Los Dangerous!

Is there anything wrong with niche filmmaking?

2010-04-13T03:03:00.001-07:00

“If you build it, they will come” there, nice to finally open a piece with a quote from an actual movie. While you may need to replace the word build with make, I’m sure that just because of the title you will get my point. So now we discuss all the hubbub with this so-called niche filmmaking

Tyler Perry, while that name may not resonate with the locals from where i reside, i guarantee you that if you ask an African-American moviegoer he or she will at least have a vague idea of him. The same thing for the films “Fireproof” and “Facing the Giants” to a Born Again Christian film fan. And now while there is no inherent connection between the two groups of people i just mentioned, these two have the distinction of having films that are specifically catered to them. But what about Sci-Fi? Doesn’t it pander to the more nerdy/geeky audience? Yes and no. While Sci-Fi may originally start to be cater to a specific audience, the freedom to create new worlds that the writers are blessed with gives them the chance to reach out to a wider demographic.

While there is no doubt to Tyler Perry success (at least financially) as a director, the quality of his films he continues to make are questionable at best. A quick glance at the imdb pages of the last few films he directed, wrote or produced (sans Precious) will give you an idea of what he is capable of. But still, somehow his movies are profitable, “Why Did I Get Married too?” has already grossed more than double its budget in just under two weeks and I’m pretty sure that “Madea Goes to Jail” was for less that its total domestic gross of 90.5 million Dollars. So why is that? Simply put, he knows his market, he knows that African-Americans will go see his critic-proof movies. They won’t listen to critics, they see a movie that connects with them, they go out and watch it.

The hero once again is an African-American cross dresser…

That’s actually a smart business move. On the other side of the same coin, we have the aforementioned Christian movies. To be honest i haven’t seen those films, though my decision to not see them was because of the apparent less than subtle agenda pushing rather than my own personal beliefs, i have heard from sources that these movies were good. Now this is only second hand information from me, but the fact is that “Fireproof” and “Facing the Giants” have gained their own following. Again, nothing wrong with that, but the idea of blatantly kissing the viewers ass for profit. Come to think of it, Niche Filmmaking is just a more PC way of saying Epic Fan-service.

Wow, i cant believe i just delved into that, but while we’re here lets talk about two directors who are big on fan-service. Michael Bay and Kevin Smith. ok the latter is a director i personally love. Clerks and Chasing Amy are two of my favorite films and the sad truth is those were his triumphs, Kevin Smith is a capable director but only when he chooses to tell quirky stories about growing up in Jersey, out of his comfort zone, he cant direct to save his life. Michael Bay, oh dear god Michael Bay, i think there isn’t a piece i have written where i haven’t said something bad about him. Well, this isn’t going to stop, at least for now. Michael Bay has this formula of the military, chicks and explosions. I dare you to disprove me. Personally, i think he makes movies that range from awesome to awful but his formula is tiring to say the least.

The trifecta of epic filmmaking according to Michael Bay.

But having a built-in fanbase is sometimes not good enough. Case in point: “Dear John” a movie based on a book by the horribly formulaic writer Nicholas Sparks. I double dare you to disprove me. This movie was brilliantly released on Superbowl weekend, a weekend that basically guaranteed restless Sundays and hungover Mondays. So when the ladies of America needed a way to get out of the ruckus, “Dear John” was there hold them like a sneaky lover. The result: it actually beat the mighty Avatar for number one in the box office. Granted Avatar was on its last legs at the time, but that is still quite a feat for a movie that dropped to number 5 at its second weekend.

So what’s the point in all of this? Again, its boils down to the money. The major studios will always play it safe. They go where there’s cash to be made. It’s a horrible fact of life, but that’s what it is, A FACT. Niche Filmmaking is a cruel bait that studios use to lure us in. Sticking to a formula works well, but it does have a limited shelf-life. Niche Filmmaking may be a cheap trick, but it sure is profitable.

Is comedy lost on this generation?

2010-03-14T10:52:00.002-07:00

A couple of years ago my cousin asked me to come with me on a double date. Needless to say we were going to watch a movie. And gratuitous anecdote aside, in the end i was subjected to watching this masterpiece.

