As we creep towards opening day, questions always abound as to how the roster is going to shake up. Teams have to make cuts, and teams still have time to fill holes with waiver claims, released players signed, and non-blockbuster trades. As such, I thought I would propose a few possibilities that might impact the Brewers as we approach opening day and firming up the 25-man roster.
Trade Rickie Weeks. Let me start by saying as much as most Brewer fans may want this to happen I don't see it happening. Here are the reasons why: Weeks is currently outperforming his "replacement" Scooter Gennett. Many people point to scouts' unimpressive appraisals of Gennett as an everyday player. Although I will say Gennett has outperformed expectations at every level of baseball thus far including the majors, and his lefty bat and solid defense are two good things for him. His primary weakness is he relies on making contact (contact % and BABIP both above league average last year), and that requires constant production. That hasn't shown much in spring thus far while Weeks has been making better contact than he's shown the last few years. If the Crew trade Weeks there is not much depth/potential behind Gennett should he struggle. And a Weeks/Gennett platoon is not the worst idea in the world too. While the bench/platoon is not ideal for an 11mm player, to trade Weeks the Brewers would have to eat probably 8-9mm of that salary anyways and get an unimpressive return, because teams are not going to simply let Weeks' strong start to spring make him high in trade value (not with that contract). But if Gennett improved or a good return or more significant portion of the contract was absorbed it could happen. In that case New York and Baltimore would seem the most likely destinations.
Acquire Alejandro De Aza from Chicago White Sox. De Aza would likely cost a pretty solid prospect, because he has solid numbers and versatility which also makes him appeal to multiple teams. So to get him one will likely have to make a better offer than other teams. This would probably only happen if an injury occurs or as we near the end of Spring Training it is determined that Khris Davis may not hold down the starting role. De Aza would be a great pick-up for several reasons: he can play all over the outfield, he offers speed (46 SB last two years) and power potential (career high 17 homers last year), and he gets on base (.343 OBP since joining the White Sox), which means he could be a leadoff option (which this team lacks a clear candidate for) or a bottom half of the order bat. The cost to acquire him may be too great to use him as a 4th OF, but to sub an injured player or platoon/compete for LF with Davis he might be a very good target for the Brewers.
Acquire Carlos Peguero from Kansas City Royals. This also would likely be an insurance move for Milwaukee in case the Khris Davis experiment fails (though I hope it doesn't). Peguero offers the team a similar player to Davis (though he bats left): limited defense, high power upside. He has a career .504 slugging percentage in the minors and has hit 20 or more homers in a season at three minor league levels (including 31 in high A ball in 2009 and 53 in 251 games in AAA). He hasn't shown much in limited time in the majors (.622 OPS in 65 games), but with his power a homer friendly park like Miller Park may improve those numbers. Unless one of Shafer/Davis/Gomez/Braun is injured or Weeks is dealt I don't see a place for him on the 25 man out of spring training, but he is the type of player I would recommend claiming on waivers (he's out of options and according to mlbtraderumors seems the most likely outfielder to be cut) and try to sneak him through waivers right away to stash him in AAA.
Acquire right to option rule 5 pick Wei-Chung Wang from Pirates. This might be the most likely of all the scenarios. Wang was a bold and surprising rule 5 pick by the Brewers this offseason. For reasons because of an injury/contract restructuring (can't remember the exact details) Wang was forced rather early to be put on the 40 man roster or be subjected to the rule 5 draft (he's only 21 years old). As such he has plenty of potential to be seen, so if Milwaukee cannot carry him through the year and have to offer him back to Pittsburgh for half of what they paid to acquire him my guess is Pittsburgh will take him back. Now lefty pitchers are the easiest for teams to keep through the rule 5 draft because you can save them for blowouts or lefty specialist duties. But with a 7 man bullpen and Henderson, K-Rod, Gorzelanny, Smith, and Thornburg likely locks to make the staff that leaves two spots and with Gorzelanny and Smith the team already is carrying 2 lefties, will it want 3? Wang had a strong spring debut striking out 2 in a quick inning of work, but if that does not carry on they may not be able to keep him. The Crew would be wise however to instead of just offering him back (where he is likely to be claimed) to work out a trade with the Pirates so they have the right to option him down to the minors.
Trade Juan Francisco. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports suggested this. The Brewers have a lot of players competing at 1st this spring in Francisco, Overbay, Reynolds, Halton, and Morris with the first three having the inside track (Reynolds seemed most likely to make the team). Rosenthal ponders if Overbay's defense will give him preference over Francisco since Milwaukee was far and away the worst in majors in 1B defense last year (shouldn't be surprising considering every player who started there had never started a game there before). Francisco is out of options and there is no way this team carries 3 1B's, so if in fact they do favor Overbay Francisco will have to be traded or subjected to waivers. I don't think this is a wise or likely deal to happen. I may be wrong, but I don't think Milwaukee values defense enough to favor Overbay as Rosenthal suggests they do/should. For years this team has carried sub-par defenders. Additionally Francisco has been working on fielding at 1B this offseason and should be better defensively than last year. He is also 26, has massive power potential (think righty version of Mark Reynolds), and while not great there defensively is at least able to play 3B. Nick Delmonico (acquired from Baltimore for K-Rod last year) is several years away and Taylor Green is returning from injury and never proven he is anything more than a AAAA/replacement level player. Should Aramiz Ramirez get injured or traded this year (both are real possibilities) the team has no immediate option at 3B (especially if Reynolds entrenches himself at 1B), this is where Francisco would be a valuable asset. Even as a bench power bat (something this team has needed the last two years)/DH/corner infield depth he is worth this team keeping. If he were traded New York, Detroit (Rosenthal's suggestion), and Pittsburgh may all be possibilities. I'm unsure what a realistic return would be. It is also worth noting Overbay is in camp on a minor league deal and therefore could be sent to AAA.
