Today's Column: Crossovers and childhood dreams

September's column has arrived:

Column: Crossovers en kinderdromen

Oh boy, did I devour Batman versus Predator as a kid... Even though the subject matter was far more gory and gruesome than your typical Batman story and may not have been wholly suitable for a youngster my age. I think I turned out alright (I don't abide blood sports, for example). Of course, this wasn't your typical Batman story, since it was also a Predator story and those are usually the stuff of R-ratings. If they're not, they fall short of being a Predator story like the fans expect or desire them, which is one of the reasons no doubt the PG-13 rated movie Alien VS Predator was so lamented by the fanbase. But it does present another challenge when adapting crossovers: incompatibility. Batman is one of those characters which can suffer multiple age ratings, though the grittier, harder Dark Knight stories are usually received more fondly by the majority. But Predator, if done right, simply isn't suited for people under 16, or shouldn't be from a social viewpoint (like teenagers under 16 are not going to check out stuff the law says they can't, in the privacy of their own homes). Likewise, King Kong versus the Smurfs seems equally incompatible, though that's more because of the vastly different subject material rather than the age category. I put that in for a joke, but needless to say you can find some fan's home video depicting such a meeting on YouTube easily enough.

Fact is, crossovers are popular, and have always been so. Ancient Greek mythology already got that ball rolling by throwing several notable heroic characters together in the story of the Argonauts, like some Avengers of Classical Antiquity (and again in the Trojan War). Thanks to our contemporary Avengers, crossovers are a hot topic again, which even leads to rival studios teaming up (in itself a bit of a crossover) to bring the fans just the crossovers they want to see (I'm talking about you, new Marvel Spider-Man!). But crossovers are hardly a novel notion in the annals of film. Universal joining its iconic horror creatures together sounds more like they're remaking the likes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man rather than them mindlessly copying Marvel, though it's likely a bit of both. But this wave of crossover movies will die down soon enough, since crossover stories usually are far from world class material.

Most of them actually are total gimmicks, cashing in on people's own perceptions of chance encounters between notable characters from different walks of popular culture. Not much story is needed really, the idea of two (or more) characters meeting, often fighting, suffices to draw attention. Batman versus Predator got it right at least, but Batman/Aliens proved less stellar material. The original King Kong versus Godzilla was a total dud, a typical Japanese Kaiju movie in which Kong looked nothing like the giant gorilla previously smashing New York. Crossovers are always fascinating, but not many of them are truly good. They're not designed to be, nor do they need to be. The characters meet, the characters part ways again, usually never to meet again. In the meantime, money exchanges hands between audience and producers. That's all there is to it really. Or is Marvel going to change this? After all, the notion of a shared universe that can endure for a few decades is a new thing, at least. And the number of crossovers between that universe's characters keeps growing, but there needs to be more story meat to it to keep the audience from losing interest. Same thing for the upcoming DC Cinematic Universe. But it remains to be seen whether the same will hold true for the Universal Monsters, the iconic Kaiju creatures or other popular franchises thrown in the mix together. You'd kinda need a separate universe for those, to keep these crossovers outside of continuity if needs be. That's how they always did it in the comics, to explain away why superheroes of different companies didn't join forces/clash more often if they inhabited the same realm: they didn't actually, these crossovers took place in other universes, outside of established continuity. A handy loophole, one that Marvel and DC can't seriously utilize anymore at the movies because that might make them lose face. But it works well enough for the likes of Freddy VS Jason (an actual movie), Tarzan VS King Kong (an actual book), or Godzilla VS the Smurfs (pure fiction).

It needs to, to stop fans from contemplating the possibilities to severely. Because if the Fantastic Four once fought Godzilla, Godzilla squabbeled with King Kong, King Kong battled Tarzan, Tarzan fought Predator, Predator warred with Aliens, Aliens plagued Batman and Batman co-operated with Spider-Man, that would mean Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four share the same universe! Now if only I could fit the Smurfs in there somewhere...

Today's Column: Book or phone?

Another month, another column:

Column: Het boek of de telefoon?

Not my finest piece of work, but hey, I'm on vacation so I 'tis not the season to be fully inspired. It's that time of the year to lie in the sun all day and wasting away the hours at your leisure, reading some smashing book or stuff. Which I did, when I wasn't taking country excursions, doing some local shopping or chasing stormy supercells and getting woefully drenched. There wasn't as much sun as I had hoped for, I must admit, but that severe thunderstorm made up for it a bit. At least it wasn't a regularly rainy day, but an exciting reminder of nature's awesome power and a death defying road trip to boot. Yes, this, too, one can experience at the beautiful quiet isle of Texel.