And that ladies and gentlemen was my first real exposure to the insanely messed up world of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. If you somehow don't know who they are just think of all these "comedies" Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie, etc. Now think of how much they sucked the soul out of you while watching them. Back to the double date, i was doing it strictly as a favor for my cousin... and maybe i was hoping for an *ahem* explosion after that, but i ended up with this

Not exactly, the way i want dates to end.

It escapes me, how these two hacks get Fox to greenlight these films, somehow i think devils and contracts are involved. But what really defies logic is how they can earn money.

Are these films a sad testament to how shallow we as audiences have become? There will always be room for comedy, whether is the smart comedy of the slapstick kind. The 3 Stooges still resonate with today's audiences because of how well the slapstick is performed. I still find myself amused when i see clips of their shows that i watched when i was a kid.

There are a number of comedic performers out there and arguably some have lost their touch. Remember Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy? Remember how funny they were when then began? And more importantly remember how sad it was to see them when they we're just rehashing their bits over and over again? The problem with comedy is that it just doesn't stick to one formula. Unlike action films or drama, that genre cannot rely on tried and tested tropes to succeed. I could repeatedly watch a building explode in several movies but i can only bear to stand seeing a man bump into a wall so many times.

Now mind you, there are some genuinely funny films that have been released over the last few years but the one common thread that these films have is that the funny comes from the dialogue. THE SCRIPT. But the problem with the script is that it takes work. Work that some Hollywood folk tend to ignore. Smart dialogue needs smart writers, not some douche that just throws in a dick joke or two just to gain a cheap laugh from some of the audience members.

So still why are some movies making money? The quick and simple answer is that comedy is done for cheap. You really don't need massive SFX for a pie in the face routine to work. If you want proof of that theory, think of one name: Pixar, CGI films definitely cost more money to make. And with more money at stake, i can guarantee you that there will be more tweaking in pre-production (unless of course, you're Micheal Bay, but that's a different story on its own).

My problem is that today, comedy hasn't found it's voice and the last torches of comedy have burned their brightest in the nineties. Audiences today have been fickle and have moved on to television for their laughter, whether because it's free or comedy is easier to contain in 30 minutes, i'm not sure. The one thing i can guarantee is that comedy in film will never die. Sure we don't have that comedic maven working as an actor or writer yet, but he or she will come. We're just going through a dry spell, kind of like me when i agreed to go on that double date.

Are Fans to Blame for Crappy Films?

2010-03-14T10:52:00.001-07:00

"Vox Populi, Vox Dei" C'mon we all know what that means, and while not necessarily true in all fronts, i.e. democracy. It does however, for all intents and purposes, do it's job to some extent. And as with all things in the world, doing the right job can only work for so long. Case in point, the most likely biggest victim of this proverb, the entertainment industry. Specifically, the people the industry wants, nay, needs to serve.

With the story of the (unsurprising) departure of Sam Raimi from the Spider-Man movie franchise and the subsequent reboot making it's way to the blogosphere a week ago. Many are left with the question, Who pissed off who? Let's take a closer look at the behind the scenes of the last Spider-Man movie. Sam Raimi himself said that he wanted TWO villains for Spider-Man 3, but he wanted the Sandman and The Vulture. Two villains that may not be the antitheses of Spidey but two villains that fit in with the overall arc that Raimi wanted. Everything was going well until Avi Arad stepped in and told him what the fans wanted. And they only wanted one thing: Venom. The symbiote costume could and would have work in the third film if Venom wasn't forced into the movie like skinny jeans on a fat girl.

Venom.

Instead what we got was Emo Parker (apparently Peter is such a good guy that the worst kind of asshole he can be is an emo one) an obviously rushed storyline where he becomes "bad". This so-called Emo Parker would have been handled much better if the concept had been allowed to play out for the majority of the film. Raimi could have taken a cue from Christopher Nolan and merely teased Venom as the villain for the now defunct fourth film. But alas, the fans wanted Venom and the fans were treated to the fecal hot tub that was Spider-Man 3. And because of that, and because of Sony Columbia's insistence to once again follow the fans, Mr Raimi had no choice but to leave the project. But hey, The fans just got Marc Webb, director of the 2009 favorite 500 Days of Summer and this. Aren't we lucky?

