back to save him, let alone become best friends with him. That connection wasn’t there. Loose. Speaking of loose ends, what happened with the girlfriend? Where’s that sub-plot’s resolution?

The Dark Knight

It’s my favorite film of the year so far (I’ve missed heaps though). If I were a reviewer, I’d give it 8/10...then I’d either:

i)          Cry because my job involves mebeing immersed in works which I wish I had the talent/opportunity to create.

ii)                   sit back and laugh because I have the easiest job in the world (wonder why reviewer’s are getting downsized?)

The backlash is inevitably on its way. It is not the second coming of Christ, it’s just a damn good movie. Where I don’t agree is with this ridiculous notion that it is a perfect film. Well duh, but what’s worth noting is, TDK was a crime movie which has the lead (uninteresting lead) in a silly outfit. I see this as a bad thing, not the greatest marriage of comic book fiction and realism. It also has a grand total of ZERO good action scenes. So, it is a crime film with a silly costume and poor action. To conclude: the reason why I don’t see eye to eye with ‘them’ on this film...it was a disappointment. I thought somewhere along the way Nolan, who’s already demonstrate he can do drama...would learn how to crank up the adrenaline.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

Pfft, fuck this movie. The biggest set piece with the natural essence monster was half way through the film, the finale was low key, poorly choreographed. It had lovely make up, but it also had one story that simply never took off. Too many elements crammed into the end. Big rock guy...was a doorway? FUCK YEAH! Oh, it was stylish. That GdT style has gotta count for something. No, it doesn’t. Why is my favorite film of his Blade 2?

The new guy in the helmet (no character names illustrates how ‘nothing’ this film was to me) made me laugh. Oh those foreign accents. Guaranteed comedy gold. Finally: Abe’s love arc, tacked on. I would be indifferent except that I really liked the first one.  

Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I loved it...It changed my life.

It’s a stupid rumor, but a fun one. And it reminded me of a few other memorable ones. So, here are some that have tickled my fancy over the past few years.

Al Pacino cast as lead villain in Bond 22.
Imagine if that ever happened. Pacino’s last outing as a villain was Ocean’s 13. And boy was that an event. Boring. Thrilless. Really something to not remember. Pacino hasn’t been menacing for a long time. But as you already know, things such as being fit for the role aren’t always a huge concern for studios.

Reasons why it’s a good rumor: Plausible enough to warrant further investigation. It allowed me to dream up a scene involving Bond being captured and subsequently told to; “Sit- SIT DOOOOOWN!” It could have actually happened.

While we’re on Bond...

Amy Winehouse cast as next Bond girl.
Holy fuck. I remember reading this on joblo.com (don’t remember original source) about two years back. I wasn’t aware of who Ms Winehouse at the time. Now I know her to the that thing that is horrible to look at and listen to. The overdose can’t come any sooner. Anyway, as we all know now, she was being looked at to do the opening song. Not star in the friggin’ thing. That’s a good ol’ whoopsie in the journo department.

Reasons why it’s a great rumor: She’s ugly. Disgusting. Look at the teeth. AND it was a good example of misreporting what the actual story was.

Uwe Boll is involved in Metal Gear Solid film.
No he isn’t. Never was, never will be. Whilst people are stupid enough to push Meet Dave all the way through to the final product, NO-ONE is stupid enough to attach Boll to MGS. Which is exactly why 99% of the internet community didn’t believe it.
So why is it still a good rumor? It gave imdb members another chance (oh do they need it?) to embarrass themselves once again by getting together in threads and debating over such important issues as
-Why this is an abomination!
- How we, as the fan base, can stop it from happening!
-Help us draft a petition!
- Okay people, prove your loyalty and sign our ‘No Boll for MGS’ petition!
-100 signatures! The fans have spoken!

GTA movie in the works at Dreamworks.
I’m sure that numerous people across the globe have probably already thought whilst playing the game; ‘Hey wouldn’t it be awesome if they made a GTA movie!

