Hobbit Rumors

It's a new year so there are lots of new rumors about the long-awaited Hobbit movie, directed by Peter Jackson. The latest news is that Elijah Wood (pictured left) will be playing Frodo, who isn't in that book. This prompted me to look for cast info on TheOneRing.net and The Internet Movie Database.

I was surprised by two things:
1. The release date (Dec. 2012)
2. The inclusion of characters who are not in the book

The latter includes Frodo, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel, and Legolas. It's rumored that Orlando Bloom will be paid $1 million for a two-minute cameo as Legolas. Since Legolas wasn't in that book, I had hoped they wanted Bloom to play Thranduil, King of the Mirkwood Elves (and father of Legolas). Now it rumored that David Tennant (who recently played Dr. Who and Barty Crouch, Jr. in Harry Potter IV), will play Thranduil.

Speaking of Elvish characters, what the heck is Galadriel doing here? Where is Elrond? I hope the writers don't send Bilbo and company to Lorien instead of Rivendell. (Let's all hope they stick to the book and take a good look at the map of Middle-earth before they make any radical changes).

Perhaps Jackson has other plans for these non-Hobbit characters. In the past he said the movies (yes, plural, there will be two of them) would be based on material written by Tolkien. Other than The Hobbit, I wonder if he's referring the "The Book of Years" in Appendix B of The Lord of the Rings (LotR). Other than the events in LotR, there's not much mention of these characters in that Appendix, certainly not enough for a movie, so I can't help but wonder how inventive Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens will be. Goodness knows, they took quite a few liberties with LotR! At least we only have to wait 23 more months to find out...

Star Trek Movie Trailer

After reading "Inspirations for a Whole New Enterprise: How the old 'Star Trek' influenced the new film" by Jeff Jenson (published in Entertainment Weekly Oct. 24), I had high hopes for the new film. It is supposedly influenced by "Balance of Terror" (original series episode), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (movie), "Unification" (one of the few Next Generation episodes I could stand to watch), "Yesterday's Enterprise (ditto), and Diane Carey's 1992 novel Best Destiny (one of the best Star Trek novels ever, in itself a rarity).

The cover story of the same issue of EW, 'Star Trek': New Movie, New Vision also by Jeff Jenson, made me change my mind. That's Zachary Quinto as Spock and Chris Pine as Kirk pictured on the cover.

I'm worried. The characters look great, but it appears they are ignoring the Trek timeline by putting all the main characters in Starfleet Academy at the same time (thus making them all close in age).

Jensen's article confirmed my fear. Director J.J. Abrams "was engaged by the possibility of a Star Trek movie 'that grabbed me the way Star Wars did.' That meant a bigger budget and better special effects than any previous Trek film, plus freedom to reinvent the mythos as needed."

Oh crap!

More stuff that makes me nervous: "The storytelling is newbie-friendly, but it slyly assimilates a wide range of Trek arcana, from doomed Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to Sulu's swordsmanship to classic lines like, 'I have been, and always shall be, your friend.' More ambitiously, the movie subversively plays with Trek lore — and those who know it. The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling 'Heresy!' But revisionism anxiety is the point. 'The movie,'' [Damon] Lindelof [friend of Abrams close collaborator] says, 'is about the act of changing what you know.''

What the hell does that all mean?

On the plus side:

• Quinto campaigned for the part of Spock and looks quite comfortable (and convincing) in the role. I suspect he's a good enough actor that when we see the film we won't even think about Sylar (his evil character on the TV show Heroes).
  
• Abrams wouldn't make the movie without Leonard Nimoy (the original Spock). Jensen hints Nimoy will appear in a scene with Quinto and/or Pine. I figure that means time-travel is involved. (No wonder the time cops hate Kirk so much!)
  
• Abrams gave "Randy Pausch, the now-late author of The Last Lecture and avowed Trekker, a cameo in the film."

On the other hand, the new trailer (shown before the James Bond file Quantum of Solace) doesn't encourage me:



Only six more months until we can see it and decide for ourselves. In the meantime, keep an eye on Star Trek: The Official Movie Site for updates.

Update Nov. 23, 2008: This scene-by-scene analysis of the trailer did not make me feel any better about the movie.

