What is Jumping the Shark?

Here is the definition and history for the term, thanks to Wikipedia. Despite the fact this is a movie blog, this term is thrown around a ton, and I sometime want to scream "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means" -(Indigo Montoya, Princess Bride) because people keep throwing it around without knowing what it means, so here you go.

Jumping the shark is a colloquialism used by TV critics and fans to denote that point in a TV show or movie series' history where the plot veers off into absurd story lines or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations, particularly for a show with falling ratings apparently becoming more desperate to draw viewers in. In the process of undergoing these changes, the TV or movie series loses its original appeal. Shows that have "jumped the shark" are typically deemed to have passed their peak.
The phrase refers to a scene in a three-part episode of the American TV series, Happy Days, first broadcast on September 20, 1977. In the third of the three parts of the "Hollywood" episode, Fonzie (Henry Winkler), wearing swim trunks and his trademark leather jacket, jumps over a penned-in shark while water skiing.

Why don't we have Friends on the Big Screen?

Which one are you most like, Joey, Ross, ahh, I got it, the Chan-Chan man. What about you, are you the anal Monika, the flaky Phoebe or the annoying Rachel. These questions are still in pop culture lore. One of the most loved TV series of all time, Friends set records for viewers, and for DVD sales, and I loved it, I mean, it jumped the shark (the history for that will be in the next post) with about 2 seasons to go, but I really loved the perfect comedy, the well placed drama and, especially the chemistry between the group, which is hard to maintain for so long with such a large cast. So, the question is, with the success of Sex and the City and the upcoming sequel, along with any other TV shows turning into movies these days, why is one of the best not the first one in line. Friends had a huge following, and spanned a large demographic, but why has that not translated to the big screen?
I read a possible reason the other day, someone said that people were used to seeing these beloved characters for free, and were not willing to pay to see them now. Yet another had stated it's because of terrible attempts at the big screen by its cast, and he was right, let's think of a few of the movies they tried to do.
Lisa Kudrow attempted Marci X, and Lucky Numbers; Matt LeBlanc attempted Lost in Space and Ed; David Schwimmer was in 6 days and 7 nights and The Pallbearer; Courtney Cox has done 3000 miles to Graceland, and Scream; you had Jennifer Anniston who got dumped by Bradd Pitt and Picture Perfect; and finally, my favorite, Chandler's Matthew Perry did Whole Nine Yards (which I loved) and Fools Rush In, along with Tango and Cash and Serving Sarah.
None of these movies have done anything, so has their track record turned off Hollywood execs from taking a chance, or perhaps has the story simply run it's course, and the creative minds behind the series simply run out of stories? The actors have all said they would be up for a movie, given the right script, so, let's get the gang back together to save the world from an atomic bomb, or perhaps stop an alien invasion, or, maybe, just sit around the coffee house and remind us all of a comfortable time, with some people we all consider friends.

SAG Strike eminent?

The Screen Actors Guild has announced a strike is likely with talks continuing to break down, which will lead to a stoppage of TV and Cinema with all actors going on strike. The latest is a result of the previous screenwriters guild strike. The screenwriters were wanting money, and especially royalties for online and DVD money. The actors are looking for something similar, and to cash in on things like Netflix money, DVD releases and additional benefits.
So, what do you think, do these multimillionaires deserve to be compensated for their hard work and dedication, and does that compensation need to be updated for the future, or are these overpaid actors just complaining and demanding more of an over-inflated business?
In my opinion, I do think actors are way too overpaid for their talents, and with this big business, it is hurting the heart of some movies. That being said, I do think their compensation package is old, and outdated, and they should be treated like other workers, and most workers have had their compensation packages updated for the twenty first century; and they caved for the screen writers, it's a given you need to cave for the actors.
Look for this to affect nearly all TV and cinema very shortly. Let's hope this gets resolved very shortly!

Striking while the iron is hot...

