Fan To Pro - The Blog of Professional Geekery

Why You Shouldn’t Keep Your Projects A Secret

As someone who works with intellectual properties, and someone who knows a lot of people who also work with intellectual properties, I can safely say that a lot of us like to keep our ideas to ourselves.  There is a fear that if your idea is leaked, then there’s a team of coordinated and efficient coding enthusiasts that will take your idea and do it faster than you.  Probably better than you too.  And they all wear sunglasses and matching black leather uniforms with lightning bolts...

Where was I?  Oh, right, the fear of being copied.  This fear has a less-paranoid-but-still-paralyzing twin: the fear of someone coincidentally doing the same thing as you, making you look like the copycat nonetheless.

My advice to you is to fight that fear and show off (or at least talk about) your works in progress.  There are several reasons why this will help you rather than hurt you.

Lost in Translation 22 - It's Time to Play the Reboot

The Muppets have a long history. First created by Jim Henson in 1955 for Sam and Friends, a five minute live show for WRC-TV in Washington, DC, the Muppets have gone on to enchant the young and old alike, from Sesame Street to the big screen. The Muppet Show hit the airwaves in 1976, featuring a different cast of Muppets from Sesame Street and was aimed at an inclusive family audience. Younger viewers could watch for the brightly coloured characters, teens could get the puns and enjoy some of the guest stars, and adults could catch the multiple levels and enjoy some of the more bizarre sketches and numbers.

At the height of Muppet mania, the Muppets moved to the big screen with The Muppet Movie in 1979. The story was an origins of sorts, showing how The Muppet Show came to be. The movie was filled with running gags, bad puns, slapstick, and cameos, very much like The Muppet Show itself. The only thing missing, really, was the fourth wall. Kermit the Frog set out from his swamp home to get to Hollywood to become a major star, and picked up friends along the way.

In 1990, Jim Henson died suddenly after an illness, leaving the world the emptier with his passing. Henson Studios remained in the family, though, and went to his son, Brian. Muppet movies continued to be made, though, with the same levels of zaniness.

The popularity of the World Wide Web was not ignored by the Muppets. In 2009, Muppets Studios appeared on YouTube. Many videos were made and uploaded to the channel and quickly went viral. Bohemian Rhapsody earned a Webby. With the resurging popularity, was it time for a new Muppet movie? With Jim Henson gone and Frank Oz retiring, several big shoes had to be filled. Could the new staff treat the characters and past material respectfully without rehashing old gags?

The Muppets was released November 2011. The story picked up thirty years after The Muppet Movie, with the old gang gone their separate ways and Muppet Theater, the home of The Muppet Show in disrepair (even more than during The Muppet Show) and in danger of being torn down to be replaced by an oil rig. A faithful fan, one who never really felt really at home except around his twin brother, got to go on tour and discovered the plot. The fan decides the right thing is to try to pull the Muppets back together to stop a proper heritage site from becoming an environmental disaster.

The movie was everything a Muppet fan could ask for, even without the talent of many Muppeteers like Jim Henson and Frank Oz. The characters clicked, from Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Gonzo to new characters like Walter and the 1980s Robot. The characters were well aware that they were in a movie and broke the fourth wall like it wasn't even there. And, the ending broke the stereotype, at least before the deus ex brick Chekov's gun*. The Muppets managed to get attention from unusual directions, including being the target of the ire of a Fox News talking head.**

The selling point, at least for me, though, came while Kermit reminisced about The Muppet Show. As the Frog walked past a number of photos of him and celebrities who had been on the show, he stops at one of him and Jim Henson, letting the camera linger. The crew respected what Henson created, and, as seen time and again in this column, that is the singular key item in making a reboot a success.

Next time, a modern phenomenom***.

* A deus ex machina combined with a brick joke and a Checkov's gun.
** Apparently, working together to fight a corrupt corporate exec is too much.
*** Do do dee do do!

Review: Nollywood Babylon

If you make films or any media, if you're interested in film culture beyond the usual geekonomic US-Japan-Bollywood-UK group, then you need to see the movie "Nollywood Babylon."  It's right here at Neftlix and you can read a summary here at IMDB.

If you're still wondering why I'm saying this, as opposed to following my every word unthinkingly, let me sum up the film.

