Tuesday, November 27, 2018

FilmLight - Whose Robot?




Silent Running. Image source: IMDb




On a much lighter subject than my previous article for FilmLight, this time I take a look at... robots! Whether they be service androids, or killing machines, there have been plenty to stir the imagination and entertain. But what are your favourites? "Whose Robot?" aims to check out some of the best, least known, or most dangerous... Though Star Wars legends R2-D2 and BB-8 are obvious, it is my mission to reveal some surprises or two (in no particular order), and take a look back at childhood memories. As an adult, I have equal respect for the following characters...


"It calls back a time when there were flowers all over the Earth... and there were valleys. And there were plains of tall green grass that you could lie down in - you could go to sleep in..."

My first choice is 1972 sci-fi drama "SILENT RUNNING", starring Bruce Dern as a resident botanist aboard space freighter Valley Forge, whose job it is to maintain the last remaining plant life from planet Earth, now protected in geodesic domes, one of which is attached to the freighter. Following orders to destroy the domes and return to Earth, Freeman Lowell (Dern) acts against orders, sacrificing the lives of his three colleagues in order to preserve at least one of the enclosed forests. Though it is ultimately Dern who makes the movie, my heart will always remain with one of the drones (service robots) designated to serve aboard the freighter: Dewey (Drone 1), whose very last scene had this viewer crying. Hard to believe, I know, but true. I was young at the time of watching, but the sentiment I feel is present during every viewing, enhanced by the beauty vocals of folk singer Joan Baez - if you have not yet heard the song "Rejoice in the Sun" then please try and listen at some point, it is simply divine!


"If there's any justice at all, the black hole will be your grave!"

My second choice is for the 1979 Disney classic "THE BLACK HOLE". Forget friendly robot V.I.N.CENT (which stands for "Vital Information Necessary CENTralized"), my choice here is Maximilian, one of the most frightening killing machines in cinematic history. Styled as a galactic red Samurai, the creation of Dr. Hans Reinhardt has a will of its own, clearly disobeying orders when necessary. If I was to compare it in any way then I would perhaps say there was a deep malevolence similar to that of 1977 movie feature "The Car", a faceless menace whose motives are unclear and monstrous. Following the film's release, a number of action figures were launched - I can just imagine owning one in my childhood, of Maximilian, the nights spent wondering whether the toy box would open of its own accord, a glowing red eye staring back at me from the end of my bed...


"The quickest way to end a miracle, is to ask it why it is and want it wants."

My third choice for this FilmLight special is the beautifully-filmed "BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED", released in 1987 and starring then real-life married couple Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy as an ageing couple whose apartment and business (a cafe) are under attack from a property developer whose plans for construction are hindered by their refusal to sell up. The origins of the "The Fix-Its" is uncertain, and perhaps they are not even strictly regarded as "robots", but they are too adorable to miss out from this list. They are living "machines", alien life-forms who have a desire to repair everything in sight. Director Matthew Robbins is good friends with the magic circle of film makers including George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, and the warmth that is associated with many of their own movies shines throughout this emotionally-touching masterpiece.





The future? Image source: Robocop



"I am now authorized to use physical force!"

Though clumsy and unreliable, my fourth choice comes in the form of ED-209, the armed Enforcement Droid seen in 1987'S "ROBOCOP" (and subsequent sequels). It will forever stand out in my memory simply because of that one scene in which, malfunctioning, it kills a company board executive during a demonstration of its abilities. There is something deeply unnerving about constructing these type of machines as "officers" of the law, and the thought of seeing one in any city is nothing less than a nightmare scenario, "You have 20 seconds to comply." You can see its potential in warfare, but as a peacekeeping droid it is both unpredictable and far too terrifying to approach for the average citizen. Could you even ask it for directions? Not everyone will have satellite navigation...


"Number 5 is alive."

