Item! Jason has posted both photos from my grandmother's funeral, as well as a description of our trip (also expect Jason's thoughts on The Dark Knight).
Item! The trailer for Watchmen premiered with Dark Knight. Here. It seems like just yesterday that I was in middle school and reading "Comics Scene" magazine, where they were describing trying to get Arnie on board to play Dr. Manhattan. Blue, nude, Arnie.
I am still very skeptical. For all the sturm und drang of Zack Snyder's adaptation of Frank Miller's "300", it ended up feeling like a really long, pretty Korn video. The movie was probably a technical achievement, but you're talking about the difference between adapting a picture book versus a dense and complex story with genuine characters. And, unlike Hulk or Batman, you can't really relaunch Watchmen if Snyder drops the ball.
Item! Speaking of Miller, his directorial debut in adapting Eisner's "The Spirit" looks... kinda not like The Spirit.
I see Sin City with The Spirit's mask glued on for good measure. For those keeping up, Miller's world view is pretty specific, and it may not serve the world of Eisner's gum shoe terribly well.
And certainly anyone who would pick up Spirit reprints to find out what this Spirit guy is about isn't going to find Miller working through his issues with women (even if Eisner's comic did feature a number of femme fatales).
What's weird is that Miller clearly thinks Eisner is the bee's knees. Check out Eisner/ Miller some time. So I'm wondering what Miller is up to.
That said, Eisner employed a lot of crazy imagery in his strip, so some of what I've seen in the trailer fits...
We'll see. I just always found "The Spirit" a lot... jollier... than what I'm seeing.
Item! Steven has thrown down the gauntlet for Nicole. She is to learn Rush's "Tom Sawyer".
I fully support this challenge.
Item! This week is Comic-Con International. That's the big Comic-Con that routinely sends the press into a conniption fit because they can't believe this many people enjoy pop entertainment that isn't covered by "Us Weekly".
Usually some failry interesting comic related news comes out during this period, or else we get a sneak peek of movies, TV shows, what have you.
I'm not expecting a whole lot this year as far as surprises go. The internet news cycle has gotten to be such that entertainment companies are trying to get out ahead of the SDCC rather than making the announcements there.
Some day I'd like to go to SDCC, but part of me is pretty sure it would just wind up being a disappointment. I don't get a particular thrill out of standing in lines, so I don't know if I'd manage to get any sketches, signatures, whatever. Plus, the temptation to spend too much money on comics once I was there would be too great.
I hear a lot about the after parties, but getting sloppy drunk and kissing the ass of some writers and artists sounds... weird (ie: lame). But, still, I think you kind of need to see this thing as part of comic culture. So... maybe one day.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The League finally saw Dark Knight
I think this is Part 1 of 2
So... Let us discuss The Dark Knight. This is relatively spoiler free, I guess.
Jamie and I got up and went to the 11:35am show at The Alamo. And, really, there is a heck of a lot of material out there for The Alamo to pull from for their pre-show. I highly recommend hitting one of the Alamo locations, for no other reason than seeing Prince's "Bat Dance" on the big screen.
It's actually an interesting contrast to see some of the decades' worth of Bat material prior to the film, as a reminder that Batman has changed so much, so frequently over the years, and how those different versions are so embedded in the public memory, a bit like different versions of King Arthur hitting TV, movies, the Broadway stage, what have you. All of them work (to a degree), and all of them serve a purpose.
Dark Knight throws off the last remnants of the Tim Burton era of Batman, and is able to take Bale's Batman into a world that is much, much closer to our own than any previously seen in any medium. And the movie is that much more powerful for it. There's still Batman's fantastic toys, but we've moved past the world of ninjas from Batman Begins, and the world no longer looks as if the director let the artistic director go kooky. It's an aesthetic choice that I think informs the viewer of the presentness of the characters and the very human dilemmas they face.
I won't go into discussing the performances of the various actors. Yes, they're all devoid of camp or irony. Yes, it is a pleasure to see Ledger's mad dog Joker, Bale's Wayne/ Batman, and Caine as an Alfred with a bit more mettle than most.
There's something exhausting about the new film, clocking in at over 2.5 hours with wall-to-wall story, and nary a quiet moment. But it was a familiar exhaustion. The kind I get when I kick back with a graphic novel or trade paperback collection that doesn't mind taking you through the ringer. Think "Long Halloween", "Watchmen", the original "Sin City"... stories that you can read in a single shot or two, but that are fairly densely packed and leave no one unscathed by the end of the story.
As much fun as I've had with super-flicks coming out this summer, its best that the super-offerings ended with Dark Knight rather than started with this movie. And I'm not saying this lightly, but Dark Knight has changed the game for superhero movies, just as Burton's Batman did in 1989. As I've mentioned on this site a few times, when Burton's Batman appeared, people were still thinking "Bam! Pow! Ziff!" when they thought superhero comics and movies (despite several Superman films, each of which still had no small amount of camp and humor tucked in for good measure). Nicholson's playfully deadly Joker wasn't necessarily frightening, but he was a darn sight more interesting than Romero's cackling criminal. And, more in spite of Keaton than because of him, it gave the public a new and far, far different take on Batman than Adam West.
Batman Begins acts as a great transition, setting up the newly pragmatic take on Batman, while still keeping him with a toe, if not a foot, in the fantastic.
I may be alone in this, but I felt The Dark Knight isn't just a huge leap for the Batman franchise, its a quantum leap for superhero movies in general from popcorn action flick to serious (crime) drama. Perhaps it's not Godfather II, but the movie operates on such a completely different level from this summer's other flicks such as "Hulk", "Hellboy II" and even "Iron Man".
This isn't:
-Hero has to stop Doomsday device (Superman, Spider-Man II, X-Men)
-Hero has to fight his equal (Superman II, Spider-Man)
-Hero has to explore their origins to solve the mystery (Hellboy)
-or some combination of the above (Superman Returns)
As much as I liked Hellboy II and Iron Man, they were both pretty pat stories that worked in the easy morality that usually makes up summer flicks. And, in fact, made up Batman Begins, in its way.
Nolan and Co. set out to push the boundaries of the accepted superhero norms of white hat heroism, and looked at exactly the way you make those involved pay. Structurally, it balances between superherodom and movies from guys like Michael Mann, De Palma or other film makers who've successfully delved into the morally gray territory of criminal and crime fighters. At least that's the basic world the film emulates far more than one of Bat-nipples and the possibility of anyone mistaking Alicia Silverstone as competent enough to drive a car, let alone act as an unlicensed crime fighter.
What's interesting is that the film does what I sort of suspected from the trailers: it manages to bring to the screen the busted, broken, fever dream of Gotham that I've known since middle school. Since the post COIE launch of Batman: Year One, this is the Gotham I've seen on the page, this is the Joker I've seen (in the more memorable stories), this is Harvey Dent (crusading DA), and this is the Batman I've known. For the first time, I white knuckled, both knowing exactly how this would play out, and having no idea what to expect next...
But more than that, its a Batman that makes sense on the screen, with walking, talking humans rather than humans trying to emulate a cartoon, and believing their story fits within the confines of children's entertainment. All while keeping the essence of Batman intact.
And after years of people in Batman costumes who weren't really Batman, and a promising start with Batman begins, its positively rewarding.
It's a unique thrill to feel the genre of superhero film being taken as a bit more than escapist fantasy (even when, like Iron Man, it has some interesting underpinnings). And it gives me hope for the future of superhero films. Can they move beyond the usual mad scientist schemes and doomsday devices? The comics all too rarely manage to do so, so it seems a bit premature to think that the next Hulk movie will do much more than open a can of whup-ass on some other over-sized muscled mutant, or that if they do a Flash movie, it will be about much more than the joy of moving far faster than the speed of sound. And I certainly don't think all superhero films NEED to go this direction, and Batman is uniquely posed to do so. But the fact that the window has been opened...
I don't want to overstate all of this, and I know I'm at risk of doing so. Dark Knight isn't going to ping on the cultural radar in the same manner as something either like Godfather or Star Wars. Because parents may wisely avoid taking their children to see Dark Knight (and I recommend this movie only for kids 12 or older) it's going to miss out on the humongous box office numbers of something like Spidey 3 (which, by the way, wasn't very good and mostly rode the goodwill of Spideys 1 &2 ). But I do see it as a shifting point for superhero movies.
Hopefully Dark Knight will give WB and DC the courage to take more chances on their own properties, mining them for the stories and characters that they already own.
Now, if the Superman team can figure out how to get that level of action and drama with their already developed story telling...
So, what'd you think? Chime in!
So... Let us discuss The Dark Knight. This is relatively spoiler free, I guess.
Jamie and I got up and went to the 11:35am show at The Alamo. And, really, there is a heck of a lot of material out there for The Alamo to pull from for their pre-show. I highly recommend hitting one of the Alamo locations, for no other reason than seeing Prince's "Bat Dance" on the big screen.
It's actually an interesting contrast to see some of the decades' worth of Bat material prior to the film, as a reminder that Batman has changed so much, so frequently over the years, and how those different versions are so embedded in the public memory, a bit like different versions of King Arthur hitting TV, movies, the Broadway stage, what have you. All of them work (to a degree), and all of them serve a purpose.
Dark Knight throws off the last remnants of the Tim Burton era of Batman, and is able to take Bale's Batman into a world that is much, much closer to our own than any previously seen in any medium. And the movie is that much more powerful for it. There's still Batman's fantastic toys, but we've moved past the world of ninjas from Batman Begins, and the world no longer looks as if the director let the artistic director go kooky. It's an aesthetic choice that I think informs the viewer of the presentness of the characters and the very human dilemmas they face.
I won't go into discussing the performances of the various actors. Yes, they're all devoid of camp or irony. Yes, it is a pleasure to see Ledger's mad dog Joker, Bale's Wayne/ Batman, and Caine as an Alfred with a bit more mettle than most.
There's something exhausting about the new film, clocking in at over 2.5 hours with wall-to-wall story, and nary a quiet moment. But it was a familiar exhaustion. The kind I get when I kick back with a graphic novel or trade paperback collection that doesn't mind taking you through the ringer. Think "Long Halloween", "Watchmen", the original "Sin City"... stories that you can read in a single shot or two, but that are fairly densely packed and leave no one unscathed by the end of the story.
As much fun as I've had with super-flicks coming out this summer, its best that the super-offerings ended with Dark Knight rather than started with this movie. And I'm not saying this lightly, but Dark Knight has changed the game for superhero movies, just as Burton's Batman did in 1989. As I've mentioned on this site a few times, when Burton's Batman appeared, people were still thinking "Bam! Pow! Ziff!" when they thought superhero comics and movies (despite several Superman films, each of which still had no small amount of camp and humor tucked in for good measure). Nicholson's playfully deadly Joker wasn't necessarily frightening, but he was a darn sight more interesting than Romero's cackling criminal. And, more in spite of Keaton than because of him, it gave the public a new and far, far different take on Batman than Adam West.
Batman Begins acts as a great transition, setting up the newly pragmatic take on Batman, while still keeping him with a toe, if not a foot, in the fantastic.
I may be alone in this, but I felt The Dark Knight isn't just a huge leap for the Batman franchise, its a quantum leap for superhero movies in general from popcorn action flick to serious (crime) drama. Perhaps it's not Godfather II, but the movie operates on such a completely different level from this summer's other flicks such as "Hulk", "Hellboy II" and even "Iron Man".
This isn't:
-Hero has to stop Doomsday device (Superman, Spider-Man II, X-Men)
-Hero has to fight his equal (Superman II, Spider-Man)
-Hero has to explore their origins to solve the mystery (Hellboy)
-or some combination of the above (Superman Returns)
As much as I liked Hellboy II and Iron Man, they were both pretty pat stories that worked in the easy morality that usually makes up summer flicks. And, in fact, made up Batman Begins, in its way.
Nolan and Co. set out to push the boundaries of the accepted superhero norms of white hat heroism, and looked at exactly the way you make those involved pay. Structurally, it balances between superherodom and movies from guys like Michael Mann, De Palma or other film makers who've successfully delved into the morally gray territory of criminal and crime fighters. At least that's the basic world the film emulates far more than one of Bat-nipples and the possibility of anyone mistaking Alicia Silverstone as competent enough to drive a car, let alone act as an unlicensed crime fighter.
What's interesting is that the film does what I sort of suspected from the trailers: it manages to bring to the screen the busted, broken, fever dream of Gotham that I've known since middle school. Since the post COIE launch of Batman: Year One, this is the Gotham I've seen on the page, this is the Joker I've seen (in the more memorable stories), this is Harvey Dent (crusading DA), and this is the Batman I've known. For the first time, I white knuckled, both knowing exactly how this would play out, and having no idea what to expect next...
But more than that, its a Batman that makes sense on the screen, with walking, talking humans rather than humans trying to emulate a cartoon, and believing their story fits within the confines of children's entertainment. All while keeping the essence of Batman intact.
And after years of people in Batman costumes who weren't really Batman, and a promising start with Batman begins, its positively rewarding.
It's a unique thrill to feel the genre of superhero film being taken as a bit more than escapist fantasy (even when, like Iron Man, it has some interesting underpinnings). And it gives me hope for the future of superhero films. Can they move beyond the usual mad scientist schemes and doomsday devices? The comics all too rarely manage to do so, so it seems a bit premature to think that the next Hulk movie will do much more than open a can of whup-ass on some other over-sized muscled mutant, or that if they do a Flash movie, it will be about much more than the joy of moving far faster than the speed of sound. And I certainly don't think all superhero films NEED to go this direction, and Batman is uniquely posed to do so. But the fact that the window has been opened...