So, there are two big rumors, circulating, that seem to have more than a little fact behind them.
The first is for all the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans out there, with the huge success of Twilight, Joss Whedon (the creator of Buffy, and my favorite, Firefly) is set to present an already finished script this week for a Buffy movie. With so much attention to Vampires in TV and movies lately, there seems to be a lot of talk, saying this will be given the green light to start pre-production as early as next year. Actress Sarah Michelle Geller Prinze Jr. (are we not forgetting a name?) has already said she would be up for a movie if it ever gets made.

The other bit of info has been circulating for awhile, but now, seems to have a script and contracts in place for a Police Academy 8. That's right, moviegoers, I said EIGHT. The beloved series that gave Steve Guttenberg is start to international fame, and now, no fame at all is coming back, with Guttenberg starring as the iconic, comedic Mahoney. According to Guttenberg, they are ready to start pre-production and everyone has signed on to return in their roles, with the exception of David Graf, who played Tackelberry. Unfortunately, he kicked the bucket, so he will not be returning for the rest of his life.

I don't know about you, but I'm actually kinda excited about both bits of news. I think the Buffy series was well written and directed at times, and has been, and could still be a great cultural influence on all ages, and could really turn into a franchise very quickly, and it's good to see success being rewarded. As far as Police Academy, I actually loved the first two, after that, it got really, really bad. I hope it can get back to the form it was in the 80's and deliver some great comedy.
So, that's the news so far, now go out there and try not to keel over from too much turkey!

Comics and movies?

No, this post is not about the flood of comic book movies out there right now. This post is because I read they are releasing comic books for several sci-fi movies coming out, including Star Trek, they are releasing some comics for my favorite sci-fi movie ever, Serenity, along with a new series for Iron Man, based on the movie.
So, is there a correlation between comics and movies? Would you be tempted to go pick up the comics before the movie comes out to prime yourself? I am right at the demographic, but I still don't have any intention of grabbing the comic books, if you wanna be super clever, post viral videos online of mini-stories prepping some side things that really don't have much to do with the movie, but it does get people psyched to see it, and keeps your mind on the upcoming movie. (that is MY idea, you CAN'T have it, J.J. ..... because, ya know, he often frequents my blog) But, seriously, having little side movies is a great way of getting the audience ready, especially for a sci-fi genre that really targets the Internet audience. Comics, however, I don't see the correlation, and will probably be lost in the confusion.
And, for all of you out there, reading and deciding to take some ideas and pitch them to movie companies, you ought to check out another J.J. Abrams movie, Cloverfield. That movie did "Viral marketing" better than anyone with text messaging, fake Myspace accounts, Youtube videos of news reports about activity before the movie, along with multiple websites. Two words: BRILLIANT!

Billy Ray Cyrus is back? Ha!

So, I just read today that Billy Ray Cyrus is starring in a movie opposite George Lopez and the great Jackie Chan called The Spy Next door. This got me to thinking, I've seen way, way more of Billy Ray lately than I would like to. He has starred in 3 movies, most of which were direct to DVD nightmares, but he is there, nonetheless. 'Where did he come from,' I wondered, and that is when it hit me; isn't his daughter some really famous chick? Not as famous as Miley Cyrus, right? What, she is Miley Cyrus? Oh yeah, that's where he came from, his daughter.
I find it terrible, bad parenting and a simply horrible ethical move to use your daughter to get rich and famous. I mean, it's terrible that you thrust her into the limelight, made her a Disney star and splashed her entire teenage years over every paper in the world, but now, he's using that fame to make himself famous too, and that's crossing the line. It is clear he would never be famous on his own merit (Achy Breaky Heart....c'mon!) so he has to use his daughters incredible charm. As Daffy Duck would say, 'you're dispickable.'
So, don't take any lessons of parenting from this guy, and don't see his movies, unless they look really good, or if he is in there for like 30 seconds, or if there is a really hot women in there....well, you get the point!

That didn't take long!

