Am I getting old or is the world just changing faster than I can keep up? Last weekend, Swedish Girl and I went out for some drinks and appetizers and wanted to catch a movie – My Super Ex-Girlfriend, to be exact. I’m a fan of Luke Wilson, Rainn Wilson, and I don’t mind Uma Thurman. I had seen the trailer and I was game. It seemed like a decent 90-minute comedic diversion. I even had two free cinema passes given to my by my boss, so I was looking forward to a good night. Unfortunately, the mulitplex didn’t cooperate.

I was shocked and horrified to find out that, after lasting less than three weeks (JUST 3 WEEKS!), MSEG was pushed out of the theater. I stood there, incredulous, checking and double-checking both movie boards inside the cinema, as well as the big board outside. Gone. And later on, I checked on line and it’s only playing in two distant cinemas. And I’m not about to drive 30 to 45 minutes for a movie.

Is it just my rose-colored memory, or did movies used to stick around a lot longer years ago? Even really bad movies were guaranteed one or two months at the cinema. Guaranteed. And good movies stuck around for three months. Weren’t Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction around for half the year? What has happened over the last decade? I realize that this is a billion-dollar industry and cinemas want to have the hottest, latest movies, but this is ridiculous.

I’ve never felt pressured to hurry to the theater to see a movie within 10 or 12 days for fear that it will be pulled. Didn’t It’s Pat: The Movie even get a longer stay back in 1994? Maybe I’m just whining about nothing. Maybe this is yet another consequence of the fast-paced, attention deficit disorder, MTV generation. Maybe this is what we now get in the DVD era, where producers and movie studios don’t care about long box office runs and it’s only the opening weekend that really matters. However you define it, it makes me feel a bit old.

Let me preface this by saying that I made a conscious decision some years ago to stop watching Siskel & Ebert. I enjoyed the show and I found the hosts personable, engaging, intelligent, and thoughtful. I also enjoyed their chippy banter. These were award-winning journalists from rival Chicago newspapers and I got the feeling they only played nice for the camera. If it was an act, then I bought it. I never watched the show regularly, mostly because it was always on at the worst time, something like 11:30 pm on Sunday nights. I’d catch it now and then, but eventually found it affecting my movie fun. I had to cut Gene and Roger loose in order to walk into the cinema fresh and enjoy a movie on my terms.

I was flipping through the channels on Saturday afternoon and came across Ebert & Roeper . Hats off to Roger Ebert for being able to keep the franchise alive after the death of his co-host, Gene Siskel. However, Ebert has been in declining health over the last several years and the franchise is in doubt once more. I tuned into the show over the last couple of weekends and saw Ebert and Roeper reviewing movies and thought nothing was up. But when I tuned in on Saturday, I saw Kevin Smith sitting in Roger’s chair.

Now I love Kevin Smith. I still haven’t checked out Clerks II, but I do admire the guy. While I think it would be cool to have a different director sit in to co-host the show every so often, I missed Roger and I hope he’s back soon. Smith did a fine job, had a good rapport with Roeper, and appeared to be a TV natural. Nonetheless, seeing someone else sitting in Roger’s chair was sad. I know he won’t be around forever, and the franchise might continue, but it’s just not the same.

Clerks II will be released soon in a theater near you.  When I first heard this news, I was both excited and dismayed.  I kind of pity writer/creator/director/actor Kevin Smith for what I perceive as a creative drought and the feeling that he has to go back to the well one more time.  I’ll plunk down my $10 and watch Clerks II.  You can count on it.  But that’s more because of nostalgia than anything else.  I saw the trailer last week and I was embarrassed.  I turned to Swedish Girl and asked if she had ever seen Clerks.  She had not and after seeing this trailer, it was impossible to try to convince her that the 1994 Clerks was a work of low-budget, independent filmmaking cinematic near-perfection.

The original Jersey Trilogy (Clerks, Mallrats, and Chasing Amy) has grown and now sort of includes Dogma, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, and Clerks II.  Strike Back was bigger budget and purposely over the top; it was a fitting way to (as Smith reported) retire the Jersey Series, especially Jay and Silent Bob.  While I was sad to see the end of the series and all the characters I loved (not just Jay and Silent Bob; Brody was probably my favorite), I agreed that it was a good idea.  I remember Smith saying that he wanted to move on, mature, grow, and create other characters.  I still haven’t seen Jersey Girl, but I’m told I’m not missing much.  Maybe he peaked with his first film much like Pearl Jam peaked with their first album.

I get too invested in the things that I chose to let entertain me.  This includes TV shows, movies, musicians, sports teams, etc.  So, my primary concern is that Clerks II is going to muddy the absolute genius of the original.  All these teenagers now were in kindergarten when the original hit the theaters and they won’t understand the impact of the original.  The trailer is supposed to contain the best lines and funniest moments of a film, but this one just made me cringe.  Perhaps what they say is true – you can’t go home again. 

With that said, maybe Roger Clemens shouldn’t return to the Red Sox afterall…