The Harry Potter Spinoff Movie

So I believe I may have whinged about originality being dead in Hollywood on this blog a couple of months ago. That sentiment still stands. There's just so many movie adaptations hitting the big screen it's just not funny ... it probably is very funny (hilarious, even) to those being paid the big bucks for these adaptations though. 

But there it is; there's very little reason to read these days. Why bother when in a couple of years it'll be a massive blockbuster (and possibly destroying your favourite characters in the process)?

Still, all that didn't stop me getting super excited when I read about the upcoming Harry Potter spinoff that is going to hit the big screen in the near future. The Harry Potter fan girl inside of me squealed so loudly at this news. 

The best bit about this spinoff is that it's based on the life and Adventures of Newt Scamander. For those of you who aren't hardcore Harry Potter fans, Newt Scamander is the author of one of Harry's school books, Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them. The only mention of him in the books is only in the first book when Harry is first getting his school books (that is purely from memory, and I could be way off on this). 

So while Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them is a spinoff it's going to be a whole new story. It's something we haven't read or seen before ... kind of. I'm sure you're all aware about there only being so many stories etc etc. It's going to be a new character set seventy or so years earlier in a world that we already know and love. And the best part is that J.K.Rowling will be writing the script herself. Yep, there's going to be that same old Rowling magic to the movie and we can see if she can write movie scripts (because let's face it, she can write well even if the subject matter isn't to your liking). Then there's a fact that Rowling loves this character and had already created a rich back story for Newt Scamander. This isn't just Warner Bros and Rowling to cash in and trying to earn some more money from the Harry Potter franchise (well, ok, that's probably exactly what Warner Bros is trying to do). Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them should actually prove to be a great movie that doesn't have to rely on expensive special effects to be a hit. Kind of like The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. 

So yeah, I'm super excited about this spinoff. But I'm also wondering if we can expect a similar Quidditch Through the Ages spinoff in a few years time and that'll work story wise. I mean, a Quidditch movie would be awesome. But not if it's going to have to be documentary style. 

The important thing to remember is that the Harry Potter franchise isn't dead yet. There's clearly possibilities for spinoffs, and Warner Bros is definitely exploring those options. 

Peace out,

Fox. 

In Which I Briefly Give My Thoughts About Ben Affleck and Batman

Yeah, so you've all heard the news about Ben Affleck being Batman in the Man of Steel sequel and if, for some reason, you hadn't heard, well, now you know. You've probably got your own thoughts about him being Batman. 

I'm actually on the fence myself. I'll wait and see how Affleck does as the Bat before passing judgement. 

I mean after all, (dare I say it and risk being unpopular?) Christain Bale wasn't all that great in the recent Batman movies. It was Christopher Nolan and the amazing line up of villains that really carried that trilogy. Think about it, about each movie. Who's the most memorable character in each? 

The villains, right?

It was those villains that challenged Batman and made him who he is, forced him to look inside himself and improve himself. It's the villains that define Batman. 

So there's really not much for Affleck to live up to as Batman. 

Well, ok, maybe there is with all of the previous Batmans. But that would be more "Who was the best Batman?" conversation over drinks. 

What I'm getting at is that there's plenty of room for Affleck to make the role his own. He could be one of the best Batmans ever. Or he could be the worst. We don't know yet. We have to wait and see him in Batman vs Superman. One thing is for sure though, I'm really looking forward to seeing The Dark Knight kick the Man of Steel's ass. 

And don't forget, Affleck is one of those lucky few who gets to say this, 

Peace out!

Fox. 

Edward Cullen is Pure Evil

Ok so I've been thinking about this and I have come to the conclusion that Edward Cullen may be one of the most evil vampires around. 

Yeah, you did just read that. 

No, I didn't make a mistake ... nor have I completely lost the plot. 

