Always backing the wrong horse...

So, technical difficulties have put the brakes on the blog I wanted to post today (and yes, it was the Fountain Society blog. Seems my opinion and that book just aren't meant to be!) so I decided to go a little introspective and discuss a feeling that started to wash over me a few years ago. Somehow, I almost always seem to feel like I wind up backing the wrong horse. Not in the literal sense, mind. I don't gamble and know so little about sport I'm surprised I know which ball goes with which sport, and which sports don't have balls to begin with, but in the pop culture sense.

Now I'm pretty sure this feeling is just a big old pile of nonsense that my brain invented to account for the times where I've felt very much outside the groove. Afterall, I love the Marvel movies and who doesn't? But even then I loved the Edward Norton Hulk movie much more than some of the other, more beloved ones (indeed, I've seen Incredible Hulk torn to shreds and taken for granted as a terrible movie so many times it makes me sad) and while I enjoy The Avengers, I still think it's weaker than the standalone movies that led up too it.

This extends out to television and even ridiculous things like collectibles too. I thought Being Human handled it's complete cast change superbly and I was super invested in seeing where they were going with it. Turns out where they were going was nowhere as it was cancelled shortly after. When I was collecting the DC figurine collection, there was always some level of... I don't want to call it despair, but fatigue that it seemed to live in the shadow of its older brother the Marvel one. True at the end there was only a twenty figurine difference, but it always seemed as though the fanbase was a little more involved and enthusiastic on the other side of the fence.

And I think that's what it comes down too. The perception that the things I like simply aren't as popular as or successful as I feel they should be. Even Doctor Who, which dominates the Earth right now, leaves me cringing because I much prefer the Moffat/Smith era over any other modern era and yet we seem to be in the midst of a backlash at the moment. Not only the usual RTD and David Tennant lovefests, but accusations of sexism and poor writing techniques that, most of the time, RTD actively revelled in. If one more person claims that Moffat is a poorer writer because uses deus ex machinas as a crutch when Davies essentially ended a whole storyline with the 'I do believe in fairies!' sequence from Peter Pan turning the Doctor into space Jesus... I may have to start slapping people.

So, what is there to be done about this niggling little irrational feeling in the back of my head? Is it just a greater symptom of nerd culture, always being on the outside track while the rest of the world enjoys their long running soap operas and all dominating football broadcasts? Well, maybe. But maybe it's also about adjustment of expectation and focusing more on the things you personally love about something than what other people hate about it.

Sure it would've been nice to have more Being Human, but what we got was still some of the best British genre television I've ever seen. Yes the Marvel collection may have been more popular, but I still have over one hundred fantastic figurines and a lot of fond memories from getting them! As for Moffat's Who, four words - Day of the Doctor. And everything that surrounded it.

It seems the universe is also giving me something of a helping hand. You may recall my surprise at In The Flesh getting a second series (something I still haven't managed to catch due to my lengthy hospital stays) and further than this, Utopia is back too! Two highly interesting, really clever sci-fi series that I thought were gone after the first round and there they are, both continuing on. Add to that the recent news that Pacific Rim is lined up for a sequel and I'm a happy bunny. Sure, it'll never hit the giddy heights of Transformers money, but if it did, if it compromised to be that popular, it wouldn't be what I loved. And that's what's important, the things I love may never set the world on fire and they may be killed in their prime, but at least they were bloody excellent while they lasted!

WHAT IF... Captain America was African American!?

If there's one topic that keeps popping up in terms of superhero movies lately, it's the idea of 'racebent', 'colourblind', or whatever other term you wish to label it with casting. This became something of a minor issue for the original Thor movie, when Heimdall, a character who traditionally looked something like this...

Wound up looking more like this...

And overnight became the number one way of telling who was a petty racist in the world of comic books and the movies that surround them. 

Of course, when the movie came out and the rest of the world saw what anybody who'd seen Idris Elba in anything did with the character, any murmur of the character being the wrong colour was soon forgotten (or at least sidelined to the point where the only rebut you'll ever need is a clip of Elba as Heimdall doing anything on screen) and it's also not the first, or last, time something like this has happened. Say what you like about Daredevil, but Michael Clarke Duncan's portrayal of Kingpin may well be the best representation that character we can hope for. Then of course there was Laurence Fishburne as Perry White in Man of Steel, an actor who sadly wasn't given the time to show us what he could do with that character, and the more high profile casting of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Yes, I know it's a direct lift from the Ultimates universe, but still the point still stands. All these actors took on characters that are traditionally seen as white, and not only did the world not come to a horrific end, but the vast majority of them were nothing short of superb. 