The thing is, most people would then realize that the whole point of GTA is being able to offer gamers the experience of playing through the action/gangster/mob films they’ve been watching for the past thirty years. The games are influenced by the films. Easy to understand. Vice City has big chunks of Carlito’s Way rammed into it. And then there’s Scarface and Miami Vice and blah blah blah. So when gamesindustry.biz reported that producer Michael DeLuca was pushing through a GTA movie...they were wrong. I am aware that it’s quite possible that some idiot would try and make a GTA film happen, but I’d prefer in this instance to assume that everyone in Hollywood had some sense about them.

Reasons why it’s a dumb rumor: There are no recurring lead characters. Everything (mostly) that happens in a GTA game is ripped from an already existing crime film. (Why it’s not a dumb rumor: it would make more money than Street Kings)

Half Life movie on the way!
...
.....
Lead character Freeman doesn’t talk. Valve’s Steam is all about giving the developer more flexibility for shaping the narrative direction of their series, as well as the release model, both of which have been designed to cater for all that the HL fan wants. Freeman doesn’t talk.

Sam Raimi directing The Hobbit.
It’s not that I don’t believe that Raimi’s name on the list of potential directors for The Hobbit...I just think it’s unlikely that he’d be the one to get it in the end. And he didn’t. Why?
He just spent $250million+ on a film which failed to have:
-A tone consistent with previous installments (important with LOTR as pissed  off fans may not buy the 8^th edition of the DVD if it’s uneven.)
-Finished special effects. I refused to believe that the effects team had finished their job before prints were sent out. Not for that amount of money. No way.
-A well rounded treatment of an iconic character. (“Oh, the dragon? Well, when you think about it, we can pack that whole thing into 20minutes.”)
-Critical acclaim. Yes this matters. Return of the King won some people some Oscars. Those people want more.

I say all this because I think that the people behind The Hobbit have too good of a bullshit barometer to let Raimi slip through with all the things deemed unsatisfactory about Spidey 3.

And if he was in consideration because he was able to make 3 films with budgets over $150million...well that puts Brett Ratner on the list too. And we all know that wouldn’t happen (Unless we lived in a perfect world). 

Ah rumors...gotta love em.

p.s: Megatron is coming back. That high water pressure didn’t do shit.

“By this time tomorrow, it'll be like browsing a whole new CHUD.”

Yep, that’s the truth. I open up the CHUD front page, I automatically get redirected to www.pacificpoker.com. Not a pop up. Not a flash ad. It takes me away from CHUD and onto the gambling site. That’s totally cool. It means Nick, Russ, Planet-Devin etc get their money. Because before when we had the problem with...

“YOU’RE STEALING FROM US.”

...it was the issue of people using pop up blockers to annihilate flash ads. To solve the problem? Redirect them. Problem solved.

It doesn’t happen every single time. But it does happen. And I’m not clicking on anything to direct me. As Nick has already screamed in his head/started typing; ‘It’s only a few seconds of inconvenience that allows for the site to keep running and for us to get paid!’

I can’t stop you from thinking that way. But I’d rather pop ups or flash ads so long as they have a ‘x’ to close the thing- “THAT'S STEALING-”

(As I’m writing this I’ve received the following message through MSN: “Oli says: Why does chud link me to pacific poker with no way of getting to chud.”)

This post isn’t to start shit with the site admin, even though I can see the logic forming already. (Nick- 'you criticized our income methods on our site, which we let you write on, thus you are stealin- hang on...you were trying to start some shit.') Rather I’d like to highlight one of the good things that happened on CHUD recently.

Mr Beaks went back to AICN, where he is welcome to report that the Wolverine panel makes him feel “I’m twelve again!” Beaks, I don’t doubt that for a second, most people on that site still feel that way. That’s why I like CHUD. The people are more level headed, they aren’t so attached to properties that they go on illiterate rants. There isn’t some guy who posts “DAMN YOU MICHAEL BAY” in every single talkback.  I can kind of gauge people’s age by their comments on CHUD. Not on AICN. They appear to be the thoughts of children, but there’s always the chance that the person posting their anguish are twenty, even thirty.

