Can we have a John Constantine movie, please?

"All His Engines" (2005)
As Constantine should be

A couple of days ago I re-watched "Constantine", the 2005 movie starring Keanu Reeves and Rachel Weisz. As a fan (and collector) of the Hellblazer comic books I was very excited when news of a film based on them emerged, and very disappointed when I got to see it. Following its release it recieved mixed reviews, coming out with an aggregated score of about 5 to 6. in my opinion that's about right. Once my outrage on first seeing the movie (John Constantine as a shotgun toting American? WTF!?!) had lessened, I was able to watch it as a film in its own right. If you disconnect it from the comics (as the film-makers seem to have done) it's basically an ok film.
In my opinion that is a very sad thing.
If you don't know what I'm talking about see the very good wiki entry here.
John Constantine is a complex, flawed and quintessentially british (cynical) antihero character with a large fanbase. The world he moves in is intriguing and sometimes spectacular. The interaction between the two can be haunting, funny, frightening and, always, engaging. In short, a John Constantine movie has the ingredients to be one of the best films of all time (and that's without even touching on some of the other interesting characters in his world). John has been voted the 3rd greatest comic book character of all time (link) directly behind Batman and Superman. Look what they managed to do with Batman in the Dark Knight - by staying faithful to the character of Batman (and, admittedly, the Joker), whilst trying to give the film a feel of realism, they made a film that blew people away. It's a simple formula (and one they're now trying to apply to Superman and Spiderman) so surely it makes sense to apply it to Constantine?

A note on Speculative Fiction

Speculative fiction is an umbrella term meant to encompass the more fantastical fiction genres, including; science fiction, fantasy, horror, supernatural fiction, superhero fiction, utopian and dystopian fiction, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and alternate history. The following is my own opinion on this matter.

The term has been used to express dissatisfaction with what some people consider the limitations of, or otherwise to designate fiction that is not easily categorised into, stereotypical genres. The view is that such work should not be pigeonholed within such categorical limits as "fantasy" etc.
Although the term may be used to signal a wish not to be pigeonholed as a fantasy writer, and a desire to break out of the genre’s conventions, I suspect it has more to do with a desire to escape the prejudice with which fantasy is often met by mainstream critics. Personally, I find this term generally offensive, as though fans of fantasy (and related genres) should be ashamed of their enjoyment of such a “frivolous” genre. Also, I understand the difficulty readers experience in finding books to their taste and I believe that placing all fantastical genres under a new umbrella term will make this process even more problematic.
The use of this term is bowing to the discrimination of the pseudo-intellectual. It is disguising the genres in a manner designed to lend some kind of literary merit in the eyes of such people. We should not demean ourselves in such a way. Fantasy is already an umbrella term that encompasses work with fantastical themes, and the sub-genres are there to help guide readers in finding their preferred type of fantastical work. Please do not bow to snobbery. Embrace your love of fantasy. Learn more about it and tell those who look down their nose at the genre to do the same. If they don’t that is their loss!

On Writer's Legacy

Legacy; the most common definition of this word is of something handed down (as from an ancestor or predecessor). I have seen on the internet and heard in interviews this question being put to writers of varying success; "what do you want your legacy to be?" Because of this I thought I would think through my view on this. That way, if anyone should ask me this question in the future, I can direct them to this post (sort of pre-emptive laziness!)

As a writer one leaves a legacy of work behind. Every word put to paper (or in digital format) is likely to survive past the span of your years. Perhaps we can ignore this fact and simply proceed putting down anything that comes to mind. After all, that’s what blogging is about, and pretty much what I’m doing right now. Yet is that the best approach to take? Is there not a higher purpose that a writer should aspire to?

Cheer up you miserable bugger

Had one of those days today when I brood on the past and the useless yet inevitable regrets rear their ugly heads. It seems that despite how well a life turns out...admittedly, that's a strange turn of phrase due to the fact that a life doesn't really turn out any way as all lives end the same way; but you know what I mean (see what I mean about the mood I've been in today)...we all seem to have regrets.

Who’ll watch Watchmen?

For those of you who don't know; the film adaption of Watchmen is scheduled for UK release in March. And I expect that there are not many of you who don't. Regardless of any advertising efforts by the film company (Warner Bros.), pretty much everyone who is going to see this movie will already be in eager anticipation of its release. Last year alone the paperback of Watchmen sold more than half-a-million copies; not bad for a 22 year old comic-book!

The Art of Blogging?

As a writer I am well aware of the horrors of the blank page or screen. As someone who enjoys confronting and overcoming the difficulty such a horror creates, I have long been fascinated by the art of blogging. After all, it seems to me that a blogger takes every day as an opportunity to sit in front of a blank screen with the aim of putting down something that others will find interesting.
So, if all this is true, then why have I only now turned myself into a blogger?