As for the non-issue addressed in my column, against my better judgment I took my new smartphone with me, to keep in touch with whomever I felt I needed to keep in touch with and check my mail more often than was necessary. I spent more time on my phone than I had hoped to, but mostly the slow loading time of Buienradar.nl is to blame for that. That site at least proved a useful tool, considering the erratic weather patterns. I didn't watch any movies on my phone, not even some silly YouTube shorts in some lost hour or two. I did visit Cinema Texel this time. I felt I had too, since my last visit was a year ago and I happen to really like this small but idyllic comfy venue. My movie of choice: Ted 2. Not the best choice, but at least there was a major Jurassic Park reference and the evil, greedy Hasbro toy company was made out to be the bad guy, so that scored points with me. This week's film program wasn't stellar to begin with, though at least the theater proved fortitious enough to skip showing that dreadful Fantastic Four movie (which I already had the sincere displeasure of seeing the week before). A light yarn was the best way to describe the time I had at the movies on this year's visit.

Nevertheless, this trip to Texel made it obvious that no movie can compete with nature's raw power and destructive beauty. And nature proved it is no match for smartphones, since despite almost drowning in torrential rainfall myself, my phone, which I brought with me to capture the stormy event on camera, returned home in better shape than I did. It appears it's kinda waterproof.

Today's Column: Franchises fighting their past

Another month, another column of mine:

Column: Franchises in gevecht met hun eigen verleden

Nostalgia is key in the current Hollywood strategy. Of course the studios are eager to get the new generations acquainted with classic fare it might not have bothered to check out on their own accord - if their parents think it's awesome, it can't really be, right? - but at the same time, the existing fan base and its substantial financial potential are not to be ignored. So today's new istallments in major franchises like Terminator, Jurassic Park and Star Wars are drenched in the stuff that generates that good ol' feeling for the older fans. Old actors return, old oneliners are uttered throughout and old locations are revisited. Not to mention old plot lines are blatantly rehashed, as with the disappointing Terminator Genisys. However, the nostalgia of these new films only brings to mind the truly classic installments, ignoring those sequels that didn't either turn a profit or please the fans. Do we want to be remembered of less than stellar fare when we can set our minds on the glory of the true undying classics that preceded them? Maybe not, but it sure as heck doesn't help the consistency in these franchises. They're not remakes, or even reboots. They acknowledge what happened before happened in the same universe, but they refuse to acknowledge all of it, leaving us with major questions. What has become of Isla Sorna? Did Ripley not die, but was it a hypersleep dream? Terminator Genisys uses the Trek way out and states the current story takes place in an alternate time line, which is supposed to be a smooth way to ignore Rise of the Machines and Salvation, but makes for an overly convoluted whole in the Terminator franchise. So that wasn't the smartest move, or the most respectful since there are still plenty of fans - myself included - who actually didn't think so little of Rise of the Machines and Salvation.

Basically Hollywood is suggesting to us which films we should remember fondly and which had best be forgotten. But why should the studios dictate what is canon and what isn't? Isn't that up to the fans who embrace these franchises and the stories they tell, taking the good with the bad? The case of the recent 'recanonizing' of the Star Wars universe, to make it work more in Disney's favour, is a poignant example of how a studio is appropriating a franchise for its own gain rather than the fans'. Thirty years of Expanded Universe, mostly written by fans who turned their love for the space saga into a profession, is brisquely declared 'non canon', even though many stories are actually more intelligently crafted and more emotionally compelling than some of the canon entries. Such rewriting of history won't stop the fans from appreciating the good stuff and detesting the bad in the future. They'll make up their own mind on what things they will lovingly look back at.

Judging from the lackluster box office results and the poor audience reception, Terminator Genisys might not be one of those things...

Today's Column: We Know Nothing, Jon Snow

This month's column skips the dreaded sequel for last month's (not much to columnize about me liking Jurassic World, other than summing up lots of hyperboles and superlatives, which makes for a dull read) and instead targets another very predictable topic, that jolly show called Game of Thrones, which had yet again drawn to a season close.

Column: We Know Nothing, Jon Snow

We've arrived at that time in the series we knew would come sooner rather than later. Book readers no longer can say with certainty what's to come for the majority of story lines. The series has caught up with the various narratives in the novels in most cases and has even well progressed beyond them in some. Not to mention many of them have also been changed to such an extent they little resemble their literary counterparts. Only a few of the characters' stories are still behind, and a bunch of them involve people we haven't even met yet, and may not ever meet on the show. So what does that mean for the relationship between those who have read all the novels, and those who solely stick to the series? For one thing, the latter party doesn't need to worry so strongly about dodging spoilers, which also means the former can once more open their mouths in public without fear of someone socking a fist in them. It makes for a better balance between both types of fans, now that they all know who, when and what we're talking about and nobody knows for a certainty what's going to happen next (except for Mr. Martin, I should hope). The interchange of theories will now evolve along more equal lines, since both parties know as much, or more aptly speaking, as little.