But it's not always the studio's fault. In 1999 a little movie known as Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace hit the big screen. And wow, if Spider-Man 3 was a fecal hot tub then this is a fecal hailstorm of 2012 proportions. George Lucas knew that he had a rabid fanbase and the 1997 re-release all but confirmed it. He had a tight grip on his sweaty, nerdy fans. But those fans were teenagers and adults, they knew too much. And the one demographic he hasn't really tapped was the children. The kids knew of star wars because of the toys. Yes, TOYS. Okay, maybe some were exposed to the original trilogy but still, they were kids. And he wanted to make his new trilogy accessible to that audience. So he did. In return, the older fans, those who have been loyal to him, those who followed him for 22 years were so joyfully rewarded with this.

Like the body and blood of Jesus Christ, only not.

Thankfully, Georgie Boy learned his lesson. But by the time the second film was out in theaters the fans took it with a grain of salt. The damage was done, The geek denial invested in the first film had taken it's toll and the second and third parts of the prequels were met with apprehension. Financially, the new trilogy was an astounding success, but the mythology had been tainted by a racist caricature, a whiny, emo (again?) Jedi prodigy and an internet meme, Okay so the third one wasn't his fault.

Surely by now we can safely say that fans aren't always right, So why do studios and directors cater to the fans? Directors may be on an altruistic path when they provide fan service. Like George Lucas, they could have merely wanted to reward an audience. But hey, not all good intentions fall on the greener grass. Money will always be a factor but I'm willing to assume that on a creative point of view, it will take a backseat to pleasing the fans. On the studio side we can always assume that it will always be about one thing and once again it's money. Promise the fans a favorite and they will flock to the cinemas. Studios are not willing to take that many risks, especially with established franchises. Spider-Man isn't the only suspect, James Bond, Batman and The X-Men are just a number of franchises ruined by demand. But studios technically aren't always the bad guys. Studios are a business and as a business they will need revenue to survive. In the end though, both directors and studios, painters and canvasses can rely on one thing. Fans = Profit.

Fox's Big Ass Gamble

2010-03-14T10:50:00.000-07:00

500 Million Dollars, that's the budget rumor spreading around the internet about James Cameron's new movie Avatar. Is it really that high? We'll never know since the studio hasn't and will probably never release an official tally. But to be fair, he has been working on this film for around 12-14 years so it could just be the sum total of the more than a decades work for good old Jim. Still, Fox would never grant him the initial 195 Million when they greenlit this non-sequel, non-franchise film a couple of years ago. But hey, that's Cameron for you, director of a movie that won 11 Oscars and not to mention the highest grossing film EVER. In other words, Fox's deus ex machina.

But still, it's a pretty big risk, especially in today's economic climate, which got me thinking, did Fox's other movies suffer from Avatar's massive budget? Sure X-Men Origins: Wolverine, among others were given over a hundred million. So what about their other films?

When you think about it, over the last 4 years, Fox has slid down the totem pole of movie studios. Thanks in no small part to the slow and painful degradation of quality in their films. Since 2006 a great number of their films have struggled to earn money. And if my memory (and wikipedia) serves me right, there have been only 2 recent films from that company that this writer genuinely liked, Horton Hears a Who and Taken (2009's best film in terms of sheer bad-assery), the latter of which they hugely failed to promote. And what about the licenses, Fox's last few adapted movies have been notoriously asstastic. Wolverine, Street Fighter and Dragonball are only the tip of the iceberg. Fox was lucky that they have the franchise name to back up those films.

It is my belief that Fox had been pooling their resources for James Cameron, he was a true visionary in making this film and he took his time with this one. He waited over a decade for the right technology to deliver his vision to the big screen. He didn't rush the film like Micheal Bay did with the 2nd Transformers movie (argh!) and he genuinely cared for this project like Neill Blomkamp and Peter Jackson did with District 9 (YEAH!)