This is a look at the Nigerian film industry, an industry that differs so vastly from ones in other countries (yet is huge), and is such a different look at filmmaking, it's incredibly informative.  It will make you think about media, culture, and technology - if you have an interest in film culture in Africa, that's a plus, but that's just one thing you'll learn about.

Lost in Translation - Recap 2 - Eclectic Boogaloo

Over the past ten weeks, I've looked at a mix of hits, misses, and cannonball caroms. What can we take away from the morass? Well, again, taking care of the original work plays an important part.  How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is a sterling example of not only having the creator take part in the process but also finding the right people. In contrast, Johnny Mnemonic, shows what happens when the creator is left out of the loop. The former had Dr. Seuss involved at several levels, including producing and lyrics. The latter had an exec take the final product and recut it before sending it out to theatres.

Executive meddling can be an issue. Flash Gordon had producer Dino DiLaurentiis and his wife casting the leads and making deals for cross-promotions that could have torpedoed the movie. However, the director was able to cast for the supporting roles and brought in veterans who could hold their own and make the inexperienced lead look decent at the same time. Coupled with a kick-ass soundtrack by Queen, the movie survives as a cult classic. Sure, not a financial success, but the movie is remembered. Having the right people can save a movie.

As Steve pointed out, sometimes the best thing is finding the right fit for the work.  A Game of Thrones definitely fit best as a TV series over a movie. There is just too much happening that is too important to cut. The build up of the threats and conflicts required the time that a weekly episodic format allows for. Likewise, the weekly format is working for Once Upon a Time, allowing for the mystery of the story to be built properly. As movies, both would lose far too much in the translation.

Sometimes, going from TV pilot to cinematic feature causes problems. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was originally the pilot to a second Star Trek series. However, the decision was made to turn the script into a full-fledged feature film. Unfortunately, this required the script to be extended. Most of the filler came from loving shots of the USS Enterprise, as the camera flew around and over her. Long shots became the order of the day, giving the movie a far slower pace than a pilot would have. Compare Star Trek: TMP to "Encounter at Farpoint", the pilot for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Both are cerebral, but "Farpoint" builds up the action through character interaction and twists while TMP relies more on lengthy approaches in space.

What about works where the creator is either long gone or a corporation? Where the work is part of a larger franchise? For this, I looked at three movies.  Rookie of the Year adapted the game of baseball into a family narrative. The plays on the field were believable; in fact, there have been stranger in the game. The movie was faithful to the sport while telling its story. It is obvious that the writers, the cast, and the crew have been to a ballgame or two. The other two, however... Oi.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was, in short, a mess. It had several good scenes tied together with a plot a 3rd grader could find plotholes in. The promise of the opening scene - Cobra's assault on an US Army convoy - provided a glimpse of the potential that was never reached. Meanwhile, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li just really wasn't a Street Fighter movie. What happened? In the case of GI Joe, it looks like the license was available and was used with a quick script that did take into account the characters and groups but, well, forgot about cohesion.  Chun Li, on the other hand, felt like an available script was taken and had the Street Fighter aspects grafted on. Both movies had potential never realized.

And that leaves Dungeons & Dragons. The movie had decent scenes and a decent plot, but completely fell apart during execution. It seemed to be suffering from having the wrong people involved. It missed on what made the game D&D interesting and didn't have many of the game's iconic monsters. Unfortunately, many studios decided that the takeaway was, "Don't make movies off tabletop RPGs".

Overall, again, respect for the creator and the work heads the list of how to make an adaptation successful. Followed, though, is making sure the adaptation is in the right format. The right format can get the work's full impact; the wrong one can mute it or draw out the impact to the point where it's not felt at all.

Next time, year-end round up.

 

Lost in Translation 20 - Cyberpunked

The 80s were a turning point in media. Between the heyday of the music video, the breakout of shows like Miami Vice, and a new crop of writers. the approach to storytelling changed. One of the literary movements of the 80s was Cyberpunk, a mesh of man and machine in a distopian world where corporations have become monolithic and governments exist only at their pleasure*, where people outside pleasant society act as go betweens and expendable assets for the corporations and for the criminal organizations. The vanguard of cyberpunk was "Johnny Mnemonic", a short story written by William Gibson** and published in 1981 in Omni magazine.

