Thursday, July 28, 2011

G.I. Joke

Hollywood hates us.

That's the only explanation I can come up with when I hear that there's going to be a sequel to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Yep, that's right, someone at Paramount decided that they hadn't tarnished our childhood memories quite enough and that a sequel to 2009's schlock-fest was in order.

As much as I've come to accept the fact that Hollywood will continue to piss all over beloved childhood memories of great, established, franchises, this still sits wrong with me.

I know why too: It's such a blatant slap in the face to those of us that grew up with G.I Joe.  It's easy to dismiss the first movie as a simple misstep of filmmaking.  It happens.

Know what doesn't just happen?  Terrible sequels.

I know people are probably reading this and saying: "How can you judge the movie before it's even made?"

Easy.  I'm a pretentious film-snob and I am also capable of reading!

Seriously.  Most of the original cast isn't even coming back!  Not that they'll be missed, but when I see that only four or five members of an "ensemble cast" (I guess we can call it that) are coming back, that's a red flag!

Not even Marlon Wayans is coming back.  If a Wayans brother abandons ship, you know there's something bad on the horizon.

I loved your work in
'Race to Witch Mountain'...
Oh, but no worries, because we've replaced Wayans with The Rock.  Yep, Dwayne Johnson himself will be portraying 'Roadblock.