The Last of Us Season 1

In 2003, a mutated fungus which had managed to make its way to human hosts through contaminated crops caused a global outbreak. In mere weeks millions were infected and driven by the urge to spread the infection. The Cordyceps Brain Infection wrought havoc on the globe and forced humanity back into fortified strongholds, leaving those who could not flee behind its walls to fend for themselves in a crumbling wilderness.

On the day of the infection, Joel (Pedro Pascal), his brother Tommy (Gabriel Luna) and his daughter Sara (Nico Parker) are trying to flee like so many others, only for tragedy to strike and his daughter dies in his arms. Twenty years later, he is estranged from his brother and living in the Boston Quarantine Zone (QZ) working as a smuggler alongside his love interest Tess. He gets an offer to transport a girl named Ellie (Bella Ramsey) to the headquarters of a group of freedom fighters called the Fireflies. In doing so, he might just save humanity.

Thus begins probably the greatest videogame adaptation of all time in The Last of Us. Spoilers follow!

The opening episode is one of the best adaptations of a game I've ever seen. Expanding on game material and the constraints of live acting, it delivers an amazing rendition of the chaos of the early infection and the loss suffered by the characters. It establishes the bleak tone of this post-apocalyptic world, fleshes out our main characters, and gets the message of grim reality across amazingly well. By the end I couldn't wait to see episode two and what might happen next.

The Last of Us, through its first few episodes, had moments before the opening credits rolled that set up how the virus was scientifically feasible for fiction purposes, as well as showing us some events from before the outbreak. The very first episode opens with a fake TV interview from 1968 in which two scientists talk about their fears over the future. One, portrayed by John Hannah, presciently warns that in a warming Earth many terrible diseases, but also fungus, could well end up infecting humans. In the second episode this is also done through the reaction of a mycologist in Indonesia discovering the first victims of the infection mere days before the outbreak. While a few pre-outbreak moments take place in other opening episodes, it was a sad thing to see that it was dropped across a few and we instead got into the immediate opening credits. I had hoped that each episode would open with some backstory, a cool scene spinning the pre-outbreak world or the post-outbreak aftermath before the present, but I can understand the time constraints.

In episode three, we have one of the bigger divergences for possibly the best post-apocalyptic love story ever told. It's the meeting of lone and closeted survivalist Bill (Nick Offerman) - who has effectively turned himself into Robert Neville from I am Legend - is bunkered down in an abandoned town. One day a trap is set off by Frank (Murray Bartlett) and the two develop an unlikely romance. In a short film style we explore their relationship, problems, and introduction to Joel and Tess. It was a bit of a departure from the full plot, but it expands the emotional stakes for Joel and Ellie each, while also telling one of the most tear jerking stories I've seen in a while. Simply a phenomenal episode.

Episodes four and five are a smaller arc where the characters take a detour through Kansas City only to be caught up in the aftermath of a violent revolution against the old authorities. Kathleen (Melanie Lynskey) has inspired her followers to rebel and take the city from them and is engaged in a brutal series of reprisals. Here the two leads meet Henry (Lamar Johnson) and Sam (Keivon Woodard) who must work together to escape. In an action packed finale, we see that the wages of revenge are death, and just how bleak this world is! Wonderful series of scenes and acting which made it all come together.

Episode six sees Joel and Ellie meeting up with Tommy again, and meeting his new wife Maria (Rutina Wesley). In some extremely humorous explorations of survivor politics and ideas, we see the brothers reunite and Jeol and Ellie bond. It sets up the ending quite well.

Another small arc in episodes seven and eight address the final bonding of the pair, and an effective flashback to Ellie's discovery of her immunity. It also giving us one of the most iconic game villains, the cult leader David (Scott Shephard). David is an excellent foil as the sinister leader, and his introduction was a magnificent turn around and play on expectations while being supremely well acted. His creepy obsession with Ellie and desire to dominate her is fiendishly portrayed, and the final showdown is perfect. Joel's rampage through his followers sets up the final act of the show quite well.

