No Such Thing as The Next STAR WARS (Yet)

The other night, I was watching the sequels to Pirates of the Caribbean, and I was reminded how I read a few articles when the second one came out that this was this generation's Star Wars because of the adventurous tone and the youthful demeanor of the characters.   I tried looking up the articles that made this comparison - from what I remember, there were a few - but I couldn't find them.  However, I do remember them.

When I did an online search, I found a few articles mentioning how the video game Halo could be "the next Star Wars".  I am not very familiar with the story behind Halo, but I have serious doubts that a video game or movie based on it could earn that designation even if Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson is involved.  Here's the article: http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2009/08/this-generations-star-wars.html.

As far as I'm concerned, there has not been a Next Star Wars, and unfortunately, there most likely never will be.

I'm not just saying this because I am a tremendous Star Wars fan.  I have been since my father first took me to see Star Wars - not Episode IV: A New Hope, which I refuse to call the film just like I refuse to precede Raiders of the Lost Ark with Indiana Jones and... - and saw it 30 times before it finally came out on VHS in the early 1980s and saw hundreds of times beyond that.  Many of my fondest memories involves Star Wars: going to the toy store with whatever money I earned or received from relatives to buy the latest action figure made my Kenner; my father waiting in line for hours at the Fox Theatre on Wolf Road in Colonie so we can see The Empire Strikes Back in 1980; my father taking me out of school early in 7th grade and skipping Mrs. Nero's science class to see the first showing of the day  of Return of the Jedi in 1983; being so excited reading the novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye by Alan Dean Foster, the unofficial sequel to Star Wars, and Han Solo  novels by Brian Daley, which were set before Star Wars; waking my father up in the middle of the night to see the premiere of Star Wars on HBO; even driving two hours both ways from Blythe, CA, to Phoenix, AZ, to see the midnight showing of Episode I - The Phantom Menace with my father, my future wife, and my best friends.  Before I had kids, I couldn't wait to sit down and have them watch the movies with me.  Now that they're old enough, we sit together and watch the films whenever they're on cable or if I buy or do something new with electronics - my 55:"HDTV, my Blu-Ray DVD, hooking my stereo up to the TV.  I have to test out the potency of the electronics by playing the opening to Star Wars.


Why?  Because after 35 years since its release, the intro for the 20th Century Fox logo, the flash of the Lucasfilm Ltd. logo, the message, "A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way..." followed by the BOOM! of John Williams's opening score accompanied by the retraction of the STAR WARS title zooming into space and the scroll detailing the prologue to the story, it still sends a chill of excitement up my spine.

So why has the thrill and appeal of Star Wars continued for over 35 years?

1) It redefined a genre. Before Star Wars, science fiction emphasized more of the science than the fiction.  The characters were usually one dimensional caricatures who fit their role and responsibility.  The captain was always the brave adventurer.  The scientist was a genius.  The female was the designated female who served either as the damsel in distress or the eye candy.  The dialogue was wooden and often laced with references and explanations straight out of a textbook.  The lasers were either light shows or sparks and the ships were one step above model kits.  In other words, it was a cheap  genre.

Star Wars transformed the genre.  The dialogue, while not spectacular or resounding, was at least more natural and acceptable than in other science fiction films.  It wasn't stilted or laden with scientific terms or references.  In fact, the only real scientific statement - "But I was going to go into Toshi Station to buy some power converters!" - is downright laughable with how Luke Skywalker whines about the responsibility his Uncle Owen gives him to fix up C-3PO and R5-D4 (not R2-D2, who was purchased only after R5-D4 broke down due to a "bad motivator" - well, there's another scientific term).

Even the robots and aliens had personality!  The dynamic of C-3PO and R2-D2 is more like a classic vaudevillian comedy team than that of two monotone robots.  They're more Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy than monitor and desktop.  The aliens emoted and showed character.  Even when the aliens spoke, they spoke in an alien language that actually had phonics, lexicon, and semantics.  Even R2-D2's blips, bleeps, and bloops had emotional tone behind them.  Never had we seen such portrayals in science fiction movies before, where the robots were generally fact-spewing, logical machines and the aliens just lumbered and even spoke perfect English.

The special effects took filmmaking to the next level.  Spaceships were not hovering in space simply firing at their enemies.  They moved like fighter jets or hulking battleships.  Right from the beginning when we are dragged below the underbelly of the Star Destroyer pursuing the Rebel Cruiser, you know you're about to witness movie magic like you've never seen before.  The amazing thing?  The magic was created with models and innovative movements of a camera, not computer-generated images.

2) It's not just science fiction.  The best stories are those that transcend genres by incorporating motifs under the umbrella of its own presentation.  Star Wars is not just a science fiction story set in space.  It's actually more of a fantasy with its characters of princesses, knights, pirates, and dark lords; its sword fights; its creatures who are more monstrous than alien; and the mysticism of The Force.  It's a western in that it takes place in the "pioneer" of space on the planet of Tattooine with simple farmers taking on "the corrupt system".  It's a swashbuckling adventure in which daring heroes need to rescue the princess from her captors.  It's a romance between a young farm boy and the princess he must save (this is before we learned they were actually brother and sister, which still strikes an odd chord with many - but hey, the religious norms of Earth do not exist in space, so that's how we can explain their incestuous relationship).

3) It defined the times.  Star Wars came out at a time in which America's youth was disenfranchised with the system and society created and run by the adults.  America's youth was disenfranchised with the world their parents had created for them.  We were still licking the wounds from the Vietnam War.  The President had just been impeached for criminal behavior.  Unemployment and crime rates were high.   Adults were intimidated and actually frightened by America's youth, and they oppressed them by denying them the opportunities that were provided to their parents.  Kids were discouraged that their lives were not turning out as smoothly their parents' in the way of "the grand plan" - graduate high school, the man goes to college, marries his high school sweetheart, she stays home and raises the kids.  Kids were fed up, and they wanted more.  However, social norms and situations prevented them from getting what they want.

Star Wars symbolized America's disappointment with the corrupt and conflicted adult culture that was being heaped on them.  When Luke, Han, and Leia went up against Darth Vader and the evil Empire, it struck a chord with America's youth in the seventies.  Here were these kids rising up against their oppressors and trying to create a life that was good for them in a world in which they wanted to live.  Luke was every young man who aspired to be more and fulfill their destiny.  Leia was not just some helpless girl.  She was strong, independent, had freewill, and even put "the boys" in their place when necessary.  Han Solo was the screw-up who redeemed himself by proving "there was more to him than just money" and actually cared about things other than himself.

4) It allowed us to escape.  The seventies were a dark time.  America had just lost a war.  We lacked faith in our leaders.  Married couples were getting divorced.  Moms were no longer staying at home raising the kids and tending the house because they either had to or wanted to go to work.  Kids were coming home to empty houses and spending time with their parents separately.  America's faith and confidence was rocked.

Star Wars whisked us to a galaxy far, far away from the depressing times facing America - and the world, for that matter.   It took us to a place where good beats evil, where the youth can rise against their oppressors, and the story ends happily ever after.  The universe was saved not by the leaders of the political parties but rather a young farm boy who used The Force and believed in himself to blow up the Death Star.  In other words, it gave the world hope.

5) It was not like other films currently being made.  The films of the seventies were dark and tragic.  Most of the films addressed bleak themes.  Graphic violence, nudity, and sex permeated films.  This was mostly out of a response to the new rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America.  Filmmakers felt unrestricted and unburdened to confirm to standards and practices.  The rating system allowed them to address subjects that would be considered risque and taboo prior to the rating system, which gave them the permission to push the envelope.  Case in point - even Alfred Hitchcock featured nudity - albeit uncomfortably - in Frenzy because he could as long as the film was Rated R.

The "heroes" were not noble or upstanding.  Actually, they were more rogues than heroes.  Some of them were even as treacherous as their antagonists.  Think about the characters permeating the films of the 70s.   The Corleone Family were ruthless gangsters and killers whose only redeeming quality was their love and devotion to family.  "Dirty Harry" Callahan resorted to tactics that were sometimes even more violent than the criminals he chased, which usually ended with a kill than an arrest.  Popeye O'Doyle was a ruthless, racist cop who did whatever he could to get what we wanted and lived a single, depressing life when he wasn't working the job.

The stories did not end happily ever after.  In fact, more often than not, these films ended in loss or even death.  In The Godfather, Michael Corleone does not follow the path his father wanted for him and ended up inheriting the mantle of his father's criminal empire.  In The Godfather, Part II, Michael kills his brother and his wife, Connie, leaves him.  In The Exorcist, Father Karras saves young, possessed Reagan by letting the demon possess him and throws himself out the window, where he falls down a staircase to his death.  In The French Connection, the drug czars get away with their crimes.  In Chinatown, Mrs. Mulwray is gunned down and Jake Gittes is told, "Forget it, Jake.  It's Chinatown." In Rocky, Rocky Balboa does not win the title from Apollo Creed.

Even the war films, which were often used as propaganda to celebrate military heroism and might, were more tragic than heroic.  The Deer Hunter and Coming Home showcased the suffering of the Vietnam vet.  Apocalypse Now took the classic Joseph Conrad novel Hearts of Darkness, set it during the Vietnam War, and showed the physical and psychological trauma the war caused for America's soldiers. Taxi Driver introduced us to a lonely Vietnam vet named Travis Bickle who has a warped sense of values and ends up becoming a "hero" through violent means.  The soldier was not one to be celebrated on film but rather pitied.