Coming fifth is the wonderfully charming 1986 comedy "SHORT CIRCUIT", the story of a prototype military robot ("Number 5") that becomes self-aware after a freak accident and escapes the top secret project installation. The now-sentient robot eventually befriends Stephanie Speck (played by the fabulous Ally Sheedy) and a fun-packed movie unfolds. To my joy, a sequel followed, in 1988, both being written by Brent Maddock and S.S. Wilson (also involved in previously mentioned "Batteries Not Included") - the casting of actress Cynthia Gibb in the follow-up is a welcome change, though a cameo from Sheedy would have been the icing on the cake! Welsh singer Bonnie Tyler said, "We need a Hero" (listen to the song "Holding Out for a Hero"), and Johnny 5 (as the robot became known) is the most heart-warming of them all!


"I wish you would talk! You know you can; why won't you talk?"

In sixth place I had to go with another killer machine that, in my opinion, is just as memorable as "The Black Hole"'s Maximilian: 1980's "SATURN 3". Starring a cast of three (Farrah Fawcett, Kirk Douglas and Harvey Keitel), the setting is Titan, Saturn's third moon, where colleagues and lovers Adam (Douglas) and Alex (Fawcett) work in a research station. Their peace is soon disturbed by the arrival of Captain Benson (Keitel). The newcomer's mission is to build a robot that will, it is believed, replace one of the scientists. This is where everything changes... The captain isn't who he claims to be, and the robot, now named "Hector", turns deadly! Though the movie didn't match up to other great sci-fi of its time, there is something intriguing about its simplistic style and pace.

This list could go on and on, with so many wonderful robots out there in cinema. So, for now, I will leave you to consider your own favourites. And perhaps, this subject will return again with "Whose Robot 2?"


Thursday, August 30, 2018

FilmLight - Star Wars: Beyond The Last Jedi




Rey and Kylo. Images source: starwars.com




In December 2017, I wrote 'Star Wars: A Return To Childhood'. Decided it was about time I revisited that piece and add further thoughts since Rian Johnson's contribution to George Lucas' created Universe...


A Galaxy For Fans Young And Old


I was three-years old When 'Star Wars: A New Hope' hit cinemas across the globe. It wasn't for a few more years that I was able to enjoy the magic of Luke Skywalker and his adventures in a galaxy far, far away. By then follow-up 'The Empire Strikes Back' had been given its cinematic release in 1980, and fans got to witness the shocking revelation that Darth Vader was more than just a dark lord of the Sith. The original trilogy concluded with a final on-screen battle between the Galactic Empire and Rebel Alliance, in 1983's 'Return of the Jedi'. It was a neat ending to a fabulous run of sci-fi movies. They had even spawned a toy line and other merchandise, cartoons and a couple of Ewok television films called 'Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure' and 'Ewoks: The Battle for Endor'.

But it was the trilogy that stood the test of time.

It took over a decade for another trilogy to surface, this time prequel movies exploring the life and times of the Jedi Order, and the early years of Anakin Skywalker and Obi-One Kenobi. 'The Phantom Menace' arrived in 1999 to mixed reviews and opinions, some fans hating it outright. It did, however, become the first Star Wars for many young and old, introducing them to a Universe they would grow to embrace.

Between 2002 and 2005 came the inevitable sequels 'Attack of the Clones' and 'Revenge of the Sith', again either liked or disliked depending on a fan's relationship with the franchise at that time. I had not fully embraced the Prequel Trilogy back then either, though I didn't understand the dislike for Naboo resident Jar Jar Binks, who was simply a fun addition to 'The Phantom Menace'. I did feel the new instalments lacked firm direction, contained far too many weak scenes and dialogue, and some of the casting was questionable. In later years I've grown to appreciate these flicks as part of the whole, like finding the last three pieces in the jigsaw box and finally completing the puzzle. Perhaps they weren't necessary, but their existence doesn't ruin what came before.


The Petition


That is what really baffles me when I still hear phrases like "You've ruined my childhood" thrown about on social networking. This brings me nicely to the new trilogy, which began with The Force Awakens, in 2015. But the most shocking example of fan obsession comes with The Last Jedi, a movie directed by Johnson and one that has even seen a fan petition set up on Change.org to try and have it removed from Star Wars canon. Yes, this is a thing! Fan Henry Walsh started the petition to The Walt Disney Company 8 months ago, and it has (as of 11th August 2018) gained 109,782 signatures out of the 150,000 set. Not bad going.

