The other day I attended a screening of the black and white silent film Sherlock Jr., starring Buster Keaton. Now, I never took a film class in college. Mainly because all of the interesting classes were upper-level and I didn't have the time or the desire to take the introductory prerequisites. So I am not really familiar with film technology in the first decades of the twentieth century, nor am I more than casually versed in the works of iconic performers like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. But, I have to say, the sophistication of Sherlock Jr. really surprised and amazed me.
First off, I personally find Buster Keaton more entertaining than Charlie Chaplin, despite the latter being generally accepted as the more influential celebrity. For one thing, Keaton wears a constant frown that perfectly mixes the gloomy moroseness of his character with an adorably juvenile innocence. It exemplifies his character much like the mustache and walking stick for Chaplin. Keaton rarely speaks; his thoughts and feelings are expressed purely through the tones of his frown, and his actions, which, again unlike Chaplin, are very subtle and contemplative.
In Sherlock Jr. what impressed me most were the visual effects that seemed decades ahead of their time. In particular, there was a dream sequence in which Keaton falls asleep in the projection room of a movie theater. A semi-transparent out-of-body Keaton appears and visualizes himself in the movie playing on the screen. To show this happening, the players on the screen are shown at the same scale as live actors on a stage. It was barely noticeable when the switch happened, and I was almost confused when Keaton, watching the movie, ran up and jumped into the scene.
What happened next was even more impressive. The scene was still set up as to be on a movie screen, two-dimensional and bordered. But as Keaton tried to go to the woman in the scene, the setting kept changing, while his body, clearly inside each scene, remained independent. It's hard to explain, but it reminded me of a black and white version of the movie Jumper. At first he is on a lawn with a bench. As he goes to sit down, the entire set changes to a desert and he falls over. It was simple and comical, but it must required an immense about of planning and editing to make his movements flow smoothly through ten or fifteen settings.
There were also some stunts, performed by Keaton, that were so quick and nonchalant they must have been real. For example, from a second- or third-story rooftop he jumps and grabs onto a railroad crossing pole and hangs on while it falls to the ground, landing perfectly in the back seat of an open-top car. The camera gives a wide, steady shot of the whole sequence, so you know there are no camera tricks, no support cables, and certainly no mattresses between the pole and roof in case he fell.
The last thing I wanted to mention was a scene where Keaton is playing pool. The gag is that his enemies have placed an explosive '13' ball on the table, hoping that Keaton will hit it. Miraculously, Keaton -- again, without every hesitating or changes his facial expression -- perfectly pockets every ball except the rigged one, which is never touched. The camera only switches away a few times, but there are several shots of Keaton taking four or five shots -- trick shots included -- and perfectly pocketing his target without moving the explosive ball at all. Either I am missing some very sophisticated camera work, or Keaton is a master pool player.
My point is, you don't really expect a black and white movie to be that entertaining. And if anything you expect the humor to be outdated and awkward. But I was surprised at how funny and relatable this story is and how well-done the creative the stunts and illusions are. It is strange to think that movies that didn't even have sound could feature convincing and sophisticated camera tricks. If you ever get the urge to watch something different, I would recommend Buster Keaton.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
An Evening with James Bond and Bruce Wayne
Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of watching the movie Skyfall again, which I had seen previously in theaters over the summer. Afterwards, I made a fairly obvious but for some reason untold observation: Skyfall and The
Before I continue, let me make it clear that I think both movies are fantastic, and they are among my favorite films. I am not attacking either of them, or in any way accusing one of plagiarizing the other. But the fact is, the characters, themes, imagery, and even dialogue, is so similar that it is hard to ignore.
Now, maybe I am just having a false revelation here. Maybe all movies in this genre have the same general structure and I just never noticed. But that can't be, because for one thing, both of these movies are instant classics; they seemingly take what we already know and do something different and awesome with it.
James Bond/007 is obviously Bruce Wayne/Batman. Both are orphans who come from money, but are set on their life course by the tragic events surrounding their parents' deaths. They run off at an early age and are taken in and trained to be deadly weapons (in Skyfall, M hints at this during a conversation with Bond. In The Dark Knight, it is expounded in the prequel, Batman Begins). In a way, both of them develop dual identities from their experiences in order to hide the pain of their childhood. Bruce Wayne turns his inner fears into his outward strength, by creating the Batman. While there is an external struggle of Batman trying to be the hero, Bruce Wayne is in fact, the man bogged down by his demons. He is human, and even though he believes the Batman is a necessity, he yearns to take off the mask, and pursue a life with Rachel. Likewise, 007 is a role James Bond must play in order to be the hero, but over the course of the movie we see that his status as the poster child for MI6 is taking a significant mental and physical toll on him.