Just think about it, Edward Cullen is centuries old and he just one day decides to saunter into the local high school and falls in love with a teen girl. All very romantic and all (only if you're a teen girl, that is) but there are a couple of questions;

Was this first time he just decided to enrol himself into the local high school? Probably not. He seemed to know what he was doing, like he had done this kind of thing many times before. 

Then there's the why would he want to enrol in high school? What possible reason could there be for him to want to do this? Well, that's pretty obvious: the girls. He wants to find and seduce a vulnerable teenage girl, and what better way to do this than at high school. 

And why would Edward Cullen want to find and seduce teen girls? Especially since he's centuries old. There's some serious cradle robbing perv action happening here (it's a good thing he's young and so impossibly good looking, I guess). Well, why did Dracula want to find and seduce young women?

Yeah, that's what Edward Cullen is all about too. Sure, it can be argued that he only turned Bella to save her life. But it's a safe guess that this was always what he intended to do. 

The whole being able to go into the sunlight unscathed and sparkling things (insert real vampires can't go out into sunlight and sure as hell don't sparkle rant here) are nothing more than (extremely effective) devices to distract us from Edward Cullen's real nature: evil. Pure evil. Just think about it, what are the main things anti-Twilight people throw about in arguments about why Edward Cullen sucks as a vampire? And what are the main arguments pro-Twilight people throw about in arguments about why Edward Cullen doesn't suck as a vampire? 

Nothing about evil, right. Just a lot of shiz about real vampires not sparkling and good intentions and how real vampires don't have good intentions (although Angel and Spike are the exceptions to this, of course). 

But all these arguments could be used with Dracula, and there's little doubt that he's evil, right?

There's little doubt that Edward Cullen is just as evil as Dracula. And because of how sneaky Edward Cullen is about going about his business, he's probably more of a threat than Dracula ... never thought I'd say that (especially concerning a vampire that sparkles). And then there's the whole manipulating the girls into thinking they want to be turned thing. That's some serious mind games there, and another indication of Edward Cullen's evil nature. 

Is Originality Dead in Hollywood?

I  don't know if you've noticed this but creativity seems to be dead in Hollywood, especially in the movie industry. 

You've probably noticed this. 

It isn't exactly that hard to miss. 

After all, everything released in cinemas in the last decade are adaptations of books/comics (apparently every single best seller must be converted into a movie, otherwise it's not really a best seller), or it's a sequel or a prequel to an already existing movie. There's even been a few remakes/reboots. 

Nothing too original in the top blockbusters of the last 13 years. I mean there's the odd completely original movie in there. But they're a rare thing. They're mostly just adaptations, sequels/prequels or reboots. And I'm getting sick of it. For a start, it's making me lazy: there really isn't point reading the book if it's going to end up on the big screen in a couple of years anyway. Or the movie turns out to be a massive let down, because the original was better or the original story was butchered in the adaptation (which I guess also fits into the whole "the original was better" argument). Don't even get me started on sequels. They're pretty much hit and miss, which is better than prequels, which usually suck. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm loving all the Marvel movies, and the latest Batman movies (but not superman. Never really been a Superman fan), and I am looking forward to seeing Catching Fire movie later this year (even if none of the tributes except Finnick look anything like I imagined them [anothet issue with adaptations]). And I'm also really looking forward to the Veronica Mars movie, and I really want Captain Planet to be made into a movie (if only so a whole new generation can experience the awesomeness of Captain Planet). 

But what I really want to see happening again is movies that aren't some kind of adaptation, sequel or prequel or a remake. You know, something that's vaguely original. 

Unfortunately, though, originality seems to have left mainstream culture these days. Although, I suppose that's a good thing for all those struggling indie writers. They're now getting more of a chance at success. Or, at least, they will once people start tiring of all of the unoriginal movies being presented in mainstream cinemas. 

Or maybe it's just me with this issue. Let me know what you think. 

Peace out!

