The Library of Congress today announced the next 25 films that will be added to its National Film Registry. This annual selection chooses American films from any point in the 100+ years of film-making that have "cultural, historic, or aesthetic significance." Those movies that are added to the Registry are actively archived and preserved in the Library of Congress's vaults so that prints that are as near-perfect as possible will exist for future generations. Prominent names among the chosen this year include The Terminator, Johnny Guitar, and Asphalt Jungle. The list is not restricted to blockbusters or critically acclaimed pieces, however: Variety has an interesting description of Disneyland Dream, a film chosen for preservation, though few people have heard of it. That same Variety piece has a list and description of all movies that were added to the Registry this year. To see a full list of the more than five-hundred films that the Library of Congress has already put in it's vault, simply follow this link.
I think this process is a wonderful idea, and I only wish that films could be added to the Registry more often. The process of ensuring that the reels of the movies are preserved and/or restored must be a lengthy and costly one, however, and is probably a reason that only 25 films a year are selected. Still, it is nice to know that future generations will be able to watch gangsters attempt a bank robbery in Asphalt Jungle, or hear Arnold Schwarzenegger utter "I'll be back." There are some things you just have to experience first-hand.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tales of Beetle the Bard: The Movie?
As the holidays wind down, I have begun perusing the hefty build-up of news stories I have not yet had time to read. It was this wandering that brought to my attention a bulletin from early December: Warner Bros. reportedly has expressed interest in bringing The Tales of Beedle the Bard to the big screen. The volume of five short stories was written by Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling and was based on a fictional book of the same name mentioned in the last Harry Potter book, The Deathly Hallows. The Vault's gut reaction: Why must every studio milk a franchise dry? A purely rhetorical question, of course, as it is common knowledge that money makes the world go 'round, and to not wring every last dollar from a gold mine is considered sacrilege. And as Cinema Blend's Josh Tyler points out, with only a few more films left in the Potter
-franchise, "the magical gravy train is coming to an end," leaving Warner Bros. to look for a new source of income.
But can the WB seriously be considering making Tales into a film? It would take an extremely lucky combination of talent to turn the book into a successful feature length film. This is not simply because of the short story aspect of the material; some critically acclaimed films are based on short stories: Rear Window and Fort Apache are the first movies that pop into my mind. But these are a combination of five eclectic short stories. It is highly unlikely that even an fervent audience of Potter fans would sit through a film that is based on the premise of a wizard reading aloud the Tales to children, with each subsequently appearing on screen. These stories would have to be taken individually and expanded upon. Would the films be connected to the wizarding world established by Rowling or made to stand on their own two feet, with a quick credit to Tales for inspiring the material? Not all the short stories seem ideal for film adaptation (small spoilers ahead): while the exploits of a wizard who uses dark magic to prevent himself from falling in love seems like potential material, will the saga of a boy and his pot with a foot really garner any critical acclaim?
Obviously the rumors of a film based on The Tales of Beetle the Bard are still just rumors. But what do you think? Is there a future franchise in the making?
-franchise, "the magical gravy train is coming to an end," leaving Warner Bros. to look for a new source of income.But can the WB seriously be considering making Tales into a film? It would take an extremely lucky combination of talent to turn the book into a successful feature length film. This is not simply because of the short story aspect of the material; some critically acclaimed films are based on short stories: Rear Window and Fort Apache are the first movies that pop into my mind. But these are a combination of five eclectic short stories. It is highly unlikely that even an fervent audience of Potter fans would sit through a film that is based on the premise of a wizard reading aloud the Tales to children, with each subsequently appearing on screen. These stories would have to be taken individually and expanded upon. Would the films be connected to the wizarding world established by Rowling or made to stand on their own two feet, with a quick credit to Tales for inspiring the material? Not all the short stories seem ideal for film adaptation (small spoilers ahead): while the exploits of a wizard who uses dark magic to prevent himself from falling in love seems like potential material, will the saga of a boy and his pot with a foot really garner any critical acclaim?
Obviously the rumors of a film based on The Tales of Beetle the Bard are still just rumors. But what do you think? Is there a future franchise in the making?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Buried Treasure: Should Studios be Allowed to Sit on Projects?