Silva, Skyfall's villain is pretty much the Joker, with less makeup. Both of them are bad guys the likes of which no one has really seen before. Gotham, a city constantly dealing with mobsters and internal corruption, is caught off guard by the lunatic Joker, only interested in chaos and misery. MI6 is unprepared for the high-tech assault by Silva. Both villains represent the antithesis to the hero. Silva was, like Bond, an agent at MI6. He points out that he and Bond are victims of M's mother-like control over them, but that they are survivors—the two remaining rats in the barrel, as he puts it. He also warns that eventually M will turn against Bond, just as she did with him. In The Dark Knight, the Joker gives Batman a similar piece of advice: "To them you're just a freak, like me. They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out. Like a leper." He insists that Batman's talents are wasted on his commitment to justice and his inability to take a life. The Joker targets Harvey Dent, in the hopes of turning 'Gotham's white knight' in a villain. Silva wants to destroy M's reputation and villainize her before the rest of England's government. Both of them are successful. Even their methods are sort of equal and opposite. The Joker believes in low-tech terrorism; he repeats how much damage one can do with dynamite, gasoline and bullets. He threatens to kill more Gothamites each day until Batman reveals his true identity. Silva, on the other hand, uses technology to terrorize England. He hacks MI6, and then uses YouTube to release the identities of their undercover operatives each week. Furthermore, Silva and Joker both come off as being overly theatrical weirdos with mysterious aliases, and then turn out to be ten steps ahead of the good guys for 90% of the movie. Interestingly, both have somewhat startling facial deformities as a result of their past transgressions, and both give disturbing accounts of how they got those deformities.
M is equivalent to Harvey Dent. Both of them represent the public face of the hero's questionable methods of justice. M at first makes the mistake of thinking 007 is expendable, and allows him to be shot. This, combined with Silva's actions, call into question the effectiveness of the '00' program, which M has to defend in court. Over the course of the film, she realizes that Bond is necessary for the security of Great Britain (and the world). Harvey Dent wants to have the Batman arrested and is suspicious of his intentions, but then realizes the value of an incorruptible symbol of justice working behind the scenes. Eventually, both become the target of the respective villains, and have to be protected by the hero throughout the movie. And (spoiler alert) both of them eventually meet their demise in the arms of the hero, but only after the villain is apprehended/killed.
Q and Lucius Fox are identical in that they are technological geniuses with humorous dispositions. They have access to, for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources. They do not work directly for the hero, and they outfit the hero with exciting gadgetry. Lucius Fox even creates a sonar-based map of the entire city, much like the subterranean map of London that Q comes up with while searching through Silva's encrypted software.
One could also argue that Mallory and Commissioner Gordon are analogous. Gordon and Dent have different methods and goals for cleaning up Gotham, and they argue over what the role of the Batman should be. When Dent eventually dies, Gordon becomes Batman's closest ally. Likewise, Mallory at first butts heads with M about the necessity of the '00' program and the usefulness of Bond. But over the course of the film, he comes to respect M and Bond, and when M is killed, he takes over M's job as the director of MI6. There is even the courtroom in which Silva attacks M, but is protected by Mallory until Bond can come to the rescue, which is fairly similar to when the Joker attacked Dent's convoy, and Gordon had to keep him safe until Batman neutralized the threat.
The supporting cast also seems to fill the same the roles in either film. For example, Severine and Rachel are love interests who represent a way out for the hero. But in both cases, the villain gives the hero an ultimatum that results in the woman's death, reinforcing the hero's rage and desire for revenge. Kincade (the man at the Skyfall estate) and Alfred, are both caretakers that have known the hero since they were children and understand the events that created the hero's inner struggles.
The settings in both movies are like characters as well. Batman's mansion and access to his bat-cave were destroyed in Batman Begins. So in The Dark Knight he is using an underground facility somewhere in Gotham. In Skyfall, MI6 is compromised, so Bond has to report to the new headquarters in a WWII bunker. In both cases, the setting represents how the hero has been stripped of what he is used to, and must retool with what is available to him. (Interesting sidebar about settings: both heroes fight and capture a minor villain in a poorly-lit -- but also kind of blue-tinted -- skyscraper in China.)