And now, Fox and Cameron's gamble has payed off, as of Dec 28th, 10 days after it's release, boxofficemojo.com reports that Avatar has earned a massive $642,993,860 worldwide. Fox can finally catch their breathe and 2009 had it's big budget special effects bonanza that was actually worth watching (I hate you, Tranformers: ROTF). And be honest, Avatar did not put your ass in the cinema for its story. While the story may be decent and/or good it's basically a cautionary tale about colonialism i.e. Dances with Wolves, with Smurfs and robots.

AVATAR!

But after the gamble what now? Word around the grapevine is that the story arc is big enough for a trilogy. And with it's success at the moment it doesn't take a hardcore movie goer to predict that there will indeed be a trilogy. James Cameron's technology is already there, he may need to tweak a thing or two for the next one in the series but at least he wont be spending Zimbabwe's yearly budget again. So do they need another 500 million for that? District 9 proved that with a capable director and a passionate crew, 30 million can go a long way, but Cameron won't get that, of course he'll get way more, He's James Cameron dammit! And while Avatar will not sweep the Oscars like Titanic did, Fox has enough money and reason (and balls!) now to bankroll the 2nd film.

Wait, does this mean that we are about to experience another 4 years of asstastic 20th Century Fox movies? Lets hope not. Does Fox now realize that they can finally go back to quality film making? C'mon Fox, I used to love the films you release and since the James Cameron experiment worked like a charm we don't need to suffer anymore right? RIGHT?

Oh dear god, no...

The wild and wacky adventures of the Internet and Hollywood

2010-03-14T10:49:00.002-07:00

It's no real secret that the internet has changed a lot in today's world. And it will continue to do so.. long gone are the days of the static websites where you only get the news studios want to feed you. Now we can have a say in the industry. With the advent of Web 2.0, the internet has truly become a user community with the likes of facebook, youtube and twitter. Users now have a bigger voice that ever before and wannabe filmmakers, critics and bloggers (ME) have found the perfect medium to display their talents (ME). Print media is reserved for the more educated and trained writers of olde, but the internet changed all that. With almost instant film reviews and opinions popping up from every corner of the globe. The web has given everyone the chance to become a critic, and EVERYONE HAS BEEN ONE at one point or another.

And Hollywood has wised up. They know that the old business practices are slowly getting obsolete and they have to innovate to succeed. Case in point: Paranormal Activity. When this movie was completed in 2007 it lingered on for two years, touring small film festivals and the like until Paramount stepped in and released it (although in a limited capacity) in September 2009. And that is when the internet worked its magic. Soon after screenings, critics and fans alike started posting about this little film called Paranormal Activity. Movie websites posted reviews on their front page and twitter users began to see a new trending topic. Paramount then caught wind of this phenomena and then started posting web banners that urge fans to demand it in their local cinema.

Then Paramount hit paydirt.

The web banner only needed 1,000,000 demands for Paramount to give the film a wide release and sure enough, over a million people wanted to see it. That was their go signal. After the nationwide release this $15,000 film shot from #20 to #4 in the weekend box office and had a staggering 1,384% increase in its revenue. And in a feat rarely seen in the box office, Paranormal Activity rose through the charts in the weeks following its release thanks in no small part to the internet and how the users constantly tweeted, dugg or whatever that movie. True enough, Paranormal Activity became the first real internet sensation for the film industry.

So we see that the internet can make a film but can the internet break it?

Well, we haven't seen one movie that was totally destroyed by the internet community, but there have been several that were negatively affected by it. Perhaps the biggest internet casualty in recent memory was the infamous leaked workprint of X-men Origins: Wolverine (although i still maintain the belief that Fox was behind it all along). On March 31st 2009, torrent sites were flooded with links to an unfinished version of Wolverine, complete with stunt wires and all. To no one's surprised news of the existence of such a copy spread like wildfire.

And Fox was pissed, so much so that when Roger Friedman, a blogger on Fox's own 411 Blog posted a review of his illegal copy he was fired. Fox cooperated with the MPAA to find the uploader of the copy but it was too late. By the time of the films theatrical release it has been estimated that 4.5 million copies of the workprint have been illegally downloaded.