So there are some names that might get dealt, acquired, kept. Keep an eye on how things work themselves out (as these things generally do in spring training).
Below is a critique of Indiana Jones 4, beware if you have not seen it, there are spoilers, and I will not call them as they come. Read at your own risk.
The first is one of the things that makes most modern George Lucas films worse than his earlier films: green screen. Lucas has a huge man-crush on computer effects. Now this is a Spielberg film yes, but Lucas was always at his right hand from the very beginning, in fact he is the one who really came up with the idea of Indiana Jones in the first place. And Lucas vision for this film no doubt opened the door for green screen. We don't always realize it until we compare movies of the same series (Star Wars IV-VI as compared to I-III for example) to see how things like lighting and acting are affected. Also, there is an imperfection that though our eyes do not always notice, our brain processes, something that when one thinks about it, just makes a scene ridiculous, particularly when the green screen background is combined with computer effect action.
The next one, the worse thing about this movie is also George Lucas' fault (I happen to know this from interviews Lucas and Spielberg have given), and that is that while the movie maintained the typical Indiana Jones religious/supernatural element, it was ultimately not left to the supernatural, it was explained with Aliens. Lucas can call them inter-dimensional beings until the cows come home, we all know they are aliens. They look like aliens, and they take the spot of aliens in history's myths: namely Rosewell crash, area 51, and ancient civilizations worshiping aliens as gods and receiving good fortune from them for doing this. Not only is the alien bit just not the same, but the fact that there is an explanation is problematic. In the past movies the supernatural in religions were simply respected and a given, never needing an explanation. The Ark was an unspeakable power that melts faces. This is never explained away, it's never even explained as to why the Ark went all Ghostbusters on the Nazi's in the first place (although a person with good Biblical knowledge would have known that the Ark in the Old Testament always caused chaos, disaster, and trouble to anyone other than Israel, it was never a power for other armies to wield, and apparently the novelization of the Indiana Jones movie the back side to the headpiece of the staff of Ra included a warning not to gaze upon the ark when it is opened). In the Temple of Doom we all just accept that the high priest of Kali can rip out hearts with his bare hands, and not only that, the person will still be alive (this may have been the most awesome scene in any movie I saw when I was a kid and was the clear reason that for the first half of my childhood, Temple of Doom was my favorite Indiana Jones movie). Add the fact that the stones glow and burn holes through backpacks and we see that there was no need to explain now supernatural things in religion happened. Finally the Holy Grail had the power to heal, preserve the life of a knight of the first crusade, blow up the cave if you crossed the line, and if you drank from the wrong grail, you aged faster than Mark Hamill. And no matter how strange these things were, we bought it, and they played a central role towards the entire story. Lucas' insistence on aliens/inter-dimensional beings (something Spielberg insisted he was against, but like he always does in regards to Lucas and Indiana Jones, gave in) also goes contrary to the level of respect and place of the religious in the Indiana Jones movies (more on that later).
An honest appraisal suggests a real tension for all true Indy fans (Indy as in Indiana not Indy movies, and if you needed the difference, you are NOT a true Indy fan) and that is the nostalgic feeling and likewise disappointment that this movie can create. It may not be a fair critique, that is, if there were no other Indiana Jones movies, much of the hate for this movie would not be, but this one is weighed against the past ones, and like pretty much all revisits of any series after a long period of time, it offers disappointment. But that is not so much the fault of Indiana Jones 4 as it is that Nostalgia will always create this tension. You get really excited over the notion of seeing the famous archaeologist again on the big screen, but then it somehow does not meet your expectations. All of the sudden it occurs to you that Ford looks pretty freak'n old. Add to that how well done Indy 3 was, in terms of acting, a great script, a strong story, and the feeling of finality with the last scene being Indiana Jones riding into the sunset to the theme song. Then Henry Sr. and Marcus are not in the next one, it is an unfortunate change in the cast of characters that just could not match the great dynamics of Indy 3.
