The Weekly Quandry: Irrelevance Through Influence?

I was perusing io9 this morning and found a post by Marc Bernardin on the idea of a Starship Troopers TV show. For the uninitiated, Starship Troopers is Robert Heinlein's 1960 Hugo Award-winning novel about a boy named Juan Rico who joins the military in his futuristic society. The text depicts his entrance into and ascension through the ranks of the armed forces, who are at war with an alien species known as the Klendathu. Bernardin's piece pointed me towards another post on io9 in which Josh Wimmer gives a fantastic breakdown of the novel for anyone who hasn't read it. You can also check out Wikipedia, or just read the book. I strongly encourage the latter because it is an incredible text and nothing like Paul Verhoeven's 1997 "adaptation" (which for the record was also completely awesome in its own way).

Bernardin asks why there has never been a faithful adaptation of Heinlein's novel, particularly as a high-budget television series like the recent Battlestar Galactica reboot. He mentions the fact that the novel has been hugely influential as a major selling point for a new adaptation, arguing that because its products have been so successful (ie Avatar, or just about anything sci-fi that James Cameron has ever done) therefore the progenitor should be a sure thing. I found myself disagreeing with his logic, and thinking that the core elements of Troopers might actually be over saturated in a market so heavily influenced by it. If we've seen aspects of Heinlein's work in everything from Aliens to anime then have we reached the point at which Starship Troopers ceases to be able to bring new ideas to the table?

Which bring me to this week's quandry: is it possible for a text to be so influential as to render itself irrelevant? I don't mean to say that Starship Troopers or texts like it are not worth reading, far from it. But in terms of new cultural products, is there anything else that these kinds of classic texts have left to offer? What is there left to say that hasn't already been addressed in a whole spectrum of mediums?  I use Starship Troopers as my primary example, but there are other texts/films/etc that this question could be asked of, such as I Am Legend (each new adaptation of which continues to further drive this point home) or Neuromancer (which was pretty much done in forever by The Matrix). Is there a point to returning to these classics for their own sake, or have they been rendered irrelevant by their intellectual offspring?

Sound off and let me know.

The Weekly Quandry: Sam Worthington: Where Did He Come From And Why Does He Keep Getting Work?

Note: This post has retroactively become the first in a series called The Weekly Quandry, which is exactly what it sounds like.

I've been meaning to rant about how much I detest Sam Worthington for a while now. He was terrible in Terminator: Salvation, but then everything about that movie was awful. Likewise he was the weak link in the generally stellar Avatar cast, but after my two epic rants I just wasn't prepared to do another post. Now io9 has run an article on the enigma that is Sam Worthington's career, and I'm feeling compelled to voice my opinion on the subject...

I simply cannot understand where Sam Worthington came from, and why he continues to star in blockbuster films. He doesn't seem to have appeared in anything notable before Terminator, but since then he's become seemingly ubiquitous, first starring (albeit in alien-cat form) in Avatar and now bitch-slapping deities in Clash of the Titans. Considering that all these roles have come within the space of a year I'd say he's had a fairly "meteoric" rise to fame. What perplexes me is why.

Sam Worthington is not a good actor. He doesn't seem to have any specialties besides looking morosely perplexed and yelling, and no one I've talked to thinks he's much in terms of sex appeal. One would think his lack of talent might translate well into an everyman persona, but his performance in Avatar made it pretty clear that he can't even pull that off. I argued that his character should have been written out of the film entirely, and I know I'm not alone in this. Jake Sully is the source of much of the controversy surrounding Avatar, and is somewhat useless given the overall aims of the film, so why not lose him entirely?

The man doesn't appear capable of much besides being masculine and loud, so why does he keep getting work? He's currently starring in Clash of the Titans, and is apparently set to star in a new Dracula movie. Not that he needs to considering that he's guaranteed a hefty retirement fund from the inevitable Avatar sequel(s). It completely escapes me why or how but Sam Worthington has somehow managed to become one of today's leading male actors.

As near as I can tell he starred in Hamlet, and thereby earned himself a leading role in Terminator: Salvation. It must have been around that time that he was cast in Avatar, perhaps because the Terminator franchise is James Cameron's baby. That could somewhat explain the spike in his noteriety, but maybe I'm wrong? If someone can explain the phenomenon to me I would sincerely appreciate it. It won't make Sam Worthington a better actor, but it will hopefully begin to make sense of everything. Right now I'm about ready to just blame McG, he seems like a glutton for punishment, but perhaps that's undeserved.

I realize that this post makes me officially a big fat hater, but I just can't stand Sam Worthington. He actually makes every movie he is in worse, which is saying a lot given his filmography. It's at least refreshing to know that I'm not alone in being as confused as I am, though I'm sorry for being so negative. I'm sure Sam Worthington is a wonderful human being, but he can't act to save his life.