Episode nine is probably the most divisive for me personally. It's very short for one, probably one of the shortest episodes. It also hews extremely closely to the game which, while very inspiring as an adaptation, felt like it missed some opportunities to do some legwork for the second season. Well done and effective at tugging your emotions, it could have been better I feel.

Overall however, the show is amazing. The acting of Pascal and Ramsey is stupendous with Pascal bringing out the jaded survivor in Joel and the ferocious protectiveness of a father who has already lost one child. Ramsey's portrayal as the 14 year old Ellie is really well done, and she's hilarious to watch, while delivering some amazing lines and well acted scenes. Her chemistry with Pascal is also excellent, making the pair an effective onscreen team.

The supporting cast is also amazing. One of the best performances I felt was given by Lynskey as Kathleen, where she hammered home how brutal this world is, even just between people.

The chemistry of the characters was superb, and we saw many important bonds formed. This was, ostensibly, a zombie show. However, the infected do not take center stage and are mostly an environmental threat, not the drivers of the plot. While the infection is omnipresent, zombies and killing them is not the point of the show. That made it a nice departure from The Walking Dead, but also allowed viewers to focus on the story and the more human element. It added something to the genre that really hadn't existed for a while.

Departures from the game and additions to the story we well done, and for myself, pretty universally well received. I think this is destined to go down as one of the best adaptations of all time, with an amazing story being told and being visually stunning. Definitely one to watch!

Dune (2021)

This year, I got to see yet another adaption of the 1965 classic science fiction novel by Frank Herbert, Dune. I've previously watched the extremely psychedelic 1984 version, and clips of the 2000 television miniseries. Having been in the works for years, and initially supposed to air in 2020 until derailed by Covid, it finally premiered in October of 2021. Does the film live up to the hype that has surrounded it? Find out!

Created by Denis Villeneuve, the master behind the excellent films Sicario, Arrival, and Bladerunner 2049, whose imagery seemed to inspire so much of real life 2020, this promised to, at the very least, be a feast for the eyes. From pre-production stills, to the trailers, we were not left wanting in all the visuals of eight thousand years in the future. It was, without a doubt, visually appealing. 

From the oceans and castles of Caladan, to the windswept and hostile sandy deserts of Arrakis, the worlds depicted by Villeneuve are breathtaking. Enormous visual spectacle is put together, whether its ships taking off from underwater, enormous worms moving in seas of spice laden sand, or massive ships sending fleets down to planets, we see just how big the universe is. It's so refreshing to see how the world changes. 

This is all accompanied by a phenomenal score by Hans Zimmer, which pulls you in just as well as the visuals. Impeccably paired with the stunning sights, we see that it is an amazing auditory experience as well with the music giving the beats from dread to hope to joy. I found it enthralling and I simply couldn't be distracted from what I was seeing. The mid point of the movie where the fighting rages was so well done that I lost myself in the spectacle for quite a while.

The casting especially is excellent, with House Atreides well rounded out by its ruling Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac) and Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) and their son and heir to the Dukedon, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet). Their loyal retainers Gurney Halleck (Josh Brolin) their mentat, Thufir Hawat (Stephen McKinley Henderson), the Suk doctor Wellington Yueh (Chang Chen) and finally, swordmaster and mentor to Paul, Duncan Idaho (Jason Momoa). 

Opposing them are the forces of House Harkonnen, led by Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård) his monstrous nephew Glossu Rabban (Dave Bautista) and their own mentat running many schemes Piter De Vries (David Dastmalchian) serving a secret plot to bring down the Atreides.

Between these two warring factions lay the Fremen, a group of desert dwelling warriors who have been trod on for years by Imperial tyranny. Among them is the respected leader Stilgar (Javier Bardem) and the woman of some of Paul's visions, the mysterious Chani (Zendaya). 

Put together its an amazing ensemble cast who will blow you away with their excellent work!

With the aesthetics, from the set design to the costuming, you'll be blown away. It has some amazing science fiction work which is brought low enough with the clever inclusion of swords, knives and personal shields that you get a real sense of a changed future. The armor worn by the various factions makes them immediately identifiable, the clothes and apparel feels natural, and the sets are all geniusly designed. I loved how distinct and permament it all felt. Beautifully rendered in practical effects and CGI.