Films were also geared toward adults.   Kids or family movies were relegated to Disney feature productions, which were often cheaply and even poorly made.  That's why many of the Disney classic cartoons were rereleased into the theaters in the seventies.  Even the first summer blockbuster - Jaws - was a film for adults, a horror film that featured graphic violence and even nudity within the first five minutes.

Star Wars was a family event.  Young and old could see and enjoy the film - and they did!   Adults not only took their children but also went on dates or with groups of friends to see the film.  This was the origin of what Hollywood calls the Four Quadrant Film - a film that appeals to all members of the audience: the young, the old, the men, and the women.

It also brought back the concept of the "happy ending".  Unlike most films of the seventies, the good guys won, and they did so with little sacrifice.  While Jaws can be attributed that it brought back the happy ending with Roy Scheider's Brody blowing up the Great White Shark, he did so after being subjected to great violence, suffering, and even death.  In Star Wars, the good guys won with some tragedy - specifically, the death of Ben "Obi-Wan" Kenobi -  but that loss was more through sacrifice for the greater good than suffering.

However, Star Wars still embodies the darkness of the seventies in that one of the bad guys does get away to fight another day, and when he does, he brings such tragedy to our heroes in the sequel.

6) It doesn't look like a period film.  Most of the science fiction films of the seventies - or even most of the films of the seventies - capture the style of the times.  In the future, people wore bell bottom pants, had mutton chops or feathered hair, and wore leisure suits while the women wore miniskirts or pantsuits.  Think Logan's Run in which Michael York and Jenny Agutter.  Many of the characters look like they were going to dance in a disco rather than soar the spaceways.

With Star Wars, the style is non-descript.  Other than Carrie Fisher's hair, which was more unique than typical of the times, there truly is nothing about the look or style of the film that marks the time period.  Haircuts were nondescript.  Clothing and costumes were simple with bland tones - whites, tans, browns, and darks.  Even the music played in the Cantina was non-descript lounge music that could be from any era - no heavy funk bass or synthesizers.  Star Wars could have been filmed in the seventies, the eighties, the nineties - or any time period.

7) It's still relevant.  The theme of Star Wars (not the soundtrack) is still relevant today.  Good defeats evil.   Young defeats the old.   It allows us to escape the depressing times facing us.  

These are all things what a film that could be "the next Star Wars" needs to do.  Unfortunately, none of the modern films are powerful or innovative enough to create the same effect.

The problem with modern movies isn't just the filmmaking.  It's the audience.  We're not demanding when it comes to our expectations and entertainment of movies.  It's why movies like TRANSFORMERS can make so much money and be considered a box office success.  These days, a movie is judged not just by quality of talent but rather quantity of box office.

Modern audiences also does not know how to create "classics" anymore.  Our memories are too short, and we make things so popular that there's a backlash.  What's popular quickly becomes uncool and therefore forgotten.  Think about it - does anyone get as excited about The Matrix anymore, which was once considered to be "the next Star Wars"?

Then there's the Harry Potter film series, which has the same solid fan base as its own universe like Star Wars.  However, it's not "the next Star Wars" because the fan base came from another medium.  It's the same reason why Star Trek or the comic book movies can't be "the next Star Wars" because there was already an avid fan base before the movies came out. 

The excitement around the upcoming production of The Hobbit could re-establish the Lord of the Rings film series as "the next Star Wars", which is ironic since Tolkien's novels heavily influenced the Star Wars films.  However, it could also be like The Godfather Part III in which there was so much hype and enthusiasm that it was bound to never live up to the expectation of the audience.

That's why the new Star Wars trilogy failed.  While the special effects were much more dynamic, it could never live up to the hype, excitement, or expectations created by the original.  The modern trilogy also felt much more cold and detached than the original trilogy.  Basically, it felt like traditional science fiction films: unemotional and scientific.  Case in point - the resounding boos heard in the theater during the midnight screening of The Phantom Menace in which strength with The Force is due to a midchlorian count.  What was once spiritual became scientific.  What was once original became genre specific.  In other words, Star Wars became Star Trek.

There's only one filmmaker whose films can create the Star Wars effect, and that's James Cameron.  Titanic and Avatar are like Star Wars in that they are great films that encourage the audience to return for repeat viewing.  However, Titanic does not have the staying power a classic like Star Wars or even Gone with the Wind has.  It's not one of those films that trigger memories or reflect a time period.  It's just a damn good movie whose value and presence has been deflated due to repeat viewings on DVD and cable.  Also, there can't be any sequels made.  The boat sank.  Jack died.  Story ends.

When it comes to Avatar,  it could be "the next Star Wars".  However, we'll have to wait until Cameron makes the sequel before any comparisons can be made.  Until then, we have the original, often imitated, never been replicated to entertain us until some creative genius finds a way to tap into those things that make Star Wars so classic without Hollywood overmarketing or overexposing the films.

How The Dark Knight Should Rise

So now BATMAN 3 - or BATMAN 7 if you're counting the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher movies - has a title: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

I'm not crazy about the title.  Why not go with THE CAPED CRUSADER?  What about THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?  Yes, we had BATMAN RETURNS, but calling it this title would be acceptable.  BATMAN TRIUMPHANT?  REVENGE OF THE DARK KNIGHT?  BATMAN: REDEMPTION?   Why not even call it one of the mini-series or one-shots like THE LONG HALLOWEEN or even BATMAN: HUSH?

We also know The Riddler will not be the featured villain, which is also a disappointment considering Edward Nigma, his riddles, and even his question marked costume fits perfectly in the realism of Christopher Nolan.  It's also disappointing considering Tom Hardy had just been cast in the next film.

There's also a lot of buzz on the Internet about Christopher Nolan meeting with a number of actresses regarding the film.  So what role could he be casting?

The Internet is already abuzz with questions about possible villains.  Since the Riddler is out, here's a few who should have their moment shining in the bat signal spotlight.

1) Catwoman - The most logical choice of all the villains/anti-heroes in Batman's rogues gallery and cast of  characters.  Although Catwoman has been brought to the screen with successful (Michelle Pfeiffer) and devastating (Halle Berry) results, Selina Kyle and her alter ego would fit in well with Nolan's Gotham City.  Of course, the plot would have to center the love/hate relationship between Batman and Catwoman.  Considering how Bruce lost his love in THE DARK KNIGHT, temptation from a new romance with a woman who is a thief and former prostitute could make an interesting tale.
Potential Casting: Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, Gemma Arterton

2) Talia al Guhl - Talia al Guhl is the daughter of Ra's al Guhl, who was featured in BATMAN BEGINS.  In the comics, Bruce and Talia have a relationship similar to his with Selina except there's one difference - Bruce and Talia had a son, Damian, who is currently the new Robin in the comics and partner to Dick Grayson's Batman.  Having Talia in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES come to Gotham to avenge the death of her father and finish the job he started could make a good plot.  Perhaps even have Catwoman and Talia be the two villains and fight over Bruce.
Potential Casting: Jessica Biel, Elisha Dusku, Patricia Velasquez, Rosalyn Sanchez

3) Dr. Hugo Strange - Dr. Hugo Strange is a psychologist who injects normal people with a growth hormone that turns them into "monsters".  He also uses a fear-inducing gas to cause panic and terror.  Nolan has already done this with The Scarecrow in BATMAN BEGINS.  Also, there's another Dr. Strange from comic books that could cause confusion if he is called this in the next film.   However, this could work if they bring back...
Potential Casting: Jason Isaacs, John Malkovich, Alan Rickman

4) The Scarecrow - Like The Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT, Jonathan Crane and his insane alter ego are still alive.  While he was featured briefly in the beginning of THE DARK KNIGHT, Crane could be brought back amd teamed up with Hugo Strange as he was in the Batman comic series "Prey" and "Terror".
Casting: Cillian Murphy (don't replace him)

5) Deathstroke the Terminator - Slade Wilson is a mercenary who is more of a Robin/Nightwing villain than a Batman rogue, having been the adversary for Dick Grayson and endless incarnations of the Teen Titans.  However, Deathstroke has established himself more as a universal villain in the DC villain.  He is also the anti-Batman, a billionaire who uses his talents and money for profit rather than justice.  Deathstroke would also fit in the realistic world Nolan has created with his Batman films.
Potential Casting: Stephen Lang, Jeffrey Dean Morgan

Modern Day Geniuses of Hollywood

William Goldman is famous for saying, "In Hollywood, nobody knows anything."

While this is true for the most part, fortunately, in a medium where CGI effects dominate and every movie seems to be a remake, a reboot, or an adaptation from another medium,  there are a handful of filmmakers who know story is more important then spectacle.

Many of these filmmakers are not the most talented amongst their peers nor do their films stand the test of time.  However, these are the filmmakers who have consistently shown success commercially and critically in modern cinema.

Here's the list in reverse order:

10) Martin Campbell: He is the filmmaker who breathed life back into the James Bond franchise - twice! He is the director who finally brought Zorro to the screen and introduced the audience to Cameron Zeta-Jones.  He even tried to revive Mel Gibson's career with Edge of Darkness.  Campbell has proven he is at his best when he makes blockbuster pictures based on genre characters.  However, even when he steps into original fare, such as No Escape and Vertical Limit, Campbell is able to entertain.  Edge of Darkness suffered not from the filmmaking but the casting.  Based on the footage from the trailer for next summer's Green Lantern, Campbell will transcend to the next level.