Now the debate rides again, coming about as a more high profile white character, the Human Torch, has been cast as black actor Michael B. Jordan. Now I have to admit, I don't really have a horse in this race. The only thing I've seen with Jordan in is Chronicle and that was a movie with problems far beyond it's acting talent. Of course, the new Fantastic Four movie also has problems of it's own beyond the race changing of a single character that worry me, but I've been catching little pieces of the debate from time to time and when I heard that John Byrne had chimed in? Morbid curiosity got the better of me and I decided to go have a look. I refuse to link to that man's forum, but here's a Bleeding Cool link that about covers it. 

Now I have to admit, I went into reading this expecting to roll my eyes at best, or want to punch my monitor at worst, but despite missing the point in places, providing a genuinely awful example of this kind of casting in other kinds of movies and eventually devolving into the worst excesses of comic book fan entitlement that he blames the public representation of fans for in an earlier paragraph there are points I actually agree with him on, and I think it's one of the most sane and reasonable things I've read from the man on this kind of issue. I mean, he didn't brand a whole gender of a single race hookers just for the colour of their hair this time, so it's progress right? I suppose if I really wanted to take him to task, I'd argue that Stan Lee is big enough and old enough to speak up for himself and a man who writes a story about Big Barda being brainwashed into making hardcore pornography is the very last person who should be lecturing others on respecting Jack Kirby's characters. So wheeling out the whole 'Spirit of what Lee and Kirby intended' is just... Bollocks, quite frankly. But I digress. 

The two things I really took away from all this is the complete agreement that Marvel and DC should be doing more to promote their minority characters. Cripes, doing more to promote their female characters would be wonderful. However I don't think giving Nick Fury an obscure, coloured SHIELD agent as a sidekick is really as powerful a step forward as having one of the top black actors of our time playing the character who is most associated with counter-intelligence in the Marvel universe. Yet I do feel like Marvel in particular could be doing so much more with the minority characters they've already introduced. While War Machine and Falcon are unlikely to be able to support their own movies (yet!) I do have to ask, why wasn't War Machine in Avengers? Pepper Potts was, and she's not even Tony's superheroic partner! Or more importantly, why is there seemingly no sign of Falcon in Avengers 2? He was still with Steve at the end of the movie, surely if there's anyone Rodgers would want to have his back it would be the man who helped him save SHIELD from itself simply because it was the right thing to do. 

The other thing Byrne's comments left me pondering was exactly what makes race important to a character, and how interchangeable it is. Hollywood is pretty ruthless with changing nationalities, or casting actors of one nationality to play a character of another, is this really any different? To me, the answer seems to be 'it depends'. Does it really matter what colour Johnny Storm's skin is? Not really, although it would be nice if they cast Sue as the same race. Yes I know even biological siblings can have different skin colour, but to be honest I'd rather they just cast them both black or both white than having to waste movie time explaining why they are as they are. The important part of Storm's character comes from his firebrand, fun loving personality and the powerful bond he shares with his family - And that's something that transcends skin colour. Heck, somebody in the comments on that article mentioned Reed Richards being played by Denzel Washington and I have to admit... I would be all over that. 

But as I climbed down the rabbit hole, there were some characters where a change of skin tone would fundamentally change them at the core. This became most apparent with time locked characters. Technically as leader of the Howling Commandos, this should have been Fury. But naturally you can't have him stealing Cap's shtick on screen, and I think this, more than his race accounts for a lot of the problems with the character Byrne brought up. He doesn't have his history, his dyed in the wool pedigree like he does in the comics - It simply doesn't work here. So really, we know very little about him other than the fact he lurks around the Helicarrier and gives orders. It's something I'd love to see them expand on, and I'm very glad he finally got some great focus in The Winter Soldier.

Speaking of Cap though, how different would that movie have been at it's very core had they cast a black actor as Steve Rodgers? How many social issues would they have had to tackle head on or look silly for straight up ignoring? His back story could almost be untouched, just take on a more poignant element for the fact that not only are big, dumb jocks getting him down for being too weedy to do well... Most anything really, but society itself is telling him he's a second class citizen. So this runty little guy with no prospects whatsoever decides the only way he can make anything of himself is by joining the army. Literally, the only way.