Studios have now become aware of the power of the Internet Press and are now trying their best to get into their good graces. When Harry Knowles started aintitcoolnews in 1996 he was just a disabled kid from Austin, Texas. And 13 years after, he has become sort of an internet authority when it comes to film news. Harry as well as other prominent internet critics have been flown to press junkets and world premieres (a privilege once reserved for the more "formal" print critics). With print media slowly dying a painful death, some studios have approached some of the more, shall we say, "eccentric" members of the internet press, as evidenced by the lack of a screening of GI Joe for the print critics, hoping that a favored screening for them will warrant the film some good reviews, and thankfully it got some good reviews.

So with the internet changing the way we see and think about movies. The studios have now reached a more dynamic relationship with us the audience. It is now up to them to either exploit or enrich this relationship with us. They know that we can shower them praise or vitriol almost instantly and it all rests on their shoulder if they want to give us better movies this time around.

Have I got a [decent] story for you...

2010-03-14T10:49:00.001-07:00

a word of warning before we begin, i could go on to spoiler territory as i am writing this one on a stream of consciousness...

Movies are about stories. Plain and simple. The main purpose of showing a film is to tell a story... and right now i dare anyone to tell me otherwise. Moving on...

I love a good story, everyone does and that story could be anything. It could be about love, tragedy, hidden treasures and maybe even about giant 50 foot robots fighting in the city (yes even that). We could believe anything with the right push, that's why some people believe in aliens. The imagination has no limit, no walls can put around creativity. What has limit though is the skill to translate what's inside the mind to paper.

In film, writers have this heavy burden of making us want to believe in their creations. And in fact, most of the time WE DO. Is it because we as humans are naturally gullible? I don't think so. I think its because we want to be sold on a certain illusion. We buy the belief that somewhere out there is our soulmate, that there could be a chest of gold buried beneath the sand. It's funny how we find our own forms of escape through someone else' thoughts, but it doesn't matter, we like that we do that. Don't be ashamed, everyone's doing it.

I hold firmly the belief that you could make any film good with the right story. I like to point out as Exhibit A: Spider-Man. When you think about the bare bones of that movie, you come to the conclusion of "How Silly is that?" Surely they can't expect us to buy the idea of a man in tights swing around the city right? Well i guess over $800 Million at the worldwide box office says we did. Sure the Spider-Man title was good enough to stand on its own legs. But Sony/Columbia didn't just leave it at that, they wanted a film that wouldn't leave a bad taste in your mouth *ahem* Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen *ahem*. The writing in the first as well as the second movie was tight. We sympathized for Peter Parker, we felt for him when he blamed himself for the death of his uncle. And because of the storytelling we cheered when he saved the day and got the girl of his dreams. At least i know i did.

But it's not limited to the fantastic where good writing is needed. In 2007 P.T. Anderson's "There Will Be Blood" came out (which, by the way is my favorite movie). It's not a film about monsters and serial killers, instead it's about Daniel Plainview, an oil magnate in the late 19th century. Far from a historical piece, There Will Be Blood is triumphant in its portrayal of a two men bent on getting money through what they do best. And because of how it is written i do not find it hard to believe that these types of people can exist, either in their own time or in the modern world.

You see, good screen-writing is the result of passion and dedication. Everyone can write a script but not everyone can write a magnum opus. A random person you pick out of a crowd will write a screenplay given the proper incentive but i know for sure that 90% of what comes out of the script will be a goulash of bullshit people will be doing their best to hold in their vitriol towards the poor soul given the task of writing something meaningful. Writing is not about shock value or dramatic twists, it's about development, how something gets from point A to point B. All the while maintaining some sort of integrity along the way.