I don't want to overstate all of this, and I know I'm at risk of doing so. Dark Knight isn't going to ping on the cultural radar in the same manner as something either like Godfather or Star Wars. Because parents may wisely avoid taking their children to see Dark Knight (and I recommend this movie only for kids 12 or older) it's going to miss out on the humongous box office numbers of something like Spidey 3 (which, by the way, wasn't very good and mostly rode the goodwill of Spideys 1 &2 ). But I do see it as a shifting point for superhero movies.
Hopefully Dark Knight will give WB and DC the courage to take more chances on their own properties, mining them for the stories and characters that they already own.
Now, if the Superman team can figure out how to get that level of action and drama with their already developed story telling...
So, what'd you think? Chime in!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Batman (1966)
As much as I consider myself a Superman nut, as much as I dig the Green Lantern Corps and Wonder Woman... my love of superheroes, and, in fact, my life is indelibly linked with Batman. In fact, it all started with the 1960's TV show featuring Adam West and Burt Ward.
As a very young kid, I was Bat-crazy. There are stories that suggest that "Batman" was my first word. Apparently, when I was very tiny, they re-ran the old Batman episodes on a local affiliate every day at the time my Mom would start on dinner. And for whatever reason, as a VERY tiny kid, putting me in front of Batman would keep me from freaking out and doing the things kids of that age can do to distract nice Moms who are making dinner.
Its also Steans family lore that as soon as I could put words together, I was tying my blanket around my neck and singing the Batman theme song. This was followed by collecting what must have been Mego Batman dolls, Batmobiles, etc... And, in all honesty, it never really stopped.
And I've never quit digging the old Batman show. Sure, when I was little, I had no idea it was being played for laughs. Adam West seemed not unlike my Dad in unflattering tights, and it seemed reasonable that The Admiral was off fighting crime in much the same way. Moreover, it seemed reasonable that crooks and criminals were brightly dressed weirdos with themed criminal plots, who really weren't going to hurt anyone.
Today Jamie and I went to see the 1966 movie of "Batman" at the Alamo, which was playing a free kid's matinee.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the theater was very full, and full of kids. Prior to the show, they played an episode of the most recent animated Batman series. Then, just before the lights went down, an Alamo employee addressed the audience from behind a convincing Batman mask, and informed the kids that only bad guys talk during movies. Heck, I was convinced.
The movie was released theatrically between the first and and second seasons of the TV show. I'd always thought it to be created prior to the series, so it goes to show you: You learn a new Bat-Fact every day. And, apparently, had its world premier here in sunny Austin because, it seems, the boat was manufactured in Austin. Possibly at the Paramount (I'm looking for photos to confirm)!
Jason and Reed: ready for a night on the town
The movie and series hold up pretty well, all things considered. There's something off-kilter about the show that I've always liked, as if every was hanging out and smoking a Kool about ten seconds before the cameras rolled, and then threw themselves headfirst into the insanity.
West's Batman has become iconic since the show first aired. Utterly serious, while delivering the awesomest dialog ever.
Really, I hesitate to seriously ponder how much of my personality is imprinted from Mr. West.
Burt Ward's Boy Wonder is great, as is Alan Napier's Alfred. But what really sells the film is the cast of villains.
My favorite of the Bat-villains from the TV show was always Frank Gorshin as The Riddler. I particularly like Dini's take on Edward Nigma in recent issues of Detective, but its hard to beat Gorshin's sheer joy at befuddling the Caped Crusader. Plus, those costumes are iconic.
Villainy abounds!
Burgess Meredith and Caesar Romero are good as The Penguin and Joker are pretty good, too.
Topping the list, however, is Lee Meriwether as Catwoman/ Kitka. Apparently Julie Newmar had a prior commitment during filming, but I think Ms. Meriwether more than fills the catsuit. Yowza.
Meow.
Apparently I'm not the only one who appreciates Ms. Meriwether as Catwoman. Mr. Romero is very "hands on" with Catwoman in several scenes, particularly in the Penguin submarine. Seriously. With that make-up, its a little creepy.
The movie also features one of my favorite aspects of Batman in all his incarnations: the vehicles! Batcopter. Batcycle. Batmobile. Awesome.
The Batman TV series left an amazingly deep impression upon the public's concept of the superhero. I still remember going to see Burton's "Batman" on opening weekend and the theater had decorated the lobby with all of these hand-made "Bam! Wap! Pow!" signs all over the place.
To say that the show wasn't a fairly accurate representation of the comics of the time is a bit of a stretch. The comic was very light kid's fair at the time, and was mostly Batman and his pal Robin in light scrapes. And while not exactly Tolstoy, it wasn't necessarily set up for laughs the way the TV series was.
It seems the post Spider-Man movie world has finally shaken off the Batman TV series impression of how superheroes should be viewed. And, in fact, it's sort of a game in the comics' blogosphere to highlight articles where the writer uses phrases like "Bam! Pow!", or comments that comics aren't as silly or childish as they'd assumed. (That's been a staple of mainstream journalism since Burton's Batman bowed in 1989, yet writers in search of a fluff article keep re-discovering this same topic.)
From anecdotal evidence, I think most parents today grew up with Burton's Batman, Donner's Superman and had the whole experience capped with Raimi's Spider-Man. So the legacy of the 60's Batman isn't the pervasive thing it was. And I think that's actually, as it should be.
The 1960's Batman is very good at what it does. The cast is terrific. Its a fun show (especially the movie). And I think there's room for all sorts of interpretations of Batman, from Bale's grim Dark Knight to West's philosophizing playboy on the town. And I think it's a fantastic part of the legacy of Batman.
Mostly, I was pleased with how the kids seemed to like it, if their silence throughout the film was any indication.
I did mention to Jamie, as we were leaving and I was processing the film in my mind "You know, about two-thirds of the way through, I felt like I had been taking crazy pills." The kaleidoscope colors, rapid pacing, nonsensical plot and, really, haphazard pacing of the thing just sort of adds up to a unique and strange whole. As pointed out by a kid leaving the theater...
Mom: Did you like it?
Kid: Yeah! (pause) It was weird...
Mom: Well, it was supposed to be.
That is one hip, hip mom.
As a very young kid, I was Bat-crazy. There are stories that suggest that "Batman" was my first word. Apparently, when I was very tiny, they re-ran the old Batman episodes on a local affiliate every day at the time my Mom would start on dinner. And for whatever reason, as a VERY tiny kid, putting me in front of Batman would keep me from freaking out and doing the things kids of that age can do to distract nice Moms who are making dinner.
Its also Steans family lore that as soon as I could put words together, I was tying my blanket around my neck and singing the Batman theme song. This was followed by collecting what must have been Mego Batman dolls, Batmobiles, etc... And, in all honesty, it never really stopped.
And I've never quit digging the old Batman show. Sure, when I was little, I had no idea it was being played for laughs. Adam West seemed not unlike my Dad in unflattering tights, and it seemed reasonable that The Admiral was off fighting crime in much the same way. Moreover, it seemed reasonable that crooks and criminals were brightly dressed weirdos with themed criminal plots, who really weren't going to hurt anyone.
Today Jamie and I went to see the 1966 movie of "Batman" at the Alamo, which was playing a free kid's matinee.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the theater was very full, and full of kids. Prior to the show, they played an episode of the most recent animated Batman series. Then, just before the lights went down, an Alamo employee addressed the audience from behind a convincing Batman mask, and informed the kids that only bad guys talk during movies. Heck, I was convinced.
The movie was released theatrically between the first and and second seasons of the TV show. I'd always thought it to be created prior to the series, so it goes to show you: You learn a new Bat-Fact every day. And, apparently, had its world premier here in sunny Austin because, it seems, the boat was manufactured in Austin. Possibly at the Paramount (I'm looking for photos to confirm)!
Jason and Reed: ready for a night on the town
The movie and series hold up pretty well, all things considered. There's something off-kilter about the show that I've always liked, as if every was hanging out and smoking a Kool about ten seconds before the cameras rolled, and then threw themselves headfirst into the insanity.
West's Batman has become iconic since the show first aired. Utterly serious, while delivering the awesomest dialog ever.
Batman: We've been given the plainest warning. They're working together to take over...
Chief O'Hara: Take over *what*, Batman? Gotham City?
Batman: Any *two* of them would try that!
Commissioner Gordon: The whole country?
Batman: If it were three of them, I would say yes, but *four*? Their minimum objective must be... the *entire* world.
Really, I hesitate to seriously ponder how much of my personality is imprinted from Mr. West.
Burt Ward's Boy Wonder is great, as is Alan Napier's Alfred. But what really sells the film is the cast of villains.
My favorite of the Bat-villains from the TV show was always Frank Gorshin as The Riddler. I particularly like Dini's take on Edward Nigma in recent issues of Detective, but its hard to beat Gorshin's sheer joy at befuddling the Caped Crusader. Plus, those costumes are iconic.
Villainy abounds!
Burgess Meredith and Caesar Romero are good as The Penguin and Joker are pretty good, too.
Topping the list, however, is Lee Meriwether as Catwoman/ Kitka. Apparently Julie Newmar had a prior commitment during filming, but I think Ms. Meriwether more than fills the catsuit. Yowza.
Meow.
Apparently I'm not the only one who appreciates Ms. Meriwether as Catwoman. Mr. Romero is very "hands on" with Catwoman in several scenes, particularly in the Penguin submarine. Seriously. With that make-up, its a little creepy.
The movie also features one of my favorite aspects of Batman in all his incarnations: the vehicles! Batcopter. Batcycle. Batmobile. Awesome.
The Batman TV series left an amazingly deep impression upon the public's concept of the superhero. I still remember going to see Burton's "Batman" on opening weekend and the theater had decorated the lobby with all of these hand-made "Bam! Wap! Pow!" signs all over the place.
To say that the show wasn't a fairly accurate representation of the comics of the time is a bit of a stretch. The comic was very light kid's fair at the time, and was mostly Batman and his pal Robin in light scrapes. And while not exactly Tolstoy, it wasn't necessarily set up for laughs the way the TV series was.
It seems the post Spider-Man movie world has finally shaken off the Batman TV series impression of how superheroes should be viewed. And, in fact, it's sort of a game in the comics' blogosphere to highlight articles where the writer uses phrases like "Bam! Pow!", or comments that comics aren't as silly or childish as they'd assumed. (That's been a staple of mainstream journalism since Burton's Batman bowed in 1989, yet writers in search of a fluff article keep re-discovering this same topic.)
From anecdotal evidence, I think most parents today grew up with Burton's Batman, Donner's Superman and had the whole experience capped with Raimi's Spider-Man. So the legacy of the 60's Batman isn't the pervasive thing it was. And I think that's actually, as it should be.
The 1960's Batman is very good at what it does. The cast is terrific. Its a fun show (especially the movie). And I think there's room for all sorts of interpretations of Batman, from Bale's grim Dark Knight to West's philosophizing playboy on the town. And I think it's a fantastic part of the legacy of Batman.
Mostly, I was pleased with how the kids seemed to like it, if their silence throughout the film was any indication.
I did mention to Jamie, as we were leaving and I was processing the film in my mind "You know, about two-thirds of the way through, I felt like I had been taking crazy pills." The kaleidoscope colors, rapid pacing, nonsensical plot and, really, haphazard pacing of the thing just sort of adds up to a unique and strange whole. As pointed out by a kid leaving the theater...
Mom: Did you like it?
Kid: Yeah! (pause) It was weird...
Mom: Well, it was supposed to be.
That is one hip, hip mom.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
New Bond Trailer
Jamie will be pleased.
I really, really enjoyed Casino Royale. I'm not the Bond-ophile that JAL is, but I kind of felt the Bond franchise, previous to the Casino Royale relaunch had sort of become a weird parody of itself. It was like they'd lost focus of anything that grounded Bond as a real character and were trying to up the ante for a caricature with every movie.
Casino Royale seemed like a movie about a legitimate character, with real motivations rather than trying to squeeze in bad puns while keeping his hair perfectly straight. If you've been keeping up with Jason Bourne and Bond, its not a bad time for espionage-based action flicks.
Anyhoo, I'll be seeing this one.
I really, really enjoyed Casino Royale. I'm not the Bond-ophile that JAL is, but I kind of felt the Bond franchise, previous to the Casino Royale relaunch had sort of become a weird parody of itself. It was like they'd lost focus of anything that grounded Bond as a real character and were trying to up the ante for a caricature with every movie.
Casino Royale seemed like a movie about a legitimate character, with real motivations rather than trying to squeeze in bad puns while keeping his hair perfectly straight. If you've been keeping up with Jason Bourne and Bond, its not a bad time for espionage-based action flicks.
Anyhoo, I'll be seeing this one.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Anyone up for Terror?
This week the Paramount is showing:
Frankenstein, Revenge of Frankstein, and The Haunting.
If you're up for it, I'm looking for movie going buddies. Here's the official Paramount schedule.
Monday: Frankenstein 7:00, Revenge of Frankenstein at 8:50
Tuesday: Revenge at 7:00, Frankenstein at 9:05
Wednesday: The Haunting 7:00
Thursday: The Haunting 9:10
I might try to go see Mary Poppins on Sunday. I love Mary Poppins.
Frankenstein, Revenge of Frankstein, and The Haunting.
If you're up for it, I'm looking for movie going buddies. Here's the official Paramount schedule.
Monday: Frankenstein 7:00, Revenge of Frankenstein at 8:50
Tuesday: Revenge at 7:00, Frankenstein at 9:05
Wednesday: The Haunting 7:00
Thursday: The Haunting 9:10
I might try to go see Mary Poppins on Sunday. I love Mary Poppins.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Stan Winston, RIP
I didn't go to film school so I could make movies about people feeling things deeply. I wanted to work on movies with shiny metal robots, gruesome aliens, fearsome dinosaurs and maybe a gorilla or two. The only director/ producer I ever wanted to be was, maybe, the Coens.