Of course, this is where the movie could perhaps borrow a lot of elements from the backstory of Isaiah Bradley, an African American who was part of a test program to recreate the super soldier program during World War II. Now you might ask why not just make a movie about Isaiah Bradley, then? Because I think there's something inherently more interesting about the government choosing to test their maiden voyage with this project on minorities, and then rolling it out to get their golden haired, blue eyed, perfect Aryans and other assorted pretty white boys once they knew it was safe. The problem with Isaiah Bradley is he's never going to have the same impact as Captain America, because they already have their perfect product. If that initial experiment that Thorin Oakenshield was so discourteous to disrupt with explosions had only produced a single, solitary super soldier - And he was a person of colour? Well, where does the American government go from there?

Can they still use him as a propaganda piece like they did with Rodgers in the movie? Or do they just package him off on secret, behind enemy lines mission and be content they have a pretty powerful weapon in the war - Just one they'd rather not everybody see! You also have to wonder what Cap himself would do. Would he just roll with whatever his military superiors told him to do, or choose to use his new found power and influence to fix some things at home as well as abroad? There's a great sentiment in the first Captain America movie, where after a life of being pushed around and watching other people be pushed around, Steve Rodgers has dedicated the rest of his days to fighting bullies big and small and sees very little difference between Red Skull and his cronies and the big, dumb guys who made his own life hell other than the scale on which they work. What happens when the people who made your life hell have the law on their side in some circumstances? Hrm. 

Now, I just want to be clear I'm not advocating that this movie should be made. I personally find the idea fascinating, and if pulled off well it would definitely be a thought provoking and potentially eye opening piece. But for somebody who's favourite superhero movie so far is, indeed, Captain America the first, it wouldn't really make for a good punchy, dynamic comic book action movie. Plus I'm a big fan of keeping characters true to their source material on a basic level, I like all the core elements and broad brush strokes to be there to make the character recognisable, while film makers can go wild on the less important things. I just think that when it comes to race? If changing it is a big deal or not really does depend on the extent it effects the character. 

Nobody is going to care if Aquaman isn't white. Heck, with the casting of native Hawaiian Jason Momoa as the king of Atlantis I think we're going to confirm that for a fact very soon indeed. He's Atlantean, he could technically be any colour he liked. But when you start messing with characters who have very strong connections to a certain culture, time period or geographical area? Then things start getting tricky, as you risk changing that character beyond recognition. The most obvious examples are the minority characters that already exist to try to bring some diversity to the titles, but if we want to step back to the Fantastic Four, think about Doctor Doom. He's the ruler of a small, Eastern European country through hereditary ties, could he really be anything else than what he is and still have it believable? 

At the end of the day though, it's all about one thing - Casting the best man or woman for the job at any given time, and if comic book movies can keep that up? Like they did with Sam Jackson, Michael C. Duncan and Idris Elba? Yeah, I can be a happy bunny and not get too pent up about this issue. Of course, if they don't, I choose less to think of it as an example of 'forced token casting' ruining our movies, and more just flat out bad casting period. I hope whatever happens with the new Fantastic Four movie, Michael B. Jordan is able to prove he's anything but that. 

In Defence of Iron Man 3.

Now I've returned home and the release dates are no longer conspiring against me (released in the UK while I was in the US, not released in the US until I returned to the UK) I've finally seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier. My thoughts? It's a very strong entry into Marvel's line of superhero movies, only really let down by the poor writing of Black Widow and the even poorer acting ability of Scarlett Johansson. I already had a bias here, as I think I'm one of the few men on the planet who isn't dazzled by how attractive her body is, and I never really bought her initial performance as a former KGB agent all the way back in Iron Man 2. Seeing and reading how much effort Mickey Rouke put in for the same movie, learning Russian, visiting gulags, really throwing himself into the role - I always found how little work Johansson put in by comparison, for a much bigger role, to be insulting. As the movies have rolled on, it's become more and more apparent that she can't really emote for toffee and has very limited chemistry with anyone she's on screen with so despite liking the character of Black Widow in the comics, the idea of her appearing in the movies is an instant black mark for me. Although to be fair to her, I tried to imagine a better actress pulling off the dialogue and characterisation she was given in the new Cap movie, and really couldn't picture them doing much better. So given what she was working with, it's at least not all her fault this time? 

