Firstly, I just found out that they’re making a Sherlock Holmes film that is due to come out Christmas 2009. At first I was excited about the idea but having seen the trailer, that is somewhat (albeit only slightly) dampened.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNPQjMBJCIU&hl=en&fs=1&]

It looks to me that they’re going to make it too much of an action film, and Robert Downey Jr. ……….really? Then again, this is 2009 and it would be very difficult to sell tickets to people who aren’t Holmes fans (in essence, the wider audience) without making it (or at least the trailer) a very action-packed explosion orgasm. Indeed, I can easily forgive them and enjoy this film regardless IF Holmes still uses his deduction and intuitive mind significantly more than going in all handpistols blazing. As for casting, I would’ve gone for a British actor for Holmes, but Jude Law as Watson seems absolutely perfect.

I just returned from seeing Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, this is one of the few HP books that I haven’t listened to on audiobook being read by Stephen Fry 800 times each so the story wasn’t as clear in my mind as previously. Any mega-fan (of which I am only partially) can tell you exactly what was cut and what the alternative should’ve been, I think that Heyman made a few very bad decisions in what he cut (where was Dumbledore’s funeral and the epic Hogwarts battle?) and what he included (some of the teen angst stuff, while I enjoyed it, should’ve been cut to give way to the main storyline). Then again, fans really should stop getting on the case of the various directors for their cuts, they’ve got a lot of stuff to cram in and they generally do alright, but this one is still a strong contender for best HP film to date against the previous one. I may’ve already said this, but why on earth are they splitting Deathly Hallows into two books? Other than the first (what will translate as in film terms) 20 minutes of the story will be action and the rest of the first film will be the three of them sitting in a tent for another 2 hours.

I found a story about Amazon reportedly hacking into Kindles and silently deleting (and refunding) digital copies of Orwell’s 1984 (a physical copy of this I have just begun reading). The reason is that the company that made and published the digital copy for the Kindle to download did not own the correct copyrights and so the copies were distributed illegally. I hope that nobody needs me to point out the sheer irony of that situation (the name of the celluar network that Amazon uses is called WhisperNet ¬_¬) and it’s an interesting question, if companies have their own discretion at what degree of control they can exhibit over the stuff they sell, what degree of control can they thus exhibit over their customers? I’m not very far into 1984 but I’ve got as far as knowing the term ‘vapourising’ in that context. Apparentely it was not a new thing and reports are abound of other books going missing, though none of them as publicised as this, but I expect that due to the irony of a book about facist censorship and an authoritarian state itself being censored and “silently” removed that caused this to become so reported (albeit not very widely). Clearly, however, there is no such dark secrets or political motivation, and it is merely a clerical fuck-up that has caused the issue. When the Kindle, eventually, reaches the UK, I am sorely tempted to buy one, but I’m one of the old Romantics who enjoys holding a physical copy of a book, it’s the same reason that makes me, despite my considerable tech knowledge, prefer to buy CD’s instead of downloading them.

It links back to the idea of censorship in the digital age, physical copies are wholly and completely mine, nobody can delete them like ebooks, nobody can impose DRM or any sort of protection designed not to protect the copyright holder or the law, but simply to confuse me enough to make me shell out for another copy. Oh, I know that physical copies can be just as volatile and far less convenient than downloads, but it’s just an old habit of mine.

I’ve heard strong rumours that filming on Series 5 of Doctor Who (starring Matt Smith) will start tomorrow, and a press release (deemed to be “sensational”) will accompany it. Karen Gillan’s casting has been shrouded by the refusal of the BBC to reveal her character’s name, leading some to say that it has some significance, like that it’s River Song or Romana or something like that (or if they want to go for the RTD route, an anagram). Personally, I think it’s just for publicity and they’re not going to delve as much into the Doctor’s past (or future) as that, I predict that she’ll just be the classic companion, “fiesty” girl from London (with a normal name like Amy or Clare) who runs into The Doctor on the street blah blah blah. I’m much more interested in seeing Matt Smith’s costume, I’m hoping something vintage that will go at odds with Smith’s youth, but I keep hearing rumours that they’re going to give him “the student treatment” and give him skinny jeans and band t-shirts. I don’t think they will, but never say never. I will, as always, conjecture my opinion as soon as I grow one.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 19th, 2009 at 5:36 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.