This brings us to the character choices, Ford's supporting cast certainly did not match up to 3. The father-son dynamic between Indiana and Mud was not nearly as profound or hilarious. However, the choice to bring back Marian was a good one. Not only did it add to the nostalgia, which as discussed, though it disappoints, we all want, but also because they were, beyond Ford and Connery, the best pair for the series. She was easily the best Jones girl, the other two being either annoying or a Nazi with an inconsistent accent. Their bickering works. It is interesting because the choice for Temple of Doom to be a prequel to Raiders (which it was if you did not know, I didn't for years until my friend enlightened me) was to prevent having to explain what happened to Marian and hers and Indy's relationship. Of course this was quite a foolish action because Indy 3 they never felt the need to explain it. And making it a prequel leaves it's ending never able to be explained (we can safely assume Willie was too much an annoying Diva, but am I the only one who thinks explaining what you did with a 10 year old orphan needs more explaining than what happened to your girlfriend from the previous film? Also by the way, Shorty and Indy made a better father-son dynamic than Indy-Mud). Ironically, the choice to bring Marian back for Indy 4, though I think it was the best, forced them to explain what happened between him and Marian, precisely what they were trying to avoid by making Indy 2 a prequel. Shia Labeauff, though not a bad choice, does tend to struggle between whether he is an action or comedy actor, and was true to that type here, which makes a bit of a less interesting role. He was also too usable for action scenes. Whereas in past movies Indiana pretty much handled the action with minimal help here and there, Buff has his own central sword fights and action sequences (there could be an argument for Shorty having the same in Temple of Doom, but it was always obviously secondary to the Indiana action, not so in some of the scenes in Crystal Skull). Kate Blanchet probably does not make for nearly as interesting or intimidating Arch Enemy as past ones, but she handled the role quite superbly. Indiana's spy friend was a bad addition, he was annoying, and the entire back story that Jones served as a spy was unnecessary and stupid.
The choice of the Russians was the obvious enemy for this, and worked well. They were a superpower and the obvious "bad guy" of the time for Americans like the Nazis were in previous era for the Indy movies. And for the most part, the overall environment was believable for the time (with exclusion to ridiculous green screen moments, especially in the chase scene in the jungle).
The movie maintained pretty well the expectation of what makes an Indiana Jones movie and should be recognized for that. It had the hand to hand combat scene with the tough guy, an opening sequence that requires a retreat from danger and shows someone getting the better of Indy (losing the idol in number 1, the diamond in number 2, and the cross in number three, now with the body taken away here, although in three the sequence transitions to him years later recovering it, so in some ways that breaks the "typical" opening pattern depending on where you judge to be the end of the opening sequence) but Indiana still getting out by the hair of his skin (although the fridge survival seems so unlikely until Mythbusters shows otherwise, I won't buy it that it worked). There were secret rooms, booby traps, and moments of revelation as to approaching the lost religious relic (or in this case, returning it to the secret, sacred city). As in all the Indy movies there was a pivitol vehicle chase scene (in 1 it was to steal the truck with the Ark, in 2 the rail car scene, in 3 the tank assault, in 4 the jungle scene with the military aquatic-land rover). And a snake makes a nice cameo for Indy's severe phobia to be revisited.
Perhaps the biggest thing is that as in all the movies, not only does Indy end up empty handed (the Ark is taken by the gov in 1, the last stone is returned to the village in 2, the grail falls and is burried in the cave collapse, and the crystal skull is left in the sacred city in 4) but he ultimately does not beat the bad guy. A key piece to every movie is that it is really in some way the relic that fights against and defeats the bad guy just when all seems lost. This may be what makes the inter-dimensional being thing worse, because since it breaks down the religion that is featured, it illegitimizes the theme that religion is not a weapon for evil. In every movie, the bad guy's desire to use the relic for power becomes their own demise, the Ark melts them, the stone tries to escape and in his desire to have it the priest loses his grip and falls to his death, the false grail ages Donovan and Dr. Schneider falls to her death trying to retrieve the cup after she tried to take it out of the cave. And finally, the Russian woman's desire for knowledge overfills her and keeps her captivated while the temple is falling apart. Not only does this say something artistically about the purpose of religion (regardless of what one thinks of any specific religion), but it respects the place of the supernatural in the Indiana movies. This is why the entire explanation and flying saucer ending is so heartbraking, because it violates what the story claims to be sacred, it has to explain the unexplanable and therefore smears the entire ending upon which every Indiana Jones film is written. It is in my opinion the worst part of the whole film.
The major thing then that really doomed this movie, along with simply the doom of trying to stand up against nostalgia, is that George Lucas is too sophisticated. Not only has his advances in computer technology changed film and therefore allowed Crystal Skull to feature some bad/outrageous scenes (look at every scene that bothers you most in this movie and I will wager it features some outlandish thing requiring a computer effect or green screen in its design), but also because he stated the reason for the aliens was because since the period they were covering changed, he wanted it to mirror the change/feature of the film industry of that period (which were B science fiction films). Very artistic move, that led to an incredibly stupid outcome.
As I noted above, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had a sense of finality to it with Indy riding into the sunset. Crystal Skull sought its own way to end the saga with Indiana getting married and the "hat" (oh yes, this movie respected the hat) about to go on Mud's head (as if a passing of the torch) before Indy snatches it away as he walks out of the church. It does not end in as "Indiana" worthy of a way as Last Crusade did in my opinion, but was a fine way, particularly with Ford's last minute grab of the hat before Mud could put it on, which to me would have cheapened the whole hat thing and been for a set up to new Indiana Jones (Jr) sagas, which would have just been a disappointing final thought. No matter how much you like Shia, he is no Indiana Jones.
Overall, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull has plenty to criticize, but as I said that is because it is toying with nostalgia, which will cause people to watch it but never put it on equal ground with its predecessors. Had this been its own movie apart from a previous series, it would probably have not been as initially popular but likewise be criticized less, because it was not in the end a BAD movie. It was entertaining, had good humor and action, and we are taken on another adventure. I usually walk away with bad taste in my mouth, particularly around the ending as I explained, but overall this does follow much of the classic Indiana Jones pattern and gave us one more adventure with the famous archaeologist before he bites the dust. Give it more credit, and enjoy it for what it is, not what we want it to be, because I don't think it could ever have been that.
