I’ve been a Marvel fan for the past six and a half years, going all the way back to Bendis’s New Avengers #1. At the time, I never in a million years thought I could pick up a Marvel book, but hey. I got hooked and I’ve been reading your comics in mass opiate quantities ever since.

But I’m going to have to quit you.

I know times are tight and tensions are running high. I know the comics market is shrinking. Individual issue sales are down and decreasing across the board. Having giant movie blockbusters every summer doesn’t seem to be affecting monthly issue sales too much (especially in terms of people coming into the stores). Both you and DC are having a hard time, but that’s okay for you because you guys are the bigger, stronger company at the moment. Your books are dripping with talent and creativity and it’s showing in the numbers.

But I don’t know why you insist on continuing this petty rivalry even in the face of adversity.

I’m all for rivalries. Competition makes the world go round. But when your brand of competition comes out on Twitter and in interviews as jabs and digs, you guys come off sounding petty and immature. Take the September Previews catalog, for instance. You thought it best to take a swipe at DC by advertising your solicitations with tags like  “Uncanny X-Men: Still #543!” or “New Avengers: Still #16!” in some attempt to make yourselves look good in the wake of DC’s complete #1 relaunchment in September. Nevermind the fact that Uncanny X-Men is canceled and rebooting after issue #544 (October’s issue) or that New Avengers just relaunched 16 issues ago (I remember, I was there). Anything to show that you guys are the bigger guy.

And as if that’s not bad enough, you have someone like C.B. Cebulski, a talent scout and widely known, high profile, upper echelon, Senior Vice President at your company, coming out and SLAMMING DC over Twitter for its most recent Green Lantern film by saying:

“Man, DC just loves the number 52, huh? They even used it in their weekend GL movie grosses. Good thing we like bigger numbers at @Marvel!”

I can’t help but get a little offended at the sheer unprofessionalism of his comment. Granted, Cebulski later said it was a “nice little jab” and he was just “poking fun at the competition,” but that doesn’t really sound so much it’s “all in good fun” as much as it is pointing and laughing at someone and using that to brag about one’s own awesomeness. It’s petty, it’s cheap, and it’s kicking the competition when it’s down. Was Green Lantern perfect? Hell no. I’m the first to admit that. But does that mean one of your top guys has to backhand the competition on a bad day?

And fine, maybe that’s just Cebulski talking off the cuff (if Twitter could be considered off the record, which it isn’t), but I don’t really see him apologizing or thinking he did anything wrong. Nor do I see anyone at Marvel saying “the views of Mr. Cebulski are just Mr. Cebulski’s, not necessarily those of Marvel.” No. You must have heard it. Your company’s Twitter account follows him. He got plenty of @replies. He even spent some time firing back a few self-righteous responses. Surely it must be on your radar. Saying nothing tells me that either you’re ignorant of your employee’s actions in the public sector (which in the modern internet age is hard to believe, especially given his high profile) OR that you endorse this rhetoric and behavior (which is unprofessional and immature, to say the least). Given what I know about you as a company, I’m almost certain it’s the latter.

The worst part of all this? This is par for the course. This ritualistic DC bashing is the sort of thing we see from your people all the time at Con panels and on Twitter. When it’s mean-spirited and personal, that’s not you being the cute rival, it’s roasting the competition simply to be a giant dick about it. This isn’t a roast. It’s a place where I expect some modicum of decency in the public sector. Behind closed doors, misbehave, berate, and bash as much as you want, fine. I can’t stop you. But there’s no need to alienate potential fans who like both major comics companies in favor of making the die-hard Marvel Zombies go “Heh heh, yeah. Fuck those guys.”

And if that’s your goal, to make the Die-Hard Marvel Zombie happy, then fine. I guess that’s your prerogative. But I have to ask, do you actually care about the Die-Hard Marvel Zombie?

I ask because at the time of this writing I’m just hours away from finding out what happens at the end of Ultimate Spider-man #160, the purported (but not really because you’re re-launching in September with a new #1, but I’m not here to bitch about that) final (again!) issue of Ultimate Spider-man, despite the fact that the issue won’t be coming out for another couple of days. I know this because Bendis was talking it up on Twitter this afternoon, bragging about how he got off the phone with the AP and USA Today and who knows who else so your company could tout and spoil the ending for Ultimate Spider-man so you can get as many people as you possibly can into the stores come Wednesday.