Fox

That Rumoured Dexter Spinoff

Yeah so I've been thinking about this rumoured Dexter spinoff. It's all I've been able to think about since hearing this rumour (I've haven't exactly kept my ear to the ground with these things lately). And honest to god I honestly can't see how there could be a spinoff ... well, actually, seeing the spinoff is easy. Seeing a successful spinoff is a little more difficult. I just don't think it can be done with any of that wonderful Dexter originality. 

I mean, the whole reason Dexter has been so successful is because of its originality: it's all about a serial killer who just happens to also be a cop (blood splatter expert actually. But I'm not nit picking). How many other TV shows like that are out there? 

Not many. 

They give us into an insight into our darker side (which we all try to pretend that we don't have). Dexter even gives us a slight insight into how the mind of a serial killer works, their codes of conduct and how they choose their victims, rah, rah, rah. And did I mention it appeals to our darker natures, that whole serial killer amongst us thing. It's also probably why The Following was so popular (I liked The Following, and therefore assume everyone else did too). Although, truth be told, Kevin Bacon probably also helped a lot with the popularity of The Following. 

But what can a spinoff of Dexter offer us? 

A cop show? 

Because there's nothing like that on TV already. 

But this cop show would be set in Miami with the police solving murders in the beautiful Miami scenery!

Hmmm. Kind of sounds like CSI Miami though (it's been awhile since I watched that. They still solve murders that happened in the more beautiful parts of Miami most of the time, right?). 

So another cop show is out. So how about something a little more Dexter like? A show about some crook who also just happens to be a cop? Hell, the spinoff could even be about Deb continuing on with Dexter's work! It doesn't even have to be Deb continuing his work. It could also be his babysitter, Jamie Harrison is probably a little young to continue on with his father's work (although that would be quite the twist for them to reveal who the killer is after a couple of seasons of them wondering and searching). 

But even that's just relying on the old Dexter formula. Nothing truly original and inspiring there. 

Of course I could be wrong. I could have overlooked something and a Dexter spinoff could actually work. I wouldn't know. I'm not a big Hollywood producer/executive after all. 

But thank god that Dexter executive producer quashed the spinoff rumours for the time being though, right. 

Peace out!

Fox. 

Jus Some Idle Speculation

So the hot news at the moment is that Despicable Me 2 is going to earn roughly about $130 million dollars on its debut while Lone Ranger is only going to earn $50 million and cost Disney a fair bit of money. 

Ok, so maybe that isn't quite hot news (at least not to us. It probably is to the people behind these films), but it is still very interesting. 

Interesting to me, at least. 

I mean, besides Lone Ranger being a big budget movie, Disney hasn't exactly spared any expense in spruiking it either. Ads for it are everywhere and everyone is talking about it on their TV programs. It's all about the Lone Ranger. I'm sure Universal has spent their fare share on advertising for Despicable Me 2, but the media isn't as saturated with Despicable Me 2 as it is with the Lone Ranger. 

The Lone Ranger is supposed to be the movie to go and see. It's the bees knees. 

Except that (as I've already said) it's probably going to cost Disney a large amount of money due to poor performance. 

But why is that?

It's not like they skimped with advertising. Disney is a known and trusted (ok, maybe not so trusted. We're still scared about what they'll do with wonderful franchises like Star Wars. But they're still well known) company. And with Johnny Depp and one of Hollywood's rising stars Armie Hammer leading the cast there shouldn't be any problems drawing people in with the cast. Plus if there was, Gore Verbinski is directing. It pretty much should have the same magic as The Pirates of the Caribbean had (and didn't that do well!). It is a combination that has proven to be extremely successful in the past. 

Not that any of that should matter, really. It's the Lone Ranger, after all! Everyone is familiar with the Lone Ranger. People should be flocking to the cinemas based on that alone. I don't know about you, but I was ready to do just that when I first heard that they were making a Lone Ranger movie. 

But then I heard who was starring in it, and I had some doubts. Still I waved them away. I could overlook Johnny Depp being the Lone Ranger. He might even bring some of that Captain Jack Sparrow magic to the role. 

Only he's not the Lone Ranger. 