Of course, book readers still know about the other possibilities certain characters could have had, as they had them in the book, and may take a hint or two from those, though there are no longer any guarantees. The only spoiler threat left for avid viewers/non readers now involves the new characters, like the already announced Randyll Tarly, Septon Meribald and Euron Greyjoy. However, of these characters the only one whose story line from the novel is left mostly intact is that last name. The other two in the books already appeared much earlier in situations the show can't duplicate anymore, because the narrative of the characters they supported has moved well beyond their original point, requiring novel settings for their appearance, which means there's little tangible left to spoil about them. So even though book readers may know their Randyll Tarly, Septon Meribald and Euron Greyjoy from the book, they won't know the new incarnations of these characters and as such anything they think they can spoil about them needs to be taken with a grain of salt (or in Greyjoy's case, salt wives).

Book readers and viewers no long need to be at odds, nor do they need to avoid one another socially. Instead, they can embrace in the shared knowledge that nobody knows what's coming any more on their beloved show. So let's go out and celebrate that new equality which formerly could be called adversity. Anyone feel like hosting a lavish feast in some great Lord's hall with lots of wine and song? If not, you've certainly learned your lessons from watching this show.

Today's Column: Judgment Day approaches for the Jurassic Park fanboy

This month's column is up!

Dag des Oordeels voor de Jurassic Park fanaat

No real controversy this time, just a lot of nervous anticipation. The day me and many others have been waiting for for 14 years is close at hand. Should we be excited it has finally dawned, or will all of our hopes and dreams be shattered in two hours of Hollywood viciously demolising our cherished childhood memories? Looking at the trailers and everything they tell us about the story, it honestly can still go both ways. It may be the greatest movie experience in many years for the JP fans, or it may leave us with a major dinosaur sized hangover that will cause us headaches for years, as this is definitely not the end of something, but rather the beginning. The beginning of the Jurassic World franchise replacing the much beloved Jurassic Park franchise, or the continuation of the latter in the guise of the former? I dare not speculate. Where Jurassic is concerned, I'm currently a nervous wreck.

I want to immerse myself fully in the hype, believing it's gonna be the best thing ever, but past experiences with similar Hollywood hype have left a sour taste for the very term. No mindless swallowing and tirelessly rejoicing about every little bit of info released - in fact, aside from the trailers I try to avoid most additional promo footage - but keeping a watchful eye on the development of this soft reboot. It's not like the story offers so many major new directions compared to the original film. There's still a theme park of dinosaurs on a remote island and shit still happens despite humanity's typical overconfidence it won't. Enter new characters learning the same old lessons by being chased by new dinosaurs (and a few old ones). It's the way things are handled that makes for a different experience, for good or for bad. So soon we will know whether entrusting this giant blockbuster of a film to a fairly inexperienced director, who only ever made one movie prior to this (though at least it was pretty good), was a smart move. Soon we will learn whether the overwhelming sense of wonder and awe the first film instilled in so many of us is preserved in Jurassic World, or blatantly traded in for generic blockbuster action and dito oneliners. Soon the wait is over, and we will all know whether Jurassic Park still lives strongly in Jurassic World, or whether a highly derivative but feeble follow-up of the former is the promise for the next few years.

How will this end? Tune in next month for the answer!

And here's a little joke to keep things light.

Today's Column: anybody want a Dark Claw movie?

This month's column went up early. Superheroes again. They keep me talking it appears.

Disney, koop DC alsjeblieft!

Of course the tone of this piece is meant somewhat sarcastically. Sure, I'd love to see a Dark Claw movie or any other feature related to the wonderful Amalgam universe, but it's definitely not gonna happen. Ever. And I don't think all movie studios owning superhero copyrights joining together, either out of their own volition or because they're bought up by a larger corporation, would be a preferable solution. One studio owning all the superhero franchises isn't a monopoly we would want. Say what you will about various studios owning various pieces of the various superhero universe puzzles, it guarantees some diversity. If Marvel hadn't sold the rights to Spider-Man and similar large, popular and well known properties, we likely wouldn't have gotten Iron Man, Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy, and seeing as how well that turned out, that clearly would have been a great loss. Now that Spider-Man has returned to Marvel's fold, we have yet to see whether he's not gonna reap too much of other characters' glory, even though the fact Marvel is still working on titles like Captain Marvel, Inhumans and Black Panther is reassuring to some extent, as they seemingly mean to keep the diversity flowing.

But what about the fanboys' dreams of 'interpublisher' crossovers between characters belonging not only to rival studios, but also to rival publishers? They'll stay dreams. I doubt that would change even if a major player like Disney managed to buy the rights to the DC characters after all. Which certainly isn't inconceivable, considering the various properties they bought up in recent years. It often feels with all these companies buying companies, you'll one day end up with one humongously big fat supercompany on top, controlling every franchise. Maybe that'll be Disney in the not too distant future (they don't own the business genius of Scrooge McDuck for nothing, you know). But seeing as how they have yet to do crossovers between Indiana Jones and Marvel, or between more similar brands like the Muppets and Disney's own iconic characters, I doubt they'd go so far as to do a DC/Marvel crossover, let alone Amalgam. (Then again, there already is a comic book which serves as a crossover between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, courtesy of Harrison Ford's presence in both of them.) But if it ever happened, would it be good? An Amalgam adaptation, maybe. It's hard to mess up a fabulous hybrid notion like Dark Claw. A giant crossover between the Avengers and the Justice League? No way, far too many characters and their assorted baggage to make for a sensible plot line. Only the hungriest fanboys would understand it completely, but general audiences couldn't make heads or tails of it all. Let's see whether DC knows how to join its own characters together with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice first. Not to mention it has yet to be determined whether Marvel can pull a similar trick with having more than one group share the screen, as will be the case when the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy join forces in Avengers: Infinity War Parts I & II.