But, really, I wanted to be one of five people.
1) Chuck Jones
2) Early career Walt Disney (as I've aged, I see the appeal of being late career, crazy, world-building Uncle Walt.)
3) Rick Baker
4) Stan Winston
5) and, upon occasion, early career Lucas
I don't think it will come to surprise you that I watched a lot of sci-fi and genre movies. And at the conclusion of those movies, I would see the words "Stan Winston" related to the picture in some way. And I think if you check out a lot of great movies, you're going to find Winston's name somewhere in an IMDB listing.
Terminator. Predator. Aliens. All came out of Stan Winston's shop. And a whole heck of a lot more. For me, being able to bring those things to life always seemed as interesting, if not more so, than a lot of the rest of the movie-making process. Even if the movie wasn't all that great, Winston and his shop's FX were always amazing (ex: Congo).
I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Winston has passed away. I am certain that Mr. Winston's contributions to cinema will never be forgotten. He, and his team, have simply changed the way movie special effects, make-up, etc... work and how the audience can relate to special effects as characters in their own right.
Winston was part of the generation who took their artistry to the next level, turning B-pictures into blockbusters, and who understood how to blend how to blend fantasy and reality seamlessly within the frame.
We'll miss you, Stan. May your workshop carry your vision forward.
But, really, I wanted to be one of five people.
1) Chuck Jones
2) Early career Walt Disney (as I've aged, I see the appeal of being late career, crazy, world-building Uncle Walt.)
3) Rick Baker
4) Stan Winston
5) and, upon occasion, early career Lucas
I don't think it will come to surprise you that I watched a lot of sci-fi and genre movies. And at the conclusion of those movies, I would see the words "Stan Winston" related to the picture in some way. And I think if you check out a lot of great movies, you're going to find Winston's name somewhere in an IMDB listing.
Terminator. Predator. Aliens. All came out of Stan Winston's shop. And a whole heck of a lot more. For me, being able to bring those things to life always seemed as interesting, if not more so, than a lot of the rest of the movie-making process. Even if the movie wasn't all that great, Winston and his shop's FX were always amazing (ex: Congo).
I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Winston has passed away. I am certain that Mr. Winston's contributions to cinema will never be forgotten. He, and his team, have simply changed the way movie special effects, make-up, etc... work and how the audience can relate to special effects as characters in their own right.
Winston was part of the generation who took their artistry to the next level, turning B-pictures into blockbusters, and who understood how to blend how to blend fantasy and reality seamlessly within the frame.
We'll miss you, Stan. May your workshop carry your vision forward.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Screenwriter to watch?
Hey, awesome...! Looks like League-pal Shauna C. has been listed in Variety as a "Screenwriter to Watch". Let us hope they mean track her career, and not that they feel Shauna is making weird, spastic movements or something that we should all be on the watch for.
Here's the IMDB page for Whip It!
Its worth noting that joining Shauna on this list is J. Michael Straczynski. JMS is a popular comic writer, who did (IMHO) a good run on Spider-Man in recent years. He's also the mastermind behind Babylon 5, a sci-fi show that I was addicted to for a few years in college. I always thought JMS should do a run on Superman, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyway, Shauna is keeping good company in the pages of Variety. Its really weird to see someone you know being talked up by Drew Barrymore.
Randy, you need to get on that. Where's your quote from Drew?
Here's the IMDB page for Whip It!
Its worth noting that joining Shauna on this list is J. Michael Straczynski. JMS is a popular comic writer, who did (IMHO) a good run on Spider-Man in recent years. He's also the mastermind behind Babylon 5, a sci-fi show that I was addicted to for a few years in college. I always thought JMS should do a run on Superman, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyway, Shauna is keeping good company in the pages of Variety. Its really weird to see someone you know being talked up by Drew Barrymore.
Randy, you need to get on that. Where's your quote from Drew?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Summer Movie Time!
Summertime is movie time at League HQ. The run up to Academy Award time and most Christmas movies are not bad for movies, but geez... its sort of become obligatory to go see a bunch of nicely crafted movies that are about as much "fun" as hanging out in the euthanasia room at the pound. Important/ thought provoking = relenetlessly depressing.
I'm not AGAINST this kind of picture. I was incredibly pleased with both "There Will Be Blood" (yes, Steven, I think its a very good movie), and "No Country For Old Men" (which I prefer of the two). But I mostly have a hard time getting really revved up to go see Nicole Kidman be weepy and trudge through a melodrama of some sort. That's not to bag on Nicole Kidman, but... you know, Christmas is crazy enough. If I'm going to sneak out at night to see a movie, I'm gonna want a ninja gangster robot with a heart of gold whose fighting Nazis from space or something.
Those movies, however, mostly show up during the summer. We get a few during Christmas. I think this year "The Spirit" is coming out during Christmas (Eisner material, directed by Frank Miller and featuring Scarlet Johansson? Twist my arm).
But summertime and Batman and Iron Man and The Hulk and Indiana Jones is what its all about here at The League of Melbotis.
We're also pretty pumped up about Hancock. Now, admittedly, I don't know much about the movie except that it stars Will Smith as a drunken, loused up version of a superhero (Superman without X-Ray Vision)? And it has Jason Bateman. And I generally sort of don't think that superheroes + comedy works. But Will Smith knows how to deliver a wacky line, and I can buy him as a lackluster crime fighter.
A secret, guilty part of me is always glad when they do movies like Hancock, Hulk, Iron Man, etc... because I sort of think that it raises the bar for the next Superman movie or Green Lantern movie. It shows whats possible, and I think Superman movies more or less should feel obligated to then raise the bar higher.
Anyhow, we've got a pretty good chunk of summer left, and there are a few more flicks coming out I'll be paying to see. Batman. Wall-E. Hellboy II. X-Files. And even Clone Wars.
Some folks might get tired of the special effects extravaganzas, but when I think back to the former staples of summer featuring 'roided out actors who were, invariably, rogue police officers in a spat with some drug kingpin, or terrorist cell... Anyway, somehow the geeks took over, and summertime is full of the movies we didn't think we'd ever see.
I mean, whether its good or not, there's a @#$%ing Watchemn movie coming.
I'm not AGAINST this kind of picture. I was incredibly pleased with both "There Will Be Blood" (yes, Steven, I think its a very good movie), and "No Country For Old Men" (which I prefer of the two). But I mostly have a hard time getting really revved up to go see Nicole Kidman be weepy and trudge through a melodrama of some sort. That's not to bag on Nicole Kidman, but... you know, Christmas is crazy enough. If I'm going to sneak out at night to see a movie, I'm gonna want a ninja gangster robot with a heart of gold whose fighting Nazis from space or something.
Those movies, however, mostly show up during the summer. We get a few during Christmas. I think this year "The Spirit" is coming out during Christmas (Eisner material, directed by Frank Miller and featuring Scarlet Johansson? Twist my arm).
But summertime and Batman and Iron Man and The Hulk and Indiana Jones is what its all about here at The League of Melbotis.
We're also pretty pumped up about Hancock. Now, admittedly, I don't know much about the movie except that it stars Will Smith as a drunken, loused up version of a superhero (Superman without X-Ray Vision)? And it has Jason Bateman. And I generally sort of don't think that superheroes + comedy works. But Will Smith knows how to deliver a wacky line, and I can buy him as a lackluster crime fighter.
A secret, guilty part of me is always glad when they do movies like Hancock, Hulk, Iron Man, etc... because I sort of think that it raises the bar for the next Superman movie or Green Lantern movie. It shows whats possible, and I think Superman movies more or less should feel obligated to then raise the bar higher.
Anyhow, we've got a pretty good chunk of summer left, and there are a few more flicks coming out I'll be paying to see. Batman. Wall-E. Hellboy II. X-Files. And even Clone Wars.
Some folks might get tired of the special effects extravaganzas, but when I think back to the former staples of summer featuring 'roided out actors who were, invariably, rogue police officers in a spat with some drug kingpin, or terrorist cell... Anyway, somehow the geeks took over, and summertime is full of the movies we didn't think we'd ever see.
I mean, whether its good or not, there's a @#$%ing Watchemn movie coming.
More Dancing Sequences!
Nathan suggested I check out this dance number from The Band Wagon (1953), with Cyd Charisse. And, well, he was right.
The Girl Hunt Ballet, from "The Band Wagon":
And, a re-mix with Michael jackson's "Smooth Criminal", which I still think isn't a bad tune.
Make 'Em Laugh from "Singin' in the Rain"
And, apropos of nothing: Wolverine sings "Oklahoma!"
The 'ol Canucklehead can really sing!
The Girl Hunt Ballet, from "The Band Wagon":
And, a re-mix with Michael jackson's "Smooth Criminal", which I still think isn't a bad tune.
Make 'Em Laugh from "Singin' in the Rain"
And, apropos of nothing: Wolverine sings "Oklahoma!"
The 'ol Canucklehead can really sing!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Vote Harvey Dent
I don't know if you live in Gotham City or not, but with the election cycle heating up, its hard to miss the campaign to make Harvey Dent Gotham's newest District Attorney. I've found the ground swell of support for a man with whom I feel I share so many values to be particularly gratifying.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
JLA Movie question
Yurgh. I'm looking over my last few posts, and if the tone is any indication, The League needs a jobby job. How seriously am I really supposed to ask you Leaguers to take this business? And yet I ramble on for 10,000 words.
That's a sure way to keep a readership. Sweet Christmas.
Anyhow, I asked for some blog topics the other day, and a few folks stepped up. Steanso sent me some ideas that, if put into place, would end in an arrest. My favorite, though, was taking Lucy to various places and see where she could get in. I would have started, of course, with the State Capitol.
Simon asked how I felt about the now-shelved George Miller directed Justice League movie. Well, Simon, I'll tell you...
That movie was going to be all kinds of terrible. And the universe can do without a terrible JLA movie. I'm not sure what sort of alternate universe much of Hollywood works in, because it just doesn't seem like it should be too hard to "get" the JLA, but everything I'd read leading up to the cancellation notice was the same sort of cockamamie nonsense I'd read regarding Superman revivals before Singer got ahold of the property (ex: Ashton Kutcher as a Superman who has a destiny to fulfill on the planet Krypton. Which, btw, has NOT exploded.).
The idea of the Miller movie was, I believe, to drop the viewer in on the JLA after the JLA was already formed, thereby consciously avoiding what could be a fascinating origin story, wrought with drama and what-have-you. Instead, we'd see an internal split within the JLA. A team which we just met... so why we were supposed to care that they were having issues, I do not know.
This inter-office politicking would, no doubt, have led to "the unnecessary super-hero fight". The super-hero fight is the fight people always THINK they want to see between superheroes, but, really, you're usually so painfully aware of the fact that its a perfunctory fight before the heroes come to terms and go after the actual threat that the whole thing always feels like a waste of pages in comics.
The Original Seven of the JLA
It should be noted that WB was not planning to use the pre-cast Bale and Routh in their respective roles as Batman and Superman for the JLA flick. Which seems it would, at best, dilute the brand WB should be promoting for their own product. And, essentially, tell the audience "we don't take any of this seriously enough to bother to cast the same actors, so don't you worry too much about it, either."
And, of course, one of my chief complaints was that it seemed a CW or reality-show casting producer had gotten ahold of the movie and was going for the Tiger Beat sort of actors. Pouty-faced young Hollywood, intended to draw in the girls, 10-17, I guess.
If Iron Man and Batman have taught us anything, its that one not only doesn't need to cast young CW network-types, but that fans react much better to adults in these roles (depending on the role. We can go young on, say... Wally West.). A little age can lend superheroes a bit of gravitas that, a show like Smallville has never been able to muster.
I don't have a particular JLA origin story in mind I want to see, but I DO KNOW that for WB to launch a franchise, they need to give the audience a starting point from which to work. And that means an origin story. Not a JLA dysfunctional-family story.
Spoilers
By the way, the rumor (and evidence from the stinger at the end of Iron Man bears this out) is that Marvel is putting out an Avengers movie in a few years. After they've established several characters in their own feature films, starting with Iron Man and continuing on with a Cap movie, etc.... The common thread seems to be Nick Fury meeting with the characters in each of these movies as they're rolled out.
I can't tell you how smart this seems. WB's plan was to put out a JLA movie, and then do spin-off's of various characters. But... if the JLA movie wasn't any good (and it didn't look like it would be) wouldn't that manage to hurt seven potential properties?
Not only does Marvel's formula give each property a chance to get in their unique origin story and set up the characters, the audience will have a built-in affinity for the characters which will make the Avengers movie a near guaranteed financial success. Narratively, the movie also won't have to waste the time necessary to introduce characters, give them some special plotline, etc...
END SPOILERS
Just think of those Rock and Roll Hall of Fame jam sessions where you see all those guys rocking out, and even some of them you don't know... and even if they're playing some song you don't like all that much, its still cool to see Elvis Costello, Sting, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and all sorts of other folks all sharing a stage. You know each of them individually pretty well, and even if you don't love, say, Tom Petty... you can maybe respect him a bit more just because he's sharing the stage with these other guys you DO like.
And, man, I think Marvel knows how to do this pretty well from their comics, so the chances of a decent movie are already pretty darn good, if they produce through the newly established Marvel Studios.
Really, what CAN'T Warner Bros. and DC learn from this?
Each of these guys could probably carry two or three movies on their own
DC would do well to begin introducing the Original 7, or at least several of the Original 7 in their own movies FIRST. They don't necessarily need a through-line like Nick Fury to pull them together. But why water down the concepts by forcing them into a JLA movie for their first appearance, and muck up what could be a pretty good feature film for that property before its ever seen the light of day?
