There's a trailer out for that movie now... that movie based on a series of atrociously written books with derivative Twilight-esque plot which has done more for the bondage sex toy industry than any other piece of pop culture in years, while simultaneously flaunting a horribly abusive relationship as healthy, sexy, and desirable.
So yeah, I'm biased. There was a part of me, however, my own masochistic-for-terrible-things side if you will, which thought that maybe, someday, I'd sit myself down and watch this atrocity. Once it's out on streaming/DVD of course, where the drinks are plenty, the pause button at the ready for vomit-inducing moments, and there is a decided lack of horny housewives surrounding me. Then I saw Jamie Dornan in The Fall.
For those unaware, The Fall is a Netflix series starring Gillian Anderson as a detective who comes to Belfast from England to run an internal/external investigation on the police force and, particularly, a murder inquiry regarding a young woman. The one young woman turns into several by the end of the series, all fitting a distinct aesthetic the killer finds appealing. That killer is Jamie Dornan, and in a rare turn for what could be an extended storyline for a basic procedural, it isn't just the view of the cops we get. We see the killer in his everyday life, as a grief counselor for parents of children who have died in tragic circumstances. We see him at home with his wife, a nurse, and young son and (quite possibly burgeoning psychopathic) daughter. We see him running, stalking, breaking into victims homes, fantasizing about them, and you know, eventually killing them. We see the aftermath; we see his family and his marriage crumbling. We see him nearly kill the babysitter when she finds a token from one of his kills (and her skin-crawling attraction to him even after this incident). We see him wink knowingly at his creepy daughter when she asks if they're driving past a murder scene. We see him as a fully fledged person, and as a killer. It's unsettling to say the least and genuinely terrifying at times. And it is masterfully done. This is all eerily similar to the kind of guy Christian Grey would be in real life (sans the obscene amount of money) as opposed to the demented fairy tale version that appears in print and, likely, on screen.
The first look we have of Jamie Dornan as Christian Grey in the trailer holds that same intensity and predatory look he gets when he's getting ready to murder women -- women who look eerily like the "50 Shades" girl, Ana.
This is my plea to women everywhere: If you still think the idea of Christian Grey is sexy and desirable, if you think having your own uncertainty ignored in favor of a man taking control of you and 'teaching' you to be his object is a positive portrayal of relationships, even if you just think the idea of a little bondage and fetishism in a mainstream movie is naughty in a good way, before you see 50 Shades of Grey, or pick up one of those books again, watch The Fall. Really watch it. Pay attention to how this man acts in public and in private. You may still see something appealing in Christian Grey afterwards, but hopefully at least some part of your brain will register the difference between poorly- written fantasy and a more grounded portrayal of what control-hungry men are really like.
Showing posts with label movie news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie news. Show all posts
24 July 2014
11 June 2012
If It's Been Done Well, Leave It Alone
*deep breaths before diving into a hot button issue with me*
Articles and speculation about adapting classic literature (and literature in general) always draw my attention and, sometimes, my ire. I am not one of those Every Book Is A Holy Canon Which Should Not Be Altered For Screen people. I'm a writer, and I have flaws. I've written for the screen, and have flaws. No writer is perfect and no medium of expression is perfect in conveying what one medium already covered. My issues with adaptations are not rooted in that base problem, they are rooted in this: when one creator crafts a story and characters, it is the responsibility of someone later coming along to adapt that work to at least stay true to the overall tone and message of the source, as well as its characterization -- or change the g-d name! You change plot points? As long as we get to the same eventual conclusion, fine. You combine or omit characters? As long as it makes a stronger narrative and doesn't mess up essential moments in the story, fine. You alter a major character motivation, changing who they are on a fundamental level? NOW I have an issue, and my outrage will be rantalicious unless you give damn good support for your change or, you know, CHANGE THE G-D NAME. (Noticing a trend?)