9) Ron Howard: When it comes to reliable filmmakers, Ron Howard is always dependable to make a movie that entertains.  The interesting thing about Howard is that his movies are not original.  They're all homages to the filmmakers.  He's make the Lucas epic (Willow), the Spielberg historical drama (Far and Away, Apollo 13), the Ivan Reitman comedy (Splash!, Gung Ho, Parenthood), the Clint Eastwood western (The Missing), the Oliver Stone political picture (Frost/Nixon), the Tim Burton cartoon brought to life (How the Grinch Stole Christmas), and the Alfred Hitchcock thriller (Ransom, The Da Vinci Code).  However, Howard's best pictures are his biopics - A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man.  The strength of Howard's directing is also his ability to work with talented leading men over and over again - Michael Keaton, Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe - and get some of their best performances out of them.  With this year's The Dilemma, Howard has made his Judd Apatow comedy.

8) George Lucas: George Lucas is a one-trick pony, but that pony has provided him a career that has not only lasted over 35 years but has established a universe that has transcended into other mediums.  Lucas is credited for creating two of the most successful film series in the history of cinema - Star Wars and Indiana Jones.  However, the best Star Wars films are the ones not directed by Lucas and Indiana Jones is more Spielberg's than Lucas.  Lucas is a master storyteller, however, his talent improves when he is assisted by another artist.  The more successful Indiana Jones films are due more to Spielberg's direction and the talent of the screenwriters (Lawrence Kasdan, Chris Columbus, Jeffrey Boam) than Lucas's story.  In fact, the worst of the series - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - suffered because Lucas pushed his story about Indy in the atomic age.  Lucas needs to realize his talent lies more in turning his ideas over to other more talented writers and filmmakers who can interpret his vision, be it either on screen, in animation, or in books.  Still, other than James Cameron - who for years lived in George Lucas's shadow until he established his own niche - no one has been able to create and continue to entertain audiences with the universe they have created.

7) Peter Jackson: Forget The Lovely Bones.  Remember The Lord of the Rings trilogy?  Back then, Jackson was being touted as the next George Lucas and Steven Spielberg so much that even Spielberg took notice and directed The Adventures of Tintin for him.  Jackson is like Cameron in that he knows the value of story, character, and spectacle.  The unfortunate thing about Jackson is that he is similar to Michael Mann, another great filmmaker who suffers from creating films with long narratives, which is why Jackson's adaptation King Kong was well made but not widely received.  With The Lovely Bones, Jackson unsuccessfully attempted to combine his talent with special effects with the suspense he showcased in Heavenly Creatures.  After attempting to hand over the directing reins for The Hobbit to Sam Raimi and Guillermo Del Toro, Jackson has finally decided to give the fans what they want and returns to the directing chair to shepherd the classic prequel to the trilogy that made him famous.

6) Clint Eastwood: Like Howard, Eastwood is always reliable for providing reliably films that are both engaging and entertaining (except for Hereafter).  However, the difference between Eastwood and Howard, both former actors who moved behind the camera, is that Eastwood's films have more depth.  Perhaps it's because Eastwood's films are more personal and carry a message.  Prior to his retirement from acting with Gran Torino, Eastwood directed films that allowed him to showcase not only his acting talent but provide roles for his friends.  Now that he has moved behind the camera permanently, Eastwood is determined to present even more personal films.  Invictus is his tribute to Nelson Mandela.  Hereafter is his exploration of life after death.  Eastwood also seems determined to pass on to the new generation of movie stars such as Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon what Sergio Leone passed on to him - an appreciation of the overall craft of filmmaking that transcends beyond acting.

5) Tim Burton: The last three decades can be described as the rise and fall and return of Tim Burton.  In the 1908s, Burton was the bankable blockbuster director thanks to Beetlejuice, Batman, and Batman Returns, which allowed him to make pet projects such as Edward Scissorhands and the reintroduction of model animation with The Nightmare Before Christmas.  In the mid to late 1990s, Burton lost sight of who he was and made a series of critical and commercial disappointments - Ed Wood, Mars Attacks, and Planet of the Apes.  During this time, Burton reunited with his constant collaborator, Johnny Depp, and directed Sleepy Hollow, which not only embodied Burton's gothic yet quirky style but also showcased the strength of his artistic relationship with Depp.  Going into the next decade of the new millennium, Burton has realized his talent lies in two areas - stop-motion animation (James and the Giant Peach, The Corpse Bride) and his collaboration in with Depp in making remakes (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) or bringing other stories from other mediums to the screen (Sweeney Todd, Alice in Wonderland).   Burton is continuing his motif of filmmaking with Frankenweenie and an adaptation of the vampire soap opera Dark Shadows with Depp playing Barnabus Collins.

4) JJ Abrams: JJ Abrams is the modern day Chris Columbus, who was once the heir apparent to Steven Spielberg's throne after Robert Zemeckis.  Like Spielberg, Abrams got his start in TV shepherding the series Felicity, Alias, and Lost - three series known for their strength in characterization.  Abrams is a student of not only the cinema but also genre fiction.  His films are influenced by the two Steves - Spielberg and King.  With Cloverfield, Abrams created a Japanese monster movie using the camera storytelling Spielberg incorporated through the eyes of the shark in Jaws while also incorporating King's ability to tale a story featuring an ensemble cast of dynamic characters.   Abrams's true genius is showcased with Star Trek in that he was able to make a film that satisfied both the die hard Trekkers and brought new fans to a dying series.  Next summer, Abrams will team with his idol on Super 8.  All of his films are clear homages to Spielberg, so it will be interesting to see what happens when the mentor teams with his protege.

3) Christopher Nolan:  The genius of Christopher Nolan is not just for his successful reboot of the Batman franchise by incorporating stark realism into Batman Begins and continuing it with The Dark Knight.  Nolan's talent is exemplified in his more cerebral films - specifically, the mystery he creates and the emotions his films exude on screen - the confusion in Memento, the exhaustion in Insomnia, the tension in The Prestige, and the anxiety in Inception.   The problem with Nolan's films?  The studios don't know how to market them.  They're not straightforward genre pics.  They transcend the genres by incorporating elements of other genres.  The Dark Knight is not a superhero movie but a crime thriller featuring a superhero as the main character.  It's easy to sell Nolan's Batman pics because it features Batman.  However, except for The Joker, the villains in the series are second tier villains, and they are successfully presented in the film through Nolan's direction and his screenwriting partnership with his brother, Jonathan.  We're all waiting who the villains he will feature in The Dark Knight Rises.  Here's hoping one of them is Catwoman.

2) Steven Spielberg: Spielberg is still a cinematic genius only because if it wasn't for him or George Lucas the modern day blockbuster wouldn't exist.  Before Cameron, Speilberg was the filmmaker with the Midas Touch.  E.T. the Extra-Terrestial was the biggest blockbuster of all time until it was dethroned by Cameron's Titanic.  Think of all the blockbusters with Spielberg's name on them as director - Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Indiana Jones movies, Jurassic Park.  Think of the Oscar winners - Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.  Think of the film he's produced - the Back to the Future films, the Men in Black movies, the Transformers movies, Poltergeist, Twister, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Gremlins, The Goonies.  The credits "Steven Spielberg Presents" or "a film by Steven Spielberg" before a movie title continues to stimulate and interest an audience.  When it comes to packaging potential blockbuster pics, he's the first director every studio approaches.  At one point, the trend for Spielberg was to direct the blockbuster for the summer and the Oscar-contender for the winter.  While Spielberg has focused his efforts more on producing blockbusters by others and directing Oscar-caliber film fare over the last decade, he will sometimes remind the audience of his blockbuster talents by giving us a summer blockbuster such as War of the Worlds.  Spielberg currently has a collection of blockbusters and Oscar-caliber dramas he has directed in post-production as well as producing a third Transformers and Men in Black.

1) James Cameron: Name one James Cameron movie that truly disappoints.  You can't.  The Terminator redefined the low budget sci-fi/action film of the 1980s.  Aliens became The Empire Strikes Back of the Alien series.  T2-Terminator 2: Judgment Day brought the morphing technology from commercial to film production and remains one of the greatest action films ever made.  Titanic is one of the few movies that ever successfully struck the four quadrants of an audience - male, female, young, old - and became the biggest blockbuster of all time due to vigorous repeat theater viewings resembling the days before the proliferation of home video and cable.  The only film able to usurp Cameron's work was another Cameron film - Avatar.  Even Cameron's less successful box office blockbusters (The Abyss) and his harshly criticized movies (True Lies) are still more entertaining and enthralling than any of the blockbusters released in the last 20 years.  Not only has Cameron surpassed George Lucas as a cinematic special effects wizard, he is able to do two things not even "the greats" have been able to do - create a movie that weighs story and character equally to special effects.  What makes him even more amazing is his ability to create strong, female characters that can be tough yet tender - Sarah Connor from Terminator/T2, Ripley from Aliens, Rose from Titanic, Netyiri from Avatar, and even Lindsay Bringham from The Abyss.  When it comes to pure genius in filmmaking in all three quadrants - director, screenwriter, producer - no one surpasses James Cameron.

While most of these filmmakers have not become as legendary as their peers, they are the ones who are making an impact on modern moviemaking and at the box office.

The TV Season - Quarter Report

As we get older, our TV time becomes more limited.  The 9-5 schedule is practically non-existent, and we have to fit in dinner and any unfinished business before we go to bed.  If you have children, your TV time is even more limited because you find yourself surrendering to the programming of Nick, Jr., the Disney Channel, or whatever' DVD the kids want to watch for the millionth time.