There's a rumored Green Lantern movie in the works. Its only at the script stage, but its got pretty decent writing talent attached with Marc Guggenheim (who does movies, TV and comics). Its supposed to be a Hal Jordan origin story, which is a good sign. Supposedly they're also talking about a Green Arrow movie, but that's rumored to be based on the formerly abortive script called "SuperMax" which was about a super-villain prison. And didn't touch on GA's origin at all.
And... there have been rumors of casting for another Superman movie (for some love interest, I believe).
So... get these movies out there. Give the DCU some time to breathe. Unlike Marvel, who has seen success with Spidey and other non-Avengers, the DCU has the advantage that their big guns are now (or have at some point) been in the JLA. Whatever they build on now with their movies COULD build right into a JLA movie.
We'll see.
Two last things:
1) The failure of a single JLA movie translates to potentially killing 20 movies or so. If 3 movies could be made for each member of the JLA, plus, say, 3 JLA movies... that's a lot of movies which one failed JLA movie could potentially screw up.
Now, I live in a life pretty muddied with delusion, but I do think that we're talking about at least ten other, non-JLA movies. A few Supermans, Batmans, GL's alone come out to 9 movies. Surely a WW movie is possible. So... you do your own math.
2) If the producers are worrying about the budget for a JLA movie, they're missing the point of the JLA. The JLA is huge. But, mostly, they need to pick up some Morrison-era JLA comics to see what epic storytelling in the JLA can really mean. Or, possibly, something like Ross's "Justice", or "JLA: Liberty and Justice".
Don't think Superfriends, think "The Right Stuff". Think "Superman: The Movie" times 7.
I'm just saying.
That's a sure way to keep a readership. Sweet Christmas.
Anyhow, I asked for some blog topics the other day, and a few folks stepped up. Steanso sent me some ideas that, if put into place, would end in an arrest. My favorite, though, was taking Lucy to various places and see where she could get in. I would have started, of course, with the State Capitol.
Simon asked how I felt about the now-shelved George Miller directed Justice League movie. Well, Simon, I'll tell you...
That movie was going to be all kinds of terrible. And the universe can do without a terrible JLA movie. I'm not sure what sort of alternate universe much of Hollywood works in, because it just doesn't seem like it should be too hard to "get" the JLA, but everything I'd read leading up to the cancellation notice was the same sort of cockamamie nonsense I'd read regarding Superman revivals before Singer got ahold of the property (ex: Ashton Kutcher as a Superman who has a destiny to fulfill on the planet Krypton. Which, btw, has NOT exploded.).
The idea of the Miller movie was, I believe, to drop the viewer in on the JLA after the JLA was already formed, thereby consciously avoiding what could be a fascinating origin story, wrought with drama and what-have-you. Instead, we'd see an internal split within the JLA. A team which we just met... so why we were supposed to care that they were having issues, I do not know.
This inter-office politicking would, no doubt, have led to "the unnecessary super-hero fight". The super-hero fight is the fight people always THINK they want to see between superheroes, but, really, you're usually so painfully aware of the fact that its a perfunctory fight before the heroes come to terms and go after the actual threat that the whole thing always feels like a waste of pages in comics.
The Original Seven of the JLA
It should be noted that WB was not planning to use the pre-cast Bale and Routh in their respective roles as Batman and Superman for the JLA flick. Which seems it would, at best, dilute the brand WB should be promoting for their own product. And, essentially, tell the audience "we don't take any of this seriously enough to bother to cast the same actors, so don't you worry too much about it, either."
And, of course, one of my chief complaints was that it seemed a CW or reality-show casting producer had gotten ahold of the movie and was going for the Tiger Beat sort of actors. Pouty-faced young Hollywood, intended to draw in the girls, 10-17, I guess.
If Iron Man and Batman have taught us anything, its that one not only doesn't need to cast young CW network-types, but that fans react much better to adults in these roles (depending on the role. We can go young on, say... Wally West.). A little age can lend superheroes a bit of gravitas that, a show like Smallville has never been able to muster.
I don't have a particular JLA origin story in mind I want to see, but I DO KNOW that for WB to launch a franchise, they need to give the audience a starting point from which to work. And that means an origin story. Not a JLA dysfunctional-family story.
Spoilers
By the way, the rumor (and evidence from the stinger at the end of Iron Man bears this out) is that Marvel is putting out an Avengers movie in a few years. After they've established several characters in their own feature films, starting with Iron Man and continuing on with a Cap movie, etc.... The common thread seems to be Nick Fury meeting with the characters in each of these movies as they're rolled out.
I can't tell you how smart this seems. WB's plan was to put out a JLA movie, and then do spin-off's of various characters. But... if the JLA movie wasn't any good (and it didn't look like it would be) wouldn't that manage to hurt seven potential properties?
Not only does Marvel's formula give each property a chance to get in their unique origin story and set up the characters, the audience will have a built-in affinity for the characters which will make the Avengers movie a near guaranteed financial success. Narratively, the movie also won't have to waste the time necessary to introduce characters, give them some special plotline, etc...
END SPOILERS
Just think of those Rock and Roll Hall of Fame jam sessions where you see all those guys rocking out, and even some of them you don't know... and even if they're playing some song you don't like all that much, its still cool to see Elvis Costello, Sting, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and all sorts of other folks all sharing a stage. You know each of them individually pretty well, and even if you don't love, say, Tom Petty... you can maybe respect him a bit more just because he's sharing the stage with these other guys you DO like.
And, man, I think Marvel knows how to do this pretty well from their comics, so the chances of a decent movie are already pretty darn good, if they produce through the newly established Marvel Studios.
Really, what CAN'T Warner Bros. and DC learn from this?
Each of these guys could probably carry two or three movies on their own
DC would do well to begin introducing the Original 7, or at least several of the Original 7 in their own movies FIRST. They don't necessarily need a through-line like Nick Fury to pull them together. But why water down the concepts by forcing them into a JLA movie for their first appearance, and muck up what could be a pretty good feature film for that property before its ever seen the light of day?
There's a rumored Green Lantern movie in the works. Its only at the script stage, but its got pretty decent writing talent attached with Marc Guggenheim (who does movies, TV and comics). Its supposed to be a Hal Jordan origin story, which is a good sign. Supposedly they're also talking about a Green Arrow movie, but that's rumored to be based on the formerly abortive script called "SuperMax" which was about a super-villain prison. And didn't touch on GA's origin at all.
And... there have been rumors of casting for another Superman movie (for some love interest, I believe).
So... get these movies out there. Give the DCU some time to breathe. Unlike Marvel, who has seen success with Spidey and other non-Avengers, the DCU has the advantage that their big guns are now (or have at some point) been in the JLA. Whatever they build on now with their movies COULD build right into a JLA movie.
We'll see.
Two last things:
1) The failure of a single JLA movie translates to potentially killing 20 movies or so. If 3 movies could be made for each member of the JLA, plus, say, 3 JLA movies... that's a lot of movies which one failed JLA movie could potentially screw up.
Now, I live in a life pretty muddied with delusion, but I do think that we're talking about at least ten other, non-JLA movies. A few Supermans, Batmans, GL's alone come out to 9 movies. Surely a WW movie is possible. So... you do your own math.
2) If the producers are worrying about the budget for a JLA movie, they're missing the point of the JLA. The JLA is huge. But, mostly, they need to pick up some Morrison-era JLA comics to see what epic storytelling in the JLA can really mean. Or, possibly, something like Ross's "Justice", or "JLA: Liberty and Justice".
Don't think Superfriends, think "The Right Stuff". Think "Superman: The Movie" times 7.
I'm just saying.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Movie Rewind: Bad Movies
Despite trying to cram in as much fun as possible while in Costa Rica, I did wind up watching the last 3/4's of the first Fantastic Four movie in my hotel room (in English with Spanish subtitles). And its funny, because I remembered being dissatisfied with the movie when it was released, and I believe I grumbled a bit about it here at LoM.
On a second viewing, its worse than I thought. It's typical of the 90's-era takes on superheroes in that the creative team diverted from the formula enough (in this case, primarily with Doom) that it sort of detracts from the whole.
It doesn't help that the movie is really broad and really stupid.
The creative team played the charatcers and situations almost entirely for wackiness and laughs, which would be fine, if the gags were funny. It all sort of feels like someone explained the basics of the FF to a group of amateur night comedians, and let them riff as to the possibilities of each character for slapstick, rather than "what can we do that's new or interesting". And, typical, of 90's era movies, the final act makes no sense what-so-ever.
I place the blame at the feet of director Tim Story, who clearly wanted to exercise his comedic muscles (he directed Barbershop) rather than try to bring the movie up to Spider-Man levels. And, in aiming low, Story achieved his goals.
I also watched Transformers again synched up with Rifftrax (the web-project from the guys who used to do MST3K). And, as displeased as I recall feeling at the time of the initial viewing (I almost walked out), its amazing to see how god-awful the movie is on a second viewing when you aren't sort of dazzled by the gigantic, shiny robots and the promise of Robosaurus. Also, its a bit stunning how terribly Shia LeBouf's character is handled by both Shia and the writers. They seem to be challenging the audience to dislike "Spike" with every scene. All line delivery set to "wacky stammering", and a character who can best be described as a stalker and, worse, eBay re-seller.
Mostly, the script is just dumb. The Transformers take a long, long time to actually appear. There's a complete and unnecessary storyline involving some random Australian girl and Anthony Anderson (never a good sign for your movie when you've involved Anderson). And John Turturro in a career-crippling appearance as some sort of a-hole G-man. Add in the 70's-funktastic (read: black is funny!) stylings of the Autobot known as Jazz, and robots peeing on John Tutturro, and... man.
It seems almost as if no plotline or idea was ever completely scrapped as the movie was assembled. The story of the damn MacGuffin Cube (or whatever its called) is complicated enough. I don't need for Megan Fox to have a backstory (Spike never gets one). Nothing really comes out of the story of the soldiers in Qatar who are moved to the US. And the hackers' storyline ends about 1/3rd of the way into the movie, but they still stick around. Meanwhile, the titular Transformers are given nothing to do.
Its supposed to feel, I think, like an epic disaster movie with all the moving parts coming together in the final reel (think ID4. Wait. Don't do that, either.), but, instead, the mashing of pieces feels like a 2.5 hour trainwreck.
But, worry not, they're filming a sequel. Bumblebee will be back in action soon enough.
I don't often revisit the really bad flicks. I saw them once. That seems to be enough (enough being able to say "yeah, I saw that" when a particularly awful movie is mentioned at work or in a social setting.) But once you begin watching one of these flicks again, its tough not to sit and begin cataloging all of the problems with a movie, and wonder where, exactly, did things go so far off track? How did they decide that Doom, a well defined, Vader-like character, should be redesigned from the ground up into a guy who delivers each line with the bombast of Jerry Seinfeld? Why did they make Jazz the Autobot sort of offensive, and how did that make it to the final cut? Who writes like that? Who, at the studio, green lights something so... dumb?
I also, just FYI, watched part of "Basic Instinct 2", which scored a 7% on Rottentomatoes.com. Which is still 50% better than I would have guessed, but the polling of top critics does, actually, land it squarely at 3%. The movie seems constructed solely to stroke the ego of Sharon Stone, assuring her that she is good enough, smart enough and sexy enough to get everyone around her to behave in the kowtowing manner of personal assistants and the Hollywood press corps' deferential treatment she somehow still receives despite the fact that nobody really cares about Sharon Stone.
But within the context of the movie, Stone's "mysterious sexiness" is hilarious.
The character of Catherine once again has the personality of a bullying DMV employee mixed with that girl in the dorms who needed attention, so she'd use lots of four-letter words for shock value. And, seriously... Stone just isn't that physically attractive. She sort of falls into that realm of Nicole Kidman, where I just don't get the appeal. It's like going to the mall and hanging out a bit too much around the mannequins.
The movie would probably be laughably bad with the right audience, or if they actually pushed it to the next level with unnecessary nudity and/ or violence. That would be something, at least. Sadly, the proceedings feel plodding and dull, and I didn't see either enough mayhem nor premium-cable worthy nudiness to keep my attention. Characters seem entranced by Catherine Tremmel for no particular reason other than the dictates of the script, and rather than sensibly avoiding someone accused of multiple murders, seem eager to hang out with her. Because, we're told, Sharon Stone is SEXY. and MYSTERIOUS.
Also, the protagonist who falls into Catherine's web-of-deceit is some pale British dude who seems like little more than a walking plot device so Stone can all but twirl a mustache and wring her hands while cackling.
Anyhow, I coudn't finish watching it. Maybe the end vastly improved the whole package?
I like to watch some bad movies. I've seen R.O.T.O.R. twice. But something about big budget, low delivery movies is particularly irksome. It seems with that mush riding on a movie, why not run the scripts and idea past some folks whose careers don't depend on agreeing that Sharon Stone is still red hot, or that jive-talkin' robots (seen in both Transformers and R.O.T.O.R.) aren't full of comedic value. Nor is that "characterization".
On a second viewing, its worse than I thought. It's typical of the 90's-era takes on superheroes in that the creative team diverted from the formula enough (in this case, primarily with Doom) that it sort of detracts from the whole.
It doesn't help that the movie is really broad and really stupid.
The creative team played the charatcers and situations almost entirely for wackiness and laughs, which would be fine, if the gags were funny. It all sort of feels like someone explained the basics of the FF to a group of amateur night comedians, and let them riff as to the possibilities of each character for slapstick, rather than "what can we do that's new or interesting". And, typical, of 90's era movies, the final act makes no sense what-so-ever.
