Disney and Konrad

On Friday I visited IMDb.com (one of my frequently visited sites). As those who frequent the site know, and for those of you who don't let me tell you, at the top of the page they always have 3 photos side by side, and clicking on them takes you to a trailer for the movie from which the picture was taken. Well, on Friday they had something that drew my attention - a trailer for a Disney movie called "The Odd Life of Timothy Green."

I don't know what drew me to the trailer, but something about it kept whispering to me "Konrad." Now, the premise of the movie has nothing to do with Konrad (I'll explain), but let me say that the movie did look interesting, uplifting, and basically Disney-ish. Translate that into, "McClure thinks I should go see The Odd Life of Timothy Green."

That said, I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about Konrad. I am willing to bet NO ONE reading this has any idea who Konrad is. Or was. Well, is, because, as a character in a book, he is immortal.

Give up? I bet even a google search won't help you here.

Konrad was a book I read in junior high. The main characters were, of course, 10 year old Konrad, and his "mother," Mrs. Bartolotti. Notice the quotes around "mother." Mrs. Bartolottoi is not Konrad's mother - nor anyone's at all. She is already past child bearing age and lives alone. She is quite an odd woman, and one day, when the door bell rings, she answers it to find a strange and unsolicited package.

Even stranger, inside the package is what my 12 year old brain stored in memory as a 'dehydrated' Konrad. I think of him like a raisin of a boy, because he pops out of the package, startling Mrs. Bartolotti, and demands she shower him with a special liquid that was delivered with him. Once showered, he rehydrates into what appears to be a normal 10 year old boy.

Except he's not normal - because he is normal to the point of boring, whereas Mrs. Bartolotti is odd, maybe even a bit batty. And then there's the fact that this package was delivered unsolicited - Mrs. Bartolotti had not ordered a 10 year old son, did not particularly feel she wanted one in her life, and worse, had no idea of how to take care of one. Of course, the contrast of his mother's eccentricities with his normalcy is what makes the book so interesting (at least to my then 12 year old mind). And, of course, eventually the factory from which Konrad was sent discovers the shipping error and wants Konrad returned. Unfortunately by that time Konrad and Mrs. Bartolotti have bonded. What's a factory boy and his reluctant middle aged eccentric mother to do?

So no, this is not an article about the lack of imagination in Hollywood. Timothy Green appears to be a very different story than Konrad. Similar enough to make my old brain remember a story from so many years before, and wonder if that book can even be obtained anymore. After a major search, I did find that Konrad was written by Christine Nöstlinger, and is available on Amazon.com.

And yes, I highly suggest reading it. :P

Deathly Hallows trailer

You know, when the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone came out, my oldest was a little too young to read it.  Still, we got through it, and read all of the books as they came out, though he became less interested as time went by.

Now the oldest has moved out, the next oldest boy was 'too cool' for Harry Potter, and the girls have all moved over to the Twilight crowd. Oddly enough, their grandpa also likes that series...go figure. So now it almost seems like I'm the only one wanting to see Harry Potter through to the end (though I've already been there in book form).

The last movie, Half-Blood Prince, was the worst adaptation of the series (so far, though to be fair the book on which it was based was [to me] the least interesting of the series [It could have been a few chapters at the end of the 5th book, or the beginning of the 7th, but anyway...]) The last book was very exciting, IMHO, and I loved the way Rowling handled the whole, "Will Harry Potter Die?"

But with the kids not interested, the poor quality of the last movie, and the fact that Deathly Hallows has the same writer and the same director as Half-blood Prince, I really thought this was going to be another movie series I couldn't stomach seeing to the end. Then I saw the newest trailer for Deathly Hallows.

Harry (Daniel Radcliff) is now a young man, and perhaps as such he reminds me a bit of my nephew, who is currently a marine recruit in boot camp. That would explain why watching the trailer I felt a desperation in Harry's fight against the forces of evil. Or the weight of him possibly losing Ron and Hermione's friendship.

The bottom line: I have to admit, the trailer was emotional, inspiring, and, children in tow or not, I will definitely be going to see the new Harry Potter movie.

‘Superman’ and Broken Schools

This weekend sees the opening of Davis Guggenheim’s new documentary Waiting for ‘Superman’. In it Guggenheim follows the lives of a handful of children who are, in the street vernacular, being kept down by the system. Guggenheim has been on several programs this week promoting his movie as not only an exposé on an educational system that has been broken for 40 years, but, thanks to new research over the last 10 years, a solution to the problem.

Disclaimer: I have not seen the movie. However, unless it addresses three very important factors, it’s not worth the price of admission.

1) Whoever really wants to learn will learn, even if they go to the worst school in the worst area. Guggenheim said that the educational system has been broken for 40 years. I’m 40. I went to public school. I was accepted to UCLA. I am now a physician. In medical school one of my classmates was also a student at my [public] high school. Granted, my schools were not the worst, nor in the worst neighborhoods, but it does not change the fact that those who wish to succeed will.

2) Not everyone needs an education to be successful and contributing members of society. I always wanted to do well in school. When I got home, the first thing I did was plop down on my bed and do my homework (and I had chores to finish before my father got home, or there would be a whoopin’). On the other hand, my two sisters hated school. One barely graduated at all, and she would have given her firstborn (well, at the time; now we all would have slapped her upside the head if she would have given away that little angel that came into our family 10 years later) to be able to leave school without repercussions. But that sister has been self sufficient since turning 18 and was the first in our family to buy her own home. Yes, she works for the government (no, not in Bell, CA), but she is doing something she’s wanted to do since she was 14, something important to every member of our great state.