And otherwise, let's just keep dreaming about these little fanboy fantasies of ours. I'm still dreaming of the release of more than only two Dark Claw comics...

Today's Column: The hour of wolves

This month's column for your consideration:

Het Uur van de Wolf

And it's not even about Game of Thrones. Though I couldn't escape at least mentioning that show, since it's the first thing on most people's minds when you mention these large wild canines these days. I must admit I exaggerated my experiences with the wolf news a little, as I did my fear for the safety of my friends in that region. It's the Netherlands, what could possibly go wrong? Small country, small catastrophes. And one wolf in 150 years shouldn't exactly cause a witch hunt by mobs in panic (though on a related note, that darn eagle-owl in Purmerend nearly did). Nevertheless, I found all the upheaval in the media and the reactions of the man in the street on the subject most intriguing. And since one of my colleagues already beat me on writing another column on superhero movies this month, I'd thought I'd address this subject instead (so you know what to expect for a column next month). How much difference is there after all in between consuming large quantities of one particular television show and one particular news item over the course of a matter of days? In terms of experience, it can be very much the same thing, as I found it to be. The news might reach the same highs and lows in terms of action and drama as the show, though of course, the news isn't scripted (though the way the media brings it might be doctored to some degree).

Of course, when met with a decent amount of viewer loyalty, the series is eligible for a second season, while the news is limited to actual goings-on of any interest for any follow-ups. Seems this wolf has had his fifteen minutes of fame and the show's over. Unless the wolf acquired a taste of the beautiful and bountiful Dutch landscape and decides to return. Fat chance. Whenever I go gallivanting around in Groningen, I'm always happy to reach home again. I doubt the wolf would feel any different.

Today's Column: will Spider-Man be our new Iron Man?

Told you I'd write that column? Well, here it is:

Wordt Spider-Man de nieuwe Iron Man?

What, another column in only two weeks, you may ask? Well, I had the time available to pen one and there was an opening because the guy who was supposed to deliver one this week didn't do so (for shame!). Plus, my editor recognized this as a current topic that needed to be posted before the news felt too far in the past. So, good for me.

As you might be able to discern from this overly long piece, I don't believe Spider-Man joining the ranks of Marvel Studios is a bad thing at all. I just know there's a lot of factors to take into account to make it work properly, without getting the feeling the webhead is hogging all the glory from his fellow superheroes (something Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man felt to be doing at times). And I have faith that Marvel will consider all possible angles, while my gut tells me they had it all worked out already, as they're champions in planning their universe thoroughly ahead. That said, I do believe re-introducing the audience to the beloved webslinger in the next Captain America movie is not the smartest move. It feels too much like 'oh, Spider-Man played a pivotal role in the Civil War comics, so let's use him in that screen adaptation to stick closer to the source material and earn points with the fan base' or a similar thought along that line. But this is not necessarily the Spider-Man we've come to know. It won't be Andrew Garfield. It's a new guy, which - unfortunately - does require a bit of an origin story to make it flow seamlessly. And such a story is better suited in his own film, rather than in somebody else's. Even though I recognize audiences have grown tired of Spidey's origin story, which has been retold a little too often in recent years. But you still gotta have it if you're talking about a new Spider-Man. A younger Spider-Man. Might they even consider going a vastly different route and eliminating Peter Parker for the new webhead on the block Miles Morales altogether? Now that's an interesting thought. Though definitely one that would polarize the fan community and make for quite some heavy flame wars all over the web. Whose side are you on? That's inspiration for another column right there.

Today's Column: KDaMn!

Wrote another column for MovieScene, and here it is:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158665/column_kdamn

This particular column was written out of sheer frustration over the topic in question. I won't mention the specifics on when and where I experienced problems with current digital cinema projection, but I can tell you there were a few times over the last months I could scream out of utter vexation because the darn KDMs, or Key Delivery Messages (as you'll have learned from reading the actual piece, eh?), proved absent at the exact time they were needed. No KDM, no movie to project. Try explaining that to an eager audience of children who were all set for a fun viewing experience on a rainy sunday afternoon. Or better yet, try explaining it to their understandably ticked-off parents. Fortunately for me, I didn't have to explain it on these particular occasions, as others took the blow (do I feel for them!). But it sure wouldn't be the first time an absent KDM made it impossible to do my job. I remember the trauma of planning a nice special event involving a movie about a popular musical foursome from the Sixties and watching the whole arrangement nearly going awry at the moment of truth because I couldn't get the movie to play since no key was uploaded to the server. Thankfully, I had a back-up copy of the film at that time, but it could just as easily have proven a total failure, in front of a sold-out room no less. Not to mention the disastrous preview screening of On Stranger Tides, mentioned in this column, which had a less agreeable outcome...