Welcome to the first of several movie posts! It is a time when I release a series of pointless lists that people will inevitably disagree with. That said, let me kick it off with one I am very passionate about: movie remakes.
Remakes have been wildly popular for a while now. The horrible idea that Hollywood has is that when you run out of ideas you just run old ones out there again. Here is the real problem though: they try to remake the most popular ones, the classics. Now I understand the reasoning: money. You have a built in audience when you remake a popular movie. You also have built in frustration. Bottom line is remakes of great movies don't have the same effect. The new Planet of the Apes no matter how better the costumes and effects now just won't compare to the old one (anti-religious tones aside).
But there has in recent years been a few exceptions. Not exceptions to classics being remade, but exceptions to remakes topping their predecessors. A remake that helped show this was Dredd, a remake/reboot of the Judge Dredd movie. Someone understood that the Judge Dredd universe was grim and a movie of it should be true to the post-apocalyptic genre. The original movie, coming out in an era of comic book movies being childish and comic booklike (most notably the Batman series of the 90's) featured comic relief in the form of Rob Schneider and an emphasis on the actor of Dredd, Sylvester Stallone. The remake was much darker, serious and grim in nature. While essentially a violent shooter film, early on it developed a situation where the viewer literally goes "How are they gonna get out of this?" Coupled with great performances by Karl Urban (an actor who has been gaining more appreciation by me in recent years by his acting variety) and Lena Headey (known for her role as Cercei Lannister in Game of Thrones). Dredd might best be described as a reboot in that it retained only the basic framework of the original (setting, main character, etc.) while feeling no need to retain the original script/story. But in this regard that was why it is a reboot that worked. It fixed the severe flaws of its original (which in this case was an entire rewrite and change in movie genre). But it recognized that Judge Dredd was a good character for big screen. This is the basis for which I would like to propose some more reboots: movies that have some serious flaw in them but for one reason or another could be excellent if a remake was well done.
I will say this only once: Beware of Spoilers!
1. Pearl Harbor: Simply put, get Michael Bay as far away from this movie as possible, and have him take Ben Affleck with him. Bay doesn't seem to understand the concept of such historical fiction. He overshadowed the actual event of Pearl Harbor with a weird and yet simplistic love story. Kate Beckinsale's character all too easily changes her feelings from Affleck to Harnett, who kind of sleazily plays a bit off her grief. But before you can really realize that Affleck is back in the picture way too quickly, and some half done rivalry is never really settled and only truly finds resolution by killing one of the characters in a very cliche self sacrificial fashion. Coming out within years of some great World War II films like Saving Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gate this movie comes unbelievably short. Too add insult to injury this came out on the heels of 9/11, a disastrous attack being compared to Pearl Harbor, yet this film barely lets one rest in the grief of the climactic event and moves quickly to striking back. To top all its failures off, the movie was three hours long. But Pearl Harbor is an event that could provide for an emotional, action packed film. World War II movies done well are exceptionally powerful. We simply need a movie that will focus more on the event of Pearl Harbor itself and less on some crappy love triangle. Matt Stone and Trey Parker put in best in their song in Team America:
I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark When he made Pearl Harbor I miss you more than that movie missed the point And that's an awful lot girl And now, now you've gone away And all I'm trying to say is Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school He was terrible in that film I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part He's way better than Ben Affleck And now all I can think about is your smile and that sh***y movie too Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you
2. Daredevil: Staying with movies where Ben Affleck was a fundamental problem, let's go to Daredevil. Bottom line, Daredevil was an awesome comic book hero, yet his screen debut was beyond bad. From Affleck's performance in the lead role, to the introduction of another disappointing character (Elektra) to Collin Farrell's odd and uninteresting villain, this movie just failed. Where it probably delivered most was in costume. In terms of appearance they delivered a pretty good hero. Comic book characters are not always easy to transition to movies and look in any way serious, but Daredevil may have looked even more wicked in the film than in the comics. But he is too interesting of a hero to pass up, and the good thing about hero movies is they are easy to reboot (in the last 10 years we've seen reboots to Batman, Superman, Hulk, and Spiderman). A new actor and better villain choice will go a long ways in getting this franchise going.
3. A Knight's Tale: Are we over Heath Ledger enough to remake this film? Now I should say that Knight's Tale is actually a pretty good movie. It basically quite impressively pulls off a modern sports movie in a medieval setting. Additionally, as the title suggests, it has a fun twist of Chaucer to it, who is a character in the film itself. Suggesting this as essentially another piece of the Canterbury Tales (and has a moment to explain some of the characters who get a negative story in the tales). It simply is a good idea and a solid script. Additionally, the characters played pretty well to their parts. So why remake this film? The main reason is there was one significant flaw that diminished the quality of the movie quite a bit, and that was the design choice to give everything a modern spin. From the modern music and dance styles to modern dress and hair styles, for a script that remarkably pulls off a medieval adaptation these choices constantly kept pulling us out of the atmosphere into some modern world, or what we moderns would want the middle ages to be like, or what we would act like if we were there. That unnecessarily lightened the style of the film and took away from it having the truly unique feel it could have possessed. Instead it looked more like a teen movie parents wouldn't mind watching but no one feels the need to see again.
