Re-make, re-boot, re-wind

Dredd. Total Recall. Robocop. Starship Troopers. All in various stages of being re-made or re-booted. Spider-man is doing pretty well at the cinema with his own little re-boot. Obviously Nolan is blazing a pretty firey trail with his Batman trilogy. The terms themselves are not massively difficult concepts. Massively annoying, in some cases, yes. I am more than willing to admit that it concerns me when one of my warm and fuzzy celluloid landscapes is next up for a new outing. It's also true that, for example, Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is not exactly a masterpiece, but Jesus Christ on rubber crutches, it's a fun film. Same for Robocop (not for Dredd though, you can keep that one, thanks very much). We will never get those camp, ultra-violent, ridiculously fun films that we used to stay up late to watch, interrupted god knows how many adverts (we would stop the video recording for the duration of the ads, exponentially increasing second viewing pleasure)...

What I am trying to say is that although the thought of all these shiny new films appearing from Hollywood's 'oh shit, got no new ideas' drawer is horrible, I do understand why they are doing it. It seems pointless to worry that they are besmirching the holy purity of our childhood entertainment: in no way will it affect how we felt, and feel, about the 'classics'. They will still be there. They don't suddenly pop out of existence when the new one comes along. What it may do, perhaps, and I do say perhaps,  is add something to the legend. We can nod sagely when someone mentions  Total Recall and say, "ah, but have you seen the original?". You see, you didn't think you would ever have to defend "you make me wish I had three hands" did you.

Anyway, my point here is less that I think all these prequels, re-boots and re-makes are good or bad; necessary or not. I seriously think we, myself included, need to get over it. You know who made me realise that? Catwoman. To be more precise. Anne Hathaway. When asked what she thought about her Catwoman versus Pfeiffer's in the latest Empire, she said that "Catwoman depends on the Gotham City she lives in".  She evens says she doesn't want to sound like a tool saying it, but I understand it and totally agree. Yes, Nolan has created a Gotham that was different, darker, than Burton's Gotham, so his Catwoman needs to match that. But it goes beyond that. It is indicative of the real world, our world, where we have to have a more deranged, more disturbed villain; where no-one (by which I mean young people) can deal with ridiculous scientists in PVC nazi outfits shouting about "brain bugs" (seriously, Neil Patrick Harris is a freaking genius). We have changed, and so must our film appetite. 

Peter Jackson has recently shown some footage of The Hobbit that has created a rather large fuss, and not necessarily in a good way. Ten minutes of footage revealed Jackson's use of a rather divisive breakthrough (more like breakdown, according to some) technology: The film is being shot at 48 frames per second, rather than the standard 24 fps. That may sound like gobbledegook, but it's actually quite easy to picture. You know that cheap-looking sharpness on some TV shows (it is sometimes referred to as the "Soap Opera effect"), where you actually feel that you are in the same room as the characters, usually saturated in blink-inducing colour? Well it looks like that. You can imagine it, can't you?

The difference is obviously quite alarming, judging by the reactions it provoked from the attendant media, with some declaring outright that "it didn't look particularly good" while others were content to hedge their bets slightly with pronouncements that judging it from the 10 minutes shown wasn't really "the right representative look at it" - more needs to be seen before the nay or the yea is fixed upon. 

I am a little wary of it myself. Obviously I haven't seen it yet, not being lucky enough to be at the Las Vegas Comic Con, but the descriptions seem to be that it's quite an intrusive and shocking effect. I love the trilogy so much, for its beauty, escapism and grandeur as much as anything else, and it seems as though this 'realistic' look will almost certainly detract from that. You may hold the example of 3D up as a template for new technologies, but I think you would be making a tiny mistake: 3D is far from accepted as successful, especially by little old me. However, I have faith in Peter Jackson. I have faith that he knows what he is doing and that his vision for Thorin, Bilbo and Smaug will be nothing short of his usual excellence.

Joss is boss

Vindication for Joss Whedon. His new Avengers is making super-powered waves in the UK film media, with plenty of 4 and 5 star reviews to its name.

Whedon is nowhere near as prolific as he should be. Held in high favour by the cultish few for the ridiculously excellent Buffy, Firefly and Serenity. As one of the wittiest writers around, not to mention one of the most vocal and loveable feminists in Hollywood, he is very high on my 'fantasy dinner party wish-list'. Can't wait to see a comic book movie that has plenty on offer for the head and the heart.

You may have an Oscar, but you still have to take your clothes off...

Why is it that, on the whole, women have to have their beauty weaponised by the press, but men can get away with being ugly, old, fat, sweaty, oily, hairy, vile, or just plain boring? There are plenty of exceptions on both sides of the argument. I know this.

But why does every article about an actress, even highly respectful, admiring and intelligent articles, have to be accompanied by lush semi-naked shots of them sprawled across a velvet chaise longue? Empire magazine, who generally have a good understanding of the idea that talent is unrelated to physical perfection (or not) are guilty of sexualising their female stars. Looking at 100 Empire covers, almost every single one with a female actor has her stripped naked, or at least showing some side-boob. True there may be some flexed and oiled  torsos but they really are in the minority.

I know that these are adult women and they surely have a choice in these matters, but I am sure it must be a little wearing sometimes. Yes, we respect your work and yes, we respect you as a person, not just as a woman, yes, we respect your excellent performances and recognise your discerning taste...now just take your clothes off and pout as hard as you can...