The story, in its bare bones, is told very well for this nearly three hour adaptation, and there are some scenes shot almost shot for shot in how they are represented in the books. The scenes on Caladan in particular and the heroic rescue of the crawler crew from a sandworm attack most of all. It was phenomenally well done in that regard.

However, the film seems to expect more than a passing familiarity with the minutia of the Dune universe. Some of that is easily incorporated into the film, from mentats to the Bene Gesserit, but much of the why of the story is left to be assumed. One famous scenes from the books is the Harkonnen's explaining their pathological desire to destroy House Atreides, but in the film we're almost left assuming the why and that the Harkonnen's are villainous because of how they look. So, much of the reasoning behind this centuries old feud is left for the viewer to assume rather than know. Similarly, with the Emperor being absent from this, the politics are a bit muddled, unlike the 1984 film where they are almost detrimentally front and center.

Casual viewers might come away struggling to understand a few things, the importance of the previous Duke dying in the Bull Fighting Ring, the hopes of Arrakis being green one day, Harkonnen cruelty, and the relationships between these houses, but its something you can reasonably infer. The Bene Gesserit are also well done, but almost absent in place and purpose except for the opening. Overall however, it is quite 

One thing that did baffle me was the PG-13 rating for a film which could have easily been rated R. There's not that much violence granted, and some special effects cover it very well, mostly with the clever shield fighting. However, it did seem to rob some of the more impactful scenes of their meat which could have been helped along by maybe a little more graphic depictions of the violence inherent in the battles or desert life. It just seemed like a lot of the action was a little subdued for that.

Overall however, this was a film which was gorgeous. From the acting, to the music to the set design, it leapt off the screen and kept me focused like few movies have done in the last few years. I was immersed, and I think even casual viewers will be too! Definitely worth seeing!

First Thoughts on Amazon's The Wheel of Time

I am a huge fan of Robert Jordan (and eventually Brandon Sanderson's) amazing Wheel of Time series. It is a series which, consciously or unconsciously, much of modern fantasy owes some homage to. It has everything one might want, prophecy, madness, war, amazing magic, battle scenes, and a plot which can propel you through fourteen books and get you misty eyed at the end. Truthfully, I loved pretty much every minute I spend in the world Robert Jordan created, and I thank him for much of the work he did which inspired other authors. Now, however, Amazon has sought to bring his work to the small (very small) screen in their multi-million dollar adaptation of his series.

Does it do anything for readers or watchers? Let me offer my initial thoughts. I have, so far, only watched the first two episodes, which is what I will be basing my thoughts on. SPOILERS BELOW

The Color Out of Space (2020)

Recently, thanks to Covid-19, a film was released digitally which would otherwise have been cruising for a decent premier as a very interesting horror film. That film is The Color Out of Space! I have been anticipating this movie for a while now, having been a fan of the original 1927 Lovecraft short story, I was looking forward to seeing a modern adaptation of it. It had some interesting promotional art, and most importantly, to me, one of the big names was going to be Nicholas Cage.

From wikimediacommons

The original story is set in 1882, with the movie instead moving forward to the 21st century sometime in the 2010s in a small place in the sticks, just a while outside the town of Arkham. Normally I don't like this kind of setting change, but the film does it really well I think, and quite deftly neutralizes the problems of modern technology in horror movies besides.

We begin with some opening narration, quoted directly from the original short story. It then moves on to establish the Gardener family. Their daughter, Livinia (Madeleine Arthur) is out practicing spells in the woods when she is stumbled upon by hydrologist Ward Phillips (Elliot Knight) who is out testing the water table for a proposed reservoir. Then we get some establishing shots of the family, and the film actually spends a very good amount of time establishing why we should care about these people. Nathan Gardener (Nicholas Cage) has moved his family to the remote farm his father owned as a way to save costs after his wife Theresea's (Joey Richardson) bout with breast cancer. His two sons, elder Benny (Brenden Meyer) and youngest Jack (Julian Phillips) are typical adolescent and youthful males besides. Jack is always scared of something while Benny likes to smoke pot with the land's resident squatter Ezra (Tommy Chong) who lives in a remote 'off grid' cabin on the property.