That being said, Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie were superb as the Winter Soldier and Falcon respectively, and it was fantastic to finally see Nick Fury step out of his role as enigmatic director a little and actually get some solid action scenes. The amount of villains they snuck under the radar and how they handled them were a nice surprise too, and overall I give the film a pretty big thumb up. I didn't enjoy it as much as Cap'n America the first, but then I thought that World War II aesthetic was a breath of fresh air for a superhero movie, and I'll always secretly long for more of that kind of thing and resent The Avengers a teeny, tiny bit for not allowing them to explore it. 

One thing I genuinely dislike about Winter Soldier though, is the reaction to it. Not that it's been at all negative, but one thing I've seen time and time again, especially from my friends across the pond, is statements along the lines of 'THAT is how you do a sequel Iron Man 3!'. Honestly? I don't get it. I really don't get it. 

Okay, that's a lie, I kind of get it, but only when it comes to the trigger sensitive issue of the Mandarin, and we'll get to him later, but I've always thought that Iron Man 3 was one of Marvel studio's triumphs, on par with or perhaps just nudging past the original Iron Man in quality. 

Iron Man 3 showed us a Tony Stark who had to overcome more than a man in a suit like his or some Russian dude with whips on his arms and an over-glorified cockatoo. In that movie, he has to finally come to terms with the myriad of personal problems that have manifested in past movies (especially in Iron Man 2) as well as face up to an enemy that has exploited those issues and left Stark with zero resources to fight back with. If there was one movie that really developed Stark's character and personality, and really forced him to grow as a character, it was this one. All that pomp and arrogance that led to the climatic 'I'm Iron Man!' scene in the first movie comes back to haunt him, and while that aspect of his personality is never truly going to go away, three did humble him just a little. 

Beyond that though, three allowed us to see a Tony Stark that was truly a genius in practical terms. We all know that he can create massive arc reactors that can power entire towers, program robot butlers to attend to his every need - Christ, without Richards or Hank Pym on the scene and Banner being more a geneticist, Stark is the lead 'Weird Scientist' of the Marvel cinematic universe. But in three we really got to see him put that mind to work and turn nothing into something. We got to see that the actual hero was more than just money and a suit, but the brains and courage behind it. Which led to some fantastic, Bondequse scenes of Stark working with smaller, McGuyvered together gadgets to get things done when his suit wasn't an option. 

But let's say you don't care about character development or story? Well, first of all, screw you sir/madam! You're the kind of person that keeps Michael Bay in business and that I cannot abide! I cannot abide!! But if you happen to like your action, Iron Man 3 has the kind of action set pieces that the first could only dream about. The rescue from the plane was exciting and intense, and say what you like about Aldritch Killian as a villain, the final battle with the dozens of automated Iron Man suits zipping around was rather wonderful. I know I cheered when I spotted the Hulkbuster like piece of armour, and I'm sure if I had a very patient and precise thumb on the pause button and a book of Iron Man armour types I could find quite a few from the comics and past movies tucked away in there. 

So, great characterisation of the main protagonist and great action, let's get down to the story, shall we? And this is where I can kind of understand where some have problems with this film. As a comic book fan, I tend to get very... Terse when film producers mess with characters I love. I feel that while change is a necessity when it comes to adaptation, if you don't keep the core spirit of the characters and world alive you may as well not bother doing the adaptation at all and work on an original project. There's an argument to be made that the core spirit of the Mandarin wasn't kept intact, however I'd counter that with the fact that it was never supposed to be the Mandarin in the first place. If you're upset about the bait and switch, that's fair enough, but to paraphrase the man himself - I never saw it coming, and was surprised to actually be caught off guard by a twist in a film. There's also the fact that most fans of the Iron Man comics I've spoke too tend to shrug this off and say that between them, Killian and Trevor make decent representations of the classic and ultimate universe Mandarin's. 

I don't know, I may be biased on this point because I thought Ben Kingsley's role as failing luvvie actor Trevor Slattery provided some of the most entertaining moments of the movie, and far surpassed his turn as the more serious, terrorist leader. I also saw it as an intriguing twist rather than a bait and switch. I found the plot they presented far more interesting than a potential 'Uh oh, the Ten Rings sound like trouble! Better spend the movie hunting them down and then triumphing over them!' if only because that's the plot of most every other superhero film ever. If the Mandarin is still a sticking point for you, though, well perhaps you should get around to picking up a copy of Thor 2: The Dark World as it has this little gem on it...