My only other gripe with adaptation (and why I pretty much never take issue with Shakespeare films because he's the one writer out there whose work we never quite get right), is that once a well done, faithful adaptation is accomplished it's time to close the book, so to speak, and remove it from the realm of stories up for grabs. In my hasty youth, I didn't even extend this to previous film works. I thought, hey, if you can update a classic film well, then go for it! I've wizened and grown curmudgeonly in recent yeas, however, and now see the error of my ways. And if ever I need a reminder, I think of High Society (yeah, Hollywood was pulling that even during its Golden Age, so we can't heap all the blame on ourselves for the current state of stagnant original ideas). It's fine to have a vision of someone else's story in your head. If you're lucky enough to be allowed the chance to craft that story in another medium, then kudos to you -- you're already achieving one of my biggest dreams. Just... don't eff it up. And if you do and then someone else comes along later and hits the marks where you missed them, then at least you had that chance. However, if someone beats you to your dream (and I swear I will probably resort to every known tactic of undermining human success if this happens to me -- yeah, I can get competitive when I need to be), accept their success and find a new dream for yourself. The idea that once a good, faithful adaptation has been crafted someone else can come along with a new interpretation that will make the successful one shudder in shame is ridiculous. Improving a work from one medium to another is one huge accomplishment. Don't tempt fate by trying to improve the adaptation -- find something different or original to make, or CHANGE.THE.G-D.NAME.
What spurred my current eruption of emotion about adaptations? Well, it's been sort of a slow burn recently between varying reports of remaking IT, a clustermess of issues in season two of Game of Thrones (many of which end up as just sloppy storytelling -- and making strong characters into idiots), and culminating in the top news of this article about directors who were born for certain adaptations. The article itself is intriguing and has some interesting (and some, really, very safe) choices in the roster. What made my head do a Linda Blair was the news which sparked this article: that Guy Ritchie is doing an adaptation of Treasure Island.
Now, I don't necessarily doubt that the movie will be a fun romp with cool action sequences, quippy dialogue, and a sassy Long John Silver. There's just two issues with this equation. First, that concept is not going to end up being Treasure Island. Second, there already exists a near perfect adaptation of the book -- we don't need another.
Addressing issue the first: Guy Ritchie's already proven this is his MO with the Sherlock Holmes movies. Those guys bashing around the world solving mysteries are not Holmes and Watson. What Ritchie crafted is a set of cool Victorian buddy movies, with two men who happen to share names with and few characteristics of two of the most compelling characters in literature. You want to really see Holmes and Watson on screen? Watch the BBC series Sherlock. It's a modern setting, yes, but it IS Sherlock Holmes. I enjoy the movies, but I told myself about fifteen minutes into the first one that this was a Victorian buddy movie, not a Sherlock Holmes movie. In my head, I CHANGED THE G-D NAME, and then it was fine.
Now on to issue the second: already a near perfect adaptation of Treasure Island? Yep. I've never seen that... you think. No, you probably haven't. Yet it exists. It's a very good film, and it is one of the best examples in existence of how to adapt literature for screen. It's faithful to the tone, style, feel and majority of the plot. The characterization is spot on with a stellar cast. It's not a perfect movie, but Treasure Island is not a perfect book. It is however proof that when you maintain the core of a novel as your guiding star you can make not only a good film but a truly faithful adaptation of a work which deserves that treatment. Yet, people are still making Treasure Island... except no other adaptation I've seen really is remotely close to actually being Treasure Island, thus the crux of this whole entry: if you're going to keep remaking something and yet deviate drastically from the source -- CHANGE.THE.G-D.NAME.