With the news that Twilight smashed records for box office dough this week, bringing in $70.5 million, they have already announced the sequel, New Moon.
The good news for any big fans out there, everyone has signed on for a three movie deal, so you will see Kristen Stewart back as the pale-skinned love interest. Apparently, the movie will be shooting as early as this spring, so look for the second to go toe-to-toe with Harry Potter in coming years.
So, who is gonna win, Edward or Harry? Harry has some more books, but Edward is what is fresh and new, and apparently, Edward is setting records for swooning teenagers, while Harry seems to be ok with flashing his junk on Broadway.
My money will be on Harry, but I do think the margin will be pretty close since the delay of this movie has disappointed quite a few, I think the PR machine needs to kick it into gear soon to generate some hype, or the fanged-one could make a run at the title!
What do you think, Harry or some vampire-type?

Quantum of Solace review:

So, I decided to brave the flood of teenage Twilight fans and go see Quantum of Solace last night. From what I could tell, going into the movie, it seemed more action and less spy, but I was still excited to see it. After I was done, I had some mixed opinions of the movie and thought I had just gone through and hour and a half of Michael Bay on crack, but it still wasn't a bad ride. Let me explain.

Bond is back, and he is brooding in this followup to Casino Royal, Daniel Craig picks right up where he left off, with the story starting twenty minutes after the end of the last movie (which means you need to see the first one before seeing the second or you will look like a monkey hooking up a surround sound). Daniel Craig is after the guy that put the hurting on his girlfriend, after a few great chase scenes, he realizes he has stumbled onto something much bigger with a group called QUANTUM (Reminds me too much of CHAOS, but whatever). Now, Bond is after this group and the people that harmed him at any cost. Along the way, he meets some really good characters, especially in Bond girl Olga Kurylenko who has an agenda of her own.

So, now that you know the story, let me get to the good in the movie. The action scenes were intense and the chases were very good. There is one scene he is in a boat and the entire time my mouth was hanging open, trying to soak up all the chase goodness only a Bond film can provide. Also, the characters were well portrayed, even if there wasn't as much back story as there could have been, Craig was good as a ticked off Bond, Olga played an equally disturbed Bond girl who actually has a story, Judy Dench plays a great M, as always, and the badguy, Mr. Green was very slimy and very unlikable, which is a good quality for a villain.

Now, the not so good. As I said before, this is very Michael Bay-ish, and I say that because I only saw one scene that was more than 4 seconds long, and most action scenes were barely 1 second before the camera cuts to another angle. This method is very good, used in moderation because he brings the audience to the edge of their seat, but it isn't used in moderation, it's throughout the entire movie, and most action scenes, the switching is so quick, it's hard to keep track of what is what, and which angle is up, you start to feel like your in Blair Witch at times.

As I had talked about in previous postings, this movie strays farther from the Bond of the cold war era, and more into the gritty, dark, bad ass anti-hero that seems to be all the rage in today's society (cough cough DARK KNIGHT cough cough), however, the movie did make a great action movie, but an only ok Bond movie. There was no Q, no great gadgets, just Bond beating the shit outta people. I would have like to see the traditional homage to Bond films past with the Martini line, or even a "Bond, James Bond," I would even have put up with a flight suit in the background, but this movie had none of that, it was too busy blowing things up and killing people. While I understand it's a new story for the classic character, I don't think its wise to not show some respect to the classic franchise.

Over all, not a bad action movie, I give it a 6.5 out of 10

Fun fact: First time that an actor (Jeffrey Wright) has played the Bond ally character of Felix Leiter in a consecutive Bond movie (the precursor film is Casino Royale (2006)). It is only the second time that an actor has played Leiter twice. David Hedison played him in Live and Let Die (1973) and Licence to Kill (1989).

Jamie Foxx as James Bond?