The title character of "Johnny Mnemonic" was a data courier, with the equivalent of a hard drive*** implanted in his head. He ran into a problem with one client and had his bacon rescued by Molly Millions, a razorgirl with mirrorshade eyes and razors implanted under her fingernails. The criminal organization from whom the client stole the data now in Johnny's head wanted the data back and traces of it eliminated, sending a killer who had more replacement parts than original body to clean up. Johnny and Molly turned to Jones, a war vet dolphin with a smack addiction, to retrieve the passcode for the data and to the Lo-Teks, a anti-technology gang, for protection while sending a snippet of the data to the criminal group to get them to back off. The killer, meanwhile, has tracked the duo down and takes on Molly on the Killing Floor.

In 1995, Gibson worked with director Robert Longo to bring the story to the silver screen. Althought the original script was more an art film, desogned to be made for under two million, they pair went with Sony who saw the Internet as a potential draw. Sony provided $30 million. Several changes were made to the story. Because the character of Molly was already licensed out to another company, she was replaced with Jane. Unlike Molly, Jane was on her way down, having been infected with Nerve Attenuation Syndrome (NAS). The criminal organization was replaced by a pharmaceutical firm that had discovered a cure for NAS but wanted it buried because their treatment program would be more profitable.***** Johnny, played by Keanu Reeves, became the main mover in terms of plot and action, where as in the original short story, he directed the plot but left the heavy lifting for Molly.

With Gibson and Longo working together on the movie, what could go wrong?

Executive meddling. According to William Gibson himself, the movie was recut at the last moment by the American distributor, and recut badly. The flow fell off. There was some criticism of Keanu Reeves's acting ability, but, in retrospect, he managed to portray a man who had part of his brain removed and altered to become a data courier believably. Unlike How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, Johnny Mnemonic didn't keep the creator in the loop at a crucial stage in editing, and the movie suffered as a result.

Next time, a summary.

* So, all we're missing today are USB ports in our heads.
** Other early cyberpunk works include /Neuromancer/ and /Mona Lisa Overdrive/.
*** I really hope IBM isn't going this route with racetrack memory.
**** Superconducting quantum interfence detectors.
***** Okay, cyberpunk waned because it started to look good compared to reality.

The Hidden Danger of Remakes and Repeats

Ask anyone over a certain age what the scariest movie ever was, and they will probably tell you “The Exorcist.*”  But if you’re under a certain age, and you see it, you’ll probably raise an eyebrow and wonder if you got the right DVD.

“That’s not so scary,” you think.  At least, that’s what I thought when I saw it.

But then again, if you ask someone over a certain age what the scariest part of “Exorcist” was, they’ll tell you about Linda Blair spinning her head around and spewing pea soup.  Disturbing, I’d imagine, if I wasn’t expecting it.

But I was expecting it, as were you if you’re in my generation.

Lost in Translation 18 - The Adaptation of Chun Li

Reaching back, we find that I've already covered Street Fighter, focusing on the movie featuring Raul Julia in his last role. Instead of rewriting all the background, I'll just send you to re-read it if you want and then continue.

Done? Great!

The year 2009 had a glut of action movies. Not all of them lived up to the promise of the trailers. One such movie was Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li. The movie chronicles how the titular character grows from young girl to, well, street fighter. Essentially, an origins movie. Kristin Kreuk starred as the adult version of Chun Li as she struggled to find meaning after her father disappeared and her died. Her search took her to Bangkok to study under Gen, once a member of Bison's gang who now protected the downtrodden from the villain's schemes. He took Chun Li under his wing, teaching her new techniques and leading her to find a new balance and lose her anger*. In the meantime, Charlie Nash, an Interpol agent, also arrived in Bangkok to assist the local police, including Detective Maya Sunee of Gangland Homicide, in finding who was responsible for the deaths and beheadings of eight major gang leaders.** Nash had been on the trail of Bison for several years and is hoping to finally put him away. Despite having Chun Li narrate for most of the beginning, turning "show, don't tell" into "show and tell", the movie maintains a decent pace thriough the investigation by both Nash and Chun Li and has decent action sequences.

Overall, the movie worked as an action flick, something to watch in the heat of the summer in a cool, dark theatre with a large bag of popcorn and a soft drink of one's choice. So, why was there a problem?

It wasn't Street Fighter.

Oh, sure, it's there in the title: Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li. Kristin Kreuk played Chun Li; it's even there in the credits. And she took on Bison, Balrog, and Vega.