A one-shot that effectively answers the Mandarin question once and for all, and gives us the final fate of poor old Trevor Slattery. Some may call it a cop-out, or Marvel caving to pressure, and maybe it is, but hey! At least they did it in style.

Putting this aside, the one thing I loved about Iron Man 3 above all else was that it felt like an end to the trilogy. I was worried that with a new director coming on board, it would feel fundamentally different to the other films. But I need not have worried, as instead it felt like a fabulous capstone to the trilogy that tied the films together into one cohesive story but still left room for Stark to appear as part of the Avengers movies. I came out of the cinema thinking I'd be happy not to see another Iron Man film ever again, not because it was bad, more because it just felt like the character's story had come to a natural end and anything that came along afterwards would just feel tacked on. I can't remember having that feeling before, even in films designed to be trilogies, it just felt like the perfect way to tie off the whole thing. 

For me, the tone of Iron Man 3 felt perfect for an Iron Man movie, the characterisation was excellent (not just of Stark himself, but of Pepper, Rhodey, Trevor, Killian, even the kid they paired him up with managed to come off feeling like a regular kid, not a creep-under-your-skin-annoying movie savant kid), the acting was of the high quality I'd come to expect from these movies, the action scenes were fantastic and the story really brought the whole thing to a close in a grand style. It's for these reasons, and I'm sure a few others if I really scratched around in my brain, that I just can't understand why Iron Man 3 is the Marvel sequel that everyone seems to run down in comparison to the others. Personally, I take the opinion that it's one of the best sequels that Marvel has released so far and exactly what I was looking for in an Iron Man film. 

Does it have the same tone and focus as films featuring other characters in the same universe? No. But then again, none of them do when compared to each other. That's the whole point of The Avengers and why it seemed so impossible to accomplish on film for so many years. Disparate heroes, from different times and dimensions, who come from very different origins and lend themselves, individually, to very different kinds of stories coming together onto one team to fight for freedom and justice. And even though they're very different movies, Iron Man 3 was exactly what I was looking for when it came to Iron Man, in the same way The Winter Soldier was exactly what you'd expect from a modern Captain America story. Stark is a sarcastic smartarse with his flaws as front and centre as his shining attributes, while Cap struggles with a sense of moral justice that many in the modern world think is outmoded and impractical. It makes for very different movies, but in my opinion? Two fantastic sequels, and all this 'THAT is how you do a sequel, in your FACE Iron Man 3!!!!' nonsense every time Marvel releases a follow up to anything needs to stop. Because if anything, when it comes to Marvel sequels - Iron Man led the way! 

The Aies in the Airwaves.

I feel like I'm going to need to apologise for this post in advance. I was up until six am last night, and awoke around ten which means I'm living on four hours sleep here, so please, be kind. Why would I do this to myself, you may be asking? Or more importantly, why is this relevant to anything? Well, last night was the recording of the début episode of the third iteration of the Now Playing NOW podcast. For those curious, this is a movie and TV reviews podcast that is the baby of a good friend of mine, Theron Reynolds, who hosted it a number of years ago with his team of 'Silver Screen Specialists'. Three years down the line and he's back! Only now he has an all new, all different, all wonderful team of specialists behind him...

... And I happen to be one of them.

That's right folks, I've slipped from the written page into the airwaves of the internet, after Theron was kind enough to invite myself and a couple of our good friends from Seattle to join his show. I'm going to admit right now that when I signed up? I had no idea it was going to be a reboot of a former podcast, and I did have a number of doubts before going in. The main one, as always, rested with myself. This isn't my first podcast, but it is my first one that isn't just dicking about with friends. Naturally there's some dicking about with friends involved, it wouldn't be fun otherwise, but this is the kind of dicking about with friends that carried the extra pressure of making a quality product at the end of said dicking about. I wasn't sure I was cut out to be an entertaining personality on a podcast, and knowing that we were essentially slipping into somebody else's skin? That fans of the old show's format and hosts might not take to us nearly as well? They were things that played heavily on my mind in the weeks prior to the recording and it remains to be seen if those fears are going to be justified. Although I hope everyone will be kind enough to give us a chance!