I understand a KDM serves a definite function that is of benefit to both distributors and exhibitors, protecting both their services and products from plagiarism (or downright theft). So we shouldn't want to do without KDMs. But greater care must be taken to ensure all goes well in relaying KDMs, correctly encoded and promptly delivered, to cinemas. Of course, operators also need to be better trained in recognizing the problem when it occurs, so they can take swift action (when handled immediately, a screening can still be saved, but it takes time and patience, which often both projectionists and audiences have little off), but it's too easy and incorrect to lay the blame solely on their end of the problem. I refuse to believe my particular venues are the only ones encountering these issues which are simply bad for business and for the emotional health of those theater employees involved. I should know, I've seen things go south on multiple occasions in multiple locations. And it always hurts, even though I'm not at fault.

Incidentally, 700th post on this my blog! So to close things on a happier note, I saw The Woman in Black: Angel of Death today (review coming soon: no, really!), and here's a funny meme from the first film (the second as of yet doesn't really warrant funny memes):

Today's Column: don't give in to hype, that leads to the Dark Side

My last column for MovieScene (this year):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158331/column_de_hype_ontwaakt


I'm getting increasinly tired by people asking me to embrace the hype surrounding the new Star Wars movie. They shout 'just roll with it!', like a friggin' soccer droid, willfully ignoring the fact this hype will continue for a whole more year and might end up in fatal disappointment. Expectations are already soaring to outrageous heights, and it just seems totally unlikely any fan will ever get what they are currently hoping for. Unless they keep their expectations low of course, which the majority opts against, but I consider the best way to stay sane. Based on the few loose images and deplorable lack of context the teaser provides, vast legions of fans already believe this film will be on par with the original trilogy. Even though nobody still knows what it's all about. We don't know these characters and their situations, but that doesn't stop the die-hard believers from playing a long-term guessing game, which mostly consists of projecting their desires for this movie's plot and its place in the larger canon onto a handful of random shots, chosen mostly for instilling the feel of the good ol' days. The fans' eagerness is coupled with a frightfully obnoxious and zealously disturbing faith in J.J. Abrams, since he supposedly "rescued" Star Trek from falling into obscurity (even though that franchise is currently worse off than ever). Granted, his work on Star Trek showed he had more affinity with Star Wars, since both movies felt more like a Star Wars film than an actual Trek movie (which shows you just how little he cared and Trek was just another rung up the ladder to doing Wars for the man). But they didn't feel like a good Star Wars film. Abrams might be a self-proclaimed Star Wars fan as much as the common nerd-on-the-street, but that doesn't mean he'll automatically direct a fantastic new addition to the saga that will get everyone what they want. As goes for most major franchises, some of the worst stories have been created by people considering themselves major fans, but who still failed to grasp just what made a good installment, with dire results.

This teaser, which mostly consists of coupling legendary set pieces and vehicles with unknown new characters and questionable new gimmicks - I still haven't heard a satisfying theory as to what use two small additional sabers on the side could be - is not enough to make me cast off any doubt and go along with the hype. I prefer to take any new bit of information on the film, be it rumours or actual footage, with a grain of salt. And I would have thought most fans would have learned their lesson when they got swept away with the hype surrounding Episode I, which proved the folly of getting one's hopes up to such immeasurable and unrealistic heights. Maybe The Force Awakens turns out good - honestly, I hope so - but just to be on the safe side (which is the side between Light and Dark, mind you), I won't let the hype get me drunk on excessive joyful anticipation.

Today's Column: what rhymes with 'Netflix'?

This month's column of mine:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157836/column_wat_rijmt_er_op_netflix

Call it petty whining, but each year I'm having an increasingly hard time finding suitable birthday and Sinterklaas gifts for my ever more demanding loved ones. DVDs are just an outdated medium by now, while few of them ever bothered to make the switch to Blu-Ray at all, rather than sticking to watching things online only (if at all). Sure, you can play a DVD on (most) computers, but it's not the same. Plus, watching things on computers and assorted mobile devices certainly saves shelf space (though of course it doesn't look nearly as sophisticated to visitors!). Point is, I fully agree with all the advantages the digital realm offers. After all, if people stopped watching DVDs, consider the production costs, both financial and material, that would be spared. Fewer DVDs sold means fewer resources wasted on an ever more declining medium. I'm all for that - and the same with books and CDs, naturally - yet I'm so stuck in my own routines that I can't switch to the same life style myself. I just love the feel of a DVD/Blu-Ray, the notion of owning something tangible forever, rather than saving ones and zeros in code on some digital plane, or just plucking things online whenever I feel like it and deleting them when I'm done, like a fleeting dream not long remembered. I applaud my friends and family for their modern mindset, but they can't expect everyone to think alike. So I'll continue to give them DVDs as long as that option is open to me, even though I know they have no particular desire (or space) to own them. I cannot help but stick to what I know best. But if my friends and family can't accept that about me, I guess they'll just have to chalk it up as a bad habit of mine.