Even the themes in each movie are the same. Much like Dent's two-headed coin, Dent and Batman are opposite faces of justice in Gotham, but both of them are essential. A great line from The Dark Knight, by Dent is: "You either die the hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." In a way, he is talking about himself and Bruce Wayne alike. If he had died in the explosion that the Joker orchestrated, he would have died the white knight of Gotham. Instead, he lived, and the Joker warped him into Two-Face. Batman survived to take down the Joker and-Two Face, but was then accused of murdering Dent and became public enemy number one. The same quote applies to Skyfall. Silva is like an earlier version of Bond; he was favored by M and a hero to his country. But he became too ambitious and rebellious, and M turned him over to the enemies of MI6. After being tortured and attempting suicide, and surviving, he turned his anger and frustration against his former masters.
There are a number of more specific plot and dialogue connections that I just don't see the point of going into. But the fact is, these movies match up astonishingly well. In a way, one could argue that they deserve to be the same. Both have similar histories. Batman has been around on the big screen since the sixties, and has undergone a number of renovations and reinterpretations. He started out as a goofy hero with absurd gadgets, and peculiar villains. But has since been reborn into a much more vivid and believable world. All of this describes the history of James Bond as well. And for both franchises, these two movies in particular represent benchmarks in the story. They take the classic ideas of the franchise and reinterpret it for a modern, more realistic world.
Monday, February 18, 2013
These Pretzels Are Making Me Thirsty!
We need to talk about food chains. I mean the 'family restaurant' chains that advertise a good time with good food and friends and what not. I recently went out to one of these places and realized two things: that they are all pretty much the same, and they all suck.
I go with two other people. We have to wait fifteen minutes or so for a table. This isn't a big deal. Though it was mildly surprising, because it was Valentine's Day. I understand people taking their loved ones out for a romantic, intimate, and delectable meal for Valentine's Day, and let's just say Applebee's would not have been my first choice for that. Nevertheless the place was packed.
We finally get seated at a booth against the wall in the back. Right behind us is the register where all the waiters are tallying up their tables' bills. And here is my first wave of complaints. For one thing, why are these places always so over-staffed? There is consistently half a dozen employees standing around the register talking (and occasionally using profanity) and arguing about work and life. In my opinion, at no time should there be employees just lingering around waiting for something to do. Especially in a packed restaurant. If they want to chit chat, they can take a five minute break and go outside. I can't even hear what the other people in my booth are saying to me, over their complaints about The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Which brings me to something else: don't you dare talk about a show or movie that I have also seen, in my presence, without meeting the intellectual and analytic standards that I demand in conversation.
Anyways, our seater seats us, someone else comes over and introduces herself as waiter A, but tells us that waiter B will be serving us tonight. So what is her purpose exactly? She leaves. Waiter B arrives to take our drink order (we never see waiter A again) and asks if we'd like any of the house specials. We ask him what they are, but he isn't sure. Instead he indicates the advertisement stuffed between the condiment rack (one of about six different special advertisements sprinkled over the table. There were three in the condiment rack, one of which opened like a book; a triangle-shaped one on the center of the table; an extra sleeve that falls out of the menu when you open it; and drink recommendation on every little coaster and napkin) which states that if we are not told about the specialty drinks upon being seated, we are entitled to a free appetizer. In fact, we we were not told about the drinks, and until he pointed it out, we hadn't even seen the offer. When we asked for the free appetizer, he simply said that because it is Valentine's Day, the offer does not apply.
He leaves and comes back a few minutes later with our drinks. My glass of water had dried, crusted sauce all over it (maybe some of those morons loitering by the register should pick up a sponge), and he spilled sangria all over the table and menus. So much that he and another waitress had to bring over towels to clean it up. And he didn't so much as apologize.
Looking at the menu, I can't help but notice that they have the calorie values for each meal. I realize this is regulation. And it wouldn't be that noticeable, if they weren't so absurdly high! The most surprising and terrifying part, is that the appetizers seem to have more calories than the main dishes. And we're talking over 2000 calories! What's the adult man supposed to consume in a day? 2000-2500? Well, there is your entire intake value for the day. And it's a small bowl of chips and dip.