It's a loving family which has its issues. Nathan has taken up alpaca farming because he believes it's the future while his wife is a remote worker who takes clients over the web. The physical and social distance puts strain on the family, a lack of reliable wifi and worries over their kids getting to school or medical care are all typical problems in the 21st century. It's all laid out well in the opening scenes and I really appreciated that the film took time to make me care about these people.

Then the comet hits and all hell breaks loose.

Seeing the titular crash landing from outer space was fun. It was done in a bit of a hokey way (an eerie purplish light filling the whole area but for some reason only one person looks at it) and a spectacularly creepy landing leading to more outlandish results. Little Jack finds a new imaginary friend and the crops start to taste weird, while time seems to flow...differently for the Gardeners. Things spiral steadily downhill from there as Phillips tests out the stuff he found in the meteor and comes to the conclusion there's something undeniably alien about it.

Visually, the movie is great at leaving you in suspense. There's no in your face examples of the color (beyond well, the color) and it builds suspense over the course of the film to some of it's more genuinely horrifying moments. People and animals beginning to change, and I found this approach to be very well done, with some similarities to The Thing which I found to be very well adapted. The steady descent into madness these circumstances bring is delightfully creepy as characters at first just try to adjust to weird, but not otherworldly, experiences. The actors brought out the Lovecraftian themes beautifully, with Nicholas Cage bringing his world class ham to the screen making his descent spectacularly terrifying! The man can still deliver!

Stand out performances do go to Madeleine Arthur and Elliot Knight for their roles. Arthur plays Livinia who is, after all, a teenager caught up in a horrible experience to a tee, and Knight plays the poor hydrologist sucked into an otherworldly circumstance very well. I really thought he was going to die halfway through the film! Their little subplot crush on each other makes for some cruelly tense moments later in the film, and I really felt for both of them as things spiraled out of control.

There were some excellent nods to Lovecraft in the film. From Livinia reaching for the Necronomicon in desperation as her world falls apart, to Ward being a graduate of Miskatonic University, the film made itself broad in appeal to the general public, but also having enough nods to keep Lovecraft fans enraptured by how well it did the original material.

Now there were some small errors I felt. There were a few character tics and subplots which were not well explored. The Garderner family is supposed to have some kind of feud with the mayor over their property and the construction of the resevoir, but nothing ever comes from that or is explained. Then there's something about the resevoir supposed to provide water to 'half the East Coast' which also drops with nary a whisper. Then the color itself is... well it's basically purple. I know we can't have an actual alien color within this medium and it works much better in your head, but having the color shift more would have been more visually appealing to me at least.

However, this is a genuinely thrilling horror film. If you know the original story you're in for some surprises, which is good. Then if you're used to regular horror films you're also going to be surprised for how well it handles older material and makes it accessible in the modern age. It is a movie I would definitely recommend watching and is sure to at least make you think twice about where your water comes from!

Atlas Shrugged Part III

God alone knows how, but the producers managed to waste enough money to make three of these dumb movies. It took a small fortune to create these disasters, but it took them only an hour to drain my brain of any, even halfhearted, enthusiasm for watching this last film! As before, please check out the reviews of this film alongside my friend Andrew over at I Choose to Stand where he looks at all three like me!

After Part II bombed even more spectacularly than the first film, making less than a quarter of its stated budget back, the series seemed to be in some limbo for a while. There was even talk of optioning it for a musical (God wouldn't that have been annoying?) way back when. However, this fortunately (sadly?) did not come to pass and instead they did what they had done for the last two installments, scrapped the old cast and hired all new actors making things even more confusing for people.

In a now hilariously familiar story, the budget for this film was only half of its predecessors, with some 440,000$ of that being raised on Kickstarter. Really, this film should have been called Atlas Shrugged Part III: The Search For More Money. In should come as no surprise that from a budget of 5 million, the film made only 800,000$ back at the box office. Considering what this was, even in comparison to Part III of the book, there isn't any question of why it bombed even worse than it's predecessors.