Fine. That’s business, I suppose. I mean, it worked for Captain America a few years back. And in Bendis’s own words, this is about getting the fans you don’t have, not about keeping the ones you do.

And I get that. You want the sexy chick across the bar, not the one who’s in your lap. But isn’t that basically saying existing Marvel fans don’t matter as much as potential Marvel fans? Isn’t that just kicking your existing base because you know you’ll get away with it?

You’re damn right it is. Because you know as well as I do that your fans aren’t going anywhere. You have enough fans that will stick around regardless of your behavior, fans you guilt into buying more comics so you can keep the existing ones alive, fans who will stick around despite you increasing prices on your books to $3.99 “because you can.” I know, because I’m one of them. Or, I used to be.

So when I hear about you guys doing this, I get outraged. I get livid. I’ve been buying and reading Ultimate Spider-man nonstop for the past eighty issues (that’s double-dipping single issues and trades) despite going through three years of high school and four years of college. And now, on the eve of this long, long story getting to one of its fantastic turning points, you’re going to kick me (a loyal customer) in favor of the hundred or so (max) people who are going to pick up the FINAL issue of your not-in-real-continuity Spider-man and then never pick up a comic again?

And you’re going to get away with this, Marvel. I know because C.B. Cebulski is not going to apologize (nor are you going to pretend to attempt to make him). I know because the people his comments are going to enrage won’t stop reading comics. I know because people are still reading Fantastic Four (even if it’s not called that). I know because this “revealing the ending before it happens” bullshit has become “something we as comics fans just have to live with” because “this is our reality.”

But not for me. I refuse to continue to put up with your bullshit. I refuse to ignore or put up with your immaturity. I refuse to have you spoil the stories I’m reading. I refuse to stand silently by while you kick your base to make a quick buck.

And it’s because of this, Marvel, that I have to quit you. I’ve been a loyal reader for six and a half years. I’ve bled THOUSANDS of dollars into your books since then. I’ve gotten tons of my friends into comics (not just yours, but yours too). I love your properties, I love your stories, I love your comics. I’ve loved, cried, and laughed at your books since becoming a Marvel fan.

But no more. I can’t handle your attitude and I can’t handle the way you treat a fan like me. How dare I decide to support DC’s failed movie so we can get more non-Batman-or-Superman DC movies? How dare I support non-spoiled stories (Super 8 only made $40 million its first weekend. What must C.B. Cebulski think of that)? How dare I demand maturity from a company owned by Disney, who would NEVER allow such discourse from executives or VPs in “more respected media” like film or television?

I think of it differently. More like how dare I continually support your company in the face of all this? I can’t. Maybe if you guys acted with a bit more professionalism, you could help make this medium look a bit more grown up. I’m done fighting against being viewed as immature while your company perpetuates just that mentality.

But that’s okay, guys. I’m sure your massive-and-ever-expanding-and-growing comic fanbase will keep you guys afloat. There’s plenty of fans to keep kicking around while you try to bring in more so you can do just that.

I’m sure I won’t be missed at all.

Sincerely,

Matt Smith

So who have we got so far?

Eddard “Ned” Stark – Sean Bean

Catelyn Stark – Jennifer Ehle

Robb Stark – Richard Madden

Sansa Stark – Sophie Turner

Arya Stark – Maisie Williams

Robert Baratheon – Mark Addy

Jamie Lannister – Nikolaj Coster-Waldau

Lena Headey – Cersei Lannister (Added 9/01/09)

Tyrion Lannister – Peter Dinklage

Daenerys Targaryen – Tamzin Merchant

Theon Greyjoy – Alfie Allen

Jon Snow – Kit Harington

Joffrey Baratheon – Jack Gleeson

Viserys Targaryen – Harry Lloyd

Sandor Clegane (The Hound) – Rory McCann

Added on 9/02/09

• Lena Headey cast as Cersei Lannister
• New Picture for Sophie Turner
• New Picture for Maisie Williams (Maisie has been spelled Maizie and Maisie by George RR Martin, so no idea on correct spelling)

Added on 9/24/09

• Rory McCann was added as Sandor Clegane (The Hound)

When I was in high school one of the first books I remember being made to read for English was Susan Cooper’s The Dark Is Rising. It was one of my first tastes into the world of fantasy and even though we were being forced to study it and so all these homework assignments on it, I really liked the book.