The menu is clearly designed for quantity instead of quality. Every meal seems to be some absurd combination of things that do not really belong together. Shrimp and chicken, shrimp and steak, steak and chicken, all of them with or without pasta and...cheese. It is just gross and unappetizing. I ordered a cheeseburger, medium, figuring that they can't possibly screw up a simple burger. (Though I should also point out that 'cheeseburger' and 'hamburger' were not options in the burger section. There were only six strange themed burgers that again tried to combine different genres of food. For example, the quesadilla burger, which is exactly what it sounds like.) When it finally arrived, it looked like something that was purchased over-the-counter at Wendy's, frozen, and then microwaved and thrown onto a different bun, just for me. Why ask how I would like it cooked when all of them are paper-thin patties that come out of the toaster the same?
The sad thing is, I would have preferred to go to Wendy's or McDonald's, gotten something cheap and tasty, and gotten out of there in 10 minutes. Instead I have to sit here for an hour and a half while I'm waited on by half a dozen blank-faced zombies, who, I assume, when they're not texting or playing minesweeper on the computer, are in the kitchen cooking the food with their eyes closed.
It wasn't even worth it to get rid of a stupid $15 gift certificate I won in a trivia contest back at school. From now on, I will do everything in my power to avoid these restaurants. And please, if you have any self-respect or respect for the people you are eating with, go somewhere else. Somewhere original. You deserve better.
I go with two other people. We have to wait fifteen minutes or so for a table. This isn't a big deal. Though it was mildly surprising, because it was Valentine's Day. I understand people taking their loved ones out for a romantic, intimate, and delectable meal for Valentine's Day, and let's just say Applebee's would not have been my first choice for that. Nevertheless the place was packed.
We finally get seated at a booth against the wall in the back. Right behind us is the register where all the waiters are tallying up their tables' bills. And here is my first wave of complaints. For one thing, why are these places always so over-staffed? There is consistently half a dozen employees standing around the register talking (and occasionally using profanity) and arguing about work and life. In my opinion, at no time should there be employees just lingering around waiting for something to do. Especially in a packed restaurant. If they want to chit chat, they can take a five minute break and go outside. I can't even hear what the other people in my booth are saying to me, over their complaints about The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Which brings me to something else: don't you dare talk about a show or movie that I have also seen, in my presence, without meeting the intellectual and analytic standards that I demand in conversation.
Anyways, our seater seats us, someone else comes over and introduces herself as waiter A, but tells us that waiter B will be serving us tonight. So what is her purpose exactly? She leaves. Waiter B arrives to take our drink order (we never see waiter A again) and asks if we'd like any of the house specials. We ask him what they are, but he isn't sure. Instead he indicates the advertisement stuffed between the condiment rack (one of about six different special advertisements sprinkled over the table. There were three in the condiment rack, one of which opened like a book; a triangle-shaped one on the center of the table; an extra sleeve that falls out of the menu when you open it; and drink recommendation on every little coaster and napkin) which states that if we are not told about the specialty drinks upon being seated, we are entitled to a free appetizer. In fact, we we were not told about the drinks, and until he pointed it out, we hadn't even seen the offer. When we asked for the free appetizer, he simply said that because it is Valentine's Day, the offer does not apply.
He leaves and comes back a few minutes later with our drinks. My glass of water had dried, crusted sauce all over it (maybe some of those morons loitering by the register should pick up a sponge), and he spilled sangria all over the table and menus. So much that he and another waitress had to bring over towels to clean it up. And he didn't so much as apologize.
Looking at the menu, I can't help but notice that they have the calorie values for each meal. I realize this is regulation. And it wouldn't be that noticeable, if they weren't so absurdly high! The most surprising and terrifying part, is that the appetizers seem to have more calories than the main dishes. And we're talking over 2000 calories! What's the adult man supposed to consume in a day? 2000-2500? Well, there is your entire intake value for the day. And it's a small bowl of chips and dip.
The menu is clearly designed for quantity instead of quality. Every meal seems to be some absurd combination of things that do not really belong together. Shrimp and chicken, shrimp and steak, steak and chicken, all of them with or without pasta and...cheese. It is just gross and unappetizing. I ordered a cheeseburger, medium, figuring that they can't possibly screw up a simple burger. (Though I should also point out that 'cheeseburger' and 'hamburger' were not options in the burger section. There were only six strange themed burgers that again tried to combine different genres of food. For example, the quesadilla burger, which is exactly what it sounds like.) When it finally arrived, it looked like something that was purchased over-the-counter at Wendy's, frozen, and then microwaved and thrown onto a different bun, just for me. Why ask how I would like it cooked when all of them are paper-thin patties that come out of the toaster the same?