4. Hart's War: This is another war movie that just did not deliver. The overall premise of the movie is quite good, dealing with the issue of African American Officers coming into a POW camp and the tensions that causes, and the main character, Lt. Hart who for various reasons is rather isolated in relation to both officers and enlisted men is shoved in the middle of the affair. The general strokes of the movie therefore are worth keeping. But the characters in the film were way too type cast that it didn't allow for adequate mystery or character development. In addition the cast while including some good names (most notably Bruce Willis) simply did not seem to have chemistry. There were also some directing and cinematography issues that limited this film. Though in a prison camp, it just didn't feel much like that. A rewrite that adds more threat to the situation, deeper characters, more development of racial tensions, and some genuine emotional moments coupled with a director who can make the decisions on set necessary to foster that atmosphere would make this more than a value bin movie.
5. Spiderwick Chronicles: If ever there was a movie that might benefit from the current trend of splitting a film into multiple movies, this might be it. Although that trend typically takes a single book and splits it into multiple movies, this film did the opposite of taking a series of books and condensing it into a single movie. It's scary sometimes to think Miramax wanted to do that with Lord of the Rings, and I thank my lucky stars Pete Jackson not only found a different studio to back a multiple movie project, but one that actually let him go from two movies to three (too bad he was aloud to do that with the Hobbit). But back on point. I've never read the books of the Spiderwick Chronicles, but the movie was actually pretty decent. But it suffered two main problems: the story condensed to a single film (too much happens in too little time) and Nickelodeon's control. It was a Nickelodeon movie and that showed in the effects especially, which just sort of made it too kiddy of a movie. This film could have had a wider appeal had it's story been taken more seriously and spread out which would build the drama towards the final portion, and by giving it a more teen fantasy genre look. By condensing it all together it has this air of Cat in the Hat to it in how it seems the whole house falls into chaos while mom is at work. But for a movie that had some good (and some bad) design choices on creatures, an interesting story, and fun adventure it simply could have been a better product than what was produced.
6. Spiderman 3: Now on one hand you can't just remake a sequel right? Well, it seems at least Bryan Singer sort of found a way to do that with X-Men 3 in relation to the new X-Men movie coming out this year. But also because the Spiderman universe has undergone a reboot, there is an opportunity for the new series to avoid the mistake that Spiderman 3 suffered. The biggest mistake was giving Venom only 10 minutes of airtime, and to top it off, he was a secondary villain. Any reader of the Spiderman comics knew there were two main villains for Spiderman: Venom and the Kingpin. One never appeared in the movies, and Venom who was sort of Spiderman's evil twin if you will was perhaps his most popular villain. I think they were right to save him for the final Spiderman movie (think of how disappointing Bane was in Dark Knight Rises after a phenomenal Joker character was already used in The Dark Knight), and maybe part of the problem is Tobey Maguire indicating he was done with the franchise that made them cram Venom in just so we saw him, but it did him no justice. He never really was developed as the top villain. Especially since he appears with another villain, and the Hobgoblin (played by James Franco) has to have a change of heart to help. It was pure garbage. Not too mention the other villain whose name I can't even remember (Mr. Sandman?) was a joke with some sympathetic backstory, and of course had to be the one to have really shot Peter Parker's uncle. The new Spiderman series ought give Venom his due screen time, and let him be the legitimate arch-villain of Spiderman. On a side note, I read somewhere rumblings that the new series might include another top villain of the series: Carnage (think venom suit, but with blades and a psychopath wearing it). Although if that's true I do wonder how they will portray him well while maintaining any rating less than R. It will take some tricky directing. The Spiderman series both old and new have been underwhelming in their overall choices of villains, they need to step it up and taking the key villain and making it his movie is the way to do that.
7. Masters of the Universe: If there is one thing that will be hard to top it was Frank Langella's stellar performance as Skeletor. It was one of the most underrated villain performances in cinema in my view. My guess is today they would digitize his face anyways to use an actual skull instead of the bony prosthetics that was used in the 80's. But truth be told I'd take the prosthetic over most digital skull faces (Ghost Rider anyone?). This movie suffered two main problems: assumptions and forced realism. It basically assumed that all its viewers were familiar with the He-Man story (even though it made some key changes like getting rid of the royal family, most notably then eradicating He-Man's alter ego of Prince Adam, although that may have actually been a rather smart move). It just sort of dumps you into this war and it's not clear who is who or why it is happening. The power of the sword of Greyskull is never established just a given. Characters are introduced by a quick name with no real depth/story to them. But while they assumed their viewers would be familiar with the kids show He-Man was known for, it wasn't really made like a kid show with minimal comedy stemming primarily from a comic relief character who never existed in the show, and it tried to give it a feel of realism by not only being live action, but by basing the film on a premise that He-Man and a small band of Eternians flee Eternia to earth. Just because that works for Thor (in part because it is essential to understanding the character Thor in an earth setting) it was a disaster move for this film. Masters of the Universe belongs in Eternia. Instead they went the route of the old He-Man and She-Ra Christmas special. The concept of exile truly works only if you are invested in Eternia and if the place you are exiled to is perilous. It fits for a mid-movie plot or a sequel and it doesn't fit by going to earth and eating ribs and pimping out cars! In fact the whole concept of He-Man's exile becomes horrible for humans, not for the Eternians. Finally, while Dolph Lundgren did about as much as you could expect from him as He-Man, he's such an unimpressive main character. Hey, maybe the guy from Thor could do it! There has to be a better hero out there. I think they actually were right to make this a live action film, but it needs to be kept in Eternia, with a more developed plot/setting, better lead roles by really all the heroes, and if you want comic relief Orco is your man. This is also actually the time to remake a He-Man movie. The kids who grew up on He-Man are hovering around 30, but there was also a wave that may have watched the remake of the cartoon about 10 years ago. One group is just entering that prime movie age and another is leaving it quickly, so the time to make the film is now. With our movie capabilities Eternia would be a great place to bring to life, Skeletor is a great villain with tons of minor villains tied to him (another issue with the original which only utilized two of them), and He-man, while a rather brute figure, has a sword which always makes for potential awesomeness. I think playing off his intelligence would also be wise to separate him from essentially being a blonde Conan. Lundgren played off of his good character to distinguish him, but he still was ultimately a brute in WWE clothes. While the original had plenty of problems, the potential is too great to pass up.