I place the blame at the feet of director Tim Story, who clearly wanted to exercise his comedic muscles (he directed Barbershop) rather than try to bring the movie up to Spider-Man levels. And, in aiming low, Story achieved his goals.
I also watched Transformers again synched up with Rifftrax (the web-project from the guys who used to do MST3K). And, as displeased as I recall feeling at the time of the initial viewing (I almost walked out), its amazing to see how god-awful the movie is on a second viewing when you aren't sort of dazzled by the gigantic, shiny robots and the promise of Robosaurus. Also, its a bit stunning how terribly Shia LeBouf's character is handled by both Shia and the writers. They seem to be challenging the audience to dislike "Spike" with every scene. All line delivery set to "wacky stammering", and a character who can best be described as a stalker and, worse, eBay re-seller.
Mostly, the script is just dumb. The Transformers take a long, long time to actually appear. There's a complete and unnecessary storyline involving some random Australian girl and Anthony Anderson (never a good sign for your movie when you've involved Anderson). And John Turturro in a career-crippling appearance as some sort of a-hole G-man. Add in the 70's-funktastic (read: black is funny!) stylings of the Autobot known as Jazz, and robots peeing on John Tutturro, and... man.
It seems almost as if no plotline or idea was ever completely scrapped as the movie was assembled. The story of the damn MacGuffin Cube (or whatever its called) is complicated enough. I don't need for Megan Fox to have a backstory (Spike never gets one). Nothing really comes out of the story of the soldiers in Qatar who are moved to the US. And the hackers' storyline ends about 1/3rd of the way into the movie, but they still stick around. Meanwhile, the titular Transformers are given nothing to do.
Its supposed to feel, I think, like an epic disaster movie with all the moving parts coming together in the final reel (think ID4. Wait. Don't do that, either.), but, instead, the mashing of pieces feels like a 2.5 hour trainwreck.
But, worry not, they're filming a sequel. Bumblebee will be back in action soon enough.
I don't often revisit the really bad flicks. I saw them once. That seems to be enough (enough being able to say "yeah, I saw that" when a particularly awful movie is mentioned at work or in a social setting.) But once you begin watching one of these flicks again, its tough not to sit and begin cataloging all of the problems with a movie, and wonder where, exactly, did things go so far off track? How did they decide that Doom, a well defined, Vader-like character, should be redesigned from the ground up into a guy who delivers each line with the bombast of Jerry Seinfeld? Why did they make Jazz the Autobot sort of offensive, and how did that make it to the final cut? Who writes like that? Who, at the studio, green lights something so... dumb?
I also, just FYI, watched part of "Basic Instinct 2", which scored a 7% on Rottentomatoes.com. Which is still 50% better than I would have guessed, but the polling of top critics does, actually, land it squarely at 3%. The movie seems constructed solely to stroke the ego of Sharon Stone, assuring her that she is good enough, smart enough and sexy enough to get everyone around her to behave in the kowtowing manner of personal assistants and the Hollywood press corps' deferential treatment she somehow still receives despite the fact that nobody really cares about Sharon Stone.
But within the context of the movie, Stone's "mysterious sexiness" is hilarious.
The character of Catherine once again has the personality of a bullying DMV employee mixed with that girl in the dorms who needed attention, so she'd use lots of four-letter words for shock value. And, seriously... Stone just isn't that physically attractive. She sort of falls into that realm of Nicole Kidman, where I just don't get the appeal. It's like going to the mall and hanging out a bit too much around the mannequins.
The movie would probably be laughably bad with the right audience, or if they actually pushed it to the next level with unnecessary nudity and/ or violence. That would be something, at least. Sadly, the proceedings feel plodding and dull, and I didn't see either enough mayhem nor premium-cable worthy nudiness to keep my attention. Characters seem entranced by Catherine Tremmel for no particular reason other than the dictates of the script, and rather than sensibly avoiding someone accused of multiple murders, seem eager to hang out with her. Because, we're told, Sharon Stone is SEXY. and MYSTERIOUS.
Also, the protagonist who falls into Catherine's web-of-deceit is some pale British dude who seems like little more than a walking plot device so Stone can all but twirl a mustache and wring her hands while cackling.
Anyhow, I coudn't finish watching it. Maybe the end vastly improved the whole package?
I like to watch some bad movies. I've seen R.O.T.O.R. twice. But something about big budget, low delivery movies is particularly irksome. It seems with that mush riding on a movie, why not run the scripts and idea past some folks whose careers don't depend on agreeing that Sharon Stone is still red hot, or that jive-talkin' robots (seen in both Transformers and R.O.T.O.R.) aren't full of comedic value. Nor is that "characterization".
Sunday, June 01, 2008
If anyone is interested
Hey, I think I'm going to the Paramount to see "Laura" and maybe "Out of the Past".
The show starts at 7:00. If you're coming, give me a holler. I plan to get there around 6:30 to see what they have for a pre-show.
The show starts at 7:00. If you're coming, give me a holler. I plan to get there around 6:30 to see what they have for a pre-show.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
2 things
Hey Leaguers,
Apropos of nothing
Austin Books is a heck of a store. And they had a darn good Free Comic Book Day. I salute them.
Hi, Brad!
Summer Movies
Austin's Paramount Theater has already started the 2008 Summer Film Series. And there's a lot of great stuff coming up.
In June, they're showing
-The Exorcist
-Mary Poppins (and I LOVE Mary Poppins. Shut up.)
-Harold and Maude - never seen it
-Laura (this movie is really good. No lie.)
-The Birds (Oskar Sala!)
-Psycho
July
-Frankenstein & Revenge of Frankenstein (why they didn't grab Bride of Frankenstein, I have no idea)
-The Haunting
-Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
-1776
-The Last Picture Show - never seen it
-Hud - never seen it
-Three Days of the Condor - never seen it
-Village of the Damned - only seen the re-make
-The Time Machine
-Planet of the Apes
-The French Connection
August
-Destry Rides Again
-Blazing Saddles
-Vertigo
-2001
-Gone With the Wind
September
-Bridge on the River Kwai
-Rear Window
-(and your endurance test) Lawrence of Arabia
Not bad. If anyone is interested in any of these movies (or something I didn't mention), let me know, and we'll make an appointment.
Apropos of nothing
Austin Books is a heck of a store. And they had a darn good Free Comic Book Day. I salute them.
Hi, Brad!
Summer Movies
Austin's Paramount Theater has already started the 2008 Summer Film Series. And there's a lot of great stuff coming up.
In June, they're showing
-The Exorcist
-Mary Poppins (and I LOVE Mary Poppins. Shut up.)
-Harold and Maude - never seen it
-Laura (this movie is really good. No lie.)
-The Birds (Oskar Sala!)
-Psycho
July
-Frankenstein & Revenge of Frankenstein (why they didn't grab Bride of Frankenstein, I have no idea)
-The Haunting
-Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
-1776
-The Last Picture Show - never seen it
-Hud - never seen it
-Three Days of the Condor - never seen it
-Village of the Damned - only seen the re-make
-The Time Machine
-Planet of the Apes
-The French Connection
August
-Destry Rides Again
-Blazing Saddles
-Vertigo
-2001
-Gone With the Wind
September
-Bridge on the River Kwai
-Rear Window
-(and your endurance test) Lawrence of Arabia
Not bad. If anyone is interested in any of these movies (or something I didn't mention), let me know, and we'll make an appointment.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A Century of Jimmy Stewart
May 20th marks the 100th birthday of actor Jimmy Stewart.
The League has has his list of actors about whom he is a bit fannish, and Mr. Stewart is right at the top of that list. In fact, when we were in college and took "Acting for Non-Drama Majors", we were asked to name our favorite actor, and I named Jimmy Stewart (almost everyone else named Al Pacino, which I found hilarious).
Mr. Stewart not only acted in films and television for decades, he was also a decorated soldier during World War II where he served as a pilot of B-17's and B-24's in the Army Air Corps.
I will point you to the Jimmy Stewart Museum website for a biography. And to IMDB for a synopsis of his film roles.
The truth is that I've only seen a small fraction of Mr. Stewart's work.
Made for Each Other
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Destry Rides Again
The Philadelphia Story
It's a Wonderful Life
Winchester '73
Harvey
Rear Window
The Spirit of St. Louis
Vertigo
Anatomy of a Murder
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"Harvey" is still a favorite, and I highly recommend it. And, of course, I really dig "Vertigo". But if "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" doesn't fill you with a desire to dress in red, white and blue, you, sir, hate America. And, worse, if you don't get choked up a bit at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life" (and I don't care how many times you've seen it), your heart is made of stone.
So a special League thanks to day to Mr. Stewart.
The League has has his list of actors about whom he is a bit fannish, and Mr. Stewart is right at the top of that list. In fact, when we were in college and took "Acting for Non-Drama Majors", we were asked to name our favorite actor, and I named Jimmy Stewart (almost everyone else named Al Pacino, which I found hilarious).
Mr. Stewart not only acted in films and television for decades, he was also a decorated soldier during World War II where he served as a pilot of B-17's and B-24's in the Army Air Corps.
I will point you to the Jimmy Stewart Museum website for a biography. And to IMDB for a synopsis of his film roles.
The truth is that I've only seen a small fraction of Mr. Stewart's work.
Made for Each Other
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Destry Rides Again
The Philadelphia Story
It's a Wonderful Life
Winchester '73
Harvey
Rear Window
The Spirit of St. Louis
Vertigo
Anatomy of a Murder
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"Harvey" is still a favorite, and I highly recommend it. And, of course, I really dig "Vertigo". But if "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" doesn't fill you with a desire to dress in red, white and blue, you, sir, hate America. And, worse, if you don't get choked up a bit at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life" (and I don't care how many times you've seen it), your heart is made of stone.
So a special League thanks to day to Mr. Stewart.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Comet the Super (creepy) Horse and DC Comics Movies
Comet the Skeevy Superhorse
Randy suggested I blog on this topic: Cracked Online has identified the creepiest characters in comics. And, yeah, they knock it out of the park.
Of all Superman lore, Comet the Superhorse is probably the number one concept I just can't get behind. In case you don't click over, here's the rundown:
In order to make Supergirl appeal even more to the little girl audience of the 50's and 60's, they gave Supergirl a pony. Just as she had a cute little kitty with superpowers (Streaky the Supercat, who was actually hilarious on the recent Krypto cartoon), and Superman had Krypto and Beppo*, it seemed a pony was a good idea. What could go wrong?
Really, Comet is a study in "sometimes the simple ideas are the best", and you really don't need to muck about with the winning super-pet formula. But, this is comics, and in the world of comics, why have a lovely idea when you can have a really convoluted and bizarre idea?
Somewhere along the lines, Mort Weisinger fell asleep at the editorial wheel and Comet the Superhorse went from being a cute horse with powers to having a secret origin which revealed that he was once Centaur who had been transmorgified into a horse. And lusted for Supergirl. And would occasionally transform into a cowboy of some sort.
I dunno. It was the Silver Age.
No. Just... No.
I'm all into star-crossed lovers, but there's just something a bit creepy about a horse having romantic notions about a 16 year old girl. Or a 3000 year old Centaur who was lusting for Superman's young cousin. And, really, any way you slice it, I think Superman should have been going after Superhorse with a Super shotgun.
Also, they mention Terry Long, who even when I first saw him in the first Teen Titans story I ever read, I found a little skeevy, and I never understood the Donna Troy/ Terry Long romance and what the hell the editors were thinking.
*According to trusted site Wikipedia, Beppo was also a name for monstrous Nazi evil-bastard doctor guy Josef Mengele. I am... without words. Here. And here.
DC can't get a movie out, but Iron Man made $100 million its first weekend
Ah, DC Comics. It's not enough that DC Comics are the wallflower comics in the comic shops. For the past ten years, Marvel has been putting out profitable movie after profitable movie, all while Warner Bros. has been sitting on their sub-divison, DC Comics, unable to figure out how to bring anyone but Superman and Batman to the big screen.
Randy sent along this article, which takes a quick look at DC's stalled efforts while Marvel has another bonafide hit on their hands.
As a greater fan of DC Comics than Marvel Comics, it can be frustrating watching Marvel's characters make it to the big screen. After all, in theory, DC has had all the advantages for years. They're not licensing characters to get the movies made. In theory, they should be doing it in house. Marvel, meanwhile, should be struggling with bad deals.
According to the article, Marvel is simply decimating DC. And in a lot of ways, that's true. Especially if you go by volume of movies coming out.
And with Iron Man hitting theaters with a solid win, its tough to see DC having much success. That is, if you forget Dark Knight is coming out in a little while. And if you forget Marvel's recent efforts which may have made money, but also landed with a thud. FF2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Ghost Rider, and even Spidey 3 didn't do much to get audiences terribly excited. X-Men 3 made more money than X-Men 1, but ask anyone which of the X-Movies is their favorite...
This isn't counting movies such as Daredevil, Elektra and the Hulk, all of which made some money, but which were mostly disliked. And a quick show of hands for anyone who is particularly jazzed by the trailers for the new Hulk movie?
So I'm not sure what to make of all of this, honestly.
DC should be out there trying to compete. But of their two feature film releases, Superman Returns received fairly decent critical reviews, but forgot it was supposed to be an action movie when it opened just a few days before the steamroller of Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Batman Begins continues to be a favorite. And the trailers for The Dark Knight look promising.
Attempts at a Justice League movie, which should incorporate Batman, Superman and 5 other super hero mainstays (Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman and Flash) was scuttled after the writer's strike, ostensibly for cost reasons, but rumor control still leaked dissatisfaction with the script, and the cast listings for these iconic figures boiled down to a lot of talent which seemed more appropriate for a CW TV show than a superheroic epic. This, of course, was getting negative web press from the comic dorks. And I wouldn't be surprised if the studios didn't take notice (hey, we seem to be irritating our built in market...).