The sad thing is, I would have preferred to go to Wendy's or McDonald's, gotten something cheap and tasty, and gotten out of there in 10 minutes. Instead I have to sit here for an hour and a half while I'm waited on by half a dozen blank-faced zombies, who, I assume, when they're not texting or playing minesweeper on the computer, are in the kitchen cooking the food with their eyes closed.
It wasn't even worth it to get rid of a stupid $15 gift certificate I won in a trivia contest back at school. From now on, I will do everything in my power to avoid these restaurants. And please, if you have any self-respect or respect for the people you are eating with, go somewhere else. Somewhere original. You deserve better.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The Soft, White Pillow of Hell
I don't care for winter weather. It requires too much work and preparation: the extra layers of clothing that take an hour to put on and then you sweat; the moisturizer you need when your skin dries out to the point of cracking and bleeding; the rampant assault of cold and flu that forces you to wash your hands ten times a day, only making them colder and drier...
About once a year we get a really big snow storm that leaves a foot or two of snow on the ground. It's strange that even nowadays, when a big storm is pending, I experience a fleeting echo of the childish excitement I would feel when I was younger. What is it about the snow that is so enticing? It's like the human brain is programmed to equate snow with fantasy and wonder. For a kid, it means, most importantly, a potential Snow Day. That, in itself, makes it a miracle. But there are so many other quintessential snowy activities to partake in: snowball fights, snowman building, sledding, ice skating, and igloo construction. These are the things I want to do. These are things that, if my understanding of American culture is accurate, kids are supposed to enjoy doing in the wintertime.
Except, despite the exhilaration I would feel before a big storm, none of these ideas ever came to fruition. In my youth, I was a short, plump asthmatic. The weight of the extra layers of clothing, alone, would have me panting before I got to the door. On the occasion of a Snow Day, I would not be allowed to sleep in and then go play in the snow. Instead I would be woken up even earlier than I would normally get up for school, so that I could start shoveling the driveway and a path for the dogs to go to the bathroom. By the time the sun was up, I was sweating and wheezing, my face was numb, and my back was throbbing.
As for those classic American winter activities, let's see. I tried to build a snowman once, in my back yard, with my brother. The thing is, when you have dogs, there is poop and pee everywhere; and when it snows, it's hidden or harder to pick up. But, being a kid, you don't really consider this, until you have a big beautiful boulder of snow...with smelly brown and yellow patches on it. Sledding is a sick joke, I assume created by lazy parents, as a way to exhaust their children's energy while they're outdoors. You drag your sled (and your short, round self) to the top of a hill, only to slide back down again. Best case scenario, the ride last five seconds, as compared to the ten minute trek to the top. Worst case scenario, you sink into the snow at the summit and have to thrust yourself forward until gravity changes its mind, but then the sled gets offset by your foot holes on the hill and you end up tumbling off a few times on the way down. The one time I tried to make an igloo, I had to make a pile of snow first, and then hollow it out. I was so exhausted from shoveling that the made was too small. In an act of desperation I hollowed it out anyway, to find that only my head and shoulders could fit inside. Ice skating is another activity that should only be allowed for the skinny and flexible. By the time my second skate touched the ice, I was already on my ass. 90 percent of the experience was me floundering around on the ice trying to stand back up, while everyone else glided around me. As for snowball fights, well, they required a group of friends, something I never had when I was little.
The worst thing about the snow is how freaking cold it is. You're never really dressed warm enough, and no matter what, there is some amount of skin exposed that gets even colder. I wear glasses, and when the wind blows, snow curls around the edges of the frames and viciously stings my eyes. And there is always a piece of wrist that appears between the jacket and glove that inevitably gets snow on it; when I try to wipe the snow away, it just goes underneath the sleeve. I want to go out there and play around for a few hours, but after five minutes I am cold, exhausted, and uncomfortable. Why, snow? Why are you so deceiving?