8. In the Name of the King A Dungeon Siege Tale: This is actually the movie that inspired this entire blog. From the moment I saw it I thought "someone needs to remake this film". Simply put, if Peter Jackson had done this movie it would probably be pure awesome. Never have I a seen a movie where I felt costume, casting, and directing absolutely ruined a great film. There simply was some bad visioning in bringing this story to life. The overall tale is unique enough yet grounded enough in modern fantasy to appeal. But several actors just looked like they had no business being in this film, including its star Jason Statham. Sorry, but keep him in car chases and shootouts, not on horseback with sword fights. But perhaps nothing defines the casting mistakes quite like Ray Liotta as a sorcerer. What the heck is Ray Liotta doing in a fantasy film? Additionally, some of the creature costumes and presentation looked like a cross between monkeys and puddies from Power Rangers. Respectable names mattered more than a respectable product, but this movie has all the makings of being good. Of all the films here, this one would require the least amount of work on the script/story itself to be good, it would simply be about how it is put to screen. Which in my view makes it the top candidate for an excellent remake.
9. Eragon: If number 8 is best suited for a remake, perhaps number 9 is the remake that has to happen and is best suited to succeed. Like In the Name of the King, this movie does not need too much. I think timing more than anything doomed Eragon. I never even heard of it hitting theaters or knew anything about it when I first bought the film how many years ago. Now most people acquainted with fantasy novels are well aware of this series. Stores with only a small space dedicated to book sales offer this one, I see it on people's shelves at home. There was definitely some hype in the final two books when they reached the shelves. It seems that the series became a movie a bit too soon, and thus failed in the box office. There were some flaws, also notably in casting. While I applauded their choice to go with an unknown, Ed Speleers was a rather bad hero. He had this pretty boy look to him that simply did not make him relatable and did not mesh well with the character's personality. John Malkovich is also a wonder. Kind of like Ray Liotta, you make a funny face at the very thought of him in a dragon movie. Although he wasn't altogether horrible. This movie needs better timing, a slightly better budget, and a better cast. With those, it could finally jumpstart the Eragon series into film as this one killed the franchise before it ever really got off the ground. Right now it stands as a nice B movie, but the books have the popularity and general story structure, however cliche to make it a blockbuster.
10. Six Days, Seven Nights: Like the Judge Dredd movie, this movie needs a genre shift. What we got was Romantic Comedy, what it needs is serious drama. The overall plot story of a snobby woman crashing on a remote island with a past his prime, grumpy and at the same time overly flirtatious pilot while her fiance is back on the getaway she flew away from trying to organize a rescue crew is not a bad story. It essentially has two good plots running together, the organized rescue and the efforts to both survive and get found. Both of which, done seriously, could make for a very powerful drama. But instead we got Harrison Ford reaching down Anne Heche's pants, David Schwimmer cheating on his fiance partway into the rescue efforts and then over-dramatizing his guilt, and pirates with guns chasing Ford and Heche around the island. As far as romantic comedies go it went well. Heche and Ford played a good anti-chemistry turned to love, Schwimmer's betrayal let her off the hook for connecting with Ford, and there were plenty of good lines in the movie, including what might be my favorite Harrison Ford line ever at the end of this video:
As a romantic comedy it worked, but there is enough of a real story here to make a powerful film. Think castaway if Tom Hanks had someone he did not like (but had some sexual tension with) instead of a volleyball. To truly deal with an uncomfortable dynamic of being trapped on an island with someone and rely on each other and trust each other (and without trust inevitably meaning romance) with limited resources and then to follow a serious rescue, that could be a good and emotional movie, not just an entertaining one. Real sacrifice and a likely chance of death or suffering to where the audience literally doesn't know how it's going to end is what this film needs.
So that's my list. Also by way of a note, I thought I would mention I can think of two classics that had successful remakes: Scarface and Dances With Wolves. Scarface was so many years removed, so different, and so iconic in the niche of drug/ganster movies in its own right, it rightly was cautious in how much of the original it borrowed to use the old story but yet create an entirely new one. Dances with Wolves' remake was brilliant because they didn't use the same title or setting, and added a bunch of visuals. I'm talking of course about Avatar. You cannot watch that movie and tell me it's not exactly the same as Dances With Wolves once you take away the effects. There is a reason before the movie was even released the South Park creators poked fun at it, essentially calling it "Dances with Smurfs" (for which a South Park episode gets its name). Ok, maybe it is not a remake per se, maybe he just stole/recycled the story, but in the end when the whole plot is that similar isn't that all it is, a remake? Recycling/repackaging the story with a new cast, setting, and characters, but still really telling the same story. It was so similar the movie still had the same overtones/moral of how horrible westerners are to natives because we want/feel entitled to their land while we are at the same time horribly out of touch from it.