Now as someone who had read the book I will admit full disclosure to being interested to seeing Part III of this film series. It was, in themes, set pieces and story, very different from the first two parts which can be very well described as "business people talking business" with some bland mystery coloring the background.

Part III of the novel however, had one large section of ideological screed, followed by some rather entertaining pulpy action bits and the close up examination of society collapsing. Trains stop running, harvests are left to rot, and sections of the country break into open civil war. It's actually rather gripping stuff as we see the United States collapse into anarchy as part of the plan by the megalomaniacs heroes of the story.

Atlas Shrugged Part II

So we come to Part II of this nonsense, and let me tell you it just gets sillier from here. If you have missed it, my friend and fellow blogger Andrew Cowie has also done a review for this film over on his blog I Choose to Stand and it is well worth reading!

After the first installment of the Atlas Shrugged trilogy bombed fantastically. The idiots Randian heroes who had made this film decided rather than let the free market do the talking as their own philosophy would compel them to do, they were going to double down on their idea and decided the world must learn of the brilliance of their prophet's ideology.

The only problem was that now, after making less than a quarter of their budget back from the first film, the plan of financing it with profits was no longer feasible. The strategy? Hire an all new cast because keeping actors is expensive! Well, there was also a massive debt sale in order to keep the film afloat, and a big investment of personal funds. Apparently this film, when you tally up marketing and everything, cost as much as the first one. If that was the case oh boy did it have problems.

It seems that the other portion of the plan was to stoke the public's expectations by keeping it from being screened by critics pre-release so everyone would have to be surprised and appalled at the same time. This fantastically misleading article from Fox News in 2012 has the producer John Aglialoro stating "The integrity of the critics are going off a cliff...Why should I give them the sword and they are just going to use to decapitate me with?" The article of course blames the 'Liberal Media' for casting the movie down, but as a National Post review of Part I by Peter Foster notes: "Still, if it sinks without trace, its backers should at least be proud that they lost their own money."

Turns out, the film wasn't proud with just losing its own money, it didn't even need to give anyone else the sword to decapitate itself! The film made even less money than the first, and received an even lower rating from critics and audiences alike!

Why might that be you ask?

Atlas Shrugged Part I

Years and years ago, my teen self made a monumental mistake. I discovered a supposedly great work of fiction which, according to some people I knew, would change my life. To their credit, they weren't wrong. However, the book I read Atlas Shrugged did not change my life for the better. Instead, it left me knowing what true evil felt like. The magnum opus of philosopher madwoman (and Superman arch nemesis)  Ayn Rand, it was written explicitly to solidify her economic, philosophical and political codes. Essentially, this is the Bible of the weird philosophy of Objectivism.

This strange little philosophy has had a disproportionate effect on world economics and thinking, especially in the United States of America. It has influenced politicians, philosophers, gurus, and most significantly, the head of the United States Federal Reserve who oversaw the disastrous policies leading to the 2008 Financial Crisis. Some would say that isn't a coincidence. Reading its long drawn out piece was misery personified.

Imagine then, to my chagrin, discovering way back in 2015, that after years of simmering in development hell some fanatic acolyte far sighted visionary John Aglialoro, had finally decided to bring Ayn Rand's creation to the screen.

God Help Us

Now, for a quick cliff notes version of Objectivism. Essentially it is be selfish for selfishness sake. To use the fancier terms, pursue your own enlightened self interest (rational egoism) and that laissez-faire capitalism is the only system which can allow you to pursue this. There's more boring 'metaphysical' stuff about how true reality can be expressed through art or human will, but its dull as watching paint dry so Rand wrote a book. Atlas Shrugged is intended to showcase how this life is to be lived. For a normal, sane person, it's pretty awful stuff.

Unsurprisingly, it has largely been roundly rejected by the civilized world and people at large, but, also unsurprisingly, rich right leaning white people tend to love it overwhelmingly.