Articles and speculation about adapting classic literature (and literature in general) always draw my attention and, sometimes, my ire. I am not one of those Every Book Is A Holy Canon Which Should Not Be Altered For Screen people. I'm a writer, and I have flaws. I've written for the screen, and have flaws. No writer is perfect and no medium of expression is perfect in conveying what one medium already covered. My issues with adaptations are not rooted in that base problem, they are rooted in this: when one creator crafts a story and characters, it is the responsibility of someone later coming along to adapt that work to at least stay true to the overall tone and message of the source, as well as its characterization -- or change the g-d name! You change plot points? As long as we get to the same eventual conclusion, fine. You combine or omit characters? As long as it makes a stronger narrative and doesn't mess up essential moments in the story, fine. You alter a major character motivation, changing who they are on a fundamental level? NOW I have an issue, and my outrage will be rantalicious unless you give damn good support for your change or, you know, CHANGE THE G-D NAME. (Noticing a trend?)
My only other gripe with adaptation (and why I pretty much never take issue with Shakespeare films because he's the one writer out there whose work we never quite get right), is that once a well done, faithful adaptation is accomplished it's time to close the book, so to speak, and remove it from the realm of stories up for grabs. In my hasty youth, I didn't even extend this to previous film works. I thought, hey, if you can update a classic film well, then go for it! I've wizened and grown curmudgeonly in recent yeas, however, and now see the error of my ways. And if ever I need a reminder, I think of High Society (yeah, Hollywood was pulling that even during its Golden Age, so we can't heap all the blame on ourselves for the current state of stagnant original ideas). It's fine to have a vision of someone else's story in your head. If you're lucky enough to be allowed the chance to craft that story in another medium, then kudos to you -- you're already achieving one of my biggest dreams. Just... don't eff it up. And if you do and then someone else comes along later and hits the marks where you missed them, then at least you had that chance. However, if someone beats you to your dream (and I swear I will probably resort to every known tactic of undermining human success if this happens to me -- yeah, I can get competitive when I need to be), accept their success and find a new dream for yourself. The idea that once a good, faithful adaptation has been crafted someone else can come along with a new interpretation that will make the successful one shudder in shame is ridiculous. Improving a work from one medium to another is one huge accomplishment. Don't tempt fate by trying to improve the adaptation -- find something different or original to make, or CHANGE.THE.G-D.NAME.
What spurred my current eruption of emotion about adaptations? Well, it's been sort of a slow burn recently between varying reports of remaking IT, a clustermess of issues in season two of Game of Thrones (many of which end up as just sloppy storytelling -- and making strong characters into idiots), and culminating in the top news of this article about directors who were born for certain adaptations. The article itself is intriguing and has some interesting (and some, really, very safe) choices in the roster. What made my head do a Linda Blair was the news which sparked this article: that Guy Ritchie is doing an adaptation of Treasure Island.
Now, I don't necessarily doubt that the movie will be a fun romp with cool action sequences, quippy dialogue, and a sassy Long John Silver. There's just two issues with this equation. First, that concept is not going to end up being Treasure Island. Second, there already exists a near perfect adaptation of the book -- we don't need another.
Addressing issue the first: Guy Ritchie's already proven this is his MO with the Sherlock Holmes movies. Those guys bashing around the world solving mysteries are not Holmes and Watson. What Ritchie crafted is a set of cool Victorian buddy movies, with two men who happen to share names with and few characteristics of two of the most compelling characters in literature. You want to really see Holmes and Watson on screen? Watch the BBC series Sherlock. It's a modern setting, yes, but it IS Sherlock Holmes. I enjoy the movies, but I told myself about fifteen minutes into the first one that this was a Victorian buddy movie, not a Sherlock Holmes movie. In my head, I CHANGED THE G-D NAME, and then it was fine.
Now on to issue the second: already a near perfect adaptation of Treasure Island? Yep. I've never seen that... you think. No, you probably haven't. Yet it exists. It's a very good film, and it is one of the best examples in existence of how to adapt literature for screen. It's faithful to the tone, style, feel and majority of the plot. The characterization is spot on with a stellar cast. It's not a perfect movie, but Treasure Island is not a perfect book. It is however proof that when you maintain the core of a novel as your guiding star you can make not only a good film but a truly faithful adaptation of a work which deserves that treatment. Yet, people are still making Treasure Island... except no other adaptation I've seen really is remotely close to actually being Treasure Island, thus the crux of this whole entry: if you're going to keep remaking something and yet deviate drastically from the source -- CHANGE.THE.G-D.NAME.