There is a report going around that some reporter has asked Jamie Foxx about what Quantum of Solace star Daniel Craig has said, saying "we are ready for a black James Bond." Obviously the role peaked the interest of Jamie Foxx, or vice versa. Apparently, Foxx said he would be interested.
Would you like Jamie Foxx as James Bond in the next movie? I remember when Daniel Craig was announced, supposed die hard fans were complaining and saying a blond Bond would be unacceptable, and now, most are saying that Craig is the man, so would Jaime Foxx receive the same problems with the same praise, I don't think so.
While there are great reasons Foxx could be the next Bond, I don't think it's a good move. Before you call me a racist, hear me out. Bond requires a bit of swagger and wit, and despite the two latest movies, Bond isn't as much of a Commando as he is a smooth talking, gadget wielding pimp, and Foxx has never shown he has the ability to do that. He can win an Oscar as Ray Charles, and he can shoot down planes in Stealth, but a suave, British spy, I don't think he has it in him. Are there other reasons I don't think he should be Bond, maybe, but that's my answer, convenient or not.
Do you think America is ready for a black James Bond? We just elected a black president, so is this the next logical step? I don't think so, not yet. I think that will be proof that America takes its movies more serious than the politics (I live in Florida, so I can say that!). But, maybe one day, there will be a black Bond, but don't do it to make a statement, do it because that person truly will be the best fit to take on the burden of such a role. I think the "statement" of such a person would blanket the quality of the film.
I do believe there is a difference between this and the story I had before, of Will Smith as Captain America. While there may be some statement making, I think they thought he would be the best for the role, I mean he is king of the summer blockbusters.
What do you think, is a black James Bond a good idea, or a problem in the making?

The new Mad Hatter!

So, here is a new picture of the amazingly talented, if not a little wacky Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter in Tim Burton's new movie Alice in Wonderland. Have you ever noticed Burton has a similar theme and look in every movie? Check out an old 1920 silent movie, made in Germany called The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0010323/) This is the movie that gave Burton his style. This movie is amazing and everyone should see it. Anyway, I digress, here's the pic.

Bond Vs. Bond, Round 2

"Human Beings fear change"-some philosopher dude.
First, we have Casino Royal, and now, Quantum of Solace, two movies that have reinvented the 007 series with a new star, a new enemy and a new, grittier approach, however, are they doing anything more than dividing Bond Fans?
It used to be the only discussion you would hear Bond fans talking about is 'who is better, Connery or Brosnan,' or 'which theme is number 2 on your list, cause we all know Live and Let Die is number one.' However, with the release of the second film, I'm noticing more and more people debating (that's the nicest way to describe it) whether or not this reinvention is reshaping the character they have loved for over 20 movies.
I am going to see the movie very shortly, but between Casino Royal and some reviews I have read so far, the biggest complaint I have heard is "it's not Bond," referring to the lack of swagger, sophistication and charm that Bond is known for. Instead, the film chooses to concentrate on more action, more of a darker, grittier Bond then perhaps what we are used to with the previous incarnations of Bond.
So, the question is, is a darker, more action packed Bond just a Bourne movie with an accent, or is this simply an evolution that is necessary to keep the character relevant in today's society? Let's face it, most of the people who will see this movie either don't know what the cold war was, or if they do, it's confined to history books, so that plot is out, but the swagger and style of Connery, Dalton, Moore and the rest has evolved into a more in-your-face Bond, and lets face it, that's what is selling tickets. I know I want to see a great car chase (a requirement for any good Bond film) I want to see why Bond is such a feared opponent by all his enemies, and I want to see Bond do more than just charm the ladies. What I don't want to see, however, is pretending the other films don't exist, and the fans aren't important, I think they will need to start bringing the two elements together to focus on a more badass Bond, but one is is suave, too. Is Daniel Craig the actor for that, I'm sure the ladies will say yes, I guess we'll find out.
So, who is right, is this an evolution of Bond, or is it a bastardization of a cinematic hero (I've always wanted to use 'bastardization,' it's such a great word to say, c'mon, say it, you know you want to)? In my opinion, they are simply laying the groundwork for a reinvention of the character, but they don't seem to be giving us much to start out with, I think the action is necessary, and money seems to point to the darker and grittier these days, cough Dark Knight, cough, but, for me, there is something comforting about those cheesy villains, those great one-liners, and the over the top action scenes, and I think, paying a bit more homage to that would be a smart move in reuniting such a passionate, and broad fan base.
So, go see Quantum of Solace, and remember, it's simply a foundation of things to come, are you going to like the direction of the modern Bond?