Even though our time has become limited, our choices have become endless.  It's not only the network programs we have to choose.  We have an endless choice of specialized cable shows that appeal to our tastes from sports to drama to reality to textbook topic channels.

Whoever created the DVR should be given a Nobel Prize.

However, even though we can now watch our favorite TV shows whenever, we have to cram in all our favorite shows in the limited amount of free time we have to sit on the couch and watch.

So far, here are some shows I highly recommend for the 2010 Fall Season.  Understand that I don't have Showtime or Starz, so DEXTER, WEEDS, CALIFORNICATION, and SPARTICUS will not be on this list (though I hear they're really good).

1) HAWAII FIVE-O (CBS Mondays, 10PM/9PM):  This has to be one of the biggest surprises of the season, which is saying a lot because it has a lot to live up to being a reboot of a classic TV show - something that doesn't often work out well on network TV (i.e. THE BIONIC WOMAN and KNIGHT RIDER).  CBS has taken its cop formula - action packed stories stylistically directed with charismatic characters - and successfully applied it to this new episodic police program.  Alex O'Loughlin as McGarret, Scott Caan as Danno, and Daniel Dae Kim and Chino Ho are not only appealing to a new audience but makes the older fans of the classic show not think about Jack Lord, James Macarthur, and Kam Fong.  Even the casting of Grace Park as Kono, who was an overweight male islander in the original series, is acceptable.  Yes, this show is essentially CSI: HONOLULU or NCIS: HAWAII, but every new episode is better than the previous.  

2) BLUE BLOODS (CBS Fridays, 10PM/9PM): Finally, there's a reason to stay home on Friday nights again to watch TV.  Again, CBS shows its genius by combining its family drama formula with its cop show formula to present a show that is exciting and emotional.  Tom Selleck is strong as the patriarch of both his family, in which the sons and daughter carry on the family business of working for law enforcement that was started by their grandfather, and the commissioner of the NYPD.  He is not Thomas Magnum in this show - not at all.  Here, he is a staunch veteran who is trying to keep his family - both personal and professional - together.  The cast is rounded out by a surprising group of exceptional talent consisting of Donnie Wahlberg (yes, THAT Donnie Wahlberg from New Kids on the Block and Mark's older brother) as a veteran NYPD detective; Bridget Moynahan as Selleck's daughter, a DA going through a divorce; and Will Estes, a rookie cop who graduated from Harvard and decided to go into the family business by being a cop rather than a lawyer (that's not so unbelievable because there's a true story about a Harvard educated lawyer who decided to work for the police instead of the DA's office).  The show also includes a strong supporting cast with Nick Turturro as Estes's sergeant/partner and now Jennifer Esposito as Wahlberg's new partner.  Part THE GOOD WIFE, part NYPD BLUE, CBS has a solid winner with this show.

3) LAW AND ORDER: SVU (NBC Wednesday 9PM/8PM): SVU continues to show why it's the sole survivor out of all the LAW AND ORDER spinoffs, and it just keeps getting better and better.  Why?  Because the cast remains constant and familiar.  Unlike other cop series, the success of L & O is not about the stories but rather the relationships.  Sometimes the relationships work out very well (Jerry Orbach and Chris Noth, Jerry Orbach and Benjamin Bratt, Jerry Orbach and Jesse L. Martin, Sam Waterson and Jill Hennesey, Sam Waterson and Angie Harmon, Sam Waterson and Christine Rohm).   Sometimes they flop hard (Dennis Farina and Jerry Orbach).  Sometimes the relationships are never given a true chance like the final season of the mainstay L & O with Jeremy Sisto and Anthony Anderson (who actually impressed me) as the law and Linus Roache and Alana De La Garza as the Order.  L & O eventually failed because the stories grew stale.  SVU is different.   Each story remains as engaging as the previous, and the mainstay and consistency of the cast - Chrstopher Meloni, Mariska Hartigay, Ice-T, Richard Beltzer, and Dann Florek.  Though the DA assigned to the group always changes, the producers know how to integrate the changes successfully into the show.  Plus, SVU is also able to get engaging special guest stars and recruit from NYC's talent pool to appear in episodes.  SVU is a true mainstay of TV that shows no signs of faltering.

4) PARENTHOOD (NBC Tuesdays, 10PM/9PM): Here is the perfect example of a show that has so far survived the sophomore slump.  This show continues to be as engaging and entertaining as it was last season as a mid-season replacement.  The success of this show is that though it shares the same title, themes, and even situations  of the 1980s Ron Howard dramedy (the divorced daughter with the rebellious daughter and distant son, the perfect oldest son with the child with a learning disability, the youngest wayward son with an interracial son), the producers of this show have not continued the story of the family from the movie.  These are the Bravermans, not the Buckmans, and their situations have become modernized.  Again, here is another show whose success is due to good casting and excellent writing.

5) THE BIG BANG THEORY (CBS Thursdays, 8PM/7PM): Maybe it's because I'm a geek at heart and understand the obscure references to science fiction and comic books, but this show is really a belly laugher.  It reminds me of THAT 70S SHOW featuring a collection of geeks and nerds instead of 70s teens.  Every week I find myself laughing not only at the jokes but also at the situations.

6) TEACH: TONY DANZA (A&E Fridays, 7PM/6PM): Any fictional and reality show about teaching catches my interest.  This reality show features the experiences of Tony Danza from TAXI and WHO'S THE BOSS? struggling to survive as a real English teacher in a Philadelphia high school.  The situations are not canned or created as if they would be on one of his sitcoms.  Danza is realizing the struggles today's teachers face, and it's most compelling when it overwhelms him to the point of frustration and tears.  This show is like THE CELEBRITY APPRENTICE in that it's difficult to fully embrace the struggles Danza faces because he's still a "celebrity" whose bank account is more than a teacher may ever see in their career.  However, it is amusing to watch as Danza realizes the responsibilities and struggles that comes with teaching.

7) THE APPRENTICE (NBC Thursdays, 10PM/9PM): Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he knows how to recognize when a concept becomes stale and fixes it.   That's what he attempts to do with this season of THE APPRENTICE by having a cast of unemployed businessmen and women compete to work for him.  While the show is entertaining and even timely due to the recession and the high unemployment rate, it still feels like it's lacking depth.  Still, it has me wanting to watch every week.

8) MODERN FAMILY (ABC Wednesdays, 8PM/7PM): Next to THE BIG BANG THEORY, this is definitely the funniest show on television.  Ed O'Neill makes us forget the Bundys and makes us focus on the Pritchetts, who are much more amusing and even appealing than Al Bundy's brood.

9) SMALLVILLE (CW Fridays, 8PM/7PM): It's now the final season, and the producers have finally begun to address how Clark Kent becomes Superman.  For comic book fans like me, it's been entertaining watching how the show integrates second tier DC Comic characters (Green Arrow, Zatanna, the Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Supergirl, the Justice Society of America) into the Superman mythology.  The show has also been more successful than the SUPERMAN movies in featuring other supervillains other than Lex Luthor - Brainiac, General Zod, Metallo, and even Doomsday and now Darkseid.  This is a comic book geek's show, and every episode makes you want to watch the next.   Now only if they would write an episode in which an orphaned billionaire from Gotham City comes to Metropolis or feature a certain Amazon princess whose supposed to get her own series next year.

So here are eight shows making it worth the time to sit down and watch or to program into the DVR.  You won't be disappointed.

SUPERMAN - THE NEW MOVIE

A few weeks ago, Warner Brothers announced that Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, the filmmakers behind the reboot of the Batman franchise, had finally selected the director for their reboot of Superman - Zack Snyder.

The good thing about this decision?  Zack Snyder is no stranger to remakes or comic book movies.  This is the filmmaker who directed the remake of Dawn of the Dead and the adaptations of the graphic novels 300 and Watchmen.  He has the necessary skill and talent visually to embody a sense of realism and comic book surrealism.  Look more at his work with the Dead remake or the Watchmen adaptation than the cartoonish style of 300.  That film was shot in the manner it was to look like Frank Miller's artwork coming to life similarly as to how Robert Rodriguez shot Sin City.


Snyder's flaw is in his cinematic narrative, and that comes more from problems with the script than his direction.  Dawn of the Dead was a good script, but the passage of time was not handled well.  300 was more about spectacle than story.  Watchmen was a losing bet right out of the gate.  Not even the most talented of filmmakers could take condense a 12 issue maxi-series with such strong themes and undertones into a 2-plus hour movie about superheroes.  Besides, the naked Dr. Manhattan detracted from all that was good with the movie.

If Snyder's Superman is going to be any good, it's going to need a few things:

1) Follow the James Bond/Batman  mode of reboots - James Bond is the longest running film series with the most actors playing the Ian Fleming's iconic character.  Each actor made the character their own and establish their films as their own separate series while being a part of the ongoing James Bond saga.

The reason why Batman Begins and The Dark Knight worked is because it was a complete reboot of the film series.   Where Burton's Batman films had Gothic overtones and Schumacher's movies were as campy as the 1960s TV series, Nolan's pictures brought not only a sense of realism to the Batman films but also made the character of Batman as interesting as the villains.

Superman films need to take the same approach.  Each actor who plays the role must make the character their own while also making the film part of an ongoing series.  Christopher Reeve is the Sean Connery of the Superman roles.  George Reeves from The Adventures of Superman is the Roger Moore.   Tom Welling from Smallville is the Pierce Brosnan.  Brandon Routh is the George Lazenby.