People who don’t remember that Transformers was a line of toys. The show only existed to sell toys. If Optimus Prime’s flames were introduced by a toy company, deal with it, because that’s they’re the only reason you had x amount of hours of television to watch as a kid.

AICN writers are generally incapable of coming up with constructive criticism. When CHUD did the tag team of Crystal Skull I genuinely learnt more about what was wrong with that film. That’s why I read here.

A quote like Beak’s belongs on AICN because that’s what they do best; refrain from growing up. And inaccurate reporting. They’ve now adopted the word ‘Geekasm.’ Wow. It means you’re equating something in a film with getting blown/whacked off/boned/anal. The feeling is not the same. It’s a feeling of giddiness and you should use that word instead.

And whine. They whine and whine and then some more. But we all know this. That’s why I go to CHUD. To avoid whining. No unjustified whining on CHUD.

No whining at all...

And then Devin goes and blogs about how you should stop going to see a movie you like. Devin tells you how you should spend your time and money. Devin wishes to inform you that your choice is strangling independent film industry. Yep, you have half a point here. Almost a full point.

Here’s what I do understand; you are sick of hearing about The Dark Knight. As a film site writer I can see how you’ve been swamped by everything TDK for a long time now. You like the film but you don’t think the response is justified. Totally valid.

Here’s what I don’t understand; why pretend you’re the wise man on the mountain and tell people to stop seeing a movie they like. I for one agree that over-watching a film is not a good thing. I learnt my lesson by over-doing Fight Club. But as for people over-exposing themselves to TDK, let them find out for themselves. It's not as if they're supporting a shitty film. And if they think that watching it 100 times doesn’t detract from the experience, let them find their own way over to AICN, the place where there is no such thing as too much. Until you’re Harry and food intake and lack of exercise threatens you with diabetes and you go for surgery, because diabetes can cause blindness, which would mean no movie watching. THAT’S when you take action. Fuck, Knowles is an atrocious poster boy for his kind.

When you argue that TDK ticket money would be better off spent on the indies, well they’re not showing everywhere. Certainly aren’t where I am. What if they genuinely look unappealing to them? To go see indies and prestige pics just to have seen them can lump you in with the type of people who live to cite films and directors that people have never heard of. (Hi Adam!)

What if you shouldn’t be telling people what to do with their money? Especially when you’re telling us what we should be doing to give you yours.

Here’s my biggest beef with Devin’s piece. I really, really don’t understand the mentality behind ‘Make sure you click on the two to three Dark Knight ads on our site, but don’t go see the movie again.’

Why? Because we’ll be childish if we see it again? Because we’ll be stealing? Because the adult thing to do is to see a film in moderation, whilst clicking on links for THE DARK KNIGHT RINGTONES?

Or is it because the adult thing to do is to lecture your readership on not just how they use your site, but also their spare time?

Nope. No it isn’t. Devin, you’re wrong. You’re trying to achieve too much. Just write well and think it through.

What would make more sense would be actively pursuing companies like HDnet and 2929 for advertising. If they don’t want to place ads here, ask again, or attempt to find something similar. Because it is these people who are trying to bring smaller films to everyone when TDK is taking over cinemas. They are trying to forge a new release model. They are the future of indie films. It would make more sense than making my CHUD experience start with having to get away from online gambling sites.*

*These break up the continuity of you’re writing, as well as the reading experience. You know this.

Moriarty just posted an ‘Open letter to Harvey...’ concerning the less than confident release of Outlander. First of all, Moriarty is a total muppet. He writes as if he believes he is going to be the catalyst for a turn-a-round in the Weinstein business model mindset. He isn’t. And so, if you actually want them to read it, don’t make it 1700 words long. Don’t retell the narrative. Don’t even bother tagging a ‘ps’ in regards to Inglorious Basterds on the end because the guy’s never going to have bothered wading through all that dreck to begin with. Instead Moriarty should’ve said ‘This is a great film, there is an audience for it, act like you have some balls left and push its release.’ But he didn’t. and the open letter will have no effect.