15 October 2010
The Dark Tower 'Fairy Tale' Casting
Trolling around the 'new' IMDB (but not being a troll), I decided to see what message board activity existed for the Dark Tower Multimedia Project of Epicness. After stumbling on a casting choice for Eddie I hadn't thought of -- that almost caused me to wet myself and scream with glee, and then curl into a fetal position because it's likely they'll pick, say, Ryan Reynolds *gag* -- I decided I should put some thought into my ideal casting. Just because, you know, I like having my hopes dashed by Hollywood politics. This post will be expanded upon as I think of other ideal (for me) candidates.Roland (Contemporary) - Viggo Mortensen
Hugh Jackman LOOKS the part, and lord knows plenty of people don't mind looking at that man for hours and hours on end, but the ability to carry the entire series on his shoulders with the grizzled depth required... I don't think he can pull that off. Viggo's a no-brainer -- he's got the look, the talent, the depth, the proven ability to carry an epic undertaking like this. Hell, I think the question isn't whether they'd want him to do it, but whether HE'D want to do it.
Otherwise they should just wait another 5-10 years and have Karl Urban and Christian Bale duke it out.
Eddie - Ben Foster
Thank you IMDB board for that one. Now all I will ever want is him in that role and there's a snowball's chance it will happen. (Of course now someone's also said Joseph Gordon-Levitt... oh, wait...)
Roland (Young) - Joseph Gordon-Levitt
He may be pushing the age, but he still looks like such a baby it would work. Plus he's got the intensity and depth necessary for making that section of the story powerful and believable -- something I'm not certain an actual 18 year-old could pull off. And if they could throw in a zero-gravity, balletic fight scene in old-west-style clothes, so much the better.
Susan Delgado - Karen Gillan*
*Not 100% sold
She'd have to be blondied-up, but given the choice between her and any number of blonde (or pretend-blonde) Hollywood tartlets... yeah, Karen's got it. Hands down. Not that I want to see Amy Pond put through that kind of hell, but Karen's gorgeous, spunky, smart, and has the 'it' factor of making you want to watch her.
If only one could reverse time and steal Rosamund Pike when she was 16-18, that would be perfect. Or Jewel Staite.
Cort - Mickey Rourke
I've seen some ideas floating that he should be Randall Flagg, but that makes Flagg too creepy without any appeal. There has to be something about Flagg that draws you in, even though you know nothing about him is good. Cort on the other hand is just a grizzled, old bad-ass, which Rourke could do in his sleep.
Walter/Flagg - Colm Feore
Again, thank you IMDB board. Not only has he god the unsettling-yet-appealing freaktastic thing down to a science, crossover be damned he KNOWS how to do this brand of King evil. Ever see Storm of the Century? Scarred for life, in the best way.
"I'm a little teapot, short and stout..."
Susannah - ???
Of all characters, this one gets the 'fucked if I know' award. The complexity involved in being an African-American schizophrenic, wheelchair-bound heroine with deathly accurate aim and a soft spot for redeemed screw-ups... to put any established actress in this will lose some pivotal aspect of her due to pre-existing habits and ticks. Whoever plays Susannah needs to disappear into her entirely, and that's going to take a face we haven't seen much/any of before.
Stephen King - DUH
Incidentally, his appearance on Sons of Anarchy is probably his best acting work to date.
And if he's not Rick Baker-ed to the extreme for the young appearance, use Joe. He looks plenty like his poppa.
In other random movie news, apparently Cameron wants to prove he can single-handedly
Quick, let's get Brad in on this. It did such wonders for Liz and Dick...