But, if the audience wasn't told that who the characters were, who'd notice the difference? None of the characters were in the costumes from the video game. Unlike Street Fighter - The Movie, where everyone eventually wore the trademark costumes from the game, outside of one scene in Legend of Chun Li, they could have been called anything else. The one scene? Featured Chun Li with her hair in the same style as in the video game wearing a short blue dress as she seduced Bison's henchwoman***.

I dare say that if the movie didn't have the Street Fighter character names and links (a couple of scenes, really), the movie might have been better. Expectations would have been different. Change Shadaloo to a generic Triad, Tong or even the Russian mob, change Chun Li to Suki or Mei Lin, change Bison to Biyall, and the movie still holds together. It's as if an existing script was taken and modified to slap the Street Fighter name on to draw in more people. From a marketing perspective, this makes some sense. Action movies in the summer have a lot of competition. Adding a familiar name can get attention far easier and potentially far cheaper than putting in an effort to tweak the trailers to maximize interest. Problem is, slapping a known franchise name can backfire when the movie has a fairly generic plot and characters that could be renamed without affecting the story, the case with Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li.

So, the takeaway here is that if one wants to put the name of a franchise on a movie, the writing has to add recognizable elements from the franchise beyond just the names. This may fall under the concept of caring for a property. Slapping a name on a product is easy; making sure that the product reflects the name takes a bit more effort. Thus is the case of Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li. A decent action movie with baggage that added expectations it couldn't handle.

Next time, a holiday classic. 

*Apparently, anger not only leads to hate but to distraction.
**Yeah, guess who ordered the killings.
***Yay, fanservice? The fight in the washroom was just as fanservice-y.

Lost in Translation 15 - Not-so-Greatest Adapted Hero

Seeing a void left by Mattel, Hasbro introduced a line of toys as the boys' counterpoint to Barbie. G.I. Joe was a military-themed line of dolls, designed to let boys have adventures with them. However, reaction to US involvement in Vietnam resulted in reduced sales of a doll in army fatigues. An attempt to revive Joe as an adventurer with kung-fu grip in the 70s didn't pan out as well as expected, and the toy went back to the drawing board. In 1982, though, Hasbro saw the success that Kenner had with its Star Wars line of action figures and relaunched G.I. Joe as its own line, turning the doll into a secret organization fighting the likes of Cobra, a terrorist organization out to rule the world. The action figures were coupled with an animated series, G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero.

In 2009, G.I. Joe The Rise of Cobra came out during a summer filled with reboots, remakes, and adaptations. The movie did not fare well critically. Or well at all. The movie showed the fight between the G.I. Joe organization, now a multinational special operations team made up of the best of the best of member nations' military forces, and Cobra, an unknown group headed by weapons magnate James McCullen (played by Christopher Eccleston). The movie started decently enough, giving some background to McCullen and his ancestor who was caught selling weapons to both the English and the french in the 1640s. It then went on to show the current generation of McCullen making a speech to NATO about his new weapon, nanomites - miniature robots that can be programmed to eat just about anything. (Also known as nanites.) The opening action sequence introducing Duke (played by Channing Tatum), Ripcord (played by Marlon Wayans) and the audience to G.I. Joe racheted up the tension, showing Cobra's capabilities and weapon technology far outclassing the US Army's. Only the timely intervention of Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), and Snake Eyes (Ray Park) managed to protect one of the four nanamite warheads, Duke, and Ripcord.

The movie broke down the moment the nanamites were weaponized. Naturally, to weaponize tiny, nanoscopic robots, one takes them to a particle accelerator lab to be spun. (I guess making the nanamites dizzy gets them upset.) The bounds of the suspension of disbelief shattered. The scene may have looked good on screen, but the average person could have thought of something more credible, like reprogramming them or introducing a computer virus. After all, nanamites are robots. Even switching the Good/Evil switch to the Evil setting would have been acceptable. The action sequence following, the chase where the above mentioned Joes go after the Baroness (Sienna Miller), Storm Shadow (Byung-Hun Lee), two disposable Cobra super-soldiers, and the nanamite missiles, carried on the problem. The CGI was noticeable. Sure, the accelerator suits (which, for a super-heroic-style movie weren't too farfetched) required CGI, since no human can run at highway speeds. Scarlett on a motorcycle and most of the traffic also appeared to be CGI animation, adding a disconnect.