Today's Column: the boring months of fall

Opening the month as usual is a column of mine:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157377/column_de_cinefiel_in_herfstslaap

Unintendedly my column sparked some controversy on Twitter, I've been told (as I don't use Twitter myself). Apparently someone took umbrage against my statements that there aren't many good films released in arthouse theaters in the months of September and October. I do agree in hindsight that I came off a bit harsh in that regard, since there are a fair number of decent titles available for our viewing pleasure (and I did acknowledge the few gems among them by name, like Winter Sleep, though that is a matter of taste). Nevertheless, I do stand firm in my opinion (which of course is all a column ever really is) that though these titles are certainly good enough, they are far from memorable compared to the films generally released in the months of November up till February, when 'good enough' is replaced by 'great'. If the current titles truly are as strong as the distributors would have us believe, I'd say more people would bother to attend. The really good stuff is being kept until later this year, as it usually is.

Looking at this column now, I really feel I ought to have stuck to my ranting against the cowardly release strategy of the commerical distributors and studios only, since they're the ones that really fall short and cause these months to be so depressingly dull. Most of the titles released in your bigger theaters are simply meant to at least give us new titles, any titles, regularly, but arguably movies of good quality are few and far between. Thus audiences tend to visit a select number of titles en masse, while the rest receives lukewarm attendance at best. Currently, the only movies people bother to visit at my work are The Maze Runner and The Equalizer, while the rest of them is euphemistically lagging behind, drawing only barely adequate numbers of spectators at best, and at worst, none at all. October doesn't seem set to break that pattern from the looks of it; things won't get more exciting until November. So we'll be sitting on our elbows for a whole more month on the job (except for that darn fall school recess, when parents and kids flock to theaters in great numbers hoping to escape the cold and the rain, though decent family movies too are a rarity: however, kids don't care about that, since anything that moves and makes a lot of noise, for which they have to leave the house is exciting and worthwhile to them). Special discount events don't seem to persuade audiences to attend, as there's simply too few movies that spark their interest. That is why the National Film Days didn't do as well as the industry had hoped for: there just weren't enough movies to entice people to visit theaters at all, even at half price. And this is basically how it goes every year, a tedious situation I'm kinda fed up with, which is why I call for distributors to reconsider their shying away from decent releases in the fall, as they seem to have for the spring months which in recent years have become much more eventful since the blockbuster season is seemingly expanded, now starting as early as March rather than May. Seeing as to how well that works financially, I'm hoping studios and distributors will risk the gamble and keep some of their summer hits back for the fall. I'm sure that would sit well with people sitting at home bored wishing for good movies to be released, of which I reckon there are fair numbers available.

That was basically the discussion I had hoped to ignite, on Twitter or elsewhere. But since I made the generalizing mistake to throw arthouse and commercial releases in the mix together, that backfired on me, and I do regret it. I wonder what they're tweeting about my column. But not enough to sign up on Twitter.

Today's Column: True Blood has died the True Death

Overdue by a few days (by no fault of mine, I upheld my deadline as always), but here's my latest online column:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157062/column_de_ware_dood_van_true_blood

Boy, am I glad that is over and done with. And not because it was so dismally bad as some would have you believe, though the finale did leave a lot to be desired. But so did the rest of the season, so at least there is some inner consistency. There's a lot to be said against this last season in terms of story, but there were still several plot lines and especially characters I continued to enjoy and appreciate. And in that case, True Blood at least can boast a genuine ending, unlike most other shows that suffer increasing deteriorating ratings and heavy fan critique. The greatest thing about this finale is that it does indeed feel quite final and the show was permitted a decent send-off in that regard, rather than face cancellation and leave us all in the dark as happened to so many shows (and a lot of them deserved better). We can now all close the Sookie Stackhouse chapter of our lives peacefully, as to my mind any show should be ended. Of course, there were a few story threads that didn't feel wholly resolved and more of those that I felt should have been handled entirely different, but there's few shows that even get to this point without screwing a thing or two up. Only two recent examples of shows that were granted a final farewell sprung to mind, Breaking Bad and Spartacus. Admittedly, both of those ended on a superior note, but they were much more coherent in their quality throughout their run, while True Blood from the get-go tended to meander between well executed plot threads and those less so, featuring both wonderfully charismatic characters and their barely watchable counterparts. We'll have to make do without both, from now on. No more Maenad orgies, conniving witch covens and endless droning about who Sookie will jump into bed with this time, but also no more shrewd vampire politics, stupendously supernatural situations and Eric Northman. Not every blood type variety of Tru-Blood proved as delectable, but I still regret having to return to strictly human beverages again after seven years.

Today's Column: Skoop and the high times of the film critic

Dit overzicht is niet beschikbaar. Klik hier om de post te bekijken.