We'd originally set up to record early on Sunday morning, at eight am my time. I had a rather restless night beforehand, full of very anxious dreams, only to find that due to technical issues it would be impossible to record that day. We agreed, later in the day, to move the recording to one o'clock on Tuesday morning. An unreasonable time for some, but I'm practically a professional insomniac so I knew I could handle it. More problems arose, and time crept on. One came and went, then half one, two, I was afraid that I was going to be forced to bail on them and we'd have to push it back again. Come three o'clock though, the stars finally aligned and the magic happened... And do you know what? I thought it was wonderful.

I'd been dead on my feet all day, barely staying awake, but when the podcast started and we sank our teeth into the discussion topics we'd selected? It was very easy to get swept up in the excitement of it all. Theron, Ashley and Travis were as animated and amusing as always, and I want to give a special shout out to the new guy of our little band of Podcasteers, Phil. The amount of work he did behind the scenes was both staggering and a little scary, and his technical expertise made the whole thing so much smoother than it would have been otherwise. Overall it was a very positive experience, and the hours sailed by (we were even over by a little, oops!). It was a joy to both take part in, and to listen in to the other hosts chat back and forth, sharing their views. I think we've got a really good team together here, with perhaps the niggling feeling of doubt that I'm the weakest link of the bunch - But that's just how I'm wired. I'll happily throw myself into something, I may even tell you that I think my contribution to it is good, but always, at the back of my mind... Here, why don't you judge for yourself. Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, may I present to you the star of this blog post - Episode one of Now Playing NOW! Go ahead, listen, I'll wait.

Now Playing NOW! Episode 102 - Animated Kid Movies Adults Will Love

Enjoy? I hope so! If you'd like to keep abreast of the epic journey I'm sure this podcast is going to take, as well as be notified when later episodes go up, be sure to like our Facebook page over here. I'd also like to reiterate the shout out that I gave to Tony in the episode, as he's been a great inspiration for me in both starting and forging forward with this blog. It was also his post on An American Tail that led me to suggest we review it as part of the theme for the podcast. Be sure to check out his own take on the movie as well as his blog in general. He writes some interesting, introspective posts on life, London and Batman. Always Batman.

I also seem to recall that I might have claimed that the Pirate Tinkerbell movie was not only a movie that looked good, but also the only trailer I saw before LEGO that looked worthwhile. All I can say is that I'm a complete idiot who forgot that I'd seen the trailer for the second Muppet movie as well (it looks great, by the way! I'm hoping we can cover it on the show!) and that I was operating under severe sleep deprivation.  Or, perhaps, I just have some deep seated psychophysical issues that can only be resolved by watching fairy themed films for girls. It's an outside chance, but you never know...

 Naturally, I appreciate your feedback so be sure to let me know what you think! I also hope you'll tune in for future episodes, and follow me on this journey into a vast, unknown portion of the internet. At least, vast and unknown for me. Don't worry, though, there'll still be plenty of book impressions and nonsense going on over here, as always, too! And perhaps some exciting news beyond that, which Theron gave a little hint to in the podcast above. I don't want to say too much right now, as I'm not quite sure how everything is going to work yet, but the times they are definitely a changing, and I hope you'll still be along for the ride!

The Cold Black OCP

This week, I believe, sees the release of Robocop, the future of the future of law enforcement! A remake of the 1987 classic satire about corporate greed, corrupt law enforcement and the struggle of mankind to balance it's humanity against the tidal wave of technological development. An absolute world away from our current, cyber-prep utopia where big business is all hugs and puppies, the police are infallible demi-gods who are never on the take and there are absolutely, positively no concerns, worries, qualms or even minor niggles about the rapid rise of technological development. So naturally, with all the themes of the movie as out of date as they are, and all the wry criticisms aimed at problems that just aren't a problem in this modern world; and! Come to think of it, did we really need all that blood and violence?! Oh no, of course not, we don't need all that grotesque body horror leaving our viewers questioning if our main character is more corporate machine than man, nor do we need all that excessive brutality to further blur the lines between the corporations and the criminal gangs until it all blurs into one. No, quite right, absolutely no place or relevance in that these days - So of course, it was only natural that this remake needed to happen. Nobody could possibly enjoy the old film on it's own merits now, right?

... Right?!

