Film Reboots

Over the last few years their have been several films that have had the reboot treatment, the main reason being because the original effort was awful. The film that comes to mind first is The Incredible Hulk, pretty poor film with very little of the story staying faithful to the comic book material. Rebooting films like this is understandable, what isn't is the remake being far worse, not learning from previous lessons and releasing another dire film to cash in on.

Cash seems to be what talks now, as in most industries money is the driving force behind most decisions. Take the new Spiderman film in production, why did this need a reboot? Because forces higher up in the pecking order than Sam Raimi (the director) told him what he could and couldn't do with the film, forcing him to leave. Now there is a reboot underway, starting the series from scratch which will no doubt bring in millions for all parties involved. The film may work out well and a reboot may be what the Spiderman franchise needed after the dreadful third installment, although money was certainly a factor behind the decision.

As final proof of money talking too much in the film industry, take Total Recall. The 1990 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was a massive hit, getting three Academy Awards. Now if it's the poor films getting the remakes/reboots, what other reason would this cult classic be getting remade other than for another pay day? And to top it all off, Colin Farrell is playing Schwarzeneggers character, replace an Eastern European presence with an Irishman, smooth.

I could go on and talk about reboots/makes such as The Punisher, X-Men and many other, but my general point is covered. And if you want to avoid all the shocking remakes, i suggest you get your ass to Mars.

Crazy World of Transfer Fees

So, the air has finally settled around what was an eventful last day of the transfer window, with obscene amounts of money spent. Although will the money splashed around be value for money, or merely panic buys from clubs in need of numbers?

For example, the amount Liverpool spent on Andy Carroll was the 8th highest transfer fee ever spent, on a player who hasnt even completed half a season at the top level. This is more than David Villa cost Barcelona, a World Cup winner with Spain and Spains tied highest ever goalscorer. Surely something isnt right with that? You can argue Carroll has age on his side, being only 22 with his best years ahead of him. The money spent on Carroll was what can only be described as mental and i dont think the amount they spent on him will pay dividends.

At the end of the day Dalglish has got it easy. The owners threw cash at him for some investment in the playing squad because of their disappointing season so far. They sold the underperforming Torres for a massive 50 million, reinvesting it to bring in Suarez and Carroll. But if this large amount of money spent on Carroll fails, Dalglish can be on his way as his contract is up at the end of the season. There is no doubt whatever the outcome of this season is for Liverpool, Dalglish is the one who can't lose.

And one more thing is for sure, Ferguson must be laughing his head off at the opposition. They're spending gigantic fees to try and keep pace with the leaders, when all Ferguson has spent this January is a small fee on a backup goalkeeper in Lindegaard. He'll be the one having the last laugh come the seasons close.