Today's Column: I have no translation for 'grabbelbak'

The month has just begun so here's a column for y'all:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156321/column_ode_aan_de_grabbelbak

The longer it has been since Free Record Shop closed, the more I start to realize how much I miss it. The number of sites where you can buy movies on DVD/Blu-Ray has decreased dramatically, while it seems a slow but sure increase in prices at the stores that are left is in process (I feared it would happen). What's more, the number of films available on home theater formats - and I don't mean the downloadable kind - is also dwindling rapidly. It has become increasingly problematic to find hidden gems, especially the kind I like that most people wouldn't consider to fit that bill (such as Return of the Fly, mentioned in this piece). Of course, if I do find such a title now the euphoria is all the more vigorous, but such occasions have become rare and will soon turn obsolete. The DVD Age was a good time for cinephiles, but that time has passed. So too wil the Blu-Ray Age, which delivered superior quality but less diversity in terms of total title output. I'll cherish the memories of both, while I'll put off the inevitable Online Age for as long as I can, as is basically my wont for any scary new media these days. But hey, at least I jumped on the Blu-bandwagon earlier than most.

Today's Column: what to do when the end credits start rolling

My monthly contribution to MS's slate of columns has thus been posted for this June:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155987/column_te_blijven_of_niet_te_blijven_dat_is_de_vraag

To be completely honest, I don't always stay for the entire run of end credits, unlike I;m suggesting here. Call me a hypocrite if you must. It's one of the perks working in a movie theater to know when stingers are attached and when they're not. And even if I know there's post-credits scenes available, chances are good I saw them prior to watching the actual movie itself. Of course, it's not all about stingers, though they're the most attractive part of end credit sequences. The creativity invested in the end credits, though not mentioned in this column (it was running overly long, as usual) is also of note in this regard. I can't imagine many people leaving during the wonderfully designed, stunning credits of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. If a credit sequence looks that good, you obviously stay. Paying respect to those who got the film to where it is now, in theaters for my enjoyment or amazement, should not be ignored as a factor. If a film is good enough I stay; if it's bad, mediocre or passable it depends on my mood and the time at my disposal. Since I tend to go to the movies after work predominantly, and I do not work so close to home as I would like, I'm usually eager to fetch my train and get home. Another element prohibiting me from staying or leaving is the score or soundtrack that accompanies the credits. If it concerns a good, solid, orchestral score I'm usually entranced to keep listening, and therefore, watching, accordingly. If however the producing powers-that-be attached some awfully loud and unattractive (for me, that is) song, as part of their synergy driven promotional campaign, the decision to hurry home is all too quickly made (unless it's a good song, which is not often the case). Nevertheless, that hilarious scene and poignant quote from Return of the Killer Tomatoes always springs to mind when the end credits advance. I bet most mothers of directors (and other production departments too) wouldn't take kindly to people so easily ignoring all the names of people who worked hard to deliver them their dose of entertainment. Or the dirctors themselves for that matter.

Today's Column: Spoiler is Coming

Wrote another column for MovieScene, read it here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155411/column_spoiler_is_coming

I struggled for a while coming up with a decent topic (as those who are in the business of writing columns are prone to do), but when I had it, it quickly proved to be easy writing. Of course, I made situations appear more poignant and heartwrenching than they actually are in real life, for dramatic effect and poetic license, reflecting the plight of the many unfortunates who are forced into social silence just for knowing more than others. You might read my column as me saying people who cannot take spoilers are a danger to freedom of speech, but that would maybe be reading a little too much into things (then again... perhaps they are!). I don't have as many friends so highly suspectible to spoilers as you would be inclined to believe from this piece, just one or two who make my case for me. And even though I would love to just let it go and throw the truth all out right at them - these characters are all gonna die, yo! - I know better than to jeopardize friendships like that. Just as people who, unlike myself, are not spoiler proof have to learn to live with their disabilities by accepting that in these digital times they are often unavoidable, the rest of us has to learn to accomodate their shortcomings into our everyday lives and simply take such blatant personality flaws for granted. Pity them for their wilful lack of ignorance, I say.

A funny thing concerns the last paragraph of this column, in which I state that I might stumble unto wholly new plot lines not as yet addressed in Martin's novels at some point in the next season. Boy, did the writers of the show prove me wrong! Mere days after penning this column they already seriously digressed from the source material in wholly unpredictable ways which very likely will leave their marks on the act of reading the upcoming novel(s). Not only did the fourth episode of the fourth season change quite a few things on already existing plot lines, the show's ending was either completely made up by the episode's writer, or contained potentially massive book spoilers. Apparently the showrunners deduced that after the shocking events of last season, the majority of the show's fans would have taken to the books already by now, because they could not take 'not knowing' anymore when a written alternative was within their grasp, so they decided to start surprising that, probably fairly considerable, chunk of the audience sooner than anticipated by adding some true 'terra incognita' to the show. Personally I hope they won't continue that process too often over the course of this season: after all, even if only 10% of the next book is covered this way, I still prefer not to know what's coming my way in the pages of Martin's writing, even though I proved less concerned by such thoughts in the case of the TV show. I guess I'm not as spoiler proof as I initially considered myself to be. It's just the question to what medium these spoilers refer to. Televison spoilers? Whatever. Book spoilers? Shut the fuck up and get out of here!