Thankfully, these people don't speak for both myself and the other true fans who love this movie and its place in the franchise! I find it amusing that the petition states, "Episode VIII was a travesty. It completely destroyed the legacy of Luke Skywalker and the Jedi. It destroyed the very reasons most of us, as fans, liked Star Wars. This can be fixed. Just as you wiped out 30 years of stories, we ask you to wipe out one more, the Last Jedi. Remove it from canon, push back Episode IX and re-make Episode VIII properly to redeem Luke Skywalker's legacy, integrity, and character".

Well, it has been confirmed that actor Mark Hamill is returning to Chapter IX; his character is far from over. Perhaps Luke didn't die in The Last Jedi but simply transformed from one state to another, from physical to energy. It would be great to see him as a Force Ghost, joining the ranks of Obi-One, Yoda and Anakin Skywalker.






Luke Skywalker: Force Ghost


I'm not at all knowledgeable of the Star Wars Legends Universe, but a quick Google and I found something quite interesting. While reading about another character, Cade Skywalker, I noticed a quote from a scene involving Luke Skywalker as a Force Ghost, visiting Cade. During the visitation, Luke says, "Every generation has its challenges to face, its own battles to win. Why should yours be any different? Running away from your responsibilities won't solve anything!"

This is exactly how I see Luke's actions in The Last Jedi, running away from everything and embracing self exile to an island on the planet of Ahch-To, losing faith and confidence, feeling that the galaxy is better off without him. Following his encounter with young Rey, and a beautifully filmed sequence with Force Ghost Yoda, the Jedi Knight understands that very message: "Running away from your responsibilities won't solve anything!"

He later leaves the safety of Ahch-To and faces off against the First Order, buying time for his sister General Leia Organa and her band of resistance to escape an abandoned Rebel Alliance base before they are captured or killed. Luke's presence at the base is a Jedi trick, an illusion. He is later seen, still on his island, where he appears to fade like a ghost, physically and emotionally exhausted from the task of projecting his being far across space.

I always felt like there would be more to come.


An End To A Saga...


And with Star Wars: Episode IX in production, this time directed by J. J. Abrams (The Force Awakens being his first taste of the franchise), lose ends will get firmly tied, loved characters shall return, and the petition to erase The Last Jedi from canon will become irrelevant. To those fans who have nothing but admiration for Star Wars as a complete entity, no such petition means anything anyway.

May the Force be with you...



Friday, December 15, 2017

FilmLight - Star Wars: A Return To Childhood




BB-8 and R2-D2. Image source: starwars.com




I love movies! I’m extremely passionate about them. And like everyone I have my all time favourites, also understanding how deeply that passion goes. I’m not a fan of sequels or prequels that add nothing to the whole. Tron: Legacy, for example, left me cold. Joseph Kosinski’s 2010 sci-fi sequel to the far better Tron (1982) felt unnecessary and out of place, to me at least. But there are others who like it very much. I never complained on social media, or criticised those others by insulting them and making it personal. We all enjoy different things, and sometimes share equal passions. If we were identical in every way, boy would this Universe be boring! In childhood I remember seeing Star Wars: A New Hope for the very first time in the 1980s, not at the local theatre but on a pirated Betamax cassette tape. The magic of Steven Spielberg’s powerful cinematic tales captured my imagination, and so it wouldn't be unthinkable for George Lucas to achieve a similar feat. And Star Wars was such a skillful adventure, full of space battles, droids, a beautiful princess, a wise old man, the scoundrel and a young farm boy, all brought together by fate. As the years passed, further instalments came and went. But the magic, and fond memories, remained.

The trilogy ended with an evil Empire in ruin, and heroes celebrating. I owned Kenner action figures, and so reenacted my favourite moments. It was a beautiful time that will be cherished always. I grew up. And Lucas unleashed a new instalment trilogy opening with The Phantom Menace (1999). It was the first VHS purchased by me that year. I enjoyed it. Thankfully there was no internet then, so I wouldn’t be aware of any backlash from fans. No name calling, threats or the usual we sadly see today. Did I like it as much as the original trilogy? Perhaps not as deeply, though it still maintained a welcomed escapism from the real world. By the time of Revenge of The Sith (2005), my interest in the prequel series diminished quite a lot. And over the next few years I would join the internet, set up a website, and become actively involved in entertainment news and review writing.

