Alas! poor Yorick

I was talking to some buddies the other day and they said that they didn't like Brandon Routh's performance in Superman Returns. Even some idiots like Roger Ebert said that his performance was "bland", this from the guy that gives "Anaconda" a good review, shove that thumb up your ass. I disagree with everyone...big surprise. The fact is he did a great performance. It's just that we've become so accustomed to Christopher Reeve's portrayal that we have no choice but to compare Routh to Reeve. If Superman were being released today instead of 1978, people today would be saying the same thing about Christopher's performance. That's because a lot of performances today rely on buzzwords and a single look as opposed to a well rounded character study. You're going to tell me that Vin Diesel or Ashton Kutcher have training?? The only thing that Vin did that was good was the voice of the Iron Giant. But then again how hard is it to find a low voice, then augment it with sound equipment? If you splice every scene that these "actors" did, you probably won't find a 10th of what Routh OR Reeve has. Christopher Reeve played The Man of Steel "as a friend trying to help"....something that would probably be considered boring by today's standards. Brandon Routh did the same thing. Has anyone seen the approach they were thinking of taking Superman in??? Tim Burton envisioned him as a thin black suited character with a metallic "S" on his chest, and whoever's idea it was to cast Nicolas Cage....JEEZ less said the better. Now in the case of let's say "Star Wars", Mark Hamill's performance was perfect, NOT because he was trained by Lee Strasberg or Robert DeNiro, it's because in the context of the film, he doesn't detract from it. Nobody ever says "Oh man they really miscast Luke". They wanted a 20 year old naive farmboy and they got him. If William Katt or Kurt Russell were chosen as Luke, the film wouldn't be the same but it would have been interesting to watch their take on the character. The character has to be done in such a way that you forget who you're watching on the screen. EVEN if it's a big name star. One of the (many) reasons I didn't like The Matrix is because of Keanu Reeves. His approach to that role was one in which it left me asking "Why didn't they cast someone else?" Ask anyone who saw that film if they remember how amazing Keanu was....they'll say that "the effects we're great". There are certain performances that are perfect and NOBODY can ever recreate them. Marlon Brando in The Godfather, Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz, even Charlie Chaplin in....well almost everything he did. If you try to copy those performances you end up with either a spoof or an embarassing footnote on your resume. If you take a different approach to it you get James Gandolfini in the Sopranos. GREAT!! Point is, (I tend to ramble but hey, you're still reading) I think you have to know something about acting, choices actors make and how a film is put together to comment on a actor's role. Till then, keep watching the skies.

Artpreciation

It's been about a year, and not much else to report. STILL working on "Lightning", still going thru crap with my computer, still wondering what the future will bring. Wish I could go to LA again, borrow my buddy's car, travel to the future and see what happens. I am however learning a lot about the filmmaking process, and I'm sure there's so much more to learn. I've heard a lot of advice over the years, heard and read a bunch of interviews, and my advice is to GET AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN before starting this because money can buy you what you want. If I had unlimited funds, my film would turn out a lot different and would probably be close to what I really want it to be like. I have however finished animating and I'm just spending time going through the scenes fixing stuff that's really bad or better organizing my dope sheets, so it's still going on. I've been visiting a bunch of sites looking at other people's work and still marvel at the talent out there. I love the fact that I know how some stuff is done but I STILL get a kick out of it. That's when you know something's good. Speaking of good, I wonder what Indiana Jones, Bats and Shell-Head are going to be like this year. I hate it when people say "I hope they don't screw it up" or "It better be good". If you go in with that kind of mentality, you're almost expecting a bad time. I also think people better rethink about what kind of films they enjoy....more on that in another post. Now I'll only comment about the posters I've seen. I LOVE the art of movie posters which is sadly non-existant. Remember when movie posters used to be good? When seeing the poster was part of the excitement? I just saw the poster for the new Indy film, and because it's Drew Struzan's work....GREAT. Much better than the Iron Man poster which is probably some exec's idea of art. If it's a comic book movie than have some poster that has the characters doing something that draws you in. Instead, I can actually here the "art director" talking..."Well we gotta have an image that has him flying because how else will the audience know he flies?"...and make sure to have some explosions in there, and we gotta show the villain, is Robert's face bigger? we gotta have Terrence's face in there too.....AAAGHHH. It looks like some kid with a knowledge of Photoshop did it, with someone behind him no doubt. I've tried uploading the images of the posters but OF COURSE the computer won't let me...when did machines become tempermental? Whatever... here are the links to check them out yourself. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=42763...http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=42763...http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6888... Till next time, same Bat Time, same Bat Channel.