Speaking of the CW, the 7 seasons of Smallville will roll into an 8th season in the fall, as Smallville continues on as the highest rated show on the CW network. I wouldn't recommend the show at this point, but 8 seasons? That's got to say something fairly positive.
With Marvel Studios recent establishment and the success of Iron Man at the box office, the relationship DC has with Warner Bros., unfortunately, is seeming to become more of an albatross than a bonus. Rather than Marvel having the freedom to find the right package to get a movie off the ground with talent associated who they can guide in staying true to the concepts they're bringing to the big screen, DC is still fighting off directors and writers who are seemingly being gifted with superhero films with minimal input from DC.
The article states:
-A wacky Aquaman? Any particular reason? Not enough to work with there with the Lord of the Seas, his super strength and various other powers and a largely unused environment full of all kinds of potential? I assume this is because stand up comics have been taking pokes at Aquaman for the past few years.
-A screwball comedy director for The Flash? Because that worked so well for the FF movies. I can only assume they think The Flash is a barrel of yuks, or I can't imagine what drove that decision. And while I agree that the Flash should be a huge amount of fun, letting Owen Wilson and Co. mug for the camera doesn't seem like much of a qualification. But I'd be curious to hear what the story is, first...
-Am I seeing a trend here? About four years ago it was rumored Jack Black would star in a Green Lantern movie. Once again, it seems that the now 45 year old Batman TV series seems to dictate how writers are thinking of superheroes. Its particularly disappointing when Geoff Johns is doing so much to make Green Lantern such an engaging read. And could probably hammer out an outline for a movie in about three days at this point.
-And I'm going to go out on a limb here about Whedon's Wonder Woman, but... Whedon's financial track record isn't that great. He has a small, core audience that will follow him anywhere he goes, but remember the shakiness regarding the final seasons of Buffy? The quick cancellation of Firefly? The non-existent box office for Serenity? I'm glad the man got a shot, but perhaps whatever script he handed in just wasn't looking like much to the producers but "Serenity Deux".
That said, there's a lot of room for Wonder Woman to be very, very bad. I'm not interested in seeing this movie until there's a solid script and talent behind it.
How, after 3 Spider-Man movies, Iron Man, and whatever success you want to assign to the various other Marvel movies at this point, Warner Bros. still can't help but see their potentially profitable action franchises as anything but silliness to be milked and discarded is a mystery beyond my ability to solve.
Add in what they seem interested in doing when they do get a well-written property, and you wind up with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (wtf?) or "V for Vendetta" (let's all be non-conformists, together!). Or the ability for things to go off the rails when the money guys get too involved (see: Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Actually, don't.). Or they rush out a movie that's just not a good idea ("Steel". Starring Shaq. Oh, yes.).
So it doesn't do much to make me think that DC's woes as far as not meeting Marvel's output are as much of a problem as the article suggests. I would rather have fewer, better movies (and I still think Superman Returns was much better than folks gave it credit for) than a machine just dumping the DCU out onto a populace with minimal regard to quality. There's no guarantee that every Marvel flick to come will be Iron Man. There's a lot of room to go off the rails with Thor, Cap and the rest.
And if DC wants to test the waters... there's no rule that says you need to roll out the big seven. I don't think most people have a solid idea of who the heck Iron Man is/ was before the movie. So are people really going to not show up for a Blue Beetle movie if it looks fun and cool? And isn't there a great movie somewhere in there with Shazam!? Green Arrow and Black Canary? Heck, I think people would turn up for Plastic Man.
Understand, too, that WB has felt burned in the past. After the Catwoman debacle, it seems that they're aware of the potential for things to go poorly, and will do what they can to manage their properties. So while there may be a wacky Aquaman script out there, I think they're genuinely ting to do right by these characters.
Sometimes, less is more.
Now, if DC could get their comics straightened out...
Randy suggested I blog on this topic: Cracked Online has identified the creepiest characters in comics. And, yeah, they knock it out of the park.
Of all Superman lore, Comet the Superhorse is probably the number one concept I just can't get behind. In case you don't click over, here's the rundown:
In order to make Supergirl appeal even more to the little girl audience of the 50's and 60's, they gave Supergirl a pony. Just as she had a cute little kitty with superpowers (Streaky the Supercat, who was actually hilarious on the recent Krypto cartoon), and Superman had Krypto and Beppo*, it seemed a pony was a good idea. What could go wrong?
Really, Comet is a study in "sometimes the simple ideas are the best", and you really don't need to muck about with the winning super-pet formula. But, this is comics, and in the world of comics, why have a lovely idea when you can have a really convoluted and bizarre idea?
Somewhere along the lines, Mort Weisinger fell asleep at the editorial wheel and Comet the Superhorse went from being a cute horse with powers to having a secret origin which revealed that he was once Centaur who had been transmorgified into a horse. And lusted for Supergirl. And would occasionally transform into a cowboy of some sort.
I dunno. It was the Silver Age.
No. Just... No.
I'm all into star-crossed lovers, but there's just something a bit creepy about a horse having romantic notions about a 16 year old girl. Or a 3000 year old Centaur who was lusting for Superman's young cousin. And, really, any way you slice it, I think Superman should have been going after Superhorse with a Super shotgun.
Also, they mention Terry Long, who even when I first saw him in the first Teen Titans story I ever read, I found a little skeevy, and I never understood the Donna Troy/ Terry Long romance and what the hell the editors were thinking.
*According to trusted site Wikipedia, Beppo was also a name for monstrous Nazi evil-bastard doctor guy Josef Mengele. I am... without words. Here. And here.
DC can't get a movie out, but Iron Man made $100 million its first weekend
Ah, DC Comics. It's not enough that DC Comics are the wallflower comics in the comic shops. For the past ten years, Marvel has been putting out profitable movie after profitable movie, all while Warner Bros. has been sitting on their sub-divison, DC Comics, unable to figure out how to bring anyone but Superman and Batman to the big screen.
Randy sent along this article, which takes a quick look at DC's stalled efforts while Marvel has another bonafide hit on their hands.
As a greater fan of DC Comics than Marvel Comics, it can be frustrating watching Marvel's characters make it to the big screen. After all, in theory, DC has had all the advantages for years. They're not licensing characters to get the movies made. In theory, they should be doing it in house. Marvel, meanwhile, should be struggling with bad deals.
According to the article, Marvel is simply decimating DC. And in a lot of ways, that's true. Especially if you go by volume of movies coming out.
And with Iron Man hitting theaters with a solid win, its tough to see DC having much success. That is, if you forget Dark Knight is coming out in a little while. And if you forget Marvel's recent efforts which may have made money, but also landed with a thud. FF2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Ghost Rider, and even Spidey 3 didn't do much to get audiences terribly excited. X-Men 3 made more money than X-Men 1, but ask anyone which of the X-Movies is their favorite...
This isn't counting movies such as Daredevil, Elektra and the Hulk, all of which made some money, but which were mostly disliked. And a quick show of hands for anyone who is particularly jazzed by the trailers for the new Hulk movie?
So I'm not sure what to make of all of this, honestly.
DC should be out there trying to compete. But of their two feature film releases, Superman Returns received fairly decent critical reviews, but forgot it was supposed to be an action movie when it opened just a few days before the steamroller of Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Batman Begins continues to be a favorite. And the trailers for The Dark Knight look promising.
Attempts at a Justice League movie, which should incorporate Batman, Superman and 5 other super hero mainstays (Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman and Flash) was scuttled after the writer's strike, ostensibly for cost reasons, but rumor control still leaked dissatisfaction with the script, and the cast listings for these iconic figures boiled down to a lot of talent which seemed more appropriate for a CW TV show than a superheroic epic. This, of course, was getting negative web press from the comic dorks. And I wouldn't be surprised if the studios didn't take notice (hey, we seem to be irritating our built in market...).
Speaking of the CW, the 7 seasons of Smallville will roll into an 8th season in the fall, as Smallville continues on as the highest rated show on the CW network. I wouldn't recommend the show at this point, but 8 seasons? That's got to say something fairly positive.
With Marvel Studios recent establishment and the success of Iron Man at the box office, the relationship DC has with Warner Bros., unfortunately, is seeming to become more of an albatross than a bonus. Rather than Marvel having the freedom to find the right package to get a movie off the ground with talent associated who they can guide in staying true to the concepts they're bringing to the big screen, DC is still fighting off directors and writers who are seemingly being gifted with superhero films with minimal input from DC.
The article states:
• Aquaman: "According to Comic Book Resources, the producers want to make a screwball comedy of it." • The Flash: Wedding Crashers' David Dobkin was signed to direct last year. • Green Lantern: Greg Berlanti (Brothers & Sisters, Eli Stone) is writing a script; Jack Black won't star—at least he promised as much back in 2006. • Justice League of America: "Tabled." • Superman: The Man of Steel: Director Bryan Singer's on board. Superman Returns star Brandon Routh's on board. Filming might begin "early next year," per Routh, who admittedly doesn't have the power to schedule such things. • Wonder Woman: "Sitting uncomfortably on the backburner."
-A wacky Aquaman? Any particular reason? Not enough to work with there with the Lord of the Seas, his super strength and various other powers and a largely unused environment full of all kinds of potential? I assume this is because stand up comics have been taking pokes at Aquaman for the past few years.
-A screwball comedy director for The Flash? Because that worked so well for the FF movies. I can only assume they think The Flash is a barrel of yuks, or I can't imagine what drove that decision. And while I agree that the Flash should be a huge amount of fun, letting Owen Wilson and Co. mug for the camera doesn't seem like much of a qualification. But I'd be curious to hear what the story is, first...
-Am I seeing a trend here? About four years ago it was rumored Jack Black would star in a Green Lantern movie. Once again, it seems that the now 45 year old Batman TV series seems to dictate how writers are thinking of superheroes. Its particularly disappointing when Geoff Johns is doing so much to make Green Lantern such an engaging read. And could probably hammer out an outline for a movie in about three days at this point.
-And I'm going to go out on a limb here about Whedon's Wonder Woman, but... Whedon's financial track record isn't that great. He has a small, core audience that will follow him anywhere he goes, but remember the shakiness regarding the final seasons of Buffy? The quick cancellation of Firefly? The non-existent box office for Serenity? I'm glad the man got a shot, but perhaps whatever script he handed in just wasn't looking like much to the producers but "Serenity Deux".
That said, there's a lot of room for Wonder Woman to be very, very bad. I'm not interested in seeing this movie until there's a solid script and talent behind it.
How, after 3 Spider-Man movies, Iron Man, and whatever success you want to assign to the various other Marvel movies at this point, Warner Bros. still can't help but see their potentially profitable action franchises as anything but silliness to be milked and discarded is a mystery beyond my ability to solve.
Add in what they seem interested in doing when they do get a well-written property, and you wind up with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (wtf?) or "V for Vendetta" (let's all be non-conformists, together!). Or the ability for things to go off the rails when the money guys get too involved (see: Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Actually, don't.). Or they rush out a movie that's just not a good idea ("Steel". Starring Shaq. Oh, yes.).
So it doesn't do much to make me think that DC's woes as far as not meeting Marvel's output are as much of a problem as the article suggests. I would rather have fewer, better movies (and I still think Superman Returns was much better than folks gave it credit for) than a machine just dumping the DCU out onto a populace with minimal regard to quality. There's no guarantee that every Marvel flick to come will be Iron Man. There's a lot of room to go off the rails with Thor, Cap and the rest.
And if DC wants to test the waters... there's no rule that says you need to roll out the big seven. I don't think most people have a solid idea of who the heck Iron Man is/ was before the movie. So are people really going to not show up for a Blue Beetle movie if it looks fun and cool? And isn't there a great movie somewhere in there with Shazam!? Green Arrow and Black Canary? Heck, I think people would turn up for Plastic Man.
Understand, too, that WB has felt burned in the past. After the Catwoman debacle, it seems that they're aware of the potential for things to go poorly, and will do what they can to manage their properties. So while there may be a wacky Aquaman script out there, I think they're genuinely ting to do right by these characters.
Sometimes, less is more.
Now, if DC could get their comics straightened out...
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Items for Wednesday
ITEM! Randy finds a strip that is all too accurate.
ITEM! It's only taken, like, two years, but they're finally wrapping up the "Last Son" storyline in Action Comics Annual #11 coming out this week. Great googledy-moogledy. I'd heard the Kubert Brother working on this had "health" problems that kept him from working on this comic and getting it in on time. He also helps run the Joe Kubert School of Cartooning or whatever in NYC. I understand health issues can be private, so I'm not looking for an explanation. But I wish DC had hired another artist and wrapped this up a while back. Hopefully DC has their scheduling straightened out for the foreseeable future on the Superman titles.
ITEM! Hi, Denise! How are you? How are the kids?
ITEM! Entertainment Weekly has preview pages of Final Crisis #1
ITEM! Jason, Jamie, Julia... sorry about the whole Speed Racer thing last night. I had passes to a sneak peek, but I thought they were for the nearby Westgate Theater. When I grabbed them to get ready to go, I realized they were for the Gateway Theater on the other end of town. So... we didn't end up going due to the time.
ITEM! The Met has a show right now called "Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy", featuring superhero costumes right alongside some of the more extreme fashion ideas. Especially from the 80's, I think.
Click here for The Beat's report and to see an amazing statue of DC's Trinity. They also had one of Lynda Carter's costumes. Whoo!
ITEM! I don't remember where I read it, but there's a rumor that Matthew McConaughey may have landed the role of Captain America. Which... Really? I always thought he was more of a young Michael Biehn.