Indy's Back!

In case you haven't heard, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the fourth Indy movie and the first in almost 20 years, will be released May 22. Take a look at the trailer:



I can hardly wait! It looks like an outstanding successor to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. They've advanced the timeline 20 years so it's set in the 50s with Indy fighting Commies instead of Nazis, with Cate Blanchett at the head of the bad guys. Other characters include Marion Ravenwood; her father and Indy's mentor, Abner (who was supposed to be dead before Raiders so let's hope we see him via flashback); and a new character, Mutt Williams (rumored to be Indy and Marion's son). Sadly, Denholm Elliott (who played Dr. Marcus Brody) died in 1992 and there is no sign of John Rhys-Davies (who played Sallah) or Sean Connery (Dr. Henry Jones, Sr.). I hope they are just being careful with the credits and we'll get to see Indy's dad.

For more info visit Indian Jones: The Official Site, The Raider (fan site), or The Internet Movie Database (which isn't very helpful at this point).

Get your Fedora and leather jacket ready... only 87 more days...

At Last, Camelot

In the early '80s, I fell in love with the Broadway version of Camelot with Richard Harris and Meg Bussert. Unfortunately, we didn't own a VCR at the time, so although I watched it countless times on HBO, I was never able to tape it.

I've been hunting for the tape for several years without success. A few years ago I even e-mailed Meg Bussert who is an instructor at NYU Steinhardt. At that time all she knew was that the rights had been sold to A&E. When I contacted A&E they had no idea when it would be available.

Now, quite by accident, I found it was released on DVD May 1, 2007. (At last!) I've already ordered my copy from Amazon.

If you haven't seen this version, I must say I like far better than the 1967 movie with Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave (which looks very dated). The performances are fresh and entertaining. Bussert plays Guenevere with a charming mix of innocence and cunning. Richard Muenz portrays Lancelot as confident but a bit naive. These interpretations make the tragic ending all the more poignant. Harris is, of course, superb as the idealistic and forgiving Arthur. I can hardly wait for my DVD to arrive so I can see it again after 24 years. (Man, does that make me feel old! I was about 20 the last time I saw it.)

UPDATE Aug. 22: It arrived today and I watched it immediately. It's a good as I remembered: beautiful costumes and staging, wonderful music, and Harris was so good I didn't think of Dumbledore once. :) There aren't many special features on the DVD (not even closed captioning), but I don't care. I'm so glad to finally own a copy of this version!

More Lord of the Rings DVDs?

Tomorrow the Lord of the Rings Limited Edition DVDs go on sale. They've already released the theatrical edition and extended edition, so why a limited edition? According to the official movie web site the main appeal is new documentaries on each film. The sets also include the movies because "releasing these documentaries unaccompanied by the film would be nearly impossible because of agreements that are in place with the cast and crew."

Each film is a two-disk set. Disk 1 contains the theatrical and extended edition of the film. Disk 2 is all the new behind-the-scenes documentaries. Each set is $20 on the movie web site, so they'll be somewhat cheaper at Wal-Mart, Target, etc.

LotR and DVD geek that I am, I'm tempted. I bought both the theatrical edition and extended edition of each film so I'd have all the documentaries. Curse you, Peter Jackson, for tempting me with even more...

UPDATE Aug. 30: Read reviews on Tolkien News. General consensus: the new documentaries are enjoyable but it's not worth it if you already own the previous verisons. That might be why I couldn't find them at Wal-Mart!

What I'm Watching: The Da Vinci Code

Last Thursday I saw The Da Vinci Code for the second time. I hardly ever see movies at the theater any more, so that alone should tell you how much I liked it. It's very well done and follows the book closely. The cast and directing are excellent and Sir Ian McKellan (as Sir Leigh Teabing) nearly steals the show!

I've asked a couple of friends who have seen the movie but haven't read the book if they had any trouble following the plot. They did not, but of course it's even more fun it you have read the book.

Speaking of the book, here is my two cents: I don't know why people are so worked up over a book of fiction. Everywhere I look churches are having meetings to discuss The Da Vinci Code. I'd feel better if I thought they were actually reading it and making up their own minds, but I suspect that (like my aunt's church) it's just the minister telling his congregation why they shouldn't read such heratical lies.