Discussion over a movie adaptation has been in the works for decades, near since Rand first wrote it. However, while she was alive Rand was uncompromising with her vision and always demanded strict control over any script, something no producer or Hollywood exec was going to give her. Even after she died Objectivists still hoarded the story lest its purity be 'spoiled' by Hollywood elites. Eventually Aglialoro bought the rights, but numerous conflicts with writers and executives stalled the film from going anywhere. In the 2000s, there was talk of a two part series directed by Vadim Perelman, with people like Angelina Jolie apparently being considered to star. Finally, with the rights running out, in 2011 Aglialoro basically poured 20 million into this new film trilogy so he wouldn't lose them.

So what is there to say about this film?

Lord of the Rings Prequel courtesy of Amazon

Thanks to the invaluable resource that is the Wertzone and Adam Whitehead, I have just learned that it is confirmed that Amazon (in cooperation with the Tolkien Estate) will be working on a prequel series seemingly designed to bridge the gap between the Hobbit trilogy, and the Lord of the Rings film trilogy.

I have mixed feelings on this.

Source

Many people believe that prequels don't work very well as a medium for story telling in an established universe. One need look no further than the Star Wars films to see how divisive an issue this can be. However, this concept also comes with a basic story telling problem.

In a prequel we usually know for a fact that there is a preordained ending shaping up, and that something bad will happen to the characters if they seem to be going against the ending we know will happen. In that way a rather gloomy sense of inevitability might permeate the series as potentially new characters are introduced, only to be stomped on and crushed while we see them struggling against inevitable corruption by Sauron or Sauruman. It is difficult to build characters up to viewers only to see them fall to the inevitable.

The other problem this creates for story writers is that with already established characters you have to take pains to keep their actions in line with the original canon if you want your whole storyline to make sense. In the Hobbit films it makes some sense for a shout out to Gimli to be present, as its a one off no one would likely remember. However, say if in this series you suddenly had Gimli and Aragorn meet and interact, it would be impossible for them to not remember that in the Fellowship film, and would just take a steaming dump on the original canon of the books and film if that were the case.

My fear is that there will be many liberties taken with this, in a way that there were numerous unadvised liberties taken with the Hobbit films to stretch it into a trilogy. One would hope that the Tolkien Estate and the writers of the series will do their best to simply make this a faithful new addition to the Lord of the Rings filmography. Otherwise we could end up with opinions as bad as those of the Star Wars prequels.

On a personal level I would feel far more comfortable if they instead opted to tell contemporaneous stories within the original trilogy. The War of the Ring had many fronts, and they could easily be explored within a television series. Heck, the story of the Blue Wizards could finally be put to paper and adapted faithfully. There's loads of stories to tell in Middle Earth, one needs only the will to write it.

The Dark Tower

Well having dipped my toes into the world of Stephen King's Dark Tower in dead tree format, I decided to jump in and see the film version on the big screen. I came away both impressed, and disappointed. Why you may ask? Well join me now as we journey through Keystone Earth and out onto the many spokes of the Dark Tower, and through many worlds.

Jake Chambers dreams of a Tower which a sinister Man in Black hopes to destroy, he also dreams of a mysterious gunslinger who fights him. This leads to him being seen as crazy, but soon those dreams become all too real and he is caught up in a plot to save all worlds from being consumed by darkness and fire...

Castlevania (2017)

There's a new animated series out on Netflix, and in it we get a glimpse into some things behind the long running Castlevania franchise of video games. In a night of sleeplessness I was able to watch the whole series from start to finish. It is only 4 episodes long, but it almost feels like it is 4 episodes too long really.

So is this Netflix series worth a watch? Well, let's just say if you were looking for something original, interesting, or even well paced, you've come to the wrong place.

Remakes in Moderation Please

Well I have to say that I have recently come across some mildly disturbing news thanks to Cracked. That is their lovely article here detailing how we have a slew of remakes to look forward to in the near future.

For those not willing to read the article, a short summary; here we have no less than three Peter Pan remakes coming out in the near future, four series that could only under a generous stretch of the imagination be called Wizard of Oz spin offs (of some sort), two new sets of Tarzan movies, and two films about Hercules, one staring the Rock no less.