Of all superheroes, Cap is really the American Superhero ideal. He's the barrel-chested, baritone voiced, two-fisted slugger fighting against fascism. Is that McConaughey? I've never seen his more action oriented flicks. And I don't want a Vin Diesel or some pro-wrestler putting on the feather-headed cowl, so...
And I don't know how many of you have seen the circa 1980 Cap movies made for TV, or the 1990 movie which never made it to theaters (starring no less than the son of JD Salinger), but the costume sorta doesn't work in real life. But I think if they took a look at Hitch's designs for Cap in The Ultimates, then, maybe it won't make him look like a member of the cast of a Superbowl Halftime Show.
ITEM! It's only taken, like, two years, but they're finally wrapping up the "Last Son" storyline in Action Comics Annual #11 coming out this week. Great googledy-moogledy. I'd heard the Kubert Brother working on this had "health" problems that kept him from working on this comic and getting it in on time. He also helps run the Joe Kubert School of Cartooning or whatever in NYC. I understand health issues can be private, so I'm not looking for an explanation. But I wish DC had hired another artist and wrapped this up a while back. Hopefully DC has their scheduling straightened out for the foreseeable future on the Superman titles.
ITEM! Hi, Denise! How are you? How are the kids?
ITEM! Entertainment Weekly has preview pages of Final Crisis #1
ITEM! Jason, Jamie, Julia... sorry about the whole Speed Racer thing last night. I had passes to a sneak peek, but I thought they were for the nearby Westgate Theater. When I grabbed them to get ready to go, I realized they were for the Gateway Theater on the other end of town. So... we didn't end up going due to the time.
ITEM! The Met has a show right now called "Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy", featuring superhero costumes right alongside some of the more extreme fashion ideas. Especially from the 80's, I think.
Click here for The Beat's report and to see an amazing statue of DC's Trinity. They also had one of Lynda Carter's costumes. Whoo!
ITEM! I don't remember where I read it, but there's a rumor that Matthew McConaughey may have landed the role of Captain America. Which... Really? I always thought he was more of a young Michael Biehn.
Of all superheroes, Cap is really the American Superhero ideal. He's the barrel-chested, baritone voiced, two-fisted slugger fighting against fascism. Is that McConaughey? I've never seen his more action oriented flicks. And I don't want a Vin Diesel or some pro-wrestler putting on the feather-headed cowl, so...
And I don't know how many of you have seen the circa 1980 Cap movies made for TV, or the 1990 movie which never made it to theaters (starring no less than the son of JD Salinger), but the costume sorta doesn't work in real life. But I think if they took a look at Hitch's designs for Cap in The Ultimates, then, maybe it won't make him look like a member of the cast of a Superbowl Halftime Show.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Movies for Boys of Summer?
Occasional Superheroine had an article up today about the lack of movies which come out in the summer which are "geared towards women". I found Valerie's questions legitimate, to an extent. But I think it oversimplifies the business of the Blockbuster movie and how and why it is made.
Valerie's post actually was spawned by an article in The Times entitled "Come Summer, Is There a Real Woman in the Multiplex?", which reminded me entirely too much of the sort of stuff you would read in RTF's Narrative Strategies class.
What becomes clear after a quick read of the article isn't that there's a lack of movies with a female audience in mind (and I would argue, the huge blockbusters try to be a big tent and include women as well). Rather, it seems that author Manohla Dargis basically doesn't care for the mainstream faire that comes out in the summertime. And has blacked out many movies and arguments which she might find inconvenient to her thesis.
Because the article reminds me so of RTF course quibbling, it relies on the same mish-mash of Gender Studies 101 to condemn the Apatow movies for showing non-He-Men, who discuss their emotions and should therefore be identified as women. An odd condemnation when she's simultaneously condemning summer movies for their machismo. What perfect balance of yin and yang Dargis is seeking in her male stars is as elusive as what she seeks in her female stars and stories.
With the other hand, Dargis complains that the women of "Sex in the City" are also not "real" women. Especially interesting as the debut of "Sex in the City" on HBO was, according to critics and fans alike, heralding a realistic depiction of the urban sophisticate. She has no praise for the Travelling Pants, Momma Mia!, or any other movie she has yet to see, and damnation for those she has seen.
So what, exactly, is Dargis looking for? It's easy to roll your eyes at movie's coming out, and its okay to criticize if you have a point. But her premise of "not enough movies for REAL women" seems a bit... well, if I was a lady, I'd be a bit offended. What movie is Dargis prescribing? If you enjoy the adventures of Indiana Jones, are you a traitor to your sex? What is this perfect movie of complicated female characters that would make he same $200 million opening weekend as Iron Man? Because it seems Dargis is completely dismissive of action movies in general, so I wouldn't bring up the recent spate of B-movies featuring tough-guy ladies fighting zombies, werewolves, vampires... what have you.
Val asks some questions.
1. Has Hollywood decided that women are not a viable audience?
No. But female-centric movies don't open to $200 million. Just as male-centric movies featuring martial arts, etc... don't open at $200 million.
There's a difference between there being no movies for women and the marketing push the Tentpole pictures receive. The sheer number of ads for Speed Racer and Iron man may give a feeling of some disproportionate balance, which may or may not actually exist. But the actual movie is not the point of a big summer pre-packaged blockbuster. "Sex in the City" won't sell millions in action figures at Target. Nor will "Made of Honor". You won't see Patrick Dempsey's face on a Coke cup at Burger King. Or Sarah Jessica Parker dolls in the BK Kids' Club meal. If "Made of Honor" loses money, the machine of the Hollywood Blockbuster won't make sure everyone gets paid. Whether Iron Man makes or loses money at the box office, the license rights alone may make up the deficit.
2. What movies DO women watch? In what format? Theater, DVD, what?
You know, back when I asked What Do Women Want in Superhero Comics, I got slammed pretty hard for asking what women want, as if I was asking a herd of people who all behaved alike. I think the question shouldn't be "women". It should be: how do mothers of 5-10 years olds enjoy entertainment? Do they take their children to see Iron Man? Do they make time for themselves to see movies of their choice? What about bad mothers who don't know they shouldn't take their kid to see "Saw"? What about Grandmothers? And professionals? Are they watching Lost on DVD instead of going to movies? Do they have time to go to the theater? Are they more aware of who the stars are than what movies they're actually in?
But, mostly, its a goofy question. What do guys watch? They don't all watch the same things. Now, comic book nerdy guys... we kind of do all watch the same things. We just enjoy them to varying degrees.
3. Does Hollywood assume that women either do not watch movies in theaters or will go to wherever their significant others will take them to see or that they are so busy mopping floors that they haven't even given the topic much thought?
Well, that's a loaded question. And I won't speak for Hollywood. Or women. But with movies costing $200 million dollars, I'm pretty sure the studios do some research to figure out what is going to be profitable.
But if the last five movies "for women" came out and all made between 50-75 million, how much are you going to spend on the next one you make to ensure a profit? Probably less than $50 million, I'd assume. From that point, I assume people who know more about marketing a movie than I would know how to narrowcast advertising to the presumd audience.
Anecdotally, I do believe women are more likely to see a movie of their partner's choosing than their male partner will really, really want to see "27 Dresses". Other than that, I refuse to comment on this, because it seems like talking about this would lead me into trouble with Jamie. Who went with Jason and me to see "Doomsday", even though we all agreed she would not like it.
4. Is a movie like "Indiana Jones," as mentioned in the article, not a movie of female interest because Indy and his sidekick themselves are not females? Or is this sort of reductionist?
I think its kind of reductionist.
As I mentioned, some movies are just going to overwhelm those niche categories. As an example: Titanic didn't make a billion dollars because of squeeing 13 year old girls who found Leo non-threatening. A lot of people saw that movie. It seems that a franchise like Indiana Jones can also have that cross-over appeal, once its ingrained in popular culture.
5. According to the article, the amount of female movie directors is something like 6%. Is this the movie studios fault for not hiring these women? Are these women not applying for the director track? Are they not applying to the director track because they are not interested, or because they are discouraged from doing so in school?
Uh... the Director track? In school? I went to film school, so I think I have a little bit of experience with this one (and there was no "director's track" at UT RTF. You're all doing everything from camera to feeding your actors). Honestly, my years in film school were sort of the opposite of discouraging women. They seemed a lot more focused on the opposite ideal, to look at narratives from non-traditional points of view and encourage everyone who wanted to participate.
And the hard numbers: our production track was about 40% women, 60% guys. But I would also question whether that has a direct effect on the number of directors as much as I would ask (1) if that figure 6% is accurate, (2) how many women went out to try to get features made, (3) are you counting television, documentary and directors of non-main-stream films, and (4) perhaps a bit of a rough point, but as in any industry... Life often complicates things. There are female CEO's and some female directors, producers and studio execs. But how many women decide to have a family and are unable to keep up the break-neck pace of working in the film industry to get to a point where they are given the opportunity to direct? Let alone decide to pursue something else requiring less time once the kids need parenting?
Looking for some sort of male-dominated conspiracy from film school to the directors chair is giving Hollywood entirely too much credit. There's a lot of money at play here, and decisions are made about how to be profitable. Its not a conspiracy as much as too much caution about unknown commodities.
My point being, in order to try to make a good investment, Hollywood mostly goes with what it knows. If "March of the Penguins" makes money, we get two animated penguin movies and a Bob Saget Penguin spoof within a year or so. If Iron Man made $200 million in an opening weekend, you make Iron Man 2. If Catwoman and Elektra failed to make any money (and, in fact, lost money) you put the brakes on hoping sexiness in a costume is enough to drag folks in. Then you take a long, hard look at your script for Wonder Woman and don't assume its going to rush into theaters because of T&A and a magic lasso. And if you think they're taking too long between pictures... How long between Superman IV and Superman Returns?
And, by the way, a woman is directing the next Punisher movie. So it seems Marvel doesn't believe women are off-limits when it comes to their movies.
One of the greater challenges for comic-to-movie adaptations has to be that most of the time-tested characters and ideas came from a time and place where diversity wasn't as valued as it is today, and where women held a different place in society. Keep in mind, Action Comics #1 premiered about 19 years after the 19th amendment passed. Finding female characters who starred in their own titles in a genre that typically featured male heroic archetypes for decades is going to be a bit slimmer pickings. And with the failure of two high profile characters like Elektra and Catwoman on the big screen (with terrible scripts to blame, really. Yes, I've watched most of Catwoman), its difficult to pick out who could be the female Iron Man.
Not that I think that's what Dargis is looking for. Really, I think what she'd like is to see the Oscar-season movies open in the summer and do 200 million in their first weekend. That's my guess, anyway. I'm not sure which "real" women she wants at the cinema. Are there not silly, ridiculous women in real life? Or are those silly women who will appear in comedies this summer, or the women of Sex in the City just not her cup of tea, in movies about topics which she holds in contempt, or are they just not the kind of person she personally likes to pal around with? "Real" women.
All this said, at last check, I'm not a lady. But I do know a few. And they like all kinds of movies, just how guys like all kinds of movies. CB likes Scorcese, horror, John Waters, and all kinds of stuff. Jamie likes fantasy movies and smart comedies. Nicole watches stuff that's a bit more art-house, and she likes Ocean's 11.
So if you want to know what I think at least Jamie's thinking this summer? I think she'd echo Marion Ravenhood from the first reel of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Indiana Jones. Always knew someday you'd come walking back through my door.
But, again, I'm not going to speak for her.
Valerie's post actually was spawned by an article in The Times entitled "Come Summer, Is There a Real Woman in the Multiplex?", which reminded me entirely too much of the sort of stuff you would read in RTF's Narrative Strategies class.
What becomes clear after a quick read of the article isn't that there's a lack of movies with a female audience in mind (and I would argue, the huge blockbusters try to be a big tent and include women as well). Rather, it seems that author Manohla Dargis basically doesn't care for the mainstream faire that comes out in the summertime. And has blacked out many movies and arguments which she might find inconvenient to her thesis.
Because the article reminds me so of RTF course quibbling, it relies on the same mish-mash of Gender Studies 101 to condemn the Apatow movies for showing non-He-Men, who discuss their emotions and should therefore be identified as women. An odd condemnation when she's simultaneously condemning summer movies for their machismo. What perfect balance of yin and yang Dargis is seeking in her male stars is as elusive as what she seeks in her female stars and stories.
With the other hand, Dargis complains that the women of "Sex in the City" are also not "real" women. Especially interesting as the debut of "Sex in the City" on HBO was, according to critics and fans alike, heralding a realistic depiction of the urban sophisticate. She has no praise for the Travelling Pants, Momma Mia!, or any other movie she has yet to see, and damnation for those she has seen.
So what, exactly, is Dargis looking for? It's easy to roll your eyes at movie's coming out, and its okay to criticize if you have a point. But her premise of "not enough movies for REAL women" seems a bit... well, if I was a lady, I'd be a bit offended. What movie is Dargis prescribing? If you enjoy the adventures of Indiana Jones, are you a traitor to your sex? What is this perfect movie of complicated female characters that would make he same $200 million opening weekend as Iron Man? Because it seems Dargis is completely dismissive of action movies in general, so I wouldn't bring up the recent spate of B-movies featuring tough-guy ladies fighting zombies, werewolves, vampires... what have you.
Val asks some questions.
1. Has Hollywood decided that women are not a viable audience?
No. But female-centric movies don't open to $200 million. Just as male-centric movies featuring martial arts, etc... don't open at $200 million.