They are missing two crucial points: 1. It's a work of fiction, and 2. Just because Dan Brown wrote it does not mean that he believes it or that he is promoting the destruction of Christianity (as some Evangelical denominations and Catholics seem to think).

How do I know it's fiction? Duh. It's in the fiction section in the bookstore. If it were real it would be in the religion or history section. Also, take a look at the copyright page (on the back of the title page). The keywords section lists the book as fiction; it also includes the usual disclaimer that "All of the characters in this book are fictious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

What about the "Facts" page at the beginning of the book? Well, those facts are basically true. There was a Priory of Scion in 1099, Opus Dei does exist, and Brown describes the architecture of the settings well. Other than that, assume any details are fiction.

The "Facts" page is a way to get the reader's attention. It's no different than the author claiming to have found the enclosed manuscript under mysterious circumstances (or inherited it or whatever) and publishing it. This is just the author having fun with the reader by pretending that the characters and events are real, but that doesn't mean they are real.

For example, two of my favorite mystery authors, Laurie King and Elizabeth Peters, use this technique in their popular series. Does this mean readers think Sherlock Holmes, Mary Russell, Radcliff Emerson, and Amelia Peabody were real? Heck no! We know it's just good, wholesome fun and enjoy it.

Maybe average readers of The Da Vinci Code don't recognize this literary technique because they don't read much. They pick up the book because they've heard so much about it and assume it's all true, and overlooking the fact that it's in the fiction section.

The thing that makes The Da Vinci Code so controversial and such a best-seller is the inclusion of a theory about Jesus. One of Dan Brown's previous books, Angels and Demons, is similar to The Da Vinci Code and is about a cover-up by the Vatican. It's very good but not nearly as controversial as The Da Vinci Code. Why not? No radical Jesus theory. Throw in a controversial theory about Jesus and you've got an instant best-seller. (Remember the movie The Last Temptation of Christ?)

The irony is that the main thing some people object to in The Da Vinci Code, the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, isn't even Dan Brown's idea! He even explains in the text that it comes from Holy Blood, Holy Grail (by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who sued Brown and lost). Their book sold well but wasn't an international cultural phenomena like Brown's. Why? Probably because it's in the non-fiction section. (It probably should be in the fiction section since serious Biblical scholars and historians don't see it as a reliable source. I haven't read it, so I personally can't vouch for it one way or the other.)

The Da Vinci Code should be read for what it is: an interesting, entertaining, and well-written thriller. I enjoy it for those reasons but I also like the fact that it makes readers think and probably even read other books.

'It's a Wonderful Life' Most Inspiring Film

Today on FoxNews: "George Bailey's brother proclaimed him the richest man in Bedford Falls. Now the story of the despondent businessman, who got a chance to see how ugly the world would be without him, has been proclaimed the most inspiring American movie."

No surprise there! Like millions of others, I love this film. I don't even know how many times I've seen it and I still cry every time I see the end. That's quality movie-making.

My favorite sentimental and not-so-subtle quotes:

Clarence: Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful whole, doesn't he? ... You see, George, you really had a wonderful life.

Harry: A toast to my big brother George, the richest man in town!

Dear George,
Remember, no man is a failure who has friends. Thanks for the wings!
Clarence

What about you? What are your favorite quotes, scenes, moments? Feel free to leave a comment... and don't feel like you have to wait until Christmas to enjoy this wonderful film!

Warriors of Oz?!

Today's paper, in the coupons, contained an ad for Warriors of Oz by Hamilton Authenticated. Authenticated what? This has nothing to do with the book/movie we all know and love. Dorothy as Zena, Warrior Princess? Toto as a demon dog? Scarecrow the archer, Tinman the Cylon, and Lion the were-lion. What the hell was Hamilton Authenticated thinking and who buys this crap?

Hear that rumbling sound? It's L. Frank Baum spinning in his grave.

The Da Vinci Crock

Lewis Purdue, author of Daughter of God and The Da Vinci Legacy, left a comment regarding my post Plagiarism or Greed? on the recent lawsuits against Dan Brown. He said:

Greed?