And that my friends brings us to Exhibit B: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The people i have talked to know that i dislike this movie. Keep in mind "Dislike" not hate or abhor. The movie was ok with it's set pieces but what it lacked in storytelling, it lacked terribly. Granted, Transformers II was a victim of the Writer's Strike of 2008 and if you can't picture that, imagine a baby on its way to being aborted but then at the last minute the mother decides not to. Imagine how ugly that baby would be. That was the tragedy that was Transformers II. I was sold on the first movie. I really was, i actually thought the story was ok enough to tide me over two hours of film. But the second one? oh my did that suck. Upon watching that movie i honestly had the impression that Micheal Bay and the writers were making things up as they go along. They had every chance to delay production to clear up some loopholes storywise but greed on someone or something's part decided to keep the movie churning.

Only a Prime could kill a Prime? then how can Optimus die at the hands of a decepticon?

Wow, was that movie a disaster. This is not the fanboy in me nitpicking. It's that person inside me looking for some common sense (and he barely lets his presence be felt) I will not take away the fact that the movie grossed over $800 Million worldwide, but did it deserve it? No. It was just lucky enough to be supported by good special effects and well, Megan Fox, there's no denying she put a lot of testosterone driven butts in the cinema. But sadly, that's all that movie is going to be remembered for. Nothing more than steel, boobs and ass.

So i guess that is how it is. You want to make money? Show some boobies. But if you want to make history, Tell a damn good story.

Don't be hatin' on sparkling vampire movies (among other things)

2010-03-14T10:48:00.001-07:00

I'm sure that the majority of the population has heard of something called The Twilight Saga. You know, that series of novels about sparkling forest vampires? Anyway, if you haven't, I pity you, or maybe not.

Next Friday will see the premiere of the film adaptation of the second book of the series, New Moon, and my oh my, have i heard a ton of backlash about it. But what surprises me is that a majority of said backlash comes from people who haven't read the book nor seen the movie. That's right, Twilight as it appears, was pre-programmed for disdain. And as we all know, vampire fanboys generally frown upon vampires of the sparkly kind and thus have subsequently deemed the movie to be cringe-worthy. This is exactly what drove me to see the first film. YES, i have seen Twilight and i will not deny that fact. I was unfortunate (or stupid) enough to see Edward Cullen sparkle in the forest more like a fairy than a vampire.

And now you will share my pain.

But I gave it a chance. Like some of the movies i have seen, i went into it knowing absolutely nothing and the sparkling aspect was actually quite a shock to me. But i stood my ground like Thomas Baker and regrettably saw two hours of my life wasted on pale skinned thunder-baseball players. Yes, that's actually comparable to my body getting sprayed with bullets. And as if it wasn't painfully obvious to you, the reader, I did not like the film and watching it was a risk i took. But knowing that some of my cinematic risks have payed off well (The Boondock Saints, Ed Wood and Adventureland to name a few) i still took it. Sadly enough, Twilight is not one of them.

For me, Twilight is a timely example of a movie that get's more hatred than it deserves. True that it's not that good of a film, but let's be honest, people have been writing it off not because of how bad it actually is, but by how bad they want it to be.Because every so often we get those kinds of movies, i.e. Titanic.

But what if it's actually good? What if New Moon is this year's Definitely Maybe? Ok, that's an exaggeration, my point being that I myself, wrote off Definitely Maybe because i am not a big fan of romantic films. But when i saw it, i loved it. And that is the great thing about cinema, movies are accessible to everyone and everyone will find something they love. Now granted, Twilight isn't one of mine, but that doesn't mean that i will have a predisposition to hate New Moon. I definitely will have some doubts and apprehension about it but I WILL WATCH IT (and hopefully not regret it, that's still two hours i wont ever get back).

I'll probably be watching it on DVD though.

But still, I never know what i may find in that film when i do get the chance to see it. Maybe the vampire fan in me will finally accept that some of them can sparkle? No one knows for sure what sort of treasure could be found in New Moon, for there will always be something good in a movie (unless it's called Meet the Spartans). And if it's actually good, there will be no shame in liking this glisten-in-the-sun vampire movie. Some fanboys may cry foul on that, but remember, vampires were NOT originally vulnerable to sunlight until Nosferatu came along.

And as for guys, Summit Entertainment knows that you will avoid this film at all cost. They're sure of it. That's why they came up with a brilliant marketing move, and that is to release it on a Friday, a DATE NIGHT, when boyfriends will be dragged by their girlfriends to watch the movie. That is a surefire way to ensure huge opening day ticket sales and the number one spot at the weekend box office. So like it or not, if you have a girlfriend or at least need to get laid, you are definitely going to see this movie.