There's a difference between there being no movies for women and the marketing push the Tentpole pictures receive. The sheer number of ads for Speed Racer and Iron man may give a feeling of some disproportionate balance, which may or may not actually exist. But the actual movie is not the point of a big summer pre-packaged blockbuster. "Sex in the City" won't sell millions in action figures at Target. Nor will "Made of Honor". You won't see Patrick Dempsey's face on a Coke cup at Burger King. Or Sarah Jessica Parker dolls in the BK Kids' Club meal. If "Made of Honor" loses money, the machine of the Hollywood Blockbuster won't make sure everyone gets paid. Whether Iron Man makes or loses money at the box office, the license rights alone may make up the deficit.
2. What movies DO women watch? In what format? Theater, DVD, what?
You know, back when I asked What Do Women Want in Superhero Comics, I got slammed pretty hard for asking what women want, as if I was asking a herd of people who all behaved alike. I think the question shouldn't be "women". It should be: how do mothers of 5-10 years olds enjoy entertainment? Do they take their children to see Iron Man? Do they make time for themselves to see movies of their choice? What about bad mothers who don't know they shouldn't take their kid to see "Saw"? What about Grandmothers? And professionals? Are they watching Lost on DVD instead of going to movies? Do they have time to go to the theater? Are they more aware of who the stars are than what movies they're actually in?
But, mostly, its a goofy question. What do guys watch? They don't all watch the same things. Now, comic book nerdy guys... we kind of do all watch the same things. We just enjoy them to varying degrees.
3. Does Hollywood assume that women either do not watch movies in theaters or will go to wherever their significant others will take them to see or that they are so busy mopping floors that they haven't even given the topic much thought?
Well, that's a loaded question. And I won't speak for Hollywood. Or women. But with movies costing $200 million dollars, I'm pretty sure the studios do some research to figure out what is going to be profitable.
But if the last five movies "for women" came out and all made between 50-75 million, how much are you going to spend on the next one you make to ensure a profit? Probably less than $50 million, I'd assume. From that point, I assume people who know more about marketing a movie than I would know how to narrowcast advertising to the presumd audience.
Anecdotally, I do believe women are more likely to see a movie of their partner's choosing than their male partner will really, really want to see "27 Dresses". Other than that, I refuse to comment on this, because it seems like talking about this would lead me into trouble with Jamie. Who went with Jason and me to see "Doomsday", even though we all agreed she would not like it.
4. Is a movie like "Indiana Jones," as mentioned in the article, not a movie of female interest because Indy and his sidekick themselves are not females? Or is this sort of reductionist?
I think its kind of reductionist.
As I mentioned, some movies are just going to overwhelm those niche categories. As an example: Titanic didn't make a billion dollars because of squeeing 13 year old girls who found Leo non-threatening. A lot of people saw that movie. It seems that a franchise like Indiana Jones can also have that cross-over appeal, once its ingrained in popular culture.
5. According to the article, the amount of female movie directors is something like 6%. Is this the movie studios fault for not hiring these women? Are these women not applying for the director track? Are they not applying to the director track because they are not interested, or because they are discouraged from doing so in school?
Uh... the Director track? In school? I went to film school, so I think I have a little bit of experience with this one (and there was no "director's track" at UT RTF. You're all doing everything from camera to feeding your actors). Honestly, my years in film school were sort of the opposite of discouraging women. They seemed a lot more focused on the opposite ideal, to look at narratives from non-traditional points of view and encourage everyone who wanted to participate.
And the hard numbers: our production track was about 40% women, 60% guys. But I would also question whether that has a direct effect on the number of directors as much as I would ask (1) if that figure 6% is accurate, (2) how many women went out to try to get features made, (3) are you counting television, documentary and directors of non-main-stream films, and (4) perhaps a bit of a rough point, but as in any industry... Life often complicates things. There are female CEO's and some female directors, producers and studio execs. But how many women decide to have a family and are unable to keep up the break-neck pace of working in the film industry to get to a point where they are given the opportunity to direct? Let alone decide to pursue something else requiring less time once the kids need parenting?
Looking for some sort of male-dominated conspiracy from film school to the directors chair is giving Hollywood entirely too much credit. There's a lot of money at play here, and decisions are made about how to be profitable. Its not a conspiracy as much as too much caution about unknown commodities.
My point being, in order to try to make a good investment, Hollywood mostly goes with what it knows. If "March of the Penguins" makes money, we get two animated penguin movies and a Bob Saget Penguin spoof within a year or so. If Iron Man made $200 million in an opening weekend, you make Iron Man 2. If Catwoman and Elektra failed to make any money (and, in fact, lost money) you put the brakes on hoping sexiness in a costume is enough to drag folks in. Then you take a long, hard look at your script for Wonder Woman and don't assume its going to rush into theaters because of T&A and a magic lasso. And if you think they're taking too long between pictures... How long between Superman IV and Superman Returns?
And, by the way, a woman is directing the next Punisher movie. So it seems Marvel doesn't believe women are off-limits when it comes to their movies.
One of the greater challenges for comic-to-movie adaptations has to be that most of the time-tested characters and ideas came from a time and place where diversity wasn't as valued as it is today, and where women held a different place in society. Keep in mind, Action Comics #1 premiered about 19 years after the 19th amendment passed. Finding female characters who starred in their own titles in a genre that typically featured male heroic archetypes for decades is going to be a bit slimmer pickings. And with the failure of two high profile characters like Elektra and Catwoman on the big screen (with terrible scripts to blame, really. Yes, I've watched most of Catwoman), its difficult to pick out who could be the female Iron Man.
Not that I think that's what Dargis is looking for. Really, I think what she'd like is to see the Oscar-season movies open in the summer and do 200 million in their first weekend. That's my guess, anyway. I'm not sure which "real" women she wants at the cinema. Are there not silly, ridiculous women in real life? Or are those silly women who will appear in comedies this summer, or the women of Sex in the City just not her cup of tea, in movies about topics which she holds in contempt, or are they just not the kind of person she personally likes to pal around with? "Real" women.
All this said, at last check, I'm not a lady. But I do know a few. And they like all kinds of movies, just how guys like all kinds of movies. CB likes Scorcese, horror, John Waters, and all kinds of stuff. Jamie likes fantasy movies and smart comedies. Nicole watches stuff that's a bit more art-house, and she likes Ocean's 11.
So if you want to know what I think at least Jamie's thinking this summer? I think she'd echo Marion Ravenhood from the first reel of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Indiana Jones. Always knew someday you'd come walking back through my door.
But, again, I'm not going to speak for her.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Everyone in their right place
Yesterday, Jamie and I went to see the new Tina Fey/ Amy Poehler movie: Baby Mama
I'm a fan of 30 Rock, and I've liked Poehler on SNL. Plus it was better than cleaning my office, which is what I was doing.
When your criteria for seeing a movie includes: zombies, robots, gorillas, superheroes, spaceships or no small amount of kung-foolery, you don't always get a peek at what else is out there. And as the trailer for "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants 2" rolled up onto the screen, I came to the conclusion that "Baby Mama" was not aimed at the sci-fi/ kung-fu audience, and I might have a very long two hours ahead of me.
The good I can report: Baby Mama was, at least, a bit funny. It's a renter, or maybe something to watch on cable. Maybe a matinee, if you're really dead-set against Iron Man.
But one of the trailers they showed was the trailer for American Teen.
This documentary is about four white, suburban kids in middle-America who are in high school. So I'm trying to figure out what the movie is actually about.
The trailer uses the Breakfast Club stereotypes for each of the subjects, and, I would assume, is going to break down those stereotypes over the course of a year/ two hours as we learn about what makes these kids tic.
Perhaps fifteen year ago, this might have been a bit novel. The trailer suggests its about the heartache and romance of being young and just beginning your life, but after TV expanded to 200 channels of reality-based programming and the WB's five nights a week of teen-angst soap operas, and MTV went all-high-schooler inc ontent as well as audience... Add in teh fact that every single person over the age of 18 went through high school, so been there, done that... I'm trying to figure out what's there to draw me in.
Two things I find peculiar:
1) The trailer's insistence on framing this in a "Breakfast Club" sort of manner. Really, the only time "Breakfast Club" seemed like an accurate depiction of high school was when I saw it in middle school and had not yet been to high school (but was trying to figure out what it was going to be like). Somehow, we didn't all wind up in Saturday suspension, all surprising ourselves by learning a little more about ourselves and a lot about each other.
I don't recall people in high school actually believing in much in the way of the classic high school breakdowns of nerds, jocks, what-have-you. And its not just because I was completely unobservant.
2) Why do these kids in the trailer speak in seemingly scripted language? Has 10 years of reality TV really blurred the line so much that kids know how to alter their language into concise statements to accurately describe their yearnings and inner monologue? I have a lot of hours of of footage of high school on VHS. It's mostly people smiling politely and asking me to turn off the camera.
At best, I'd watch this movie if it showed up on cable pretty late and nothing else was on. Having already done high school, I'm not in a rush to relive the experience. It wasn't that great when I was there the first time around. And I assume that's the point.
We've all been to high school. We all experienced the awkwardness, the unrequited crush, had hopes and dreams and no idea what it means to show up in the same cube every day with a soul-crushing mortgage hanging over your head. Its the last time in your life when the whole world is before you as a blank slate. But its also the time when you're too dumb to appreciate where you're at in life. Youth is wasted on the young.
The interstitial text in the trailer makes it pretty clear that they're counting on the nostalgia of the viewer to get them in the theater. And I assume the marketing is inline with the intention of the movie, so... I guess they're counting on the audience really missing those halcyon days.
Do the kids see themselves as the jock? The rebel? Aren't those tags a little embarrassing, even as a starting point? Or have decades of teen movies, TV shows and whatnot just placed an artificial expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy for kids before they ever hit the high school. Moreover, what are we really getting when we're getting the kids who volunteered to have a camera follow them around for a year. I know I'd have been mortified. I assume most of the kids I knew wouldn't have leaped at a chance to have a camera there at prom, running around town, etc...
Moreover, how well do these roles translate to non-whitebread students in areas and schools that aren't just a bunch of middle-class kids filling their seemingly pre-destined roles? I have no idea. But that's a movie I might find a bit more interesting.
I'm a fan of 30 Rock, and I've liked Poehler on SNL. Plus it was better than cleaning my office, which is what I was doing.
When your criteria for seeing a movie includes: zombies, robots, gorillas, superheroes, spaceships or no small amount of kung-foolery, you don't always get a peek at what else is out there. And as the trailer for "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants 2" rolled up onto the screen, I came to the conclusion that "Baby Mama" was not aimed at the sci-fi/ kung-fu audience, and I might have a very long two hours ahead of me.
The good I can report: Baby Mama was, at least, a bit funny. It's a renter, or maybe something to watch on cable. Maybe a matinee, if you're really dead-set against Iron Man.
But one of the trailers they showed was the trailer for American Teen.
This documentary is about four white, suburban kids in middle-America who are in high school. So I'm trying to figure out what the movie is actually about.
The trailer uses the Breakfast Club stereotypes for each of the subjects, and, I would assume, is going to break down those stereotypes over the course of a year/ two hours as we learn about what makes these kids tic.
Perhaps fifteen year ago, this might have been a bit novel. The trailer suggests its about the heartache and romance of being young and just beginning your life, but after TV expanded to 200 channels of reality-based programming and the WB's five nights a week of teen-angst soap operas, and MTV went all-high-schooler inc ontent as well as audience... Add in teh fact that every single person over the age of 18 went through high school, so been there, done that... I'm trying to figure out what's there to draw me in.
Two things I find peculiar:
1) The trailer's insistence on framing this in a "Breakfast Club" sort of manner. Really, the only time "Breakfast Club" seemed like an accurate depiction of high school was when I saw it in middle school and had not yet been to high school (but was trying to figure out what it was going to be like). Somehow, we didn't all wind up in Saturday suspension, all surprising ourselves by learning a little more about ourselves and a lot about each other.
I don't recall people in high school actually believing in much in the way of the classic high school breakdowns of nerds, jocks, what-have-you. And its not just because I was completely unobservant.
2) Why do these kids in the trailer speak in seemingly scripted language? Has 10 years of reality TV really blurred the line so much that kids know how to alter their language into concise statements to accurately describe their yearnings and inner monologue? I have a lot of hours of of footage of high school on VHS. It's mostly people smiling politely and asking me to turn off the camera.
At best, I'd watch this movie if it showed up on cable pretty late and nothing else was on. Having already done high school, I'm not in a rush to relive the experience. It wasn't that great when I was there the first time around. And I assume that's the point.
We've all been to high school. We all experienced the awkwardness, the unrequited crush, had hopes and dreams and no idea what it means to show up in the same cube every day with a soul-crushing mortgage hanging over your head. Its the last time in your life when the whole world is before you as a blank slate. But its also the time when you're too dumb to appreciate where you're at in life. Youth is wasted on the young.
The interstitial text in the trailer makes it pretty clear that they're counting on the nostalgia of the viewer to get them in the theater. And I assume the marketing is inline with the intention of the movie, so... I guess they're counting on the audience really missing those halcyon days.
Do the kids see themselves as the jock? The rebel? Aren't those tags a little embarrassing, even as a starting point? Or have decades of teen movies, TV shows and whatnot just placed an artificial expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy for kids before they ever hit the high school. Moreover, what are we really getting when we're getting the kids who volunteered to have a camera follow them around for a year. I know I'd have been mortified. I assume most of the kids I knew wouldn't have leaped at a chance to have a camera there at prom, running around town, etc...
Moreover, how well do these roles translate to non-whitebread students in areas and schools that aren't just a bunch of middle-class kids filling their seemingly pre-destined roles? I have no idea. But that's a movie I might find a bit more interesting.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Iron Man?
Anyone up for going to see Iron Man this weekend at the Alamo South? Maybe 2:45 on Saturday? Or maybe in the evening?
It'll be fun. Like seeing Steven in a
It'll be fun. Like seeing Steven in a