14 September 2010
Holy Vampires, Jarvis!
Herein begineth my assessment of the Priest trailer...
The opening shots look like Equilibrium meets Blade Runner... with clergy.
First lines: I come before you because I need my authority reinstated. This was a vampire attack.
So we learn:
a) Paul Bettany is a fallen priest. I have ideas on how this happened, though likely the real reason is not so sexy and sordid as I would like to imagine...
b) 'Priest' in this world = sanctified vampire slayer
c) Vampires = evil
All of these facts pique my interest, so I don't need much more convincing to see this movie, but there's two minutes of preview left.
Cue said vampire attack featuring a Sookeh-less Stephen Moyer trying to protect his family, though his screaming daughter seems to indicated he is made of fail in this situation.
Cue VO by Christopher Plummer (now becoming interchangeable with Max von Sidow, which I don't think is bad for either of them) as the head bishop/pope/guru stating how all the people are so safe and trusting that the clergy do all they can to protect them from the horrible vampires (thus confirming the 'priest as sanctified slayer' status).
Horrible Vampires, btw, that seems to resemble elongated cousins of Gollum. Far more evil and therefore likely more enjoyable than mopey vampires, but not nearly as hot.
Pope Plummer threatens excommunication and exile of (massively ripped... semi-tanned... nubile........ I'm back) Priest Bettany if he decides to take slaying matters into his own throwing-star crosses. Thus, Emo Preist and his face-splaying cross-tattoo climb on his futuristic Harley and like a cowboy on the Batbike he's off into the unknown to dust some vamps.
Apparently joined by the requisite Hot Asian Babe, Hot Young Blonde and Really F-in Hot Borderline-Nutjob Rogue, they travel into the heart of Gollumvampland in search of revenge and sexy time.
See above re: vampires not being hot in this film. It is more than made up for by Emo Priest and BN Rogue (and for those who enjoy Asian chicks and Cam Gigandet, they're in it too). The costumer seems to have reached into the illustrations of The Dark Tower and pulled out Roland's clothes for Karl Urban to get his psycho-sexual-rogue on in... and yes, I am one of those people with a 'hot priest' fetish. You've got some random costume exciter in your fantasies as well, so don't judge. Thus, Bettany in priest garb, even with the giant facial henna cross makes any of the cheesetastic, groan-inducing potential of this flick obsolete. I mean, I actually enjoyed Legion so I think this will suit my need for another ass-kicking, ripped-Bettany ride just fine.
The opening shots look like Equilibrium meets Blade Runner... with clergy.
First lines: I come before you because I need my authority reinstated. This was a vampire attack.
So we learn:
a) Paul Bettany is a fallen priest. I have ideas on how this happened, though likely the real reason is not so sexy and sordid as I would like to imagine...
b) 'Priest' in this world = sanctified vampire slayer
c) Vampires = evil
All of these facts pique my interest, so I don't need much more convincing to see this movie, but there's two minutes of preview left.
Cue said vampire attack featuring a Sookeh-less Stephen Moyer trying to protect his family, though his screaming daughter seems to indicated he is made of fail in this situation.
Cue VO by Christopher Plummer (now becoming interchangeable with Max von Sidow, which I don't think is bad for either of them) as the head bishop/pope/guru stating how all the people are so safe and trusting that the clergy do all they can to protect them from the horrible vampires (thus confirming the 'priest as sanctified slayer' status).
Horrible Vampires, btw, that seems to resemble elongated cousins of Gollum. Far more evil and therefore likely more enjoyable than mopey vampires, but not nearly as hot.
Pope Plummer threatens excommunication and exile of (massively ripped... semi-tanned... nubile........ I'm back) Priest Bettany if he decides to take slaying matters into his own throwing-star crosses. Thus, Emo Preist and his face-splaying cross-tattoo climb on his futuristic Harley and like a cowboy on the Batbike he's off into the unknown to dust some vamps.