From then on, the movie fell into a series of background flashbacks and action sequences that felt... borrowed. The big raid on the Empire'sCobra's Death Star underwater Arctic base by the RebelsJoes in their X-WingsSHARC attack subs felt familiar somehow. Worse, the ending left room, a lot of room, for a sequel.

What happened? At some point, scriptwriters started forgetting what they wrote earlier. The Eiffel Tower, McCullen's first target to show off the power of Cobra, was supposed to be evacuated according to the info Breaker received during the chase. Yet, when the heroes get there, there's nary an official there despite the throngs of tourists still there. Likewise, in Eccleston's first scene, McCullen specifically mentions that the nanamites can be programmed to eat anything, including metal. So why the spinning? Did the writers forget that the nanamites are programmable?

Not everything was a loss. Some of the action sequences and the training montage were well done. Bits of decent in a movie that discovered gravity on a slippery slope. Christopher Eccleston, like Raul Julia, seemed to know what sort of movie he was in and let loose his inner ham. (Mind, the villains seemed to get the better lines in this type of movie.) The Snake Eyes/Storm Shadow subplot held its own; Snake Eyes, for a character with no lines, had a strong presence on-screen. And, surprisingly, the presence of a Wayans brother didn't cause problems.

Still, the movie is, at best, forgettable. The plot was thin, and for a movie that seemed to be trying to set up a series, couldn't hold its own past the opening scenes.

Next time, adaptation is coming...

Lost in Translation 14: Adaptation of the Universe!

In 1934, Alex Raymond created a comic strip to compete with Buck Rogers in the newspapers. The strip, called Flash Gordon featured the titular hero, an athlete, caught up with reporter Dale Arden in an airplane crash caused by a sudden meteor showers, who is kidnapped by Dr. Hans Zarkov to travel by rocket ship to find the source of the meteor assault on Earth. The trio discovers that the meteors were sent by Ming the Merciless, rule of Mongo. Throughout the publication of the comic strip, Flash and his companions meet the peoples of Mongo and unite them to rebel against Ming to free the world from his cruel domination.

The comic strip had been turned into three serials, each starring Buster Keaton as Flash. The serials stayed to the core of the comic strip, though minor changes were made. Flash, originally a polo player in the comic, became a wrestler. Dale, originally a brunette, was played by Jean Rogers, who had her naturally dark hair dyed blonde to take advantage of the popularity of the hair colour in film. Still, the serials had a following and were the first science fiction serials produced.

In 1980, Dino de Laurentiis produced a screen adaptation of Flash, simply called Flash Gordon. Written by Lorenzo Semple and directed by Mike Hodges, the movie brought the comic strip to its core elements, showing Flash, Dale, and Dr. Zarkov uniting the peoples of Mongo to defeat the forces of Ming the Merciless. Flash Gordon didn't do well in its initial theatrical run. Several problems plagued the film, mostly related to executive meddling. Sam J. Jones was cast as the hero after de Laurentiis' wife saw him on a game show. At the same time, de Laurentiis himself worked out an arrangement with Bob Guccione of Penthouse to have some of his models as extras. A decision was made to use bright colours at a time when realism was the order of the day for films.

However, the movie is considered a cult classic. What saved the film from the millstone of mediocrity and being tossed into the fountain of the forgotten was director Hodges being able to cast the supporting actors. He turned to veterans of stage and screen, people who could carry the film while the rookie actor Jones learned the craft. (And, yes, you can see Jones's acting ability improve as the movie progresses.) Max von Sydow turned in an understated performance as Ming the Merciless, bringing a subtle menace to the role instead of chewing the scenery as Raul Julia and Jeremy Irons had. Topol, best known from the theatrical and cinematic versions of Fiddler on the Roof, played the indomitable Dr. Hans Zarkov, delivering lines that would be cheesy under lesser talent. Timothy Dalton, who would go on to be 007, played Prince Bain of the Treemen. Richard O'Brien, he of The Rocky Horror Picture Show fame, played Fico, one of Barin's men. And Brian Blessed, veteran of many British productions, played Prince Vultan of the Hawkmen, bringing a boisterousness that defined the Hawk Prince. ("What? GORDON'S ALIVE?!")