The reason why Superman Returns failed was because Bryan Singer was too preoccupied making the Superman III that should have followed Superman II and wanted to make an homage to the Richard Donner classic.  The problem is the Richard Donner film is a classic and should not be remade or replicated.  Leave the Donner film alone.  Let it stand on its own.

Snyder needs to make his Superman an original work.  Don't pay attention to what has been done.  Make his own Superman movie.  Forget Superman: The Movie, Superman II, and definitely Superman III, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, and Superman Returns.  Don't continue what's been done on Smallville.  Just make a Superman movie.

2) Skip the Origin - Everyone knows the origin of Superman.  It's been shown through almost every medium - print (comic and novel), radio, TV, film, animated.   Donner's 1978 film stands as the definitive version of the origin, one that has both influenced other mediums including the comics.  Snyder doesn't need to show how Kal-El arrived on Earth as a baby, was raised by the Kents, and how he became Superman.  Donner did it so well already, and Smallville has addressed the origin well over the last 10 years.  We don't need to see it again.

3) Introduce Another Villain Besides Luthor  - The Scarecrow is a 2nd tiered villain who has only appeared in cartoons outside the Batman comics.  Ra's Al Guhl is a villain only a comic book fan would know.  However, both villains were highly effective in Nolan's reboot.  Featuring those two villains allowed Nolan to effectively bring in more popular villains like The Joker and Two-Face.

Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor is as iconic as Jack Nicholson's Joker.  Kevin Spacey as Luthor in Superman Returns was confusing - was he the comedic genius like Hackman, the mad scientist of classic Superman comics and cartoons, or the ruthless businessman in the modern comic series and on Smallvile?

While Superman's rogues gallery may not be as well-known as Batman's, there are a few familiar faces who could translate well on-screen, namely Brainiac, the super-genius alien with a computer brain, or Bizarro, the defective Superman clone Luthor attempted to create.  Bizarro would allow the actor playing Superman to pull an Eddie Murphy and play multiple roles - Superman, Clark Kent, and Bizarro.  Maybe even Darkseid or Doomsday, the creature that killed Superman in the '90s.  Perhaps Snyder's film could include Luthor, Braniac, Bizarro, and Doomsday.

Just don't bring back the Computer She-Robot Zombie from Superman III or Nuclear Man from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

4) Zod or No Zod?: The pro about using General Zod  is that the character is not only familiar but also allows Superman to unleash his full powers.  The con about using General Zod is that the character is heavily associated with Terence Stamp.  Snyder will have to find a Heath Ledger to pull off Zod well.  Perhaps Alan Rickman?  Kenneth Branagh?  Ralph Fiennes?   Jason Isaacs?  Liam Neeson would be excellent, but he's Ra's Al Guhl.

5) Cast an actor who can act: Don't go for the look.  By the look I mean don't go for someone who looks just like Superman from the comics.  The look of Superman has changed so much over the years.  Make sure that actor also has talent.  Also, don't look for someone who looks like Christopher Reeve.

Again, Snyder should look to both James Bond and the Batman films as his inspiration, more specifically the films featuring Daniel Craig as Bond and Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman.    Both are talented actors who lose themselves in the role.  Snyder needs to find another Gerard Butler.  They don't need to be an unknown but rather an underrated.  Jim Caveziel?  Jonathan Rhys Meyers?

Tom Welling is a TV star, not an actor.  While he is associated with Clark Kent, he is not Superman.  When he finally dons the costume, the question will be answered whether he is believable as the Man of Steel.  He could not carry a Superman movie on his own.

Jon Hamm would be the best choice if they go with Superman as an established character rather than do the origin.

6) Modernize Clark Kent: The meek, mild-mannered reporter is out.  In John Byrne's comic series THE MAN OF STEEL, Clark is portrayed as an athletic midwesterner.  Plus, if Clark Kent is going to be a reporter, he's going to have a spine.  Make him a mix of the modern Clark in the comic and the Clark Kent on Smallville.  Don't make him a bumbling buffoon.

7) Call the film The Man of Steel.  Not Superman VI or Superman 6.  Not Superman Begins.  Not Superman and Robin.  Not even Superman.  Use the nickname.

8) Get rid of Superman Jr./Superboy/Illegitimate Mutant Son of Lois and Clark from Superman Returns.

9) Look to the comics for inspiration.  The websites are claiming that Mark Waid's limited series Superman: Birthright is serving as the influence for the Snyder film.  However, that's an origin series, and doing the origin again is ill-advised.  Look to John Byrne or Geoff Johns' run on the comic.

10) Make Superman an alien but not aloof: The problem with Superman Returns is that Superman comes off as very aloof and detached from the world.  That's not Superman.  He's very attached to his adopted home planet and its inhabitants.  Perhaps the difference between Superman and the rest of the world is not that Superman is an alien but that he was raised with simple, midwestern Christian values.  It's not that he doesn't understand humanity.  He doesn't understand society.  How is it people can be so cruel and evil?  That's the difference with which Superman should struggle.  He's a pure soul in an impure society.  Perhaps the story should be what would happen if Superman resorted to the violent, cruel ways of society.

It is exciting knowing another Superman movie is in pre-production.  Let's just hope they do it better than Bryan Singer's attempt.

Forget Everything You Know - Or What We've Shown You.

A few weeks ago, Sony Pictures announced their plans to reboot the successful Spider-Man franchise.  They provided every enthuiastic reason and gave every excuse possible for their decision to go in a different direction with the franchise even though now the fans will never see Sam Raimi's vision of Tobey Maguire fighting classic villains such as The Lizard, the Vulture, or Kraven the Hunter on-screen.

When I first heard about the Spider-Man reboot, I was disappointed.  I wasn't done with the franchise like I was with the Batman franchise after enduring how horrible Batman & Robin was.  I was looking forward to Tobey Maguire returning as Peter Parker, to Dylan Baker possibly transforming into The Lizard, to John Malkovich possibly portraying The Vulture, to Anne Hathaway possibly being involved somehow, and to Sam Raimi making up for Spider-Man 3 by using villains he was familiar with and not caving to studio pressure to include a more modern villain like Venom because he's so popular.

Sam Raimi was smart enough to see why Spider-Man 3 was not as good as the previous two, especially Spider-Man 2, which was considered to be the quintissential comic book movie before The Dark Knight.  The studio, however, saw the dollars, and they wanted to include a more modern character like The Black Cat (whom Hathaway and a number of other actresses from Julia Stiles to Chloe Sevigny to Eliza Dushku were rumored to portray).  In the end, the studio and the filmmaker could not come to an agreement.  Raimi walked, Maguire left with him along with Kritsen Dunst (no tears shed there).

However, the studio did what every Hollywood studio has done over since the success of Batman Begins.  Start over, or using the official term, reboot.

Let's not confuse a reboot with a remake or even a reintroduction.  There is a difference between the three.

A remake has the same basic plot line of the original film.  The story may be tweaked to make it more applicable to the modern audience viewing the film, like Johnathan Demme did with The Manchurian Candidate, or the director can make their own interpretation of the film visually like Martin Scorcese did with Cape Fear.

A reintroduction involves taking an established franchise character and continuing the series after an extended period of time.  The average time span between sequels is two to three years though that time span has lessened over the years due to the studio's haste to get a sequel going if a film has a stellar opening weekend and looks to have some staying power.  A sequel becomes a reintroduction when the film character has not been on screen for at least seven years since the last sequel.  Think the return of Rocky Balboa, John Rambo, and John McClain over the last couple of years.  The Ghostbusters are also scheduled to return within the next couple of years.

A reboot is when the audience is expected to forget what we know about a film series, its characters, and all the stories that have been established and accept the new direction the series will take.  It's a computer mentality.  When the system crashes, reboot.

As with remakes, film studios are digging into their libraries searching for franchises to revive.  Like a remake, a reboot as a built in audience who will go to the theater either out of loyality or curiosity to see what this new version of a familiar series will take.

Fortunately, more often than not and in contrast to the remkes, it's paying off.

The Batman franchise is back stronger than ever thanks to Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale.  J. J. Abrams did what no one expected could have been done and made Star Trek relevant and exciting again.  James Bond remains immortal on the silver screen thanks to Daniel Craig and the Brocoli family.

When the reboot works, it not only resurects a franchise but also improves it tremendously and makes us forget why it was dying in the first place.

Rebooting may be a common decision made by studios and filmmakers.  However, like remakes, it's not novels.  Reboots have been occurring for years.  They've just been very subtle, almost unnoticeable, and generally limited to one genre.

The entire James Bond series is essentially a reboot.   Each film series featuring the different actors who portrayed James Bond is different from the last.  Sean Connery's films had a suave maturity.  George Lazenby's one Bond film was more dramatic and realistic.  Roger Moore's Bond films were marked by levity and  camp.  The two Timothy Dalton films reflected the uber-masculinity of the action films of the 1980s.  Pierce Brosnan's Bond was a combination of the suaveness of the Connery films and the cheekiness of the Moore pictures.  While the Bond films are supposed to be continuing adventures, they are not true sequels.  Each story stands on its own with no references to past adventures.

The Bond film officially recognized as a reboot is Casino Royale because it delves into the origins of James Bond, something none of the other films have ever done before.  The only film that ever alluded to James Bond's origins is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which introduces us to Bond's wife who is essentially murdered.   At one point, it was rumored the filmmakers would explain the different James Bonds in that each series focused on a new spy who adopts the name James Bond and the title 007.  They were smart to go with the reboot.