Maybe I see much of the world through rose-tinted glasses, but I rarely slam a movie, instead preferring to look for the good points. If there are no good points to be found then I’d refrain from reviewing at all. I like to enjoy my work, so crucifying a film isn’t my thing. I’ll leave that to others. I also don’t go into a movie with great expectations that may never be delivered by the director. We all love to develop plotlines in our own heads, don’t we? “This is how it should have been” and “What a waste of a good idea”. “Why didn’t they do it my way?” Nowadays we’re all reviewers and filmmakers. We all know better than those whose job it is to bring the plot to screen.

In 2015, Star Wars: The Force Awakens hit theaters and introduced us to characters new and old. I was shocked by the murder of Han Solo (played so brilliantly by actor Harrison Ford since 1977). How dare they! I hate J. J. Abrams for letting this happen! Someone end his career before more childhoods are ruined! Seriously though, my childhood was never ruined, it remains intact as beautiful memories, and movies are a time machine, so I can easily go back and watch Luke, Han and Leia defeat the Empire as many times as I wish. Yes, I struggled seeing a favourite hero die in such a way, even today, but that is because I care about the character. I also acknowledge that time moves forward, situations and people change, one momentous victory can be replaced by yet another soul destroying battle. The end of Return of the Jedi wasn’t ruined, at least in my opinion, by the rising of the First Order and the events portrayed in The Force Awakens. It happens. Think of those who survived the First World War only to see the darkness rise again in 1939. They had once celebrated a victory, too. It may be only a sci-fi movie series, but Star Wars acts as a reminder that we shouldn’t take anything for granted, and that freedom and peace are precious. Celebrate today because we never know what tomorrow will bring.

I am yet to see The Last Jedi, though I have read spoilers (I won’t give anything away here). I have also witnessed a lot of negativity online, not just disappointment from true fans who had envisioned something different from director Rian Johnson, but real venom even directed in the path of other fans who have genuinely embraced the movie and its many twists and turns. As I have said, we are all different, and so there will always be diversity among the fanbase. Yes, fans are passionate, and wish to air any grievances; some reactions, however, are voiced in such a way that it is impossible, and depressing, to join online discussions these days. Remember, the cinematic experience is meant to be pleasurable escapism, and if you can’t enjoy it then at least respect that others are having the time of their lives. Why violate their own happiness and excitement by name calling and branding them as not “proper” fans? Yes, I know, “it’s the internet”.

I guess people will be people.

Cinema has always been about change. Sequels bring about a change in circumstances and ideals. What worked in one film might need a drastic turn of events in a follow-up. Nothing stays the same. It can’t. We grow older, and old classics do sit nice and comfortable in our hearts and memories. It is never easy letting go. But that’s why movies are time travel, while we are able to revisit those classics - nothing ever truly dies. Even Han Solo lives, just put in a DVD or Blu-ray of A New Hope and catch the magic.

No childhood is ruined. No franchise is destroyed. We can’t like every new instalment, but what we do love is still there, for the feels and chills.

And before you say it, yes I am not disregarding the changes George Lucas has made to the original trilogy. But, it is not the end of the world, some of those digital alterations actually look quite cool. What the fans want is a choice: original or special edition. That is likely to happen at some point in the near future, we just have to be patient. I’m thankful for Star Wars on Blu-ray regardless. Thankful to Lucas for making it happen, and grateful to those who keep the flame alive.

The Last Jedi will give opportunity for my child self to get out for a while, feel those tingles and experience something truly out of this world.


Saturday, September 12, 2015

FilmLight - Mental Illness Vs Hollywood



Article author: Alwyn Ash
"At the right time, in the right light, everything is extraordinary"



The Call Image



"I saw a man who had lost any sense of reality, a seriously ill individual whose crimes, though hideous, are also heartbreaking..."