And some other kid

Now let me get something off my chest, I'm not against remakes, not at all. I actually like many reboots or re imaginings of old shows. For instance I loved Tin Man's re imagining of The Wizard of Oz universe in a slightly darker and more adult version of the old Oz franchise, I am a huge fan of Peter Jackson's 2005 King Kong reboot, Death Race in 2008, The Godzilla remake in 1998, and I sincerely enjoyed the reboot of The Thing in 2011 (ok not technically a reboot or remake but still something cool finally done in the universe there). Hell until Disney acquired the rights to Star Wars I'd even been hoping to see some Star Wars remakes before I died.

However, there is a thing which makes reboots good, and what makes us want them, the fact that we haven't seen these things in a long time.

The upcoming Godzilla remake will have waited a respectable time (16 years) before putting a major Godzilla piece on the market again (and I say major in all seriousness, the Power Ranger esque Godzilla bits coming out in the 80s don't count) and that's what makes people look forward to it.

The TV series Once Upon a Time is fresh because no one has really done a grand new imagining of the old fairy tales in a long time, and not in such a fresh and fascinating way with a diverse cast of characters and an epic plot.

The upcoming sequel to 300 (300: Rise of an Empire) has waited a long time to reintroduce us to that crazy sword and sandals world we haven't seen in a while. I've been broadcasting all about it on my Facebook page for a while now and the trailers have been out on Youtube so if you don't know about it shame on you!

There's also the upcoming re imagining of the 47 Ronin which looks to be almost 300 in Japan, is a film to look forward to I would personally say with cautious optimism.

You know what separates these things from all the other remakes I've mentioned? They're years apart from each other, seem to be trying to breath new and innovative ideas into a creation, and they can act independently of each other. These remakes seem to not even care that they'll be competing with other remakes of the same story, as if the producers didn't stop and think "Hey we'll be flooding the market with a really similar product to the next guy!" making the potential interest evaporate as you see the same thing over and over again. Hell of all the items on the list the only one I would consider seeing is the one that puts a modern soldier in a post-apocalyptic Oz since that seems like an even darker version of Tin Man.

This is actually a problem I've been having with superhero movies recently. Yes their big flashy blockbuster productions what should I expect? Here's the thing though, we're being flooded with cheap (and sometimes tacky) remakes of films, for example, the Hulk films of the last decade are barely 5 years apart all so Hulk could be shoehorned into the Avengers (Don't get me wrong Avengers was great, but did they really need the remake? We know who Hulk is and he doesn't have anything original to contribute to the series like Iron Man, Thor or Captain America, but I digress). Now we're going to have to contend with yet another series of remakes for Super Man (whose films really can't do anything original to save their lives) and more Batman since it seems they intent on recreating the Justice League, meaning we will probably have to endure another Green Lantern movie (gack) and potentially Aquaman.

Now this version I would see

My issue with these is that they are basically just hashing out old ideas and trying to market them to a new audience. In some cases it works (for the Avengers especially) but for things like Batman and Superman, we're really just whipping the same dead horse and we'll probably be at it for the next decade.

Now although some of these remakes may not end up being awful (I'm willing to bet money they won't be great either) I'm not enthusiastic for their release.

To finish off I know that this blog would never get the ear of major producers, but is it seriously so much to ask of them to jump out of the cardboard box they've been in for the last decade and start trying to embrace some new ideas, writers, or scenarios? Hell would it be too much to ask that we could actually try and market a new superhero to people instead of just rehashing old ones?

If we're going to be dusting off old ideas, why not try some that really haven't been done before? Maybe some of H.P Lovecrafts numerous works in his mythos could be adapted (Aquaman optional)? Perhaps we could get a modern Dune series (yes we had the miniseries in 2000 but would a decent film with a good budget really be too much to ask for by 2020?). Or even say an adaption of the great novel Earth Abides? (Not starring Will Smith or Tom Cruise even).

What I suppose I'm trying to say if we have to dust off old ideas rather than attempt to embrace new ones, we could at least be dusting off old ideas that haven't been done before (or at least in a long time). Let's try fishing up some new fodder instead of digging up the same old corpse before it's body is even cold ok producers?

Until next time readers.