The Academy Awards

I have to admit that I use to be a sucker for the Academy Awards. As an avid movie fan, I’d always watch the entire telecast with a certain amount of giddiness. Why wouldn’t why? After all, it is the “Super Bowl” of the Hollywood film industry. Everyone knows that on Oscar night, movies are celebrated to the highest degree. It’s a spectacle to be sure with its grand presentations, and movie stars at their most glamorous. But after several years, I noticed that I became irrevocably bored with them. In fact, the last time I watched the Oscars in its entirety was when “The Departed” won for Best Picture of 2006. And I'm not alone, viewership of the Academy Awards has steadily decline in the past decade. It has become a stale event due to its overlong running time, lack of innovation and overall predictability.

Needless to say, the 84^th Annual Academy Awards will air on Sunday night, and I’m not the least bit excited. I mean, Billy Crystal as host, again? This alone causes my disinterest. Pardon my expression, but isn't it the same ol' song and dance? Now Billy is a master host, but his presence shows a lack of creativity on behalf of the producers. Is it really that hard to find someone new and interesting for the job? I thought Hugh Jackman was a great choice that brought plenty of energy and charm to the dutiful role. Now imagine if Oscar producers could try to replicate that effort every time. Yes, they bombed it miserably last year in an attempt to reach a younger audience, but at least it was something new. And due to low buzz, Sunday's award ceremony isn't expected to be a ratings winner either. If the show's producers want to win back the audience, they should continue to take creative risks.  

Yes, if there's anything in Hollywood that needs a reboot, it's certainly the Oscars. 



The 84th Annual Academy will air on ABC on Sunday, Feb. 26th.



Billy Crystal will host the show for the 9th time. 

The Kodak Theatre is the home of the Academy Awards

              

The Comic Book Movie Genre

On July 14^th, 2000, the cinematic rendition of Marvel Comics' “X-Men” was released in movie theaters across the country. Not since 1989's "Batman" had there been a comic-book adaption so heavily anticipated. It opened to big business. The film had grossed $54.5 million on opening weekend. And it went on to earn a worldwide total of $296 million. Big business indeed. During the aftermath of its success, Hollywood movie studios began to place comic-book properties on the fast track. In the years that followed, iconic characters like "Spider-Man", "The Hulk" and "The Punisher" received the big-screen treatment. Even lesser known comic-books such as "Hellboy" were adapted to the silver-screen.

There is no question that "X-Men" is the film that spawned a major emergence of the superhero movie. Prior to its release, there had only been but a few comic-book movies made. While "Batman" and 1978's "Superman: The Movie" were both major cultural events, there were no other comic-books adapted in their immediate wake. While some could argue the technology was too archaic to make credible adapations, I'd beg to differ. Case in point, Hollywood producers went on to make other big-budget affairs like "Star Wars", "Indiana Jones" and "Jurassic Park" during the era. Hollywood special-effects of the late 20th century were more than capable of bringing other comic books to life. It was quite simply not the time for them to flourish.

So what was it that made the "comic book movie" so popular? Was "X-Men" really that good? Or did the arrival of the new millennium have anything do with it? Certainly "The Matrix" had shown what a superhero movie for the ages could look like. While that popular film was not based on a comic-book per se, it certainly had the asthetic of one. The hero of "The Matrix" was like a kung-fu, gun-toting version of Superman. It was released a year before "X-Men" and its martial-art skilled protagonists were clear inspirations for the movie version of Marvel's mutants. While I can't pinpoint why comic-book movies finally resonated, I can say that 12 years after "X-Men", they are still going strong. This Friday, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" will be in theaters. While "The Avengers", "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Amazing Spider-Man" are all slated for summer release. As for 2013, filmgoers will be treated to the return of "Superman", "Iron Man" and "Thor". Yes, the comic-book movie genre is thriving and its end is nowhere in sight. 




 The live-action version of Marvel Comics' "X-Men" was released in 2000.




In 2005, the Batman film franchise received a much-needed reboot with "Batman Begins"



                              The 2012 Super Bowl ad of "The Avengers".

Hollywood's Creative Bankruptcy.