In horror and thriller we are so used to villains being the monstrosities of the piece - some faceless, others grotesque. Just think Freddy Kruger from the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise, or Jason Vorhees's horrific killings on Friday 13th... It is easy to hate these phantoms of fear, as they hunt and massacre their prey. But what is evil, and how is it truly defined in film? How to evaluate a character whose actions are motivated by mental illness? Think of Norman Bates, a man whose mind is clearly burdened, the killings a product of his mental state. Is he considered to be evil? Just when does an audience feel sympathy for a psychopath, or at least touch upon some level of understanding?

Recently I stumbled upon "The Call", a 2013 movie starring Halle Barry as Jordan Turner, a 9-1-1 operator who blames herself for the murder of a distressed caller, witnessed in the first act of the movie. Six months passes and Turner finds herself in a similar situation when the original killer strikes again, kidnapping another young girl called Casey Welson (played by Abigail Breslin). This time the girl is able to phone from the boot of her kidnapper's car, leading to a tense but exciting scenario in which Turner attempts to locate the girl's whereabouts in a bid to help with the police search. Michael Foster (Michael Eklund), the man eventually named as her abductor, is violent, killing whoever stands in his way. But further into the story we learn of his own tale, one of incest and love, loss and devastation. The trigger for his crimes later on in life...

In the concluding act of the movie, and taking matters into her own hands, Turner manages to track the girl down in a cellar, facing Foster in a confrontation that ultimately leads to him being imprisoned in his own hideout, where he will rot, never to be discovered... This is where I found some sympathy for the villain, and the final scenes very distasteful.

It is ironic that, at the end of a terrifying ordeal in which a young girl is kidnapped and facing certain death, I find the final behavior of Turner and Welson to be far more monstrous than the actions of a mentally-disturbed man. Even if you contemplated Welson's to be temporary insanity due to her recent experience, just what is Turner's excuse? Revenge for the death of the previous victim? Accepted, Michael Foster's crimes cannot be overlooked, nor is there any reasonable justification for what he has done, and so life imprisonment in a psychiatric institution should have been the outcome. Realising their decision to let him die alone, Foster pleads with them for mercy, to which Turner says, "It's already done!" - echoing the killer's own words during two previous phone conversations between the two characters.

In scenes that show Foster's prop head and the many scalps taken from young woman, I saw a man who had lost any sense of reality, a seriously ill individual whose crimes, though hideous, are also heartbreaking. His sister died while he was a young boy, and ever since he has yearned for her to be back in his life. His fixation with resurrecting her is similar and yet different in ways to that of Norman Bates, whose split personality called for Norma Louise Bates' return in the "Psycho" films. In "The Call", Foster wishes nothing more than to be reunited with his dead sibling, killing girls until he locates blonde hair that precisely matches that of his sister's.

As someone who suffers with mental illness, I can understand the fine line that can be crossed when not in one's correct frame of mind. Though I am far from Foster's state, there have been times when my own actions have later surprised, horrified and disgusted me, whether it is self-inflicted injuries or other. I have felt just how easily one might go insane when handed circumstances that overwhelm. Just where does true madness lie? Repeating my earlier question, what is evil, and how is it truly defined, whether in film or reality? Foster is no Hollywood 'monster', nor does he fit the same profile as Charles Lee Ray ("Chucky") or 'Pinhead' ("Hellraiser").

When the beast is slain, we usually punch the air in satisfaction, praising the heroes for their bravery against the odds. I felt for Welson during her captivity, wished for her to be safe. I even appreciated Turner's frustration and guilt. But, in the end, they were both the monsters in my eyes - Judge & Jury, coldly deciding his fate without any thought as to his own state of mind. After all, why should they? He is the beast... isn't he?



Follow Alwyn Ash on Twitter: @AlwynAsh. Image source courtesy of Greg Gayne © 2013 SPWAG (via www.imdb.com). Article © Alwyn Ash 2015. Quotes (if applicable) used for publicity purposes only. No infringement of copyright is intended.