Based Upon the remake of the Novel by...

2010-03-14T10:45:00.000-07:00

Hollywood is and always will be a goldmine of ideas, everyday, thousands of new concepts are hatched and yet only a select few are sustained. You see, although being that goldmine of ideas, Hollywood, or at least most of the major studios are not risk takers. They see a formula that works and they stick to it. It’s a safe business practice and Hollywood is as much a business as Microsoft. That being said, I for one could not blame the entertainment industry for playing it safe.

Hollywood currently has three safety nets, the sequel, the adaptation and the reboot.

It is the latter two which we are going to talk about today. During the last few years we saw the likes of Casino Royale, Spider-Man and Twilight. This 2009 we are seeing Watchmen, Friday the 13^th and Where the Wild Things Are, to name a few. And as reports are coming in from around the internet, these adaptations will be continually coming our way in the foreseeable future.

So what is it about these adaptations and reboots that get people so stirred up? Does the existence of these films soil the image of their original incarnations?

Among these two fail-safes, the reboot has somewhat been free from the wrath of fanboys (barring some pockets of resistance here and there). But still, generally unscathed. Let’s take a look at two big reboots over the last four years, Batman Begins and Casino Royale. These two movies have suffered from franchises that have merely become the afterglow of their former glories. The Batman and James Bond films have degenerated into two hours that were nothing more than fan service, complete with clichés, gratuitous gadgets and cookie-cutter villains. Even the most ardent of fans have given in and said “we need something new”. In fact studios have still been pushing crazy concepts and one-shot ideas until someone smacked them on their heads and said let’s start from scratch. This smack signaled the calling of Chris Nolan and Martin Campbell, these two directors reinvigorated their respective franchises and opened them up to legions of new fans. Batman has never been darker and scarier and James Bond has never been more dangerous and sexier. And the old fans gobbled them up like brains in zombie holocaust. So much so that the highly anticipated sequels to Batman Begins and Casino Royale were even in the top 10 highest grossing films of 2008. A feat which the last two films of those franchises before the reboot weren’t able to achieve.

The Dark Knight if Warner didn't reboot Batman in 1989

So reboots, when done at the right time or at least with the right idea can save a film. That is a belief that I strongly uphold. Go ahead, re imagine those films, make them relevant to MODERN society. Without the continuous development of ideas we still would have painfully slow internet access or black and white TV’s. Innovation is a key component of survival, true that I may be over-exaggerating when I compare cinema to survival, but I’m sure you get the point.

And now I present to you the other hot topic, adaptations. In March of this year a movie called Watchmen hit the theaters. The critics saw it as an ok movie, but the fans, oh my god did the fans shit on this movie. Perhaps no other movie this year polarized the casual movie goer and the fans so much. I myself thought the movie to be ok, it was boring at times but I felt that it sent the message loud and clear. The fans however felt that this movie was a travesty, a bastard child of a sleazy Hollywood mogul and the original piece where it came from. But that is where the problem lies. Those fanboys often fall into the trap of comparing the movie to the source material.

They should always remember that the movie is a SEPARATE entity from the original. The people who have been reading this book were very vocal about their disdain for the movie and I can’t get mad at them, after all it is their opinion. But what these people forget all too many times is the fact that the original is still there. It is still untainted by the lovechild. It’s not at all like that since the movie came out the source material magically disappeared off the face of the earth. If you don’t like the movie then fine, get your comic book, sit down and read it. Adaptations are well and good if they are complemented by equally distinguished writing and direction. Two good examples of that are Fight Club and Iron Man. These movies are based upon something else but what this had as compared to Watchmen was a director who knew what he was doing and a writer passionate enough about the source material. That is another problem with the adaptation and certainly it became the problem of Batman and Robin the last film in the series before Batman Begins. These adaptations have a huge fan-base and the studio execs know that well enough to exploit the names of these titles for profit (I’m looking at you Fox). What we have here is the fear of fanboys that their beloved properties will be raped by the higher ups from Hollywood, see: Dragon Ball Evolution. That movie had very little semblance to the source material and wash nothing but a cash cow for FOX. Now I sympathize with the fans, surely enough if someone makes a shit-turd of a movie from Ed Brubaker’s Criminal I would not like it maybe I would abhor it, but I would definitely cry about it. Because I know for damn sure that I will always have the original in my mind and the movie will just drift away in my memories.