The Jack Ryan series are also reboots.  Patriot Games with Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan is a reboot of The Hunt for Red October featuring Alec Baldwin as Ryan.  The Sum of All Fears is the official reboot of the series in that it explores the origin of Jack Ryan's early years in the CIA with Ben Affleck in the main role.  Rumor is Paramount Pictures and the producers of the series, Neuce/Mayfield, are looking to do another reboot with either Ryan Gosling or Chris Pine as Jack Ryan.

The horror genre often reboots their series with the hopes of continuing it under new direction.  Wes Cravem attempted but failed to reboot the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise with his life-imitates-art film A New Nightmare.  The most rebooted franchise is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  After three sequels, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: A New Beginning was produced featuring Matthew McConaughey and Renee Zellweger and portraying Leatherface as a crossdresser.  Fortunately, this failed and led to the much more successful and satisfying The Texas Chainsaw Massacre produced by Michael Bay, who founded his production company on remaking and rebooting classic horror films.  Rob Zombie's Halloween and Halloween 2 are essentially reboots in that he took a more humanistic approach to Michael Meyers by making him psychologically scarred by his upbringing rather than being the simple killing machine John Carpenter created or the demonically possessed being he became in the fourth and fifth sequels.

Generally, the studios and filmmakers also don't treat the audience as stupid or ignorant when they reboot. They know people are coming into the theater with background knowledge of the series and its characters. They learned their lesson from George Lucas, who asked us to no longer accept The Force as a mystical force but rather as the result of midichlorians. I can still hear the resounding groans resounding throughout the theater during the midnight showing of The Phantom Menace when Qui-Gonn Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi spoke of Anakin's midichlorian count.
 
Regardless of the economic intentions, it's actually admirable for studios to decide to reboot franchises rather than cast them off as a dead series.  It shows that they are loyal to not only their product but also to the creators of the original series.  Take the Hulk movies.  Universal Pictures could have abandonned the series after the disappointment of Ang Lee's version, but they decided to try one more time.  They even learned from their mistakes, entrusted the picture to talent who were familiar with the character as portrayed in the comics, and even paid homage to the classic television show from the seventies by having Bruce Banner exile himself and be on the run.  The end result of The Incredible Hulk, a much more satisfying version of the film that captured the story and style of the comic and TV series.

However, will we see another one?  Some consider The Incredible Hulk as unsuccessful.  It made $2 million less than Ang Lee's film.  Hopefully, with Marvel having more control and the plans for an Avengers movie, we'll see Edward Norton as Bruce Banner again and perhaps bring back Tim Blake Nelson's Samuel Stearns to become The Leader (he was the scientist who tried curing Banner and ended up having Bruce's blood seep into his head wound).

Then there are those franchises that the studios and filmmakers have no choice but to reboot when their star actor doesn't want to return.  Such was the case with The Punisher films.  The Punisher with Thomas Jane was a reboot of the low budget film from the 1980s starring Dolph Lungren.  It was enough of a moderate success for the studio, Lionsgate, to go forward with a sequel.  However, Jane declined returning, so the studio was forced to reboot once again with Punisher: War Zone with Ray Stevenson, who may have given the closest portrayal of the Marvel comic character but unfortunately was in the second-worst version of the film next to the Lundgren one.

If you think about it, Sony is in the same predicament as Lionsgate was with Punisher.  They are forced to reboot Spider-Man due to "creative differences", which is the truth behind the decision, not this empty claim that the studio has decided to go in a different direction.  Spider-Man was still a proven franchise that had not yet run out of steam or alienated its audience.  No one was objecting to Raimi or Maguire returning, though there was some concern over Kirsten Dunst reprising her role as Mary Jane and rumors of a child with red hair being put in the story.  Maybe it was a good idea Sony shut down the project before they ended up with Spider-Man Returns.

Reboot can also be a better choice over making a sequel, reintroducing a character, or doing a remake.  The Superman franchise is a perfect example of this.  For years, Warner Brothers debated over how to make the fifth Superman film.  Initially, it was going to be a reintroduction of the character under the direction of Tim Burton with Nicolas Cage as the Man of Steel.  In the early nineties, J. J. Abrams attempted to reboot the franchise and made very contested and controversial choices in changing the Superman mythos - Krypton never exploded, Lex Luthor is an alien.  The studio eventually decided to reintroduce Superman by making a direct sequel to Superman II, attempting to establish a trilogy between Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns and asking the audience to forget the third and fourth films - as they would in a reboot.  While it was satisfying and welcoming to see Superman flying on-screen again, the problem is that the audience is left unsure about what they are watching.  Is this a sequel?  A reintroduction?  A reboot?  Unfortunately, the problem afflicting Superman Returns is that it "jumps the shark" by introducing the son of Superman and Lois, which pigeonholes the sequel to go in a direction it can never change.

One of the problems facing rebooting Superman is that the character, the comic, the 1950s TV series, and the 1978 movie are so ingrained in the audience's mind that it will be challenging to create   J. J. Abrams's script also created a lot of controversy and soured the audience to a reboot.  However, now that we've seen Superman Returns, perhaps the audience is now more amenable to a reboot.

While the acceptance of a rebooted Superman is slowly being accepted, there are some characters film studios and filmmakers would like to reboot but never could successfully because the character is either too iconic or associated with the actors who portrayed them.  No one but Clint Eastwood could ever play "Dirty" Harry Callahan.  Bruce Willis is the only actor who could and should play John McClane.  Mel Gibson and Danny Glover are Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh.  Sylvester Stallone will always be Rocky Balboa and John Rambo.

Terminator Salvation answered the question last summer whether the popular franchise could ever be rebooted.  It can't, and the filmmakers realized that, which is why even though the mythology was changed it was still treated like a sequel and even included a CGI younger Arnold Schwarzenegger to connect this film to the series.

A failed reboot can also call for a remake.  Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes failed because the film was Planet of the Apes only in title and that the characters were simians.  It completely deviated from the novel written by Pierre Bouille and the classic sci-fi film series of the late sixties-early seventies.  A remake with the right modern day actor in the roles of Taylor, Cornelius, Zira, and Dr. Zaius could be successful.

The success of a reboot lies in three areas.  First and foremost is the story.  The screenwriter is faced with the challenge to retell a familiar story in a fresh manner.  This is why many reboots explore the origin of a character, and they usually go much more in-depth than the films in the original series.  Batman Begins explains how and why Bruce Wayne became the Dark Knight in a much more satisfying manner than the two minute montage Tim Burton included in Batman.  Star Trek takes us back to the Enterprise crew's days in the Starfleet Academy.  Casino Royale shows how James Bond earned his license to kill and his title of 007.  However, not every reboot needs to retell the origin but rather gives the audience what they expect and want from a familiar franchise character.  The Incredible Hulk provided the action and conflict Hulk lacked by including characters recognizable to fans of the series such as The Abomination.

The second element of success lies with the talent of the director.  Christopher Nolan, J. J. Abrams, and Louis Lettier brought their unique talents to breathe new life into the dead franchises.  Abrams, who admitted to being more of a Star Wars fan than a Trekker, injected the youth and vibrance of that made Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, and Han Solo so appealing and popular into his version of Star Trek.  Casino Royale works because Martin Campbell is a talented filmmaker and he is familiar with making James Bond relevant to his audience, having done it before when he reintroduced the character with Pierce Brosnan as 007 in Goldeneye.

The final element of success lies in the casting.  In many film series, the actor who portays the character is just as iconic as the character.  Superman is Christopher Reeve.  Obi-Wan Kenobi is Alec Guinness.   William Shatner is Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy is Mr. Spock.  Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger.  The actor people associate with James Bond  or Batman depends upon what era you were born.    The casting must be perfect or the audience will not accept the reboot.  Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, and Aaron Eckhardt make us forget about the actors who portrayed Batman, The Joker, and Two-Face.  Edward Norton was a much more convincing Bruce Banner than Eric Bana.  Zachary Quinto had the talent and enough of a fan base from Heroes, where he proved he could play cold-blooded and calculating, to pull off Mr. Spock.  If you miscast the iconic character and make the audience miss the original actor, the reboot will fail.

So far, the most successful and one of the most brilliant reboots is of the Batman franchise.  It was almost seven years between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins, and instead of reintroducing the character with another sequel, the studio decided to start over again and establish a whole new tone.  Where Burton's film had a dark, gothic tone and Schumaker's a colorful, campy, cartoonish feel, Christopher Nolan's version of Batman is immersed in realism.   Gotham City is real to us, and the presence of a vigilante like Batman, a terrorist like Ra's Al-Guhl, and an insane doctor like The Scarecrow are believable.  They could exist.  He further utilized the realistic motif by portraying The Joker not as some freak with bleached white skin due to exposure to chemicals (which was used in Burton's Batman) but rather as a lunatic who painted himself up as a clown.

This is why the Batman franchise is back stronger and more successful than ever.  The studio respected the audience enough to bring in a talented filmmaker who gave the audience a Batman movie we want to see and can accept.  The proof - Heath Ledger made us forget Jack Nicholson's iconic portrayal of The Joker.

While the Batman reboot is the most successful, the most brilliant of all the reboots is J. J. Abrams's Star Trek.

The reverence for Star Trek is practically religious. As with Star Wars, Harry Potter, and even the Twilight series, to tamper inapproprirely with Star Trek is heresy. If these fans don't accept what you do with their favorite characters, they will let you know by rejecting your film. Look at Star Trek V or Star Trek: Nemesis, which are all the Batman & Robin of both the original and the Next Generation series.