Coupled with the supporting cast was the soundtrack. Written and performed by Queen, the music provided a strong rock beat that mirrored and accentuated the action on screen. Scenes that would cause massive eyestrain from the eyerolls became fun, if still implausible; scenes such as the football fight in Ming's court. "Flash's Theme" reached Top-40 radio stations.

Overall, the movie should have been a disaster. Executive meddling created many hurdles for the director. The visuals of the film went in the opposite direction of other movies made at the same time. The special effects looked more like a throwback to the serials than the cutting edge pushed by Lucasfilm.  Flash Gordon should have been MST3K fodder. Yet, the little things pull the movie up. The supporting cast was far better than the movie deserved. The soundtrack itself saved the film from being forgettable. Little details, lines added for humour (Barin to Zarkov while awaiting execution: "Tell me again about this man Houdini."), background gags ("All citizens will make merry upon pain of death" on a "space blimp" during the wedding), all of this added up to get people to watch the movie again. Success? Not really, few people go out to make a cult classic (Rocky Horror notwithstanding). Failure, then? Again, no, the movie is enjoyable and the problem spots start taking on their own charm.  Flash Gordon falls into a gap between success and failure - the movie has a following, but not for what the creators had hoped. It is a cult classic.

Next time, from action figure to action movie.

 

Lost in Translation 13 - Now Adapting, Number 13, Dave Concepcion!

Sports movies have been around for almost as long as motion pictures have been enjoyed. All kinds of sports, from American football to, well, football (soccer) to hockey to even curling (Men With Brooms). However, it appears that one sport in particular has had more than its fair share of attention.

Popularly attributed to Abner Doubleday, baseball evolved from the British game of rounders over a hundred years ago. With its slow pace, the game could be enjoyed at the ballpark, on radio, and, once it was developed, on television. Many Major League Baseball stadiums have a charm of their own, from Wrigley Field and its unpredictable winds to Yankee Stadium, the House that Ruth Built. Numerous movies - comedies, dramas, biopics, even fantasy - have revolved around the sport and its mystique. Even television series, including such stand outs as The Simpsons, WKRP in Cincinnati, and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, have featured baseball episodes. A baseball game builds up its own narrative, its own drama, its own comedy as play progresses. And despite the specialization of the various positions, each position contributes to a team's success, even the designated hitter*.

In 1993, Daniel Stern directed his first feature, Rookie of the Year, a coming of age fantasy comedy featuring Henry, a twelve year old boy who is recruited by his home team, the Chicago Cubs as a publicity stunt to get people into the seats. Henry had injured himself at the end of the school year, fracturing his arm and tearing his rotator cuff. The injuries healed, leaving his tendons a little tight and able to throw a baseball 103mph (165km/h). Henry's first outing is shaky, resulting in a lead-off home run, a hit batsman, and a wild pitch leading to the final out. His second appearance starts similarly, with another hit batsman, but after a confusing pep talk from his hero and reluctant mentor, played by Gary Busey, Henry settles down to get the next batter to ground into a double play and finally gets his first strikeout.

The movie goes on to show Henry as he is separated from his friends, getting caught up in the life of a major leaguer and baseball's business end. The glint of being a baseball player loses some of its lustre, but Henry's awe at being in the majors remains. After all, he is a twevle year old living out his ultimate fantasy.

Does the movie work in the terms of adapting the game of baseball into its narrative? Yes. Notwithstanding that the entire premise is built around a kid living a fantasy many boys, girls, women, and men have had, the story is written competently and directed well by Stern. A great movie, no, but fun and worth watching on its own merits. Helping with the getting the feel is filming most of the baseball scenes at one of the iconic parks of the sport, Wrigley Field. The climactic game builds, tying together several character arcs into the tension as the Cubs work towards getting into the playoffs. Thomas Ian Nicholas is believable as Henry, with sheer awe pouring from him. The supporting cast, though not A-listers outside Gary Busey, include Dan Hedaya, John Candy, and Albert Hall, with cameos by baseball players Bobby Bonilla, Pedro Guerrero, and Barry Bonds. Most of the plays on field are believable; baseball has seen stranger. The pitch used by Henry in the last at bat has also been used by Atlanta Braves pitcher Phil Niekro. Overall, the movie succeeds at adapting baseball for its story.

Next time, Klytus, I'm bored. What reboot do you have for me today?

*But in real baseball, the pitcher takes his turn at bat.