I later found out that it was the second in a series of books and eventually I read the other four in the set. The others were ok but not as gripping as The Dark Is Rising was. It wasn’t unlike the Narnia books whereby the second in the series was the most popular and well known of the sets.

But I digress. Years passed and I forgot all about the book until in 2007 I discovered that it was going to be remade into a major motion picture. By then I was completely removed from the target audience that the movie was being aimed at, and I wondered if it was really worth a look. Now that I have seen the film I can say that it really wasn’t overly worth watching, at least not if you were expecting a faithful retelling of Susan Cooper’s captivating tale of one young boy’s coming of age as an Old One and agent of the Light.

The novel The Dark Is Rising is the story of ten (almost eleven) year old Will Stanton. He is the seventh son in the family (in fact he’s the seventh son of a seventh son) and has to jockey for position for everything. Unremarkable as he is, Will can’t help but notice that strange things are beginning to happen around him. The animals are all afraid of him and there’s a strange tramp following him.

The winter cold is closing in and it looks like Will might just get his wish of birthday snow. But with the cold a malicious force is also closing in. The Dark is beginning to rise and as it turns out, Will is the last of the Old Ones of the Light whose charge it is to turn them back. More than that, fellow Old One, Merriman Lyon, informs him that he is the Sign-Seeker who must find all six Signs of the Light before the Dark can if they are to have a hope of driving them back.

It isn’t an easy task for young Will. The tramps is still following him and then there’s the malevolent Rider who tries to thwart his efforts at every turn. But being an Old One certainly has its advantages. Will has powers that he has to learn how to control, as well as times and places he has to visit (quite literally), all of which help him to gain the six Signs of iron, bronze, wood, stone, fire and water.

Unlike the movie, Susan Cooper’s novel delves deeper into the human condition. As Old Ones, Merriman, Will’s mentor and friend of sorts, reflects often on how humans get caught up by their emotions and how it can get in the way of the things they are trying to achieve. This is seen in great example in teh relationship between Merriman and his manservant Hawkin whom he entrusts to help in a great mission of the Light, but ultimately goes awry and spells the dramatic change of fates of all involved. Without having to go into too much detail, Hawkin feels betrayed by the objectiveness Merriman displays in the task that very possibly could have cost Hawkin his life. As a result Hawkin turns to the Dark and new masters causing great problems as Will’s story unfolds.

Now I understand creative licence and how the difference between the mediums of novels and films can affect the translation of certain materials, but I felt the movie makers really went too far with this one, at least in terms of capturing the real essence of the story and the things that make it so powerful.

Will is no longer turning eleven but fourteen in the film. I really didn’t like this as I feel there was no great need to make the central character older. Perhaps they were trying to steer clear of a Harry Potter-esque model, I don’t know, and I guess that makes sense, but this story has been around so much longer than Harry’s has so why not stick closer to the original? Being now fourteen I guess the filmmakers felt he needed a love interest so they created one in a character whose purpose was very far from that, at least in relation to Will as a character anyway. Again stupid and unnecessary.

Another thing I disliked in the film is that Will and his family are no longer British but American simply living in the country as new inhabitants. Again for the story it made so much more sense Will being a Brit as he had a greater connection to the land and the places in which he was questing, as even throughout all the time travelling he does, it was still the same land he was travelling over even if they changed physically over time.

Like Will, the character of Merriman has changed in some ways for the film that I really didn’t understand. Again perhaps it was an attempt to diverge from the Dumbledore/Potter dynamic as certainly the parallels can be drawn between these two sets of relationships but again I feel it was unnecessary to change things. Still a mentor of sorts, Merriman (in the film) has great doubts about will’s abilities and possibilities of success in his mission. Not to mention the fact that the actor they cast looks physically nothing like the striking description given by Cooper. In addition, Merriman almost seems to play second fiddle to another Old One who was a much lesser character in the novel and for no great reason other than to amp up the female involvement in this tale.