And that's what has turned me off from going to see the Lone Ranger. The role of Tonto is just Johnny Depp in another funny hat. Don't get me wrong, I live Depp in some of these funny hat roles. He's what made Pirates of the Caribbean, and I can't imagine another Sweeny Todd (I need to see the play). But, besides voice acting, that's pretty much all we've seen Depp do lately: funny hat roles. 

Maybe Depp can bring the same Captain Jack Sparrow magic to Tonto. Maybe he can't. It's not something many people will be able to tell you for awhile, because they're in no hurry to see the Lone Ranger. 

Then there's the whole Depp is playing an Indian character. That really upset the hidden politically correct person inside of me. There's something about that that I just don't like, and I'm sure it's offensive in some way. Even if Depp has been adopted as a son of the Comanche, I'm still sure it's not PC (and I do apologise for this whole PC thing, it's not something I usually do). 

I think with this, Disney has tried too hard to recreate the magic of previous successes and reused the same formula when they clearly should've tried something different. Maybe even something a little more original than using the same leading star, director and producer. They've tried to recapture something that can't be caught, and it's going to cost them. Where as, Universal has done something differently, even if it's with a sequel. They've done something to win the trust of film goers enough to part with their hard earned. 

Just a thought. 

Peace out!

Fox

It Is Time for a Captain Planet Movie

Ok, so last week we heard rumours that Sony is in final negotiations for a Captain Planet film, sparking excitement in the hearts of 90's kids everywhere who grew up watching the animated series on TV. 

Well, actually, tentative excitement would be more accurate. We've heard these rumours before and we're still without a Captain Planet movie. There were even rumours of a live action TV series being made in the late 90's (although, I only heard this the other day). 

I've said before that rumours and hearsay are the best kinds of evidence. But in this case, they're really not. They just get everyone's hopes up only to smash them again when nothing happens. We just have to wait with bated breath (and crossed fingers), and hope that something happens this time. 

But that begs the question: why hasn't there been a Captain Planet film made yet?

I mean, since X-Men debuted in 2000
(wow, that was a long time ago), superhero movies have proven to be extremely popular with movie goers. So much so that there's even been reboots in a very short amount of time. So there's very little doubt about the public wanting superheroes. Plus, you know, so many people grew up watching Captain Planet as kids. Everyone will flock to the cinemas just to see their favourite Eco hero on the big screen. It'll be just like what happened with Tomorrow When the War Began all over again. 

And then there's the whole Eco hero thing: in the last decade or so, saving the environment has become a big thing. It's all about going green and saving the world. What better way to help spread this message and get people to start thinking more about the environment than with a massive blockbuster propaganda movie? I mean, let's face it, that's pretty much what the TV series was back in the day: short twenty minute episodes of pro environment propaganda. But you know what, it worked. It made so many kids more aware about saving the world and looking after the environment. It helped to convince me that littering wasn't cool (although I did always want to meet Captain Planet and the Planeteers). 

Although, the rise in Green did kind of coincide with 911, and Captain Planet and the franchise's fans do like to use the term "Eco-terrorist". Maybe the powers to be felt that a movie that contained the term "terrorist" and wasn't about some crazy Middle Eastern people trying to bring down America wasn't appropriate. Or maybe they were scared that it would spawn a whole new breed of terrorist that wanted to save the environment and not focus on any kind of political agenda (egads! The horror!). Green Peace and anyone else concerned about the environment were already creating too much noise and getting too much attention (those bastards). 

But now, a decade or so on and things are completely different: the world's leaders are talking about what can be done to save the environment and prevent climate change, the world isn't so highly strung about the term "terrorist" and (more importantly) superhero movies have more than proven themselves to be popular. 

The world is ready for a Captain Planet movie. And now is the perfect time for a movie about a superhero who is all about saving the environment and preventing climate change. Let's hope that these rumours about Sony and their final negotiations are true and we finally get to see our beloved Eco hero on the big screen.