The Weinsteins however are in a funny place. It’s been over a year since I read in an interview that movies were the only area that they weren’t making money in. And recently there’s been a bunch of bad news.

Grace is Gone. My dad made more money than this movie last year. And he did it without John Cusack’s help. (How many more dud movies is Cusack likely to have before he hits another 1408? Dude’s got bad luck.)

Death Defying Acts. I’ve made more money than this film in the last few months. Then again it was only showing on two screens.

All the Boys Love Many Lane. Hasn’t been released. This fact was highlighted many a time during Levine’s press tour for his new film. After The Strangers did well and after their own success with Halloween, why the hesitation with an R horror film? Is the issue still the rating? If not, is it because it’s a bad movie? If so, then why did they buy it in the first place?

Then there’s the negative buzz surrounding their ‘treatment’ of Asian titles. The process of buying films to never show them, or cut/rescore them just doesn’t seem like the kind of decisions made by....people who like movies.

What I’m getting at is there are the people who will fuck with your project and get it into theatres and seen by the masses (Hancock). Then there are the people who will fuck with it and never get it seen. The Weinsteins are the fuck up in this scenario. And maybe not just from a business standpoint anymore.

Jonathan Levine was approached by the Weinsteins with an offer to buy The Wackness. The same people who bought and stuck his last film in a closet, now had the balls to approach him again. Levine chose not to tempt fate and went with Sony. And why wouldn’t he? As a low key (for now) director, why the fuck would anyone ever do business with the two people who are keeping his baby from seeing the light of day?

I’m going to take a gander at what might be the biggest problem in the future for the Brothers...people won’t want to work with them. Unlike the instances when Sony or Fox or Paramount have messed around with directors (or anyone else), the Weinsteins created a facade that was grounded in prestige pictures. Oscar hopefuls, arthouse for the mainstream, ‘works of art.’ The other big studios are, well first off; they’re bigger. Secondly, this image is not a crucial element of their company. Yes they go for the Oscars like everyone, but with Miramax it was a bigger deal for them. The smallish studio that cranked out potential masterpieces for the Academy. They were not a studio about to embark on $150 million stories about earth-destroying asteroids, or superheroes. And to survive as that kind of studio, they need artists.

If the Weinsteins keep buying irresponsibly, getting cold feet, recutting films, shelving films, dumping films, who will be there to trust them? Not the ‘artists’ (WANK ALERT) of the cinematic world. What incentive do they have, when these two once great brothers are now forging a reputation for making rash purchases and low-key dump releases? Jonathan Levine knows that. Maybe others will follow.

And as for Fanboys...

...I’m not really sure what was won, if anything, when I have a bad feeling that it’ll be another addition to the dump pile.

A local cinema just showed The Dark Knight. They said it was the world’s first showing for the public, I doubt that’s true but they might as well toot their own horn whilst they can.

There was no trailer for The Watchmen. Unfortunately.

As well all know, this generation loves their top tens. So here’s another...

TEN BEST THINGS ABOUT THE DARK KNIGHT

1. The Joker/Heath Ledger.
When people like ET or EW or whoever it was started saying that ‘there’s even talk of Ledger receiving an oscar nomination for his role as the Joker...’ that was in the days after his death, seven months before anyone would see the film. What a bunch of hype-mongering, myth-creating, sympathy-selling bullshit. You cannot claim oscar-worthy for a performance you haven’t seen. The good news is, now that I have seen it, this is a very, very good performance. It’s my favorite element in the film. My favorite scene in the entire film is The Joker’s second appearance in the film, where he crashes the crime boss meeting. Fantastic, unbelievably enjoyable stuff. This doesn’t make ET right. They’re still a bunch of fuckwits.

2. Surprises
Obviously I won’t give them away. But it’s nice to have a few expectations pulled out from under you.

3. The set up for the third film.
Nolan has made it so that from the first minute of the next film, Batman will be in a certain place, certain frame of mind, with different goals to the first two films. It promises to follow a different line of action instead of simply having Batman remain unchanged and just throwing another villain at him to create some conflict.