Monday, June 29, 2015

FilmLight - The Necessity of Originality


Article author: Alwyn Ash
"At the right time, in the right light, everything is extraordinary"


2001 Space Odyssey Image
2001... and there's absolutely nothing
to watch on the new Monolith TV?




In a regular column, Alwyn Ash shines a spotlight on different film-related subjects. This week it is the need for sequels, reboots and remakes...

This subject has likely been touched upon by other sites previously, but I simply cannot hold back on my own personal feelings presently regarding the film industry's lack of vision... No one is in any doubt that movies are all about profit, just like in other forms of entertainment. A product is created in order to be a financial success. In the case of Hollywood, any film that under-performs at the Box Office is unlikely to ever see a sequel green-lit for production. That is just the way of things! However, a question I raise is, "Have movie executives gone too far in relying on the familiar?" Just what does the future hold in store for cinematic experiences?

In a once golden age, Hollywood produced some wondrous theatre, original storytelling, visually breathtaking. Though my era of cinema truly evolved in the 1980s, I applaud the ingenuity of Byron Haskin's 1953 feast "The War of the Worlds" (with absolutely amazing designs of Martian war machines by Al Nozaki), the quite simply brilliant and effective morality of Robert Wise's 1951 spectacle "The Day the Earth Stood Still", and the out-of-this-world event of Fred M. Wilcox's 1956 masterpiece "Forbidden Planet". The 1950s produced so many features to praise that I would be here all day.

However, you name a decade and there are titles that immediately spring to mind: "Psycho" (1960), "The Dirty Dozen" (1967), "Grease" (1978), "Rocky" (1976), "Life of Brian" (1979), "Top Gun" (1986), and "Schindler's List" (1993). Whatever the era, you are certain to have your choice of films... One could give a hearty mention to George Lucas's "Star Wars"; or Franklin J. Schaffner's "Planet of the Apes", itself an adaptation of Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel "La Planète des Singes". When approached correctly, book-to-film adaptations can make for captivating additions: never forget that the ground-breaking special effects giant "Jurassic Park" was a novel first, by American writer Michael Crichton; and James Bond's literary assignments such as "Casino Royale" would spawn a movie franchise - "When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard" - Ian Fleming, The New Yorker, 21 April 1962

One of my pet hates right now are the seemingly endless stream of remakes and sequels that Hollywood is so obsessed with. Though everyone has an opinion regarding the best of these, I cannot help but take a dislike to Marvel and DC Comics transfers to the Big Screen. Please DO NOT misunderstand, I simply ADORE Tim Burton's 1989 re-imagining of "Batman"; and Christopher Reeve's performance in the "Superman" franchise (perhaps NOT "Superman IV") touched my childhood with such magic and fascination. But how many times must there be a reboot, or a clash of titans just because it seems like a good idea?

In my opinion there just aren't too many surprises in cinema now. When there are, it is a wondrous event. In the good old days remakes were produced sparingly, with much screen time devoted to new and experimental movies. Arthur C Clark's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was a masterpiece of cinematic art; and Tron's visual style a unique blend that gave access to a digitalised universe unlike any other. Directors such as Stanley Kubrick and Steven Lisberger knew how to craft the unusual. They were masters of vision.

Have we now also reached a time when merchandise determines what is to be filmed and commercially released, with the extra revenue firmly in the minds of studio bosses? Though a financial necessity in some ways, are we in danger of losing original and singularly entertaining motion pictures? This is where I value independent film companies and their movie directors, whose single aim is to create something that tells a story, well-written and passionately produced. Because of their limited budgets, everything is crafted with care, each scene made to count.

I am now off to watch "Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Return", at the theatre. Apparently the aliens forgot to leave one of their abductees behind in the previous instalment, and Columbia Pictures felt it reason enough for a sequel... Expect burning eyes and a crystal skull... Sorry, already done? Thank goodness for Alfonso Cuarón's "Gravity", Caradog W. James's "The Machine", and Alex Garland's "Ex Machina".


Follow Alwyn Ash on Twitter: @AlwynAsh. Image source courtesy of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Article © Alwyn Ash 2015. Quotes (if applicable) used for publicity purposes only; no infringement of copyright is intended.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

FilmLight - The Tripods: Where is John Christopher's movie series now?