Apparently joined by the requisite Hot Asian Babe, Hot Young Blonde and Really F-in Hot Borderline-Nutjob Rogue, they travel into the heart of Gollumvampland in search of revenge and sexy time.
See above re: vampires not being hot in this film. It is more than made up for by Emo Priest and BN Rogue (and for those who enjoy Asian chicks and Cam Gigandet, they're in it too). The costumer seems to have reached into the illustrations of The Dark Tower and pulled out Roland's clothes for Karl Urban to get his psycho-sexual-rogue on in... and yes, I am one of those people with a 'hot priest' fetish. You've got some random costume exciter in your fantasies as well, so don't judge. Thus, Bettany in priest garb, even with the giant facial henna cross makes any of the cheesetastic, groan-inducing potential of this flick obsolete. I mean, I actually enjoyed Legion so I think this will suit my need for another ass-kicking, ripped-Bettany ride just fine.
13 September 2010
A Beautiful Dark Mind Tower?
They're really doing it. They're really making a film/tv adaptation of The Dark Tower series.
I'm not even sure I can form coherent thoughts regarding this development, but I shall try.
I want to jump for joy and flail about in fangirlish glee over the fact that after years of quasi-development someone finally got their mitts on the rights to the Dark Tower series and is tackling it in a logical way: films AND television.
My opinion has always been that the series would be an awesome spectacle on the big screen, but would have to be a larger undertaking than even The Lord of the Rings... which might be impossible. I've since held that the way to 'do it right' would be to divide the series into a few short-run series 'seasons' on HBO, Showtime, Starz... one of the pay cable channels where they can be as violent and sexy and profane as King wrote and also have the budget to pull off all the fantastic elements. It looks like we're trying to strike a balance between the two, and I wish Universal success and hope it does not bankrupt them.
Here's what I AM excited about:
Including Roland's backstory via what's touched on in The Wizard and The Glass and expanded on in the comic series.
Covering, hopefully, the entirety of the series in a format that allows the inclusion of all the good stuff (of which there is much).
Something on such an epic scale that provides me with years of something to obsess over an geek out about (much like The Lord of the Rings trilogy).
Roland Deschain 'in person' as an actual physical being. 'Nuff said.
Here's what's potentially terrifying:
Poor casting choices. Howard's very hit and miss with this. Something it's great, sometimes there's someone awesome on tap and they get turned down in favor of someone not nearly as right for the role. In this situation, for this series, I will go all kinds of fangirl apeshit if the right people are not found for Roland (young and old), Eddie, Susannah, Jake, Flagg, or Callahan. And Uncle Stevie better be Uncle Stevie.
Forcing CGI where other alternatives would be better placed. This is a general fear I have of late, but especially when it comes to epic fantasy/horror/adventure... of which this is all three.
Ron Howard. I'm sorry, but the man is an emotional dead weight when it comes to filmmaking. He's got good ideas and executes technically cool films... sometimes... but they can be be the dullest, most unemotional movies ever. If that happens to this series, there are going to be a ton of pissed off King fans gunning for him and Universal. I mean, we're not talking about The Dark Half or Desperation here... or even 'Salem's Lot. This is the magnum-frigging-opus of King's career -- his LotR, his Narnia, his Golden Compass series as only King could envision.
I truly am excited at the prospect of this project; I'm just worried about the execution. So if anyone out there has the power and needs any kind of consultant on how to make this series emotionally engaging, well cast, and not made of suck, I'm here.
(Sidenote: I saw the trailer for Priest -- comments to come -- can we please work Paul Bettany and Karl Urban into this Dark Tower mix?)
I'm not even sure I can form coherent thoughts regarding this development, but I shall try.
I want to jump for joy and flail about in fangirlish glee over the fact that after years of quasi-development someone finally got their mitts on the rights to the Dark Tower series and is tackling it in a logical way: films AND television.
