How the movie industry lost its creative spark

I cannot possibly be the only one who sees movie after movie based on book after book and think "Don't they have any better ideas?" After seeing the Golden Compass today, I have to step back and wonder. In the previews (of which there were perhaps five or six (ever notice how it's hard to remember all the previews after you leave the theater?) there were two based on books: Inkheart (by Cornelia Funke, now with a sequel Inkspell) and of course the classic Dr Seuss, Horton Hears a Who. (I hereby pause this post to send a missive to Steve Carell: GET THE HELL OUT OF MOVIES). Sorry, but I absolutely despise Little Miss Sunshine. Dan in Real Life is decent, but not justification for Carell to have a career in film. Yes, I enjoy Office, but "lovably awkward" is the only character I see in Steve Carell, and I just don't see him as a good actor.

Anyways...back to the point. I blame New Line Cinema for engineering the shift away from originality in movies. In my limited experience of movie watching, the Lord of the Rings trilogy (which, I have to say, I enjoy very much, and I'm glad that Peter Jackson will be in control of a hopefully decent adaptation of The Hobbit. Goodness knows that the current movie versions are terrible...) cleared the way for many, many other movies based on fantasy/sci-fi books. Now we have had Hitchiker's Guide, Eragon, Golden Compass, Dark is Rising (The Seeker, in movie form), soon Inkheart, etcetera, etcetera...there's a rather LONG list here. And of course, which I just remembered, Harry Potter. Thanks to Rowling, children are reading again. And those of us who were reading the whole time are wonderfully immune (mostly) to the thrill of such books. Yes, they are good. Rather impressive, really. But I for one do not succumb to "Potter mania," having other books which I hold in higher esteem.

A minor digression: some of my favorite authors: Modesitt, Barron, White (of Arthurian fame), Tolkien (of course), Adams, and many others. If anyone knows of an author (or authors) that write similarly, please recommend, and I will give them a try. There are many, however, that I simply cannot recall, but then again, if I cannot recall them, then they are likely not my "favorites."

Back to the topic at hand: honestly, I don't quite remember where I was going with it. I seem to have given facts without opinion. That's how I think I'll leave it, in fact. I reserve judgment on the book to film phenomenon. When it reaches the point that every book that grosses above a certain amount in revenue is made into a film, then I say we're in a bad spot. Right now? I dunno. I'm looking forward to Inkheart despite myself. I can always hope.

The trouble with the environment

Global Warming! The very words spark fear in our hearts. Al Gore has kindly provided us with an ultimatum: live eco-friendly or die. Even though there are some issues with his message (even some scientists have problems with some aspects of his research and presentation), the issue remains: something is going on, and we need to do something about it.

Humans are messing with the environment. Carbon dioxide emissions are continually increasing, all kinds of other crap (CFCs and the like) are also being put into the atmosphere, and the climate is changing. Is there a connection? Personally, I think there is. Critics of the idea of human-caused global warming point to evidence that the earth goes through phases where the climate heats or cools independent of human influence. And yet science has proven the effect of greenhouse gases and has shown what CFCs do to the ozone layer, and what this does to the environment. If humans have increased production of materials that cause global warming, I think it's pretty clear that global warming can be attributed to humans.

And yet the government of the United States does nothing. We didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol (which has its own issues), and we have so far done little to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. An industry-friendly government has relaxed regulations and essentially allowed industries to produce greenhouse gases unhindered. White House official and former oil lobbyist Phillip Cooney edited government reports to make unclear the contributions humans have made to global warming. With a government this reliable...well, it makes the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic somewhat less attractive than it was already, making the proposition ugly as sin.

This is a separate issue, our dependence on foreign oil, but it ties in to the big picture of environmental destruction. Unlike Europe, the United States has failed to recognize the benefits of small cars, mass transport and other eco-friendly measures. We instead burn fossil fuels by the billions of dollars and send our manufacturing jobs overseas to China, which is conveniently exempt from environmental standards such as those set by the Kyoto Protocol. Such a good situation we've gotten ourselves into...and it's getting better.

The recent goals set by the president in his State of the Union address? Likely unreachable. Still, it shows he tried, right? Well, not quite. Sadly, I have little faith in a Republican agenda that is pro-environment. I await a change in regime next year, and pray for a government that is pro-environment.