Okay, I don't think my internal sarcasm metre can take much more of this without blowing several major gaskets, and bursting into a rather ominous blue-green flame, so I'm going to draw a line under that right now. The truth is, Robocop isn't just one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made, it's also one of my favourite films full stop.Possibly the favourite. I adore the hyper violence, I adore the cyberpunk trappings, I adore the snappy dialogue and one liners, I adore the characters and I adore the barbed wire satire that still stings today even through it's big shoulder padded, floppy haired eighties trappings. Given this fact, the Robocop remake would seem like perfect blog fodder for me - But there's two problems.

The first is that I just have no interest in seeing it. Not even from the standpoint of morbid curiosity. It doesn't, in truth, even look particularly bad. In fact, I almost wish it did, because what it does look is something even worse - It looks boring. The only person who looks like they're having any fun in their role from the trailers is Michael Keaton, and considering he was almost the only thing worth watching in The Other Guys I don't really see that as much to shout about. The world looks like one of charcoal concrete, shimmering skyscrapers and gunmetal grey (see, for reference, almost every other modern science fiction movie) and Robocop himself looks like he has more in common with Master Chief than Judge Dredd in cyborg form.

The second? You don't need me to tell you why Robocop is great. You all know why Robocop is great, each and every one of you, even if you don't agree with those things and only know them as why other people think the film is great. If I like Robocop the remake or not, anything I write on it is going to be overshadowed by those things. I did consider writing something on Robocop 2 which I consider the best thing Frank Miller has ever produced, and a worthy successor to the original and other people see as barely a baby step up from the horror that is Robocop 3. But to be honest with you, the Robocop remake hasn't really got under my skin yet. The advertising blitz for it either hasn't arrive in full force, or just plain isn't coming, and I'm half expecting it to whimper in the spotlight and limp off with it's tail between it's legs like the Total Recall remake did. Even if it doesn't, well as I alluded to above, Robocop 3 has already happened, so it's not like it can be the worst thing to ever happen to the franchise.

So let's grab the metaphorical wheel of this blog and turn it right around to an adaptation of a previous work that I actually think matters!

Let's talk about Coraline.

Coraline is a 2002 children's novel by Neil Gaiman. It's also a 2009 stop-motion animated film by Henry Selick. Both are about a young girl who finds another world on the other side of a door, both are brilliant in their own way and both have been consumed by me very recently. I've had intentions to read Coraline for a very long time, and have owned the movie for almost a year now and never watched it. I always wanted to read the novel first, but never got my hands on the novel, so never got around to watching the movie and I think you can see how this cycle went. Well, I picked up the novel just before Christmas, and just this week have finally broken the cycle.

Having devoured and thoroughly enjoyed the book, I was greatly looking forward to the film. I'm a big fan of stop-motion animation, and a huge fan of Henry Selick's big claim to fame, The Nightmare Before Christmas. Let me be clear, before I say anything else, Coraline the movie is beautiful. It's beautifully made, beautifully put together and the art style and slightly jerky, inhuman movements suit the tone and style of the book very well. There are also some very well thought out camera angles, coming up from under desks and between bushes to give you the idea that you're not only the audience, but a silent, stalking, ethereal watcher peering into Coraline's personal life. It sends a chill down your spine from the very first scene, and leaves you with a creeping sense of unease right through the first half of the movie. If this was a silent movie, I'd wish everyone a jolly well done and say it was a shame they didn't have any words in it - After all, did they see the book? That has nothing but words in it, and it's rather wonderful!

The problem, which hindered my enjoyment of the film more than I'd have liked, was the characters. I didn't really find an awful lot to like in the interpretation of Coraline herself and her family that the film presented to us. Coraline herself was loud, obnoxious and bordering on bratty and her parents were on the border of just being plain neglectful. This wouldn't be too much of a problem, there's an element of the brat in the book Coraline too afterall (her refusal to eat anything her dad eats, because it looks disgusting for example) and we all know full well that children can be this way, as can their parents. But the problem is I've seen all this before. It's one of the standard, fall-back parent/children relations. I'm going to be sarcastic and dismissive to you until you pay attention to me, well I'm going to ignore you because my job is more important than you'll ever be, GOD!  You're the worst parents ever! I'm going to my room! *slam* It gets to the point where you completely understand why the parents can't stand the child, and the child can't stand the parent, and why the snake will continue to eat it's own tail but I'm bored of it. Especially when I've seen the same story, given a better treatment in this regards.