4. Harvey Dent/Aaron Eckhart.
Interesting character, motivations, a well rounded and believable character arc.

5. Make up.
You’ll see.

6. Stunt work
Batman’s little aerobatic displays are made more impressive by the fact that they look real. A lot of them were.

7. Where’s the CGI?
I love CGI. Sometimes the only reason I’ll watch something is for the effects. But not this time. I don’t want it, the film didn’t need it, I didn’t find a single shot where my brain flicked back into ‘this is a movie, that’s CGI, it doesn’t look real, why can’t they do a better job for $200million.’

8. The bike.
Yep it looks like a toy, it’ll also probably sell a bunch of toys too. But it’s cool. Sure it isn’t utilized as well as it could’ve been (see #1 below) but it beats the Tumbler.

9. That it passed as PG-13.
Not that you needed further proof that the MPAA is a bunch-o-arse, but this film really proves it. You can say fuck once, BUT NOT TWICE! You are, however, allowed to have tens of people shot, brutal fist beat downs and one hell of a make up job. This film is vicious. ‘Kids gonna get their shit freak’d.’

10. The few instances of humor.
I really only counted two. But they were good.

FIVE WORST THINGS ABOUT THE DARK KNIGHT

1. Christopher Nolan doesn’t have action sensibilities.
Well, they’re getting better. But he’s still a long way off making the sequences visually interesting, maintaining a sense of spatial clarity to the action and getting interesting shots out of the actions. Car chases are never fast enough. Villains are only there to be thumped by Batman, not to thump him back. There are never any gasp moments, no adrenaline. Action set pieces simply, just, happen.

2. Batman is almost the least interesting character in it.
True. Could be worse. Could be The Hulk. I didn’t get psyched for when Batman appear on screen, nor as Bruce Wayne. He was just...there.

3. Batman’s voice.
As seen in Batman Begins, he has a deeper voice for when dressed in the outfit. It works when he’s angry, but when he’s having a normal conversation, doesn’t work at all. It’s not even necessary. I’m pretty sure he sounded like he had a lisp at some point.

4. Repetition in dialogue.
There are themes of justice, responsibility, roles etc. But, I’m not fucking dumb. I don’t need these re-enforced by several lines from several characters just to make sure I ‘got it.’

5. Running time.
Not like when I was watching Troy, where I wanted all the talking to stop in order to see some action. It’s actually the opposite, I liked the scenes without action better. But yeah, it’s almost exhausting, and before the finale there were people shifting about, muttering, coughing etc.

So there it is. My favorite film of the year, worth the wait, but far from the second coming of Christ. (That would be Beavis and Butthead Do America. The man works in mysterious ways indeed.)

I was at a party last night talking movies and someone in the circle hadn’t heard of Wall E.

My surprised response to her was ‘they don’t spend $50 million in advertising for you to not know about it.’ In her defense she said I don’t really go to the movies often.  And so I started thinking, about the great big Hollywood advertising push...

This girl is who the studios are aiming to reach. She’s the person who doesn’t follow film online, rarely goes to the movies, she’s the kind of girl to whom movies don’t have that much appeal for. And if a studio can get this kind of person to be interested in their film, that probably means that they’ve gotten the attention of the other 99% of the population.

As for us, we know about movies from the moment they get greenlit, sometimes even before that. Take The Dark Knight, a movie I’ve been following for three years now. I’ve clocked up tens of hours of readings articles, interviews, viewing posters, watching trailers and doing a bit of the ARG. All for a 150min viewing experience.

I think it’s pretty safe to say it has my attention. And then there’s The Phantom Menace.

I was 12 at the time. I was a regular movie goer. The first I ever heard of Star Wars Episode 1 was when it was on the shelf at my video store; ‘What’s this?’ How did it miss me? As a 12 year old male interested in movies I was THE TARGET for the publicity machine, so something went wrong for me to just simply MISS the entire rumour period, buzz, ad blitz, release, reviews, trailers and TV spots. It wasn’t even talked about at school either.