Anyways, faithful readers keep an eye out for some more pointless movie lists coming.
Regular readers of mine have probably read at least one reference to Bo Giertz in my blog. Church members of mine are subjected to it a lot more. I have sort of a theological man crush on his works. Giertz is most well know known for his novel Hammer of God. For those unfamiliar with it, here is a fine introduction/review from Tullian Tchividjian. Those familiar with Hammer of God may think that is where this blog is going since there is a chapter entitled "Transfiguration Day" that is quite memorable for the exerts of Henric Schartau's Transfiguration Day sermon for which that Novella gets the title "Jesus Only". Less known is that Giertz wrote several other novels, two of which are available in English: Knights of Rhodes, a fine work in historical fiction recently translated by Bror Erickson and With My Own Eyes which was translated by Maurice Michael in I believe it was 1960.
With My Own Eyes is a novelization of the gospels that has been compared to the works of wonderful Lutheran novelist Walter Wangerin Jr. Unfortunately it is a rather hard to find book. I was able to read it from my seminary library, but to most this book is rather unknown in America. Even in our age of ebay and Amazon it is not easy to get ahold of and those sites that do sell it often do at a ridiculously high price. For those reasons, along with the fact that I was still rather new to the language I had purchased the book in its original Swedish Med Egna Ögon. I figured if I never get the book in English I at least have it in Swedish, and since my Swedish is still rather basic, I thought it would be good to do some translating with a book I've read. I sincerely hope at some point there is a second printing of this book. But until then, it's up to even the most basic of translators like myself to help bring some of Giertz's stuff to English.
That brings me to this blog. As I prepared for this Sunday I took the time to translate the transfiguration account in Giertz's chapter "Whiter Than Snow". It is not the entire chapter, but the account of their time upon the mountain before descending down.
Whiter Than Snow
They came to the last of the trees. John had noticed how the forest had thinned and the Hollies had shrunk together. They seemed to be crouching down, they crept near to the ground and held fast to the rocks.
Then there were no more trees. John saw it with astonished eyes. He had never thought that the mountains could be so high that forests could no longer grow on them. They wandered over a smooth blanket of bunched twigs and creeping willows. They constantly encountered small streams of cold water, which quietly slid over the rocks and soaked the rough gravel.
After only a few hours they had lost sight of the valleys around Caesarea Philippi. The whole town had crept down and hid behind the foothills of the mountain. On the other hand, opening up were new and unexpected views of its sea, which as they went higher stepped out from behind the hills, bigger and better. They stopped over and over again and pointed out the cities. There was Tiberias and Magdala, there appeared Capernaum and there Bethsaida stepped out from behind the ridge. And as the sea came out from its hiding behind the mountains, the southern horizon came into view. Carmel rested beyond the plain, Ebal and Garisim sprawled up among the hills of Samaria, and beyond there appeared the ridges of Judah as far as the region of Jerusalem. And still they went higher up.
John looked at his brother and smiled broadly and happily. This was a journey which had suited them. It was said that no one willingly steps up here on the mysterious mountain which everyone had seen but no one climbed. They had rejoiced therefore when the Master invited them to come with. They felt it was an honor, just as that name, which he gave them half-jokingly when he called them men of thunder. They could definitely rumble and make a fuss over little things, they were also first on the scene when it took courage or a strong task was needed.
This fascinated John enough to go over these heaths, where probably no man set foot before. In the west the sea was opening up in all its infinity beyond the Phoenician mountain. In the east lay the equally endless desert. To his front lay the mountain. Over and over he stared up the hill. Up there at the crest, that must surely be the top. But there was ever new crest and new, bare heights. The rise was certainly less steep, but it went up endlessly.
It was James who first came upon the snow. It lay in a deep crevice between the naked rocks. They lowered their hands in it and pressed it against their cheeks. They had never before gotten ahold of fresh snow. They had seen it at some point being brought down to Bethsaida, densely packed into tight leather wineskins, but that snow was dark and dripping wet. This was white and grainy, brighter than salt and so cold that your hands ached when you dug into it.
The sun was going down. It was delightfully cool and oddly easy to breath. Soft, blue shadows wandered over their homeland down below, some lonely clouds hovered like white wool drops over the surface of the sea. All of the deep valley that lay between the mountains of Galilee was already in twilight. Surely now they had arrived?
They never reached the top. They came so far that the mountain had fallen steeply to the east. With astonished eyes they saw a town down there, which must be Damascus, which as a white jewel lay in a bezel of dark greenery, in the center of the red desert. The shadow of this great, giant mountain fell across the plain and hurried faster and faster towards the horizon. Then the blue twilight rose up over the ground, for a moment the dust clouds over the desert were stained purple, and the small clouds over the Sea of Tiberias glowed like cut roses. Then everything went out, the sun disappeared into the sea and the darkness terrifyingly rose up over the desert’s undisturbed expanses.