As for the aforementioned tramp (known as the Walker) and Hawkin, Merriman’s manservant, both are mysteriously absent from the film. Though the DVD does contain a deleted scene that features the Walker, there is no explanation as to why these omissions have been made. Frankly I can’t work it out an can only surmise they felt it was too complicated a subplot to go down in the film, which I guess I can understand.

But I think the biggest change between the novel and the film is the morphing of Will’s quest for the Signs altogether. There are still six of them, he still has to travel thru time to find them, and he still has to beat the agents of the Dark that are trying to stop him at every turn. But instead of the six elemental Signs, Will has to find five elementals with the final being the soul of a human being. Very strange given the six elements stuff was deeply ingrained in the folklore of the Old Ones. Add to that the fact that Will suddenly has a twin brother he didn’t know about (which makes him the seventh son in the family, not the sixth like he believed) who as it turns out has been held captive by the Rider for years and not missing or dead like the family originally thought.

Having made all these objections, there were a few things about the film that I think were done very well. For one the visual effects were very good, particularly the time travelling and the explosions of fire as Will gets angry over his quest and comes into his full powers as an Old One. These things certainly would have failed in earlier film attempts if they had been made due to today’s advanced film technologies.

I also really liked the young actor they cast to play Will. I think he did a really good job with what he was given and you couldn’t help but root for him. Likewsie, while dramatically younger in age than the Gwen described in the novel, the little girl they got to play Will’s sister and confidante was very sweet and talented for her age.

Call me a purist, and I really feel I haven’t commented very extensively in this very long article, but I just can’t get beyond all the changes that were made to the story of The Dark Is Rising between the novel and the film. In my opinion it was only very loosely the same story and the one that came out in the end was only half as powerful and entertaining as the original. Perhaps that is why the film flopped. It just lost something critical along the way.

My advice – read the book, read the whole series even, but don’t bother so much about the movie. Kids might like it but personally I couldn’t help but be massively disappointed. Another wasted remake.

Despite the fact that The WB canceled Angel just a few years ago, their new network is ready to bring a new Vampire show back to the air waves. This time with “Vampire Diaries” a series of novels written by L.J. Smith.

Originally published in 1993 — which, as the CW took pains to note, was years before Stephenie Meyer launched her Twilight book franchise — Vampire Diaries revolves around a young woman who’s torn between two vampire brothers — one good, one evil — who are battling for her soul, and the souls of her pals, family and the small town where they live.

The CW has reunited with Dawson’s Creek scribe Kevin Williamson, who last produced Hidden Palms for the network.

“Vampire Diaries” comes from Alloy Entertainment, the same shingle whose past book series led to the CW’s series Gossip Girl and Privileged.

(Variety)

As a kid, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a favourite book of mine. I was a big chocolate hound. I still am and in fact now work for a chocolate company ironically enough. There was something just so magic and wondrous as a kid about the possibility of getting to go into a chocolate factory and play around and then to find out you have won it at the very end. Timeless.

I think that’s why the story of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka and the Golden Tickets and everything has lasted for the last fifty years or so. Every kid wants to go to a wonderful place where all their dreams come true.

Since the book was written in 1964 there have been two major film adaptations made, one in 1971 and another in 2005. The first, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a musical starring Gene Wilder, while the 2005 film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory starring Johnny Depp was a more serious adaptation with a darker Wonka.

The 1971 film has a really interesting story of genesis. The daughter of the director Mel Stuart read the book and told her father she thought it would make a good movie and that he had to make the movie and get Uncle Dave (David Wolper the producer) to put up the money for it. Wolper was already in talks on a side issue with a cereal company to produce a candy bar and how to advertise it, so he convinced them to call it a Wonka Bar and to make the movie as the perfect marketing ploy.