Then there’s Titanic. No idea it existed. Saw it probably a month after its release after a friend begged me to come for his second viewing. I didn’t like it.

The Matrix. Needed a movie to go to on a date. Opened the paper and there was Keanu looking cool in a trench coat.

Three of the biggest movies of the last decade and I had no little or no knowledge of them. How things have changed. I know that The Dark Knight production had to scrap shooting in the harbor due to toxins in the water. I know that there’s a missing scene from Superman Returns that cost $10 million. I know that Scarlett Johansson and Josh Harnett fooled around in costume on the set of The Black Dahlia.

Of course it’s because now I’m always online and hunting this stuff down. But seriously...how did I miss Phantom Menace?

Things I did this week to further my career: found a script assessor willing to work for cheap. Wrote a couple of scenes for It’s A Trap!

Things I did that aren’t helping my career: Started writing a novel.

Disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that all of this might be proved wrong upon the film’s release. That would be nice.

It’s not because “It’s un-filmable,” nor is it because “it’s not politically relevant.” It’s because Snyder has problems with textual translations to screen. Dawn of the Dead proved us he can cope with an altered vision of an already strong story. However, 300 showed us that his focus was disproportionately on the source material, not the film he was making. Maybe 300 made him realize film scripts aren’t his strongest point. That’s why Hayter (love Scorpion King) and Alex Tse (no idea) are on it. Maybe it will turn out fine. Maybe I should shut up.

But I don’t this kind of speculation is totally unwarranted.

300 suffered from Snyder protecting the source material too much. In staying true to the comic, Snyder left in narration that was overly expositional and obsolete. If we can see the wolf circling the boy, we don’t need narration to confirm it. 300 was a good film, but a weak film. The backbone these wonderful sequences were hinged upon was painfully unnecessary narration that kept the movie stuck firmly in its comic roots. Snyder’s obsessive act of including as much of the original text as he could, left the film with no quiet moments. He never tried to take the lines from the comic and tell us through film language. There are better ways to convey information than David Wenham trying to be gruff in a sound booth.

   Then, after re-watching it, the film is visually flat. Sure it’s bright, has a unique color scheme, but there’s no depth of focus, the environments and action lack a sense of scale and size. The frame is as flat as the paper the comic is printed on.  All of this is irrelevant if he has developed further as a story teller since 300. But this is where I become wary of The Watchmen.

300 was a step back from Dawn of the Dead, for the reasons related to source material above. What we’ve seen from The Watchmen is that Snyder can get his costume department to replicate the comic to the last detail. We also know that he can get his set designers to construct a perfect replica of the book’s pages. He’s very, very proud of it, releasing the set photos with side by side comparisons. And it comes across as ‘Look, I can take a visual cue. I am being true to the source material.’ It’s a shame that the source material is a comic, not a film. When he releases pictures like this, and especially with side by side comparisons, it makes me feel he’s just doing what he did with 300 but with more money to play with. The man is definitely focused on recreating the book’s panels, but is he in danger of not learning from 300? Especially when it was such a resounding success? The main criticisms at the time of its release were more to do with people annoyed at the historical inaccuracies (...for fuck’s sake).

Yes, it seems a tad pointless to criticize the potential outcome for a film no-one’s even seen the trailer of, but there are warning signs there. But, I think more than anything I want a sign that he’s developing as a filmmaker. He didn’t evolve between Dawn and 300, he went backwards and his forth film is set to be another adaptation. Too many directors stagnate, often through their own reluctance to break old habits (no-one’s ever given Brett Ratner any incentive to become a good filmmaker. I’m sure he believes he doesn’t need to. Same for Kevin Smith.)

I am looking forward to The Watchmen. What I am looking forward to more is Zack Snyder with original material. He doesn’t have to write it, so long as he doesn’t already have a set of lines on his canvas to stay between. Zack Snyder, go crazy with your own imagination. There’s a good chance it will kick ass. But right now we have an emerging artist about to make a gamble on a $150 million adaptation when his limited track record suggests he doesn’t have the discipline to cull a book in order to make it a film. It could go either way.