As a child of the 1980’s, I remember when Hollywood films were mainly original creations. Today, audiences are treated to a number of movies based on comic books, video games, and old television shows. While filmmakers have always used other sources for inspiration, this practice is more commonly used today than ever before. The same can be said of remakes. Up until about 10 years ago, remakes were fairly scarce productions made several decades after the original films. For instance, the 1983 version of “Scarface” was a remake of a 1932 film, and the first remake of “King Kong” (1933) was released 43 years later. Presently, a total of 50 remakes are in some form of production. Many of them are based on 1980’s action classics such as “Robocop”, “Lethal Weapon” and “Commando”. So how exactly did original ideas become such a rarity in Hollywood? I have no idea. But I do know that even the highest-grossing movie of all time, “Avatar”, is basically a re-skinned “Dances with Wolves”.

The “reboot” is also another form of recycled material. According to the freedictionary.com, the term means to restart. That’s exactly what Sony Pictures is doing with the live-action version of Marvel Comics’ “Spider-Man”. In 2002, the company released the first big-screen incarnation with Tobey Maguire as the titular character. Two sequels (and a decade) later, the studio is releasing “The Amazing Spider-Man” which tells the origins of Peter Parker’s superpowers. That’s the same scenario depicted in the ’02 film. Why is there a need for this? Undoubtedly, it is because Hollywood has entered into a period of creative bankruptcy. Need proof? The classic board game “Battleship” will be released this summer as a big-budget sci-fi flick from Universal. That’s right, a board game for inspiration. Oh, and the movie version will feature aliens invading earth for good measure. I rest my case. Oh well. At least there's plenty of quality television shows nowadays.





"Avatar" is basically a re-skinned "Dances with Wolves".

"Spider-Man" is being relaunched as "The Amazing Spider-Man".



A remake (or reboot) of "Lethal Weapon" is in the works.



IMAX, 3D or both?

It is a well known fact that filmmaker George Lucas likes to tinker with his "Star Wars" films by adding new special-effects and scenes initially impossible to produce. His latest update is the 3D release of 1999's "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Meance", the critically reviled but highly profitable prequel to the original trilogy. It releases on Friday, February 10th. In the spring, James Cameron's Academy Award-winning "Titanic" will also be re-released in the third dimension along with "Wrath of the Titans", a sequel to the 2010 remake of "Clash of the Titans". Additonally, Warner Bros. Pictures will be giving "Wrath" the IMAX treatment. Both IMAX and 3D presentations are formats that filmmakers use to further immerse the audiences into the movie going experience. However, the question some movie fans have asked is: "Which is the better format to enhance a movie with?"

IMAX projection screens can be up to 60 to 70 ft. in height, while the speakers in an IMAX auditorium can produce up to 12,500 watts of sound. The higher picture resolution and extremely dynamic sound of an IMAX presentation is what truly envelopes the viewer into the movie "world". The action segments of "The Dark Knight" and "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" were shot on IMAX cameras to fill the entire IMAX projection screen. I found the results to be truly astounding as the really BIG screen maximizes the tension and epic scope of big-budget spectacles. On the other hand, 3D effects give the illusion of an added "depth" to the visuals on screen. As a result, certain images seem to "pop" out from the foreground. I personally believe CGI (computer generated images) and animated movies seem to benefit the most from the 3D format. Fantasy films like "Avatar", "Beowulf" and "Immortals" have all displayed the effectiveness of 3D images.

Of the two formats, 3D is the most critized as naysayers have complained that 3D dims the picture substantially and has no real value outside of animated movies. I personally like 3D, but feel that its most effective when its used as more of a tool of a filmmaker than a gimmick for genre films. I don't care to pay top dollar to see "Resident Evil" or "Underworld" in 3D, but Cameron's "Avatar 2" will be an event to see since the director is always striving for perfection. However, if I had to choose between the two, I'd say IMAX is the format I prefer. Even more than 3D, it brings out the drama to certain scenes that can only be possible through a larger than life screen. Watching Tom Cruise in "Mission Impossible" climb the tallest building in the world (with only one adhesive glove) on the IMAX produced a cringe-inducing sensation in my stomach. Yes, we all know he will live, but just the sight of it was slightly scary.