Get Smart review:

Would you believe the best movie ever; what about best movie of 2008; what about pretty damn funny? Get Smart, the rehashing of the old TV series, created by Mel Brooks makes it's comeback with Steve Carrell playing the iconic Maxwell Smart, made infamous by the late, amazing Don Adams in a quirky, fun comedy that will leave you wanting more.

The movie starts off with the iconic tunnel leading to the telephone booth that everyone remembers. Maxwell Smart has tried 8 times to become an agent, and finds out he does become one after the spy company, CONTROL, is attacked, and the identity of all but one agent is found out. The result is Maxwell Smart on is virgin mission with the gorgeous Agent 99, played by Anne Hathaway. The steaks couldn't be higher with the comeback of the nefarious group CHAOS, and their plans of global domination.

Steve Carrell hits the small mannerisms of Adams smart perfectly and had me in tears more than once with a modern version of the classic series. Hathaway does a good job at the hardcore spy 99, and looks gorgeous doing it, the movie has a good supporting cast that includes Dwayne "don't call me The Rock" Johnson, and Hero's Masi Oka as the gadget guru, and Alan Arkin as the Chief.

The movie was good because Smart wasn't so over the top stupid it was annoying. He had his moments of brilliance and his moments of stupidity (there is a scene with a blow-dart that comes to mind), there are plenty of hints for loyal fans of times past with the Cone of Silence, the original car Max Smart had, the original Sigfried made a cameo, and of course, the shoe phone. The good part, though, is you don't have to be familiar with the original to enjoy this movie. Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway had a great onscreen chemistry and I really hope they make another installment (which both Carrell and Hathaway have signed on to do so) because one movie was just not enough. This was a great family comedy with little violence, very little sexuality and a lot of laughs. I give it an 8 out of 10!

Fun Fact: The producers called Mel Brooks to ask his permission and input on redoing the series, and Mel Brooks simply asked "what are you going to call it?" The producers responded "Get Smart!" Mel Brooks just responded "that was smart!"

Watchmen is lookin good!

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091
Here is the link to the new trailer for the movie. I don't know about anyone else, but I am really excited about this! I just hope they don't try to market it as a Sin-City type movie, there is much more drama in this movie, and while it has it's action parts, I think this movie is supposed to be dramatic. Anyway, this is another movie that is on my "first night opening" list.

I'm geekin' out here!

Alright, so, I am starting to get really excited about the new Star Trek, which is something I rarely do with movies, and never do with Star Trek. Star Trek is something I generally like, but it's often hit or miss. For example, I didn't like much of DS9, some seasons were good, though. I didn't like Voyager, but I loved Enterprise, which is something completely different from most Trekkies (which may not be a bad thing). Anyway, I digress, let's get down to it, if this picture doesn't get you excited, I don't know what will!

Movie stars to politicians?

Up there on the gossip lists this week is Top Gun star Val Kilmer, thinking of running for governor of his home state of New Mexico. The movie and TV star, currently the voice of KITT on TV's Knight Rider is consulting with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the stress of the job, and how to properly make the transition.
So, with Arnold, Jesse Ventura, and former President Ronald Regan, does this mean you would be more inclined to vote for a movie star than a politician? Would the fact that it could say "Ice Man" on the ballot sway your vote, and do you feel more comfortable with a movie actor?
For me, personally, I may have a little biased toward people I have seen in movie roles, however, I think I have a tendency to over compensate to ensure I am voting on these people for their political views and not their movie merits. This does seem to be a bit of a trend with Hollywood lately, I mean George Clooney has a large political agenda for life after Hollywood, along with Tim Robbins, so this is an issue I think many of us will be talking about more and more. With that being said, do you think actors pick roles with politics in mind, I mean, no one wants to vote for a guy who plays a terrorist, or a supervillian. I think were pretty safe with Clooney, the guy played the nipple-hero Batman, Kilmer was in Real Geniuses, so you know he's smart, and Arnold was a Kindergarten teacher in Kindergarten Cop, so, if roles have anything to do with it, I think were ok, just don't get me started on Tim Robbins.