The fact that Abrams took on the task of rebooting Star Trek after his horrid experience with rebooting Superman shows he is as brave as he is talented.  He obviously learned his lesson from Superman that the history of iconic characters cannot be tampered.  He was also smart enough to recognize the fanatical devotion of the Star Trek fans and realized any mistakes he made could be devastating if they did not accept his vision.  He followed the proper steps of a reboot - go back to the beginning, give the origin, make some changes and do something fresh, but don't forget the history.

The end result was a brilliant film that both rebooted a once-dead franchise while also maintaining the history established by the TV series, endless books, and six films.  How did he do this?   By doing the reboot through the story and its characters.

The whole motive of Nero, the villain in the story, is to go back in time to change history.  In a sense, Nero is J. J. Abrams, going back through the history of  Star Trek and changing everything.  Nero performs the reboot.  However, at the same time, Abrams neither asks nor wants us to forget everything we know, which is different for a reboot.  He takes the motifs of time travel and alternate realities that are prevalent in Star Trek and creates an alternate timeline.  The Star Trek universe we all grew up with and have known for almost fifty years still exists, and he shows the audience how much he respects them by including the Spock we all know.  Essentially, Abrams has created two Star Treks - the one we are all familiar with and the one for the modern audience, and he has successfully allowed both to co-exist without any concern, confusion, or complaint.

I'm hoping the filmmakers of A Nightmare on Elm Street have paid attention to both the Batman and Star Trek reboots. The 2010 release is supposed to tell the origin of Freddy Kruegger. I'm hoping the filmmakers and studio will respect the audience by providing an origin that is both satisfying and respectful to the history created by Wes Craven.  Casting Jackie Earle Hailey, who has become the go-to creepy actor thanks to his roles as the released child molester in Little Children and Roschach in Watchmen, was a smart move, for he is talented enough to possibly make us forget Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger.


I'm also hoping that director Marc Webb, who has been hired by Sony to reboot Spider-Man, will also show that same respect to the audience. I'm hoping his first film will include characters we hoped to see Sam Raimi give us (for me, that's The Lizard and/or Kraven). I'm hoping he follows Nolan's lead and brings a version of The Green Goblin better than the Power Ranger villain Raimi gave us. Maybe he'll be smart enough to do the "Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline.
The trend to reboot will continue, and it seems to primarily be occurring with comic book films.  20th Century Fox is looking to start over with the X-Men franchise by bringing original franchise director Bryan Singer to do X-Men: First Class.  They've also announced plans to reboot Daredevil and Fantastic Four. A Mr. and Mrs. Smith reboot is in development.  So is a new version of Moral Kombat.  Conan is being rebooted with a new actor playing the role immortalized by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and 20th Century Fox may make a second attempt at rebooting the Apes franchise.  A new version of Mortal With the purchase of the rights of the Terminator franchise by Pacificor, there is talk about attempting to reboot the series.  However, they should consider what happened with Terminator Salvation before progressing with that idea.

IF I HAD CLOUT IN HOLLYWOOD...

Here's some reboots I would do.

1) The Alex Cross Novels - Morgan Freeman is not Alex Cross, the psychologist detective in James Patterson's hit novel series.  The character is at least twenty years younger and more athletic than Freeman.  While Kiss the Girls is an adequate film, Along Came a Spider falls very far from how good the book is.  Restart the series with Roses Are Red and follow with Violets Are Blue, which introduces Cross's nemesis and former colleague Kyle Craig, The Mastermind (who, incidentally, is in Kiss the Girls).  Follow with either Jack & Jill or do the The Big, Bad Wolf/London Bridges.  As for casting, Terence Howard or Will Smith would be excellent choices.  My vote is Terence Howard since Will Smith is too big of a star to carry on the role for a number of films.  Then again, Howard dropped the ball with the Iron Man franchise.

2) X-Men: Bryan Singer's two films and the third film directed by Brett Ratner gave us what we wanted. We have seen most of the popular comic characters we've wanted to see on-screen. We don't need to see Wolverine or Storm or even Colossus for that matter. Now it's time to go back to basics. Adapt the X-Men: First Class comic. Focus on the original X-Men: Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, Angel, and Iceman. Make this more like a Harry Potter or Percy Jackson style of story - young kids realizing they have special talents and are forced into heroic situations. Keep Magneto as the villain and bring in his Brotherhood as a rival group of young mutants. Maybe even include Mr. Sinister or Apocalypse.

3) Daredevil: There are actually two Daredevil films - the one Mark Steven Johnson made and the one 20th Century Fox released.  The Director's Cut is much better and closer to the vein of the comic.  It was also more welcomed by the audience.  If Fox is now planning a reboot, retell the whole story about Daredevil.  Look to the comics by Frank Miller, Joe Quesada, and Kevin Smith for inspiration.  Edward Norton was once up for Daredevil, but now he's Bruce Banner/The Hulk, so that won't fly.  I once heard a rumor about Hayden Christensen as the blind superhero.  I could see it.  If they need to include Elektra, maybe Megan Fox, Mila Kunis, or Elisha Dusku would work.

4) Superman - Start over.  Start fresh.  Look to John Byrne's Man of Steel and TV's Smallville for inspiration.  Of course include Lex Luthor, but bring in Braniac or even The Parasite.  It might not be such a bad idea to have Smallville end and let the show lead into the next Superman.  That would broaden the already large audience the character has.

5) The Jack Ryan novels - The Sum of All Fears should have breathed new life into this franchise, but it didn't.  Focus on the novels from the post-Cold War such as Debt of Honor, Red Rabbit, and The Bear and the Dragon, which are more about terrorism.

6) Charlie's Angels - The movies with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu are reboots of the TV series.  However, perhaps the time is right to reboot the film series.  Lose the camp and cartoon and make it more of a grittier action film.  It's about time we have a good female action film.

7) Planet of the Apes - Tim Burton attempted to reboot the franchise in 2001, and it would have been a good film if it wasn't Planet of the Apes.  Charlton Heston's Taylor and Roddy McDowell's Cornelius are too iconic.  Adapt the Pierre Bouillard novel.  Dig up the script Rod Serling wrote and was supposed to direct and uncover the drafts that were attached to both Oliver Stone and James Cameron at one time.  Bring this series back to its glory.  Plus, the sequels are already there waiting to be rebooted as well.

8) King Arthur - A reboot was attempted by Antoine Fuqua starring Clive Owen and Kiera Knightley focusing not on the Middle Ages but rather the Roman legend of Arthur the Centurion.  Adapt the stories of Lord Tennyson and Sir Thomas Mallory and turn it into a trilogy or film series.

Please share what film franchises you think should be rebooted.

- EMF, 2/12/2010

Do It Again... And Again... And Again...

The Wolfman is being released in theaters this weekend. 

Not re-released.  We're not talking about the classic Universal Pictures horror film with Lon Chaney.  This is The Wolfman 2.0.  That's what it should really be called.  However, the "2" at the end may make people think this is a sequel, which it most definitely is not.

It's a remake.

Then again, can you name any movie these days that's not a remake?  Or not being remade?  Or better yet, not considered for being remade?

Remakes - and reboots and reintroductions, for that matter - are to today's film industry what sequels were in the seventies, eighties, and nineties: potential hits with a built-in audience that is either curious or committed enough to go to the theater and pay good money to see a movie they may have seen before or heard about featuring different actors, directed by a different director, and maybe some better special effects.

It's not as if the slew of remakes have gone unnoticed by the audience. How many times have you heard someone comment, "Wow, they're remaking everything these days," or even question, "Why did they feel the need to remake that?"

That was the question that plagued me back in 1998 when filmmaker Gus Van Sant committed film heresy and attempted to remake Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Van Sant had criticized other filmmakers for completely changing the visual direction or the story when they produced a remake. He said he wanted to film his version of Psycho shot for shot the way Hitchcock directed his version, and he also didn't change anything in the script. He defended his decision to remake the movie by claiming all he did was add color, which would bring in a younger audience who was not familiar with the film.

Didn't Ted Turner have the same mindset when he started colorizing all the classic black and white films airing on TBS and TNT?

You would think the commercial and critical failure of Van Sant's Psycho would have put the idea of remaking classic films out of the minds of studio heads, producers, and directors in Hollywood. Then again, look at today's multiplexes and also what's on the development and pre-production slates.

We can lament that the reason for so many remakes - or reboots or reintroductions - is the lack of creativity in the film industry.  There is truth to that statement, but creativity comes with a high price tag for production in Hollywood.  Ten years ago, a film had to break $100 million to be a blockbuster.  Today, A film has to make at least $200 million, and even then it probably won't make its money back after above the line costs, production, publicity, and gross points.  Making movies is riskier financially and more expensive than ever.
There is too much of a risk of no return to sink money into a project that is untested.  Star Wars would have never been greenlit if it was pitched today.  The Matrix and Avatar are anamolies.

From a business standpoint, it's a  smart, cost-effective decision for film studios and producers to remake movies.  Instead of taking a risk on an original concept, look into properties already owned, repackage the project with familiar or fresh talent, and maybe even rewrite the script to make it more applicable to modern times or tweak the problems that plagued the first production.  Many remakes already have a built-in audience who are committed enough to see how a film they know well has been reproduced.  What's greater is the curiosity factor of those audience members who want to see the new version or might have heard of the original but neither got around nor had the interest to see it.

Remaking movies are not a novel concept nor is the glut of how many films being remade a modern trend. 
When motion pictures went from silent film to sound, many of the films produced during the infancy of the film industry were remade.  For example, The Wizard of Oz was originally a silent picture released in 1925.  When the grand production values balooned in the fifties, another surge of remakes were released.  A number of these remakes went on to be more successful commercially and critically than the originals: An Affair to Remember, The King and I, Ben-Hur, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Ten Commandments.  As the box office historically shows, there will always be an audience for remakes, and that's why Hollywood will continue to make them.