While not as stringently in line with the book as its successor in 2005, the screenplay for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was actually written by the book’s author Roald Dahl himself, with additional patchwork by David Seltzer. So its interesting to watch in that light, however, according to Wikipedia Dahl didn’t like the final result and therefore didn’t consent to sell the film rights to the book’s sequel.

That not withstanding, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is in my opinion a fantastic film, right up there as one of my all time favourites. I think it’s the heart of the movie that really makes it, and I think that it comes from the characters being so genuine. When you see little Charlie Bucket you can see that he has a really good heart, despite all the hardship he has had to endure as a poor kid.

There’s nothing like rooting for the underdog and Charlie Bucket sure is that. When his job as a paperboy can only afford his starving family a measly loaf of bread to go with their cabbage water soup, you know that there is no likely chance that this little boy could possibly have the means to find a Golden Wonka ticket. But the beauty of film prevails and the stars align just right so that the poor boy’s mighty dreams can come true.

Watching the film now as opposed to when I was a kid, you can tell straight away just how amateurish it all is. You can see the cardboard and tape and coloured balloons and know that it is all fake. But somehow, the fact that it is so real and human helps create an incredible suspension of disbelief when watching the film. Willy Wonka’s world is an immensely fantastic one that as the song says is a creation sprung from pure imagination and I think you need a little bit of that so that you can fully enjoy this world that is being laid out before you. To quote Charlie (how ironic) in The Santa Clause 2, “seeing isn’t believing; believing is seeing”.

This extends not only to the sets of the chocolate factory but the actual locations as well. I think the filmmakers did an excellent job in making it a place that seemed as though it could be anywhere in the world, in any little town and could happen to any simple little boy. The costumes were likewise so real and basic, yet impacting enough that you could tell what the characters were like before they even spoke – Willy Wonka himself being a prime example in that wonderful purple coat and top hat.

Speaking of Mr Wonka, I think Gene Wilder did an enormously fantastic job in playing this role. Certainly one of the best performances he has given throughout his career, particularly since he was not at all a singer before he landed this role. He’s mad and crazy and more than a little scary in some moments but there is also something that is just so sincere and endearing and loveable to this maniac of a man who invents the most impossible things.

But having said all this let us now turn to the second adaptation of Dahl’s book, the 2005 film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Straight away you can tell that this film is completely different in approach to its predecessor, which I think is a great thing. I remember when it was first announced that this film was going to be made there was a lot of discontent with the idea of trying to recreate the magic and wonder of the original film. Thankfully Tim Burton had enough sense to steer well clear away from this wonderful piece of cinematic history and not therefore corrupt or spoil it in any way.

Instead, he returned back to the source material and went thru it with a fine toothcomb, seeking to get all the little details right and to be as faithful to the original novel as possible. Despite how much I adore the first movie, I really love this aspect of the second one. You can see that Burton has an enormous admiration for the full picture of the world that Dahl created in his book.

I think the fact that filmmaking has come so much further nowadays in terms of special effects than it had back in the 70s is a big contributing factor that makes all this possible. Little things like the tangent of Prince Pondicherry and his palace of chocolate, that only appear for a minute or two in the movie, are so much easier to do logistically and economically these days compared to what they used to be. We can have more and more fantastic sights like the fudge mountain, the pink candy boat, and a single guy playing a thousand little Oompa Loompas in the movies we see today because the technology is there and is common enough that these wonderful things can be placed seamlessly in without any disruption to the unity of the film.

Considerable mention must also be made of the way Johnny Depp really threw himself into the role of Willy Wonka and made it his own. His portrayal couldn’t be further from Gene Wilder’s. The makeup and costuming play a significant part in this, however, it’s the strange delivery and mannerisms that Depp puts into the character that sets him apart as a new Willy Wonka for a new age and a much darker one at that. His comic timing is exemplary and helps to break up the tension that builds in some moments of the film.

Ultimately I think that Roald Dahl’s original book is a great story and a story that is worth telling over and over again. The fact that there are two film adaptations is a strong testament to that. The first one has a real heart to it that I think resonates with every generation to encounter it in some way. I think it really speaks to the child in us all.