Article author: Alwyn Ash
"At the right time, in the right light, everything is extraordinary"


Tripods Image



Isn't it just frustrating when news of a movie based on a popular series of novels seemingly dies out and no one, not one single person, knows why?

For years there had been rumours of a transition from book to screen for 1967 novel The Tripods: The White Mountains, written by John Christopher (pseudonym for Samuel Youd). Only as far back as 2009 several websites had reported that Australian filmmaker Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot) was linked to a possible adaptation. It had been suggested that the character of Beanpole would be a girl, and that the Tripod machines themselves could climb the Eiffel Tower.

So was Proyas really serious about working with writer Stuart Hazeldine on the film project? Were the reports even true? Just where are the updates now?

Of course, there had once been a televised version of The Tripods, jointly produced by the BBC in the United Kingdom and the Seven Network in Australia, with music supplied by Ken Freeman. It was to be a landmark in special effects design and superb model work. However, even this failed to keep the flame burning: the first two books - The White Mountains and The City of Gold and Lead (the latter originally published in 1968) - were transferred to our television screens; the third instalment, sadly, never made it, due to a rather ridiculous decision to cancel the show following end of filming of the second series, which concluded with those famous last words spoke by young Will Parker after discovering the hideout of the uncapped to be in ruin, "Has it all been for nothing?"

And so fans were left with a cliffhanger that would never be resolved - at least, not on screen.

It was certainly a plus that the original books were republished by Puffin Books in 1984 thanks to the television series (individually and as a single paperback trilogy), and with the reprinting of The Tripods: The Pool of Fire (also originally published in 1968) viewers finally got to read the final part of the trilogy to discover the fate of the three lead antagonists: Will, Henry and Beanpole.

If you don't know anything about the trilogy, let me explain: the Tripods were vast three-legged machines that controlled the minds of the adult human population by way of a Cap fitted to the skull to suppress emotion, creativity and curiosity. At the age of fourteen you are Capped, to become a man, or young woman. Will (played by actor John Shackley in the BBC production) encounters a Vagrant, Ozymandias - from this point on the teenager is curious about the Tripods, and is told of free men living far away, those who refuse to be subservient to the mysterious creatures that rule the world. Joined by his cousin Henry, and later Beanpole (a French boy whose real name is Jean-Paul), Will ventures into unfamiliar territory on a quest to locate the White Mountains, where these free people dwell. Though quite clearly a story for a young audience, The Tripods is gripping and exciting, and paved the way for a prequel novel: When the Tripods Came (1988), to feature new characters during the early days of invasion.

So what about the movie? Considering the quality of the original story, a trilogy series would be highly successful - think The Lord of The Rings except with a sci-fi rather than a fantasy element!

There is no doubt that John Christopher's Tripod legacy will be adapted, at some point. And when it does, how will it compare to the original novels? Will Beanpole really be a girl? In an interview with horror website Dread Central, in 2010, writer Hazeldine commented, "Tripods… again, we’re trying to find a studio home for that. We developed that at Paramount and it was put into turnaround. It was originally developed at Disney through many different writers and many different directors. I’d been offered it twice when it was based at Disney, but both times I just couldn’t do it. I’d always really wanted to do it because I adored Tripods as a kid. I read all of the books, watched the BBC show, and I loved it. I used to go sit on the North Downs in Surrey and look out across the English countryside and imagine Tripods walking across the horizon, you know?"

His comment that "We’ve been close a couple of times in the last few months, but we’re still trying to find a studio to do it" should bring hope, though as the years pass, still no sign of those colossal Tripods striding with menace through Mankind's hopes and dreams...

I should also mention, perfect timing, that another of the prolific author's books landed on my doorstep a while back: Empty World. Originally published in 1977, the story focuses on a disease, called the Calcutta Plague (any guesses as to why it is so called?), that inflicts an ageing acceleration on its victims thus killing them. "World" takes a look at life during and after the event, as survivor Neil Miller (a fifteen year old boy) attempts to come to terms with the changing world around him, and the loss that he encounters along the way.