Twilight, huh? Whatever....

Am I the only one not excited by the new movie Twilight, coming out November 21st?

I understand it's more of a movie geared toward teens, the same group as the novel is, but, then again, so is Harry Potter, and that movie has seemed to bridge the age gap pretty successfully. So, why is it I have no desire to see it? Is it because it's a vampire movie? I mean, vampire movies, I think have been done to death. Look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Underworld, Ultraviolet, all the Dracula movies, Blade, the TV show True Blood, along with countless other cheesy horror movies based on the undead, I mean, at some point, either do something new, or just drop it. I don't see this as anything new, cool, or interesting, but everyone else on the net seems to think so. Do they see something I don't, am I jaded with horror movies, or is it not really that good. Let me know what you think, and if you thought the novels were any good.

Here is the trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi710344729/

the 3 Stooges are back!!!

That's right, I know everyone is excited about this. The three stooges are being brought back and made into a movie...wait, what?! How can you have a 3 stooges movie, aren't they all dead? Well, I don't know who they will cast, but I don't know how they can hope to come close to the comedic timing of the original trilogy.
I understand this not being a bad move, I mean Hollywood is in a remake phase right now, and the stooges haven't been touched for about 10 years, and they haven't made anything new for over 30 years, so at least it's not a back to back remake, like the Hulk, but...the Stooges? I dunno, there is something almost untouchable there, I mean, I remember waking up early in the morning and watching re-runs with my father and laughing hysterically, I'm not sure I want those memories tarnished by a half-hearted attempt to make money. No role is un-recast able, (look at the Joker, and 2009's Captain Kirk) but, I would say this would come close!
What do you think, are the Stooges untouchable?

Bye Bye Joaquin Phoenix

In some disappointing news this week, actor Joaquin Phoenix has announced he is no longer acting in movies. The Walking Tall star announced he is quitting acting to focus on his music. He has an album he is trying to launch the spring of 2009.
Apparently, after Walking Tall, and a Broadway stint, someone told him he had a great singing voice, so, he decided to go with it.
It's a bit sad, because he has given us performances in The Village, Signs, Ladder 49, Hotel Rwanda, Gladiator....I mean, this guy can act. Oh well, anyway, look for his album next year!

Fun fact: the Wilhelm Scream

Here is a bit of trivia for you. This is on the most famous sound bite in movie history.

The Wilhelm's revival came from motion picture sound designer Ben Burtt, who re-discovered the original recording (which he found as a studio reel labeled "Man being eaten by alligator") and incorporated it into a scene in Star Wars. Although the identity of the individual who recorded the scream (which was actually one of a series of six) is unknown, Burtt uncovered documentation suggesting the scream might have been recorded by singer Sheb Wooley, who was one of the actors in Distant Drums. Burtt named the scream after "Pvt. Wilhelm", a minor character who emitted the same scream in the 1953 film The Charge at Feather River.[4] Burtt began incorporating the effect in other films he worked on, including Raiders of the Lost Ark. Other sound designers picked up on the effect, and inclusion of the sound in pictures became a tradition among the community of sound designers.[5] Use of the effect spread beyond use in television and films made in English-speaking countries; several anime and video games have included at least one instance of the scream.

Some familiar movie this scream was in include
all 6 Star Wars movies, all 4 Indian Jones movies, History of the World Part 1, Space Balls, Star Trek The Motion Picture, Batman Returns, Aladdin, the Fifth Element and Lethal Weapon 4 to name a few.
Here is the link to the full list: http://www.hollywoodlostandfound.net/wilhelm.html