In the book, none of the characters are really expecting anything too unreasonable. It's obvious that they all love each other in a way that the film family is never shown too, the story that Coraline tells the cat about her dad being one of the most moving in the entire book. It's just everyone has their priorities in a different order. Coraline wants to explore and keep occupied and for people to get her name right and pay a touch more attention to her, but appreciates at least that her parents are trying. Their efforts just don't always live up to her expectations. Her parents also are aware they have a responsibility to look after her, but at the same time they have their own busy lives to juggle and sometimes those two needs just don't sync up. Coraline knows, for example, that her not being able to go outside isn't just her parents being unreasonable mudaphobes and keeping her inside is actually for her own well being. Just like her father only gives her the list of windows, doors, blue things, etc. to count because he knows his daughter is going crazy being couped up inside, and tries to help her as best he can in the current circumstances. It certainly never struck me as an 'I'm so freaking busy I have no time for you right now please go away so I can finish my work, please, please, pleeeeeeassseee!!!!' ploy like it did in the movie.

I suppose my point is, the family in the book felt like real people who, by and large, wanted the same thing - But not at the same time. And those things they did clash on (such as cooking, clothes shopping, etc.) really stood out. The family in the movie just seem cobbled together from screenwriter tropes of headstrong, snarky young girl and strung out, out of touch workaholic family.

Where the film does shine, however, is in recreating the more grandiose spectacles of the book, and creating a few more of it's own. The theatre belonging to the Other World Spink and Forcible was an absolute wonder to behold, and I think the Mouse Circus ranks alongside the Pink Elephants in Dumbo as an utterly bewilderingly beautiful sequence that I'll be hard pressed to forget. The problem tends to be that the art style lends itself so well to the weird and wonderful, that the real world seems barely grounded in reality itself. Spink, Forcible and the Old Man in the book are hugely eccentric, but they're the kind of eccentric I can believe. In the movie, they do and say things that seem more in line with the Other World and it blurs the line between the two, making the real world seem like an unnerving, dull grey, slightly off key place and the Other World seem like a circus parody of the entire thing. Compared to the description of Coraline's Other Father, or the fate of Other Spink and Other Forible in the book, what we're presented with seems tame. Especially when taken in conjunction with Chris Riddell's haunting visuals.

Taken from Illiustrationcupboard

Neil Gaiman's world is one of scrapped bloody knees, gouged faces, rats that bleed blood and not sand and altogether feels more dangerous and imperative. It feeds the imagination like a good book is supposed too, but a movie, especially a children's movie, doesn't have that liberty. In an already visual format, something has to give, and I think despite that, the film did a good enough job. While the final encounters with the other inhabitants of that world may not have lived up to expectations, the final encounter with the Other Mother? That was all the best parts of the movie rolled into one. The chilly atmosphere of the first half returned in full force, the sense of danger went right up to eleven and the whole thing was a visual feast as Coraline raced to escape her inevitable doom. It is also incredibly unfair to pit the visuals in the movie to the slow, bubbling recesses of my imagination that the author managed to stoke - I've been in my head. Spent my entire life there, in fact. I'm very well aware of which one is going to win.

The one thing I can't really forgive the film for, though, is the ending. I'm going to try not to spoil it, but I will say that at the end of the book, Coraline survives through her own wits and ingenuity. In the film, however, she's saved. It's kind of a running theme, when I think about it. Things she was clever enough to work out on her own, she was hinted towards or out right told about in the film. I don't really mind that so much, as I suppose with the lack of an internal monologue you could put it down to letting the audience know what's going on as much as Coraline herself, but the tweak to the ending kind of did leave a slightly sour note in my mouth - Mainly because it solidified this Coraline as one who doesn't really stack up to the one in the book. But I think I've been down this road before on this very blog with a Miss Mina Murray, so I'll just stop now and say I thought it was a bit of a disappointment. But not movie breaking. In fact, all is almost forgiven simply on the basis of Keith David as the cat being an utterly delightful casting choice that always made me grin like, well, the Cheshire Cat whenever he opened his mouth. I don't want to say it was the best thing about the movie... I'l just be over here, secretly thinking it.

All comparisons and analysis aside, Coraline is a fantastic children's book, that was transformed into an interesting, although very different children's movie which is perfectly good on it's own merits. Check 'em both out, read the book to your children if you have any - They'll thank you for it, one day. And if they don't, they're probably ungrateful bastards who probably has more in common with film Coraline anyway.