It is good to know that many of John Christipher's works are being republished for a newer audience, including The Tripods, by Simon & Schuster's imprint label Aladdin, though I'm sure older fans will enjoy collecting fresher copies for their bookshelves! Empty World, in particular, is as relevant today as it was when first published, what with the continuing threat of global terrorism, Swine influenza etc.

As for Sam Youd, who passed away in February 2012, thank you for all that you have done - happy memories are the photographs in which we revisit from time to time; and my photograph album is all the richer for the work you have shared.

Further reading: The Guardian Obituary


Image source courtesy of bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/tripods. Article © Alwyn Ash 2015.
Quotes (if applicable) used for publicity purposes only; no infringement of copyright is intended.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

FilmLight - Why Ghostbusters For New Generation? An Expanded Universe


Article author: Alwyn Ash
"At the right time, in the right light, everything is extraordinary"


Ghostbusters Image



Lately there has been much discussion - and argument - relating to the announcement of brand new Ghostbusters movies. For many years most of the original team who gave us the 1984 supernatural hit had tried to revive the franchise with a second sequel - Ghostbusters 2 isn't to everyone's liking, so it kind of felt like unfinished business, perhaps? Ghostbusters 3 could have satisfied existing fans while gaining a new, younger audience. However, instead of the straight forward route, we are now faced with something slightly different: the potential for a Ghostbusters "universe". Or, as some people see it, a battle of the sexes!

Director Paul Feig, whose only cinematic hit may be 2011's Bridesmaids, will work with writer Katie Dippold in reimagining one of the greatest sci-fi and fantasy film franchises of all time; already cast for this venture are Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. However, it looks like a second movie will be produced, focusing on a more "traditional" approach, whatever that means. To be written by British-born Drew Pearce, this other Ghostbusters is thought to have been conceived due to a negative tide of comments directed at both Feig and the whole idea of a female-centric movie. Whether this is true or not, it is a welcome idea to expand the franchise in multiple directions...

Sony has set up Ghost Corps, a company with a vision to do just that! And it will have people like Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd on board to see that every possible angle is covered. Just think, in addition to new movies there could be a television series, an official line of novels, and a toy range that won't just be available for a collector's market.

An argument for embracing this new approach? Is it such a negative thing to have a much broader universe for Ghostbusters to explore? Agreed, there are so many movies that should never be touched, remade or given a genesis storyline. But, as proven with The Real Ghostbusters, a spin-off cartoon series that ran from 1986 to 1991, there is much fun to be had from allowing much flexibility to a world that Aykroyd and Harold Ramis made real with the release of the 1984 film.

For those who didn't enjoy Ghostbusters 2, a motion picture that manifested after pressure from the studio to repeat the success of its predecessor, it could be that the official sequel just wasn't seen to take any great steps from its first outing, disregarding the outcome of Ghostbusters entirely by resetting the bar at a low: they saved New York - hell, the world! - and what thanks do they get?

Exploring just what their team - or a network of teams - could have accomplished if given adequate funding and support might have been a blockbuster of an idea. Instead, fans were left with a long wait as scripts were written, rejected, rewritten, and talks held regarding a possible comeback, only for certain parties to make it clear that they were unlikely to return... and, Harold Ramis' death in 2014 came as a shock to fans, closing the doors to any possible sequel featuring all four Ghostbusters for good.

For a franchise that is now over thirty years old, toys, comics and video games have fared well. Sadly, the only novels that exist (unless you count a few published by Knight Books for The Real Ghostbusters) are adaptations of the films, though they seriously need a reprint; author Larry Milne wrote for the first, while Ed Naha adapted the sequel. More is needed. It is not about saturating the market, but giving fans old and new an opportunity to experience an expanded universe.

Back in March 2015, Pearce tweeted, "Don't worry, the tone we're aiming for is pretty 'human-centric'. Except for all the ghosts". Whatever Sony has planned for the future, let us hope that the 2016 reboot (Feig) succeeds. If only Kenner Products was still around to reproduce the original wave of Real Ghostbusters figures..


Image source courtesy of ghostbusters.com. Article © Alwyn Ash 2015. Quotes (if applicable) used for publicity purposes only; no infringement of copyright is intended.