About once a year we get a really big snow storm that leaves a foot or two of snow on the ground. It's strange that even nowadays, when a big storm is pending, I experience a fleeting echo of the childish excitement I would feel when I was younger. What is it about the snow that is so enticing? It's like the human brain is programmed to equate snow with fantasy and wonder. For a kid, it means, most importantly, a potential Snow Day. That, in itself, makes it a miracle. But there are so many other quintessential snowy activities to partake in: snowball fights, snowman building, sledding, ice skating, and igloo construction. These are the things I want to do. These are things that, if my understanding of American culture is accurate, kids are supposed to enjoy doing in the wintertime.
Except, despite the exhilaration I would feel before a big storm, none of these ideas ever came to fruition. In my youth, I was a short, plump asthmatic. The weight of the extra layers of clothing, alone, would have me panting before I got to the door. On the occasion of a Snow Day, I would not be allowed to sleep in and then go play in the snow. Instead I would be woken up even earlier than I would normally get up for school, so that I could start shoveling the driveway and a path for the dogs to go to the bathroom. By the time the sun was up, I was sweating and wheezing, my face was numb, and my back was throbbing.
As for those classic American winter activities, let's see. I tried to build a snowman once, in my back yard, with my brother. The thing is, when you have dogs, there is poop and pee everywhere; and when it snows, it's hidden or harder to pick up. But, being a kid, you don't really consider this, until you have a big beautiful boulder of snow...with smelly brown and yellow patches on it. Sledding is a sick joke, I assume created by lazy parents, as a way to exhaust their children's energy while they're outdoors. You drag your sled (and your short, round self) to the top of a hill, only to slide back down again. Best case scenario, the ride last five seconds, as compared to the ten minute trek to the top. Worst case scenario, you sink into the snow at the summit and have to thrust yourself forward until gravity changes its mind, but then the sled gets offset by your foot holes on the hill and you end up tumbling off a few times on the way down. The one time I tried to make an igloo, I had to make a pile of snow first, and then hollow it out. I was so exhausted from shoveling that the made was too small. In an act of desperation I hollowed it out anyway, to find that only my head and shoulders could fit inside. Ice skating is another activity that should only be allowed for the skinny and flexible. By the time my second skate touched the ice, I was already on my ass. 90 percent of the experience was me floundering around on the ice trying to stand back up, while everyone else glided around me. As for snowball fights, well, they required a group of friends, something I never had when I was little.
The worst thing about the snow is how freaking cold it is. You're never really dressed warm enough, and no matter what, there is some amount of skin exposed that gets even colder. I wear glasses, and when the wind blows, snow curls around the edges of the frames and viciously stings my eyes. And there is always a piece of wrist that appears between the jacket and glove that inevitably gets snow on it; when I try to wipe the snow away, it just goes underneath the sleeve. I want to go out there and play around for a few hours, but after five minutes I am cold, exhausted, and uncomfortable. Why, snow? Why are you so deceiving?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Iron Man vs. Boba Fett
This is a big week for Disney movie news. On the one hand, Marvel Studios has been revealing tidbits of information about what the future holds for their ever-expanding Marvel Universe, centered around the Avengers. And on the other, Disney/Lucasfilm has just announced that, in addition to the new Star Wars trilogy being arranged, there will also be accompanying stand alone features. I can't help but wonder if the two situations are connected.
Marvel Studios is seeing immense success with their growing number of interlocking franchises, including Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. We already have a schedule for 'Phase II' of the Marvel Universe, which gives us sequels for these three characters, as well as the premier of the Guardians of the Galaxy, all coalescing into an Avengers sequel. But it doesn't stop there; the people at Marvel Studios are already brainstorming ideas for 'Phase III'. It has been confirmed that Ant-Man and Doctor Strange will get their own films, and rumors have been circulating about future Hulk ideas, as well as the Inhumans.
I, personally, think all of this is a great idea. I'm not saying there is any reason to expect that every one of these movies will be cinematic gold. But it is a revolutionary concept to produce so many films with immersing characters and worlds, that have a unifying story, in a short period of time. And that is the double-edged sword of comic book movies. The comics have been around for decades; there is an extraordinary wealth of source material from which to draw story-lines for films. The problem is producing movies fast enough to 1) keep people interested, and 2) keep around the same actors. Then again, maybe the studio will keep finding ways around that (no one really minds that three different actors have portrayed the Incredible Hulk in the last decade).