They prepared a camp in a plot where there was a deep sink and ate their bread and their figs. When the stars lit up the sky above them, the Master asked them to linger there while he went away to pray. Even when it became quite dark they could catch a glimpse of him against the horizon above the camp site. They heard him speak with his Father, but they couldn’t quite take in the words he was saying.
John sat awake a long time. His brother was sleeping between the tufts of grass, and even Peter had given in and laid down. He listened. He’d be glad to have known what the Master said when he spoke to his Father…Again he shied away from the great secret, which had not been divulged. And though he did not know what it meant or what it would come to mean, John knew and believed completely and firmly that God’s Messiah was here among them. The bridegroom at the heavenly feast had descended to earth. They themselves were invited to the wedding. He had called them and appointed them over the men of their faith and clothed them with an authority like none other. They were the beginning of his people and heirs to the kingdom of glory. But just the same he wandered as the poor and homeless, and he made his bed on the ground. It was like the Master himself said: The foxes had their den, but the Son of Man had no place where he could rest his head.
He had dozed off a while, and the stars had wandered a long ways over the heavens above. It was infinitely still around them, not even a dying echo had rose up from the world of men down below.
Then he heard the Master’s voice again. He was speaking softly to someone who was right next to him and yet was infinitely far away. John listened long. Did the master never tire? How long could he talk with his Heavenly Father? He heard a conversation. The Master talked and silently listened and then spoke again. Even as John dozed off, he heard far away the strange tone of that voice, which with a boundless reverence drew near to Something in which it already had a portion of, and worshiped That One of whose essence it had come from.
When he started to wake, he had at first sensed the sun shining in his face. Still drowsy, he opened his eyes and saw a deep blue sky above him, a blue so deep it could only be the earliest part of dawn, when the stars go out. Yet the light still was beaming around him. He got up, still rather sleepy, and saw the Master standing before him.
Was it the Master? His face was transformed, his clothes shined like the light which reflected from the snowfields. His whole figure was shaped by light, interwoven and filled with light, an oddly captivating light that caressed the eye and blinded it and filled the heart with happiness and terror. Beside the Master, flowing out of that very light there stood two figures. The moment John saw them he knew that it was Moses and Elijah. They had descended here in order to talk with the Son of Man. The foremost among those who have gone before God’s Messiah stood here and talked about the work which they had begun, and which he would fulfill.
At that moment John began to wonder if he was dreaming. He looked around. Yeah - it was definitely a dream. Why he was floating on the clouds! The whole mountain was floating on clouds, whose soft waves of wooly foam spread themselves out, still so full of the night’s blue darkness they showed barely any of that first splash of the red morning. This soft sea reached right up to their feet, they were bare upon it, completely alone under heaven.
John took a sleepy step forward. His foot came hard against the gravel. His clothes were wet with dew and his hands felt frozen. This was not a dream. There stood James and Peter, just as sleepy and bewildered as he. Like children who got up too early, they stammered towards the Master.
At that moment, the two figures bowed to say goodbye and prepared to go. Peter took a couple clumsy steps forward and spoke in a drowsy voice that sounded muddled to John: that it was good that they were now here; now they would serve them and build three tabernacles, one for each of them. His incoherent words were drowned in clear white, a glittering sky, which swept down over them and saturated everything in such a wave of light that there was nothing but light. It was a glory and a power, something so wonderful and terrifying it threw John down to his knees and bent his forehead to the ground. While he lay there pressed against the willows, he heard the light, full of a voice which was not just any voice, but a living word which met him and penetrated him as much as the light itself. And the Word that came out from the clear and filled his breast and his head said to him: This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.
Still stunned by wonder and terror he felt the Master’s hand on his shoulder and heard his voice saying: Get up, do not be afraid.
He opened his eyes. Jesus stood there alone. Behind him nothing was visible except the deserted expanse of the mountain and then the endless sea of clouds that just gave birth to the color of the first rays of sunlight.
John arose, unable to say anything. Mechanically he chewed the bread that the Master gave him. With the same passivity he followed after him when he began to go down towards the bank of the sea of clouds.
Shyly and hesitantly he exchanged some whispers with the others. Had they heard the voice? Yeah. Had they seen them? Certainly. Was it Moses? Yes! And Elijah? Another nod. What had they talked about? About that which would now take place in Jerusalem.
Then the Master turned to them as if he understood what they were talking about. For the first time he mentioned the vision that they had seen. He forbade them from talking about it to anyone until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
That the dead would arise, they knew that. Some day those who were esteemed worthy of becoming children of the new age would go into the same glory that they this morning saw a reflection of. But the Son of Man? He would arise? God would raise the dead from their humiliation. But surely the Messiah was God’s son, a partaker of his glory? And before the resurrection surely Elijah would come?
For the first time they dared to touch upon that great secret with a tentative question.
-How come the scribes say that Elijah must come first?
The Master’s response was clear and yet still puzzling. Elijah must come first, he said. That was true. He would restore all things. But that was already done. He had come. But the people did not know him, and they dealt with him exactly according to their evil wills. In the same way they will deal with the Son of Man. Was it not written about him, that he must suffer much and be rejected?
The Master’s answer had seemed so odd, and they feared to ask more. They had been told about Elijah. They understood who he was talking about; that was about John the Baptist. But what did it mean: that the Messiah would suffer much and be rejected? They had killed John. But the Messiah? God’s own Son?