Some movies have been remade even more than one: A Star Is Born and Mutiny on the Bounty been remade twice.  So has King Kong, and a third remake is supposedly being planned.

There are a number of remakes that are some of my favorite films, such as Martin Scorcese's remake of Cape Fear.  There's a story that Alfred Hitchcock was offered this movie in the 1950s, but he turned it down because the family was too "perfect" for him.  What Scorcese did was turn the script and shoot the film into the movie he believed Hitchcock would have made if he took on the project.  The end result is a remake that stands on its own as an original piece of work.

Another remake I enjoy is Roger Donaldson's version of The Bounty with Mel Gibson, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and the late Sir Lawrence Olivier, which is the second remake of the classic film Mutiny on the Bounty.  I enjoyed this picture because it combined the story of Fletcher Christen with Captain Bligh, intensifying the drama of this classic tale.  Plus, I thought it was beautifully shot and well-acted.  How could it not be with those actors (pre-Mel Gibson the Anti-Semite) along with a young Daniel Day-Lewis and Liam Neeson?

I'm a fan of both versions of the remake of King Kong.  I enjoyed the 1976 version because it took place in a New York I knew and recognized.  I was enthralled by the World Trade Center because Kong climbed up there and fell from the top of the towers.  I also enjoyed Peter Jackson's version because Kong was not portrayed as a cinematic monster but rather a real silverback ape, which was mostly a legend when the original film was produced and not as fully understood when the 1976 version was released.  Of all the versions, Jackson's Kong was most entertaining because it wasn't a monster movie like the previous versions.  It had a sense of realism to it, and Jackson was also genius enough to pay homage to the 1933 version by keeping the story during the Great Depression era while also capturing the action of the 1976 version.

I'm not against remaking movies, especially if they're done right.  However, I am against this idea of remaking a film just to remake it.
In the past, there seemed to be a cardinal rule or a gentleman's agreement that if a film was a classic or even a success that it would not be considered to be remade.  Gus Van Sant was heavily criticized and his reputation as a filmmaker was damaged when he broke that rule/agreement by remaking Psycho.  However, that was over ten years ago.  Today, Van Sant would probably take no heat or flack for remaking Psycho because it would be expected.

Today, nothing is off-limits when it comes to remakes.  It doesn't matter how much money the movie originally made, how much of a fan base it has, or how critically lauded the film is as a classic.  If the studio owns the rights to the picture, it has a fan base, and it has the prospects to make money, it's going to be remade.

Look at what we've seen so far in the last 10 years: King Kong, The Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, Dawn of the Dead, The Four Feathers, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Shaft, Fun with Dick and Jane, Man on Fire, Red Dragon, Four Brothers, Assault on Precinct 13, 3:10 to Yuma, Ocean's 11, The Bad News Bears, The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Fame, The Longest Yard.  That's just a few, and only the remakes of American films.   As I write this, I keep thinking of another remake to add to the above list.

Then you have the foreign film remakes featuring American or English-speaking actors and higher production values: The Ring, The Departed, Insomnia, The Eye, The Grudge, Godzilla (yes, I'm counting that as a foreign film), Bangkok Dangerous, One Missed Call, Shall We Dance.

Here are some remakes we'll see this year: The Wolfman, Clash of the Titans, The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, Footloose, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Crazies, Pirhana.

Here are some remakes that are coming: Fantastic Voyage, Sharkey's Machine, Conan, Back to School, Romancing the Stone, Death Wish, Robocop, Meatballs, Vision Quest, The Warrior, Total Recall, Poltergeist.

Like I said, I understand the economic idea behind remakes.  These are all familiar titles and stories.  However, I have to ask the question that's often asked when it comes to sequels - Is this really necessary?

I know.  It's not SHOW business.  It's show BUSINESS.  Money needs to be made.  However, like films and sequels, not every movie needs to nor should be remade.  If you're going to remake movies, be smart about it.  Leave alone the films that stand the test of time (The Karate Kid) or truly are not applicable in today's modern world (Red Dawn).  Dig deep into the vaults of your libraries, look at both the script and the film, and really consider whether the movie needs to be remade.

IF I HAD CLOUT IN HOLLYWOOD...
Here are some movies I'd remake and what I'd do with them.

1) Jaws (1975) - Anyone who knows me knows this is one of my favorite films of all time next to The Godfather and Star Wars, and I would truly hate to see this remade.  However, I know it's inevitable because the film looks too dated.  However, if Jaws was to be remade, then adapt the book as Peter Benchley wrote it, which would make a good film in itself.  If you go with the cinematic look of Brody, cast Gary Sinise in the role; otherwise, Ray Liotta looks more like these days the novel version of Brody; Topher Grace could be cast as Matt Hooper; maybe show respect to Spielberg by casting Harrison Ford or go with Michael Douglas as Quint.  While remaking Spielberg movies seems to be off-limits, it's only a matter of time before this remake is announced, so if they're going to do it, adapt the novel.

2) Nighthawks (1981) - It would not be too difficult to take this underrated Sylvester Stallone.Rutger Hauer/Billy Dee Williams movie from 1981 and modernize it as a film about the War on Terror coming home to Manhattan.  Cast Gerard Butler or Vin Diesel in the Stallone role and have either Christopher Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)play the European terrorist, or take a risk and make the terrorist Middle Eastern and cast Naveen Andrews (Lost).
IMDB Listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082817/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvbtAoucPU

3) Tuff Turf  (1985) - This is a little seen teen revenge/vigilante movie from the early 1980s that starred James Spader as a rich kid from Conneticuit whose family loses their money and is forced to move to a rough neighborhood in LA and crosses paths with the local gang leader after falling for his girlfriend, played by Kim Richards (from the Witch Mountain movies all grown up and hot here).  Modernize the film in today's LA and cast some teen actor either from The CW or Disney, punch up the action, and you have an entertaining remake.
IMDB Listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090213/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqVg8fy8R0

4) Boardwalk  (1979) - This 1979 movie starred Lee Strassberg and Ruth Gordon as an elderly couple living in Coney Island whose neighborhood is terrorized by a local street gang.  This was during the ebb of the urban everyman vigilante film that was popular in the seventies.  If you watch this film, you might recognize elements that probably influenced Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino.  However, this film is just as moving and dramatic, and wouldn't it be great to see an aged Robert De Niro or Gene Hackman kick the crap out of some young punks played by some rapper?
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078886/

5) Jennifer (1976) - This is a low budget Grindhouse pic from the seventies they used to play on HBO that used to scare the crap out of me.  It's about this poor southern girl from the Ozarks who gets a scholarship to attend an Ivy League school and is ostracized and tormented by the rich sorority girls.  However, Jennifer has psychic powers over snakes, so she gets her revenge on them.  This was one of those films that came out in the seventies following the success of Carrie, but mean girls and cliques are timeless, so why not remake this?  If you're going to remake horror movies, remake the obscure ones.
IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077769/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzOgY6UMRg

6) Night of the Juggler (1978) - Another from the 70s vigilante thrillers about an ex-cop who takes the law into his own hands when his daughter is mistakenly kidnapped by a psycho.  Yes, it sounds like Edge of Darkness, but this is 70s grit.  However, this one is adapted from a novel, so it can be changed for a more modern setting.  James Brolin played the lead in the original.  Kurt Russell would be excellent for this.
IMDB listing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081230/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZNBRQHtiw

7) The Swarm (1978) - Who is not afraid of the killer bees?  Remember in the seventies how scared we were of them coming to America?  I remember coming home from camp crying about the killer bees coming and wanting  my folks to change the screens to windows because I heard they could wedge between the screens.  Well, Africanized bees are here, and they have caused havoc.  Imagine the havoc they could cause with great CGI effects of a swarm invading a town.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078350/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q

8) The Fury (1978) - A great thriller by Brian De Palma, who basically continued with the genre of 70s films he created with Carrie.  This had Kirk Douglas as a secret agent whose son, played by Andrew Stevens, had telekinesis and was manipulated by the government.  He finds a girl (Amy Irving) with similar powers to help him find and free his son.  The money shot was the continuous filming of John Cassevetes head exploding over and over and over and over and over.  This would do well as a remake with either De Palma or Nick Casavetes directing.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078350/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q
9) The Car (1977) - A classic horror film predating Stephen King's Christine about a muscle car possessed by Satan terrorizing the roads.  Another ripe for remake using some modern muscle car.
IMDB List: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075809/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kNmZ0g66xo

10) Badge 373 (1973) - This was the "other" film loosely based on NYPD officer Eddie Egan, who was the influence of the character Popeye O'Doyle from The French Connection and French Connection II.  A young Robert Duvall fresh off The Godfather played the cop who has to turn in his badge and takes the law into his own hands to avenge his partner's murder.  Again, another one from the 70s vigilante drama.
IMDB: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=17962
Trailer: http://www.tcm.com/video/videoPlayer/?cid=236693&titleId=17962

11) It's Alive (1974) - I always wanted to see this horror movie about a monster baby remade, but I guess it was already done as a direct to DVD flick with Amanda Seyfried,  Oh well... good to know Hollywood and I have the same line of thought.
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071675/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9wL0ffxqY
Remake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA3iusK4p78

Please feel free to suggest any other remakes.

- EMF, 2/11/10