The more recent film, on the other hand, is visually more compelling. And while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is much closer in likeness to the book it is based on, nevertheless I think it fails to connect with the broader audience that its precursor does. While the performances are good and the visual effects are stunning, there is just that little quality that is missing from it. Perhaps it’s the pure imagination.

Despite all this I really like both film adaptations, however, the former is my personal preference between the two. Yet Johnny Depp just really cracks me up a lot of the way thru the latter. So, I think that in the end its great that such a marvellous story has been retold in a more modern way so that new audiences can come to love this wonderful story as well. The question is, I guess, will the more recent film have as much staying power? Time will only tell.

P.S: If you ever get a chance, watch Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory with the audio commentary of the five original kids on. A great treat for fans of this film guaranteed.

I’d insert a quote here, but frankly- the book’s not very quotable.

Let’s make no bones about it. If you’ve seen Star Wars and read Lord of the Rings you know the story of Eragon by Christopher Paolini. It falls into the exact same story structure of Star Wars to a tee. There’s an evil empire, and a group of riders (Jedi Knights) that used to keep the peace before the evil Emperor Palp- I mean Galbatorix took over (who used to be one of the riders) and our main character Eragon at the beginning is a simple farm boy with a big destiny and a hidden parentage. And if you follow this paradigm you’ll figure out who his father is within the first ten pages. And yes, there’s an elfin ‘princess’ that he has to go rescue from the clutches of the evil empire who’s also the main diplomat between the elves and the human rebellion against the evil empire. His mentor is a crotchety old ex-dragon rider (one of the last remaining who weren’t killed by Galbatorix and his evil apprentice) who has resided in the village he lives near watching over Eragon. Along the journey Eragon teams up with a way cooler and more badass dude who is morally ambivalent to the entire quest to join the rebellion fighters.

I’m dead serious. The story is Star Wars with dragon riders instead of Jedi Knights.

And the elves are exactly the same as the Tolkien Elves. Paolini also invented his own ‘language’ (well, a handful of gibberish words translated in the glossary in the back) for the ‘ancient magic’ words. And the Dwarves are the same too.

The book is derivative, exceptionally, but not illiterate. The big selling point of the book is the fairy tale publishing story of the author. Paolini wrote the book at the age of sixteen, got a paid-to-publish deal for it and just marketed the hell out of it until a large publisher picked it up. Now, I’ll give him props for doing something that ambitious at such a young age but that’s about where my props end. I am of the opinion that people that young shouldn’t be published. Yes, a little jealousy DOES come into play (after all, I’m 25 and get routinely denied from obscure magazines) and it always guts me when people get to skip go and all the slings and arrows of starting out in publishing and get a bestseller in their first go around (Stephenie Meyer- I’m pointing at you too.) At the same time though I just don’t buy into the ‘wunderkind’ theory that a lot of other people seem to eat up. When I hear about a singer who’s only twelve, I don’t go “wow! I should get the album! How cool she’s only twelve!” I go “wow! That kid should be in school and wait until they’re older and more refined in their field before they do an album.” But call me fuddy duddy- I think people should wait until they’ve matured before actually starting their careers. I also believe it makes for a lazy and self-involved writer too if they didn’t pay their dues.

Christopher Paolini did what I think a lot of young nerdy writers did when they were his age- watched Star Wars, read Lord of the Rings and wrote a book that was the same story but refused to believe that it was. Christ, I did the same thing. The difference was I never tried to get those horrid stories published. (God knows I still have copies of stories I wrote when I was sixteen that were basically Buffy retold.)

Now look, I’ll be honest, I read Eragon and its sequel Eldest (haven’t gotten around to Brisngr yet but I read a spoiler for it that intrigues me) and they weren’t necessarily a chore to read but they’re nothing to write home about. Eldest could have had fifty pages easily chopped out of it mind you, but that’s another story. Eldest also got way too heavy handed and self-involved for its own good- but again, another story.

Basically, don’t buy into the publishing hype that is the ‘Inheritance Cycle.’ (It’s apparently now a ‘cycle’- it used to be billed as a trilogy.) If you know a twelve year old who has never read a fantasy novel than it’s a good book for him/her but for anyone who has ever cracked one open I say skip it- trust me, you’ve read it before- and most likely better.