~~Not~~ Pictured: Akira Toriyama's dignity

Please think about the possibilities when something is adapted to film. Fight Club was a little known book when it was released but when the movie came out the book gained popularity. And surely enough Chuck Palahniuk got another deal from a studio. And what was even amazing was that it had a very different ending from the book, it created a new identity, separate from the book it was based upon. But did people care that much? No. Why? Simply put, the movie was amazing. So it could happen right? Something could be taken and made better, it could be improved and in some cases surpass the original. All that is needed is patience and an open mind. The next Watchmen disaster is probably on the way right now, but we got to realize that there will always be another Fight Club waiting in the wings.

You are not required to love a masterpiece

2010-03-14T10:42:00.000-07:00

Over the past few months, upon going to forum after forum of movie sites i found a ton of scathing comments and reviews about a film i dearly love. The Boondock Saints. This little known film by little known director Troy Duffy was on point to be released in theaters in 1999 when the Columbine massacre happened. This, along with Mr. Duffy's alleged doucheism, severely derailed the film's momentum and The Boondock Saints received only a limited release on American soil.

Home video though is an entirely different story. Having been released numerous times on DVD, the film slowly gained a cult following and in now considered a cult classic. That is how i got hold of this film, i have heard people talking about this movie and it piqued my curiosity.

Surely enough a couple of nights ago i sat down, laid back and watched it.

And i was blown away. Granted, The Boondock Saints was never the Citizen Kane of our time nor did i expect it to be. I wanted a good action film. And that is what i got.

Therein lies the problem.

The movie got a ton of bad reviews and right now it scores a 17% rating on rottentomatoes.com, even i dont have to tell you that sucks. But I LOVE THAT FILM, i highly encourage you to watch it. I love that film the same way i love Crank: High Voltage. Those two movies delivered on something they promised: Action. There are certain types of film that require an audience to suspend their disbelief and if you come in on this film with an open mind or at least a "hell yeah" mentality you will agree with me that this film is good.

So why all the hate? If you took some time to view the imdb boards of the movie, you will see hate posts after hate posts. And i honestly was shocked to see that, but then i looked closer. I noticed that this film did not receive to much love because of its status. I find no problem with people voicing out their opinions (surprise, surprise.. thats what im doing now) but c'mon, loving movies is strictly matter of preference. People love to shit on this film because it's become a cult classic, a cult classic that doesn't have any underlying philosophical struggle and it sure as hell is not an avant garde piece of film-making.

This is what annoys me about this indie/underground/hipster whatever culture. These people go out of their way and try to find art in everything. Not everything has to be deep and philosophical. It just needs to be real. No more of that pretentious crap that these people feed upon. It certainly wasn't made to be an introspective journey into the human psyche. Its about two brothers killing bad guys. That's it. Its a bad movie, yes, the story is flat and cliche but is it entertaining? YES Did it deliver on good action? YES. Did it need an internal struggle between the forces of good and evil in a man's soul? NO. And guess what? It didn't have any.

It's a cult classic sure, but it only became that way because it was a victim of its time and ALLEGEDLY because of Troy Duffy's self destructive ego ( I have not yet seen Overnight, the documentary about Mr. Duffy and the creation of this film to know the facts behind Troy Duffy.) But WHAT IF Columbine never happened, what if this film got released in theaters on time. I bet that it would have made more money that it earned but it would definitely not be on my top 10 list. Believe you me, should things have gone right for this film in 1999, this would be remembered only as a mindless action movie and Troy Duffy would fade into obscurity within two years. This movie received some blessings in disguise. An unexpected classic and an entertaining film. Not the best but it's one of my favorites.