My opinion has always been that the series would be an awesome spectacle on the big screen, but would have to be a larger undertaking than even The Lord of the Rings... which might be impossible. I've since held that the way to 'do it right' would be to divide the series into a few short-run series 'seasons' on HBO, Showtime, Starz... one of the pay cable channels where they can be as violent and sexy and profane as King wrote and also have the budget to pull off all the fantastic elements. It looks like we're trying to strike a balance between the two, and I wish Universal success and hope it does not bankrupt them.
Here's what I AM excited about:
Including Roland's backstory via what's touched on in The Wizard and The Glass and expanded on in the comic series.
Covering, hopefully, the entirety of the series in a format that allows the inclusion of all the good stuff (of which there is much).
Something on such an epic scale that provides me with years of something to obsess over an geek out about (much like The Lord of the Rings trilogy).
Roland Deschain 'in person' as an actual physical being. 'Nuff said.
Here's what's potentially terrifying:
Poor casting choices. Howard's very hit and miss with this. Something it's great, sometimes there's someone awesome on tap and they get turned down in favor of someone not nearly as right for the role. In this situation, for this series, I will go all kinds of fangirl apeshit if the right people are not found for Roland (young and old), Eddie, Susannah, Jake, Flagg, or Callahan. And Uncle Stevie better be Uncle Stevie.
Forcing CGI where other alternatives would be better placed. This is a general fear I have of late, but especially when it comes to epic fantasy/horror/adventure... of which this is all three.
Ron Howard. I'm sorry, but the man is an emotional dead weight when it comes to filmmaking. He's got good ideas and executes technically cool films... sometimes... but they can be be the dullest, most unemotional movies ever. If that happens to this series, there are going to be a ton of pissed off King fans gunning for him and Universal. I mean, we're not talking about The Dark Half or Desperation here... or even 'Salem's Lot. This is the magnum-frigging-opus of King's career -- his LotR, his Narnia, his Golden Compass series as only King could envision.
I truly am excited at the prospect of this project; I'm just worried about the execution. So if anyone out there has the power and needs any kind of consultant on how to make this series emotionally engaging, well cast, and not made of suck, I'm here.
(Sidenote: I saw the trailer for Priest -- comments to come -- can we please work Paul Bettany and Karl Urban into this Dark Tower mix?)
06 July 2010
Thank. You. Heavens.
http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/110/1104063p1.htmlAccording to IGN, which I respect as a source for information, especially on Sci-Fi related film/tv news, the whole Johnny Depp as the Doctor rumour is made of false.
The heavens have no idea how elated this makes me. I love Johnny, and I love the Doctor (duh), but Johnny as the Doctor is much bad. Do not want. Ever.
For one, the Doctor and the entire Whoniverse is so completely British that to have someone not from the UK play the Doctor would be a juvenile, ridiculous mistake. On top of that, much as I love Johnny and talented as he is, there's a quality beyond Britishness he doesn't possess which renders him incapable of portraying the Doctor. There's a combination of emotions and layers that Johnny does very well individually but as a composite I don't think he can pull off.
Oh yeah, and the most obvious point: WE ALREADY HAVE A DOCTOR. If you're going to make a film of Doctor Who, pick one of the most recent Doctors, each of whom is different and remarkable in his own way. Honestly, I think Tennant is the most 'bankable,' but Smith's quirkiness would surpass even what Depp could do with the role. I think that's my biggest issue with the idea -- a Depp Doctor would be a very quirky Doctor and the current Doctor excels at it and needs no replacing.
Plus, how do you account for Depp's Doctor in the line of regeneration? I don't want to lose the 12th Doctor to movies because some Hollywood yahoos think there's money to be made.
Doctor Who is a fairy tale and fairy tales have a lot to say about acting solely for the purpose of making money -- there's no reason to make a movie at all right now, much less one with Depp, other than to try and capitalize on a show that needs nothing to add to it beyond what already exists (which is my sly way of saying I love the audiobooks).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)