3) Not everyone wants an education. My sister, as I said, wanted to leave school as early as she could without damaging her ability to get her dream job, one that has kept her happy for the last 25 years. But I don’t believe she was ever a distraction in class. There are students who are forced to go to public school who do not want to be there, who do not need to be there (they want to be mechanics, plumbers, etc., all good respectable jobs that keep a roof over heads and bellies full), and whose presence is detrimental to the learning experience of those around them. I’m not saying anyone should be forced to leave public school because they are having difficulty. But I do think that those who know early on that their chosen career path does not require continuing education should not be forced to occupy space in a public school, become bored (or worse, rebellious) and begin participating in activities that may get them into bigger academic (or worse, legal) trouble.

You can argue that point 3 is the result of being in an environment that is not conducive to learning, that if they would just receive positive attention they would see they should study, they would do better on exams, they could get into college, and they could become a doctor or lawyer or etc. But we will still need mechanics, and there are still only 160 medical schools. If 100% of all students graduated from high school and went on to college, and as many people who wanted to could enter medical school, we would have so many physicians that each one would make $20,000 per year if they were lucky.

And where would we get our cars fixed? Could you imagine paying $85,000 to have your tires changed? Because that would be what the engineer who installed them would want…after all, why else did he go to college for 6 years and accrue $150,000 in student loans?

The Disappointing Movie Summer of 2010

When I was young, I went to the movies at least weekly, if not two or three times per week, especially in the summer. I saw E.T. the Extra Terrestrial 13 times at the theater...eight times in the first 7 days! And this was on top of reading a novel per week. I still love to go to the movies, but I find it less and less fulfilling each year, and I've been wondering why.

Then I watched M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender, and I think I've figured out the problem. Hollywood has become bloated.

When I was little, Lucas had not made CGI king. When I was little, movies were about a great story. When I was little, actors were paid what they deserved, not what they thought they deserved (Marlon Brando got $250,000 plus a percentage of the gross for The Godfather). And it has to be said: agents got 10% of what their clients made. Not 2%, not whatever the client wants to give, and not a salary of $5 million per year plus bonuses.

Don't get me wrong: I love George Lucas, and I love ILM, and I love great special effects. But somewhere along the line, they took over. Special effects bloated movie budgets, and with larger budgets actors thought they deserved more dough, and then when action stars made more money, everyone else thought they deserved more too. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. But it wasn't too long ago that a movie budget over $50 million made executives' hearts falter. Now budgets soar to $150, $200, even $300 million.

Of course the increased costs have to be passed on to the consumer in the way of increased ticket prices. Add the IMAX movie experience for even higher ticket prices. Personally, I didn't see any difference in that screen...it's nothing like real IMAX. And thanks to James Cameron every movie has to be in 3-D now. Now, I'll admit, the new 3-D is much better than when I was a kid...but it jacks up the price from $10 to $15. Plus the IMAX thingy, making it $20 just to get in the door! And to top it off, most of the movies aren't even new anymore. It's either the novel made into a movie, an old TV show made into a movie, or the old movie made into a new movie. Or maybe not so old (I'm looking at you, Death at a Funeral).

What should be done?

Costs have to come down. Production costs as well as consumer costs. In Mexico, a movie ticket will cost you $5 at full price. Wednesday it's $2. The result? University students dash off to see a flick between classes. High school students stop at the theater on the way home. Families go out on a whim. This is a country with a very low average income, yet they still say, "Want to go to the movies?" and invariably get a response of "Sure! What's playing?" Think about that...the question is, "do you want to go to the movies?" not "do you want to spend the money to see that particular movie." The average Mexican will go to the theater and choose their movie based on what is playing next.

I believe that with lower production costs, Hollywood will be able to afford to take the risk of investing in new, original ideas. I don't mean throw money away on crap (I've seen enough of that on The Sci-Fi [oops...now SyFy] channel, where frequently the movie of the week is not just poorly acted and poorly directed, but poorly written). I mean look to agents who really know a good story, pay a good director a fair but non-exorbitant fee to develop the story, with a reasonable budget to produce the film and actually turn a profit.

(Note: I just read that Monsters by Gareth Edwards (which looks to be a great movie) had a production budget "in the low six figures." I hope it does great, and it proves my point: good does not have to be outrageously expensive)

Shyamalan made millions on Airbender, but the movie sucked so bad they took it out of theaters so fast it made my head spin. And with a production budget of $150 million they should have been able to afford a better script (Shyamalan sucks), better casting (Shyamalan sucks) and better directing (did I mention Shyamalan sucks?). I read a review by an 8 year old who had better vision. I guarantee a different director with a good writer could have made a much better movie on an $80 million budget...and it would have made a profit. Probably enough to save the sequel.

I love George Clooney, and I loved Ocean's Eleven. But come on...$20 million for it was a bit much. The production budget was $85 million, meaning George was 23% of the production cost. Knock his cost down to $5 million, the production budget goes to $60 million. That doesn't mean more profit for the studio: lower costs translate to cheaper tickets for the consumer, too. But that means more ticket sales, meaning little to no loss in profit for the studio. Plus you've got $15 million toward another, new, original, non-remake flick.

At least Ocean's Eleven had the decency to be a remake of a 40 year old movie (still looking at you, Death at a Funeral).

So come on, Hollywood. Get your s#*! together. Get out of your rut and make my movie going experience great again. If you need help, I'll gladly write circles around M. Night Shyamalan for a fraction of his fee.