NextGen

Fourteen weeks later....

Okay, so I admit that once again, I have let this blog get dusty.  I'm not sure why, other than I find the topics I want to write about here are usually a little redundant.  Also, I'm about to have a kid this November.  All other things have kind of been put on hold.

I wanted to have the first season of Blue Water shot by now.  It's put off now until next year.  That doesn't mean I'm not working on it still, or not dropping little teasers every now and then.

At any rate, having a kid is making me think about the future.  And being that this blog is about entertainment, I'll try to keep it in the frame of that.

I think about the difference between my childhood, and my kid's.  When I was seven years old, the only Batman movie was from 1966, and it starred Adam West.  Now, my kid has a virtual Bat-Library.  Not counting animated films, there will be nine total Batman films including one where he fights Superman.

An aside: Let me talk a bit about Ben Affleck.  Who so far has been the best Batman?  Michael Keaton.  If you say anyone else, you're wrong.  Or you're entitled to your own opinion, I guess.  Keaton was better than Val Kilmer or George Clooney.  There's no controversy there.  So is Keaton better than Christian "Throat Cancer Gravel Voice" Bale?

Keaton wins.  And everyone thought he was a terrible choice.  So give Affleck a chance.

And I get it.  It's really hard to see Ben Affleck in a movie and not see Ben Affleck in a movie.  It's not going to look like Bruce Wayne donning the cape and cowl, it's going to look like Ben Affleck in a Halloween costume.

"It's a bird! It's a plane! It's that dude from Mallrats in a Superman suit!"

So I get why you think it's a bad casting choice.  In fact, let's play a little game.  Look at the following pictures and say out loud the first word or name you come up with.  The first name that pops into your head when you see them.  (If you know them at all.)

I'm willing to bet you never said Matt Murdock, Daredevil or Shannon Hamilton.

But don't hate it before you see it, Internet.  See it.  Then hate it.

Anyways, back to my child.

So at least nine total Batman movies for my kid to enjoy.  I would have loved that!  But then again, what if my kid doesn't like Batman?  That isn't so great I guess.  Let's hope it never comes to that.  I mean, who doesn't like Batman?

Okay, so before this becomes a post entirely about Batman, let me start moving towards my point.  I hope my kid likes the movies I liked as a child.  In fact, let me broaden that even more:  I hope my kid can see the value in the movies I liked as a child.

This goes back to a point I've made over and over: The Hollywood Remake.

I want my kid to be able to enjoy The Karate Kid with Ralph Macchio, and not just dismiss it because the new one with Jaden Smith has iPods and newer music in it.  I want my kid to appreciate (not even prefer) the original Star Wars Trilogy with all its puppets and models, and not dismiss it because Yoda doesn't do any cool flips and R2D2 doesn't have jet legs.  I would love for my kid to love The Goonies, and not dismiss it because it took place nearly 30 years before (s)he was born.

It is strange to think though, that the span between when that movie took place and when my kid will be born is the same as if you wanted me to watch a movie about treasure hunting kids that was set in 1952.  And so maybe there is some value in updating films.

Some films are sacred, and shouldn't be remade.  Ask anyone around my age if they should remake the Back To The Future trilogy, and you may get shot.

"Make like a tree... and don't even think about it."

But let's say my kid is seven or eight years old the first time they see those awesome incredible movies.  It will be 2021.  And despite what all the Facebook "OMG! Today is the date Marty McFly traveled to in the future!" fake posts say, that will actually be six years after the "future" of 2015.  I'm willing to bet we'll still be without hoverboards, flying cars or instant pizza.

Not that they got everything wrong.

So does a film like that deserve an update?  Or is that sacrilege?

Or is it even that big of a deal?  Is this new territory?  Did our generation ever have to deal with this?

I mean sure, some movies we love have already passed their future dates.  Judgement Day in the Terminator series, the day where the machines became self aware and nearly wiped out humanity, was supposed to be August 29, 1997.  And when you watched it in 1984, that was the future.  But when we watched it, we still had that time when it was the future.  It wasn't automatically the past. I don't recall seeing a movie that was set way in the super space warp drive future of 1977.

Now the "future" of The Terminator is 16 years ago tomorrow.  Does that make the series any less enjoyable?  And specifically for a time travel movie like Back To The Future, is it more of an issue?

Some films it shouldn't matter.  Like the upcoming remake of The Neverending Story.  The only thing they could possibly be doing is adding a bunch of CGI.  Just like they did in Clash of the Titans.  It's still the same story, set in the same land, with the same technology.  The only updates can be for visual effects sake.  And visual effects is never a good reason to make a movie.

I didn't say it's not profitable.