Amidst the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, news has been spread around the Internet that has stopped the heart of fanboys and girls world wide: a judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox has the rights to Watchmen, not Warner Brothers. With legal dust still flying through the air, many are anxiously wondering how this decision will affect the film's early March release date. The case raises an interesting question: Should studios be allowed to buy the rights to material if they then sit on it a
nd don't use it for years or even decades? Take the current Watchmen saga. According to the time line laid out by Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, Fox bought the rights to the graphic novel Watchmen starting in 1986. Over the years, it had sold some of the rights in complicated deals with various producers and studios, but never made a move to develop the project itself. Fast forward to 2006, when Warner Bros. bought the rights to the film from Larry Gordon, one of the earlier-mentioned producers with whom Fox had negotiated with. That leaves a twenty-year gap where Fox, if they completely win their case, theoretically could have dusted off the comic book and turned it into a movie. Twenty years with no hint of working on the project. Now Warner Bros. has come along and not only made the film, but made a film that looks to be raking in a good deal of money.
Legal issues of who owned what when aside, should Fox have a claim to something they ignored for two decades? Should any studio for that matter? On the one hand, there is something to be said for allowing material to gestate. Clint Eastwood bought the rights to Unforgiven years before he made it, and has said that the time allowed him to "age into" the role; one can only imagine that ruminating over a script for ten-plus years allowed Eastwood to fully flesh out his ideas into the Academy Award picture it became. In addition, technology has been gradually developing over time, making films possible that would have been difficult to pull off in the past. It's very possible that producers were stymied on how to make the effects-laden Watchmen in the early 1990s--special effects has grown considerably in the last two decades. But consider the other side of the coin. A studio can buy a book or a comic and keep it off the market until they decide they no longer want it. But what if a studio with better resources or more will-power comes along? Fox never made Watchmen, but now wants control of the movie after Warner Bros. finally stepped up to the task. After twenty years of no movement on the project, does Fox really deserve the rights they are demanding? It seems to me that options on property should be restricted to a finite period of, say, five-years; after-which, if the studio in question has not made definite steps towards developing the film, it forfeits its rights. That way, if another production company comes along and is interested in the material, they can have access to it.
Granted, this is an idyllic situation. Studios spend millions of dollars to acquire the rights to books and TV shows and expect that they will be able to use them whenever they have an inkling to do so. And there are ways for one company to purchase scripts from another company. But although Fox might have the more solid legal claim to Watchmen, Warner Bros. is still the one who put the effort forth to develop the movie. Surely they should be rewarded for taking the initiative to unearth this forgotten piece of work and to polish it into a respectable looking film?
Leave your thoughts and comments on this developing story below!
nd don't use it for years or even decades? Take the current Watchmen saga. According to the time line laid out by Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, Fox bought the rights to the graphic novel Watchmen starting in 1986. Over the years, it had sold some of the rights in complicated deals with various producers and studios, but never made a move to develop the project itself. Fast forward to 2006, when Warner Bros. bought the rights to the film from Larry Gordon, one of the earlier-mentioned producers with whom Fox had negotiated with. That leaves a twenty-year gap where Fox, if they completely win their case, theoretically could have dusted off the comic book and turned it into a movie. Twenty years with no hint of working on the project. Now Warner Bros. has come along and not only made the film, but made a film that looks to be raking in a good deal of money.Legal issues of who owned what when aside, should Fox have a claim to something they ignored for two decades? Should any studio for that matter? On the one hand, there is something to be said for allowing material to gestate. Clint Eastwood bought the rights to Unforgiven years before he made it, and has said that the time allowed him to "age into" the role; one can only imagine that ruminating over a script for ten-plus years allowed Eastwood to fully flesh out his ideas into the Academy Award picture it became. In addition, technology has been gradually developing over time, making films possible that would have been difficult to pull off in the past. It's very possible that producers were stymied on how to make the effects-laden Watchmen in the early 1990s--special effects has grown considerably in the last two decades. But consider the other side of the coin. A studio can buy a book or a comic and keep it off the market until they decide they no longer want it. But what if a studio with better resources or more will-power comes along? Fox never made Watchmen, but now wants control of the movie after Warner Bros. finally stepped up to the task. After twenty years of no movement on the project, does Fox really deserve the rights they are demanding? It seems to me that options on property should be restricted to a finite period of, say, five-years; after-which, if the studio in question has not made definite steps towards developing the film, it forfeits its rights. That way, if another production company comes along and is interested in the material, they can have access to it.
Granted, this is an idyllic situation. Studios spend millions of dollars to acquire the rights to books and TV shows and expect that they will be able to use them whenever they have an inkling to do so. And there are ways for one company to purchase scripts from another company. But although Fox might have the more solid legal claim to Watchmen, Warner Bros. is still the one who put the effort forth to develop the movie. Surely they should be rewarded for taking the initiative to unearth this forgotten piece of work and to polish it into a respectable looking film?
Leave your thoughts and comments on this developing story below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