So please, Marvel Universe, get while the getting is good, sign up your actors for 15, even 20, films and do as much as you, while you can. Money obviously is no longer an issue. Don't sell out, but continue to expand the universe and give us interesting characters and stories before the actors get too old or someone suggests rebooting a character in a different direction. Because even this decade-long wave of films is only temporary. I am predicting that 20 years from now, when Disney has managed to purchase the rights to the X-Men and Spider-Man, there will be an entire Marvel Universe reboot!
And that brings me to the Star Wars Universe. Maybe the folks at Disney/Lucasfilm are realizing that they are facing a similar situation. There are tons of Star Wars material out there that would make great films. Give us a trilogy. Give us solo films! ...hey wait. See what I did there? 'solo films', as in Han Solo films. Anyways... expand the universe! And the great thing that Star Wars has that the Marvel Universe doesn't, is longevity. The Star Wars mythos spans hundred (and I assume, thousands) of years. Whereas the Marvel Universe only has maybe 15 years before their films either have to address the characters' aging or make some cast changes, the Star Wars Universe is not limited by time. We won't need any reboots, or really too many recurring characters; we can just have new stories that are briefly or vaguely interlocking, for the next 50 years. Marvel Studios has shown us that you don't need to confine an epic story to a trilogy; just keep telling us new stories!
Now, I'm sure there is a downside. Worst case scenario, these studios start producing shit titles, just to get people into theaters (ala Pixar). I mean, this is basically Disney 101. I'm looking at you, Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4. But in the case of Star Wars, you don't have to rely on a Jack Sparrow to carry four movies. If people get tired of a character, just move on to a different story.
So anyways, I am really excited about what happens with these - franchises? universes? I'm not even sure what they're called - developments. There is so much potential. I hope they don't screw it up.
Marvel Studios is seeing immense success with their growing number of interlocking franchises, including Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. We already have a schedule for 'Phase II' of the Marvel Universe, which gives us sequels for these three characters, as well as the premier of the Guardians of the Galaxy, all coalescing into an Avengers sequel. But it doesn't stop there; the people at Marvel Studios are already brainstorming ideas for 'Phase III'. It has been confirmed that Ant-Man and Doctor Strange will get their own films, and rumors have been circulating about future Hulk ideas, as well as the Inhumans.
I, personally, think all of this is a great idea. I'm not saying there is any reason to expect that every one of these movies will be cinematic gold. But it is a revolutionary concept to produce so many films with immersing characters and worlds, that have a unifying story, in a short period of time. And that is the double-edged sword of comic book movies. The comics have been around for decades; there is an extraordinary wealth of source material from which to draw story-lines for films. The problem is producing movies fast enough to 1) keep people interested, and 2) keep around the same actors. Then again, maybe the studio will keep finding ways around that (no one really minds that three different actors have portrayed the Incredible Hulk in the last decade).
So please, Marvel Universe, get while the getting is good, sign up your actors for 15, even 20, films and do as much as you, while you can. Money obviously is no longer an issue. Don't sell out, but continue to expand the universe and give us interesting characters and stories before the actors get too old or someone suggests rebooting a character in a different direction. Because even this decade-long wave of films is only temporary. I am predicting that 20 years from now, when Disney has managed to purchase the rights to the X-Men and Spider-Man, there will be an entire Marvel Universe reboot!
And that brings me to the Star Wars Universe. Maybe the folks at Disney/Lucasfilm are realizing that they are facing a similar situation. There are tons of Star Wars material out there that would make great films. Give us a trilogy. Give us solo films! ...hey wait. See what I did there? 'solo films', as in Han Solo films. Anyways... expand the universe! And the great thing that Star Wars has that the Marvel Universe doesn't, is longevity. The Star Wars mythos spans hundred (and I assume, thousands) of years. Whereas the Marvel Universe only has maybe 15 years before their films either have to address the characters' aging or make some cast changes, the Star Wars Universe is not limited by time. We won't need any reboots, or really too many recurring characters; we can just have new stories that are briefly or vaguely interlocking, for the next 50 years. Marvel Studios has shown us that you don't need to confine an epic story to a trilogy; just keep telling us new stories!
Now, I'm sure there is a downside. Worst case scenario, these studios start producing shit titles, just to get people into theaters (ala Pixar). I mean, this is basically Disney 101. I'm looking at you, Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4. But in the case of Star Wars, you don't have to rely on a Jack Sparrow to carry four movies. If people get tired of a character, just move on to a different story.
So anyways, I am really excited about what happens with these - franchises? universes? I'm not even sure what they're called - developments. There is so much potential. I hope they don't screw it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)