Today's Column: are we tired yet of the Avengers-approach?

After yesterday's sad events, spirits may be lifted a little bit with an extra lengthy column I wrote for MS this week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154600/column_zijn_we_al_moe_van_de_avengers-aanpak

My point that Marvel might be endangering its own construct by relying on its star actors too much was fortuitously underscored this week, when word leaked that Chris Evans means to quit the acting business altogether in favor of turning towards directing, as I posted in this bit of news last week:

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154691/chris_evans_wil_stoppen_met_acteren

Fortunately he's under contract at Marvel and he still has two movies to go (Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America 3 it seems), so there's still time for Marvel to avert a crisis. For now. Phase 2 seems secure, but it seems a sure thing Evans will not return for Avengers 3. So what's Marvel to do without the iconic Star Spangled Avenger? Recasting is an option, as is killing off his character. But it's just one actor among many who may jump ship earlier than Marvel would like, and you can't recast or replace them all without potentially annoying or needlessly confusing the audience. But let's find out how the viewers will respond to two different takes on the same character (Quicksilver) first. Maybe it will go unnoticed by all but the avid comic book fans, maybe people will understand not all Marvel superheroes belong to Marvel Studios proper in terms of copyright (fat chance!), or maybe they will simply not care about the whole matter (the wisest choice no doubt). But it seems a given that even Marvel's ambitious 'Avengers-approach' to building a coherent cinematic universe will be in need of a reboot somewhere down the line, and maybe earlier than anticipated.

Today's Column: behind the scenes of arthouse programming

Wrote another column for MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154147/column_-_hoe_programmeer_ik_een_filmhuis

Inspiration was tough this time because I was quite busy with both my regular job and my new hobby supporting the programming department of the new Filmhuis Alkmaar arthouse theater. I eventually decided to just write a piece about that, as it seemed appropriate to do this follow-up to my emotionally charged column about Provadja's demise a few months back. Nevertheless, because of my lack of available time I consider this latest column to be a bit on the superficial side, even though I daresay you get the gist of it. So far it's fun work, though because of the poor quality of internal communications between the various departments that comprise the staff (voluntary that is) of the theater it can at times prove stressful. Also something to take into account, and not mentioned here, is the fact distributors love to mess around with their movies' release dates, making a keen eye for spotting such moves and accordingly flexible programming to accomodate these happenstances rather imperative. The most striking example was the German film Das Wochenende, which was originally slated for release in January, then moved to March and is now currently expected to hit theaters in October... Am I glad we didn't plan that one for our opening weekend, that would have been awkward to say the least! As for Wes Anderson not being popular in Alkmaar, as far as I'm concerned we'll make him popular. The decision to order his upcoming magnum opus The Grand Budapest Hotel for only a single week has seemingly been reversed in favour of a two week appearance, something I opted for from the beginning. There weren't that many other attendance magnets available, so Anderson got out on top. Suits me fine.

Here's to a bright future for Filmhuis Alkmaar!

Today's Column: why I like the Razzies better than the Oscars

Here's another column I wrote for MovieScene this weekend:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153493/column_de_rustgevende_razzies

I must admit inspiration came to me rather late in the game for this one. As a result it's certainly not my best piece, though when I did find a subject it was penned a lot faster than most other columns so far. I firmly believe in the Razzies as a rather stable, quiet ritual that is a welcome diversion from all the other Award fests plaguing the early months of each new year. Because it is solely about bad movies - the definition of which admittedly leaves a little to be desired occasionally, as in the case of The Lone Ranger this year - nobody cares so vigorously as when good movies are concerned. Amidst all the politics, anger and frustration surrounding the Academy Awards and the general discord which ensues when their winners are revealed, there's no such conflict over the Razzies. There's no need to account for bad taste after all: truly bad movies (though often still enjoyable on purpose) are generally considered just that, while defending or debunking the good qualities of a film, especially compared to other good films, causes much more consternation and lack of consensus. Few people will claim they thought Gravity was a bad film, but the level of its 'goodness' is open to questioning when comparing it with other movies that are considered good. Is Her a better movie than 12 Years a Slave? Who's to tell? Is Grown Ups 2 a horrendous picture? Yes, definitely! You have none of the tiresome hype you witness for two months around the Oscars at the Razzies. Plus, the Razzies don't take themselves seriously, while the Oscars do too strongly and not always deservedly so. The Razzies simply are a much more honest ritual, without agressively demanding as much attention from a movie lover as the Oscars sometimes so irritatingly do. So I'm all for Adam Sandler making more movies, just to keep the Razzies going. As long as I don't have to watch them.