If you examine the facts at http://davincicrock.blogspot.com, you will find that I am donating proceeds from the suit to charity.

And that Random House sued ME, not the other way around.

And the legal fight is not over. Next hearing in NYC on April 11

Lewis, thank you for visiting my blog and setting me straight about your problems with Random House. The media sure didn't report your story accurately. (How typical!)

As promised I'm putting this in a new post with the link to your Da Vinci Crock so my readers (few though they may be) will get the whole story.

I've also put your books on my list of books to read and recommend we all read them in the interest of fairness.

I'm sure I won't be the only one waiting to see how your case turns out. Good luck, Lewis!

Plagiarism or Greed?

Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, is being sued for plagiarism. According to Lawyer: Dan Brown evidence suspect, published yesterday on CNN:

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Da Vinci Code publisher Random House, claiming Brown's book "appropriated the architecture" of their 1982 nonfiction book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Both books explore theories -- dismissed by theologians -- that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives.

Brown indirectly acknowledged Leigh and Baigent by naming a character, Sir Leigh Teabing (an anagram of Baigent) after them, but they want more. Their lawsuit could even delay release of the new film of The Da Vinci Code.

According to 'Da Vinci Code' case nears ending, published Sunday on CNN, this not the first time Brown has been sued over The Da Vinci Code, "Last August he won a court ruling against Lewis Perdue, who alleged The Da Vinci Code copied elements of two of his novels, Daughter of God and The Da Vinci Legacy."

What do these cases have in common? Greed, I'm sure. The Da Vinci Code has been on The New York Times best-seller list for two years and has sold over 40 million copies. 40 million! Just imagine that. Even if Dan Brown makes less than a dollar in royalties per book, he has made millions. I'm sure Leigh and Baigent, like Perdue before them, are motivated by the idea of getting part of that money.

I hope they don't. I'm ticked because of their greed and because their lawyer is now trying to drag Brown's wife, who helped with the research, into the case. If Leigh and Baigent win, does it mean authors can't use non-fiction or history in fictional works? I supposed we can thank James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces, for muddying the distinction between fiction and non-fiction, but Brown acknowledged that fact that he's read lots of books on his subject and none of the ideas are really new. He's right. What's new is the creative and compelling story he created that is driving people to learn more about art, history, and religion -- and I hope he's not punished for that.

History vs. Fiction

Yesterday I stopped at a Speedway for some pop and ran smack into a conflict of academia vs. popular fiction. One the guys who worked there was telling someone about the Knights Templar in great detail. When I got to the counter I asked him if he was interested in the Templars. He said,

(WARNING: Academics of a sensitive nature will probably be horrified by his answer and should stop reading now.)

"Yeah, I've read The Da Vinci Code and seen Kingdom of Heaven."

There was a long pause as I tried to decide how to encourage this young man's interest in the Templars without sound like a condescending jerk by telling his sources are fiction which took great liberties with history in order to tell an entertaining story.

I finally said, "You know, if you are interested in the Templars, there are much better sources you could read."

Instead of being offended he was very interested. "How did you know about the Templars?" he asked.

I fought the urge to say "I read history books" and instead I explained I was college instructor and had long been interested in the Middle Ages.

He wanted to know if I could recommend any books and of course I could only think of one (Dungeon, Fire, and Sword by John J. Robinson) so I suggested he try any library and search on "Templars" or "Knights of the Temple."

(WARNING: U of M profs of a sensitive nature, especially history profs, will probably be horrified his answer and should stop reading now.)

"Cool," he said. "I go to U of M, I'll try the library there."

I restrained myself from asking if he'd had a class in history or research, or asking why he hadn't already done so, and instead encouraged him to visit the library soon.

I was horrified by this encounter. I knew some people have trouble understanding The Da Vinci Code is fiction, but hadn't run into it quite like this. I wish Dan Brown nothing but success (I liked all of his books, including The Da Vinci Code) but I think he needs to print "This is a work of fiction" on the cover instead of putting in the preface/forward/wherever.

If the young man from Speedway is reading this, I'm not picking on you, but please restore my faith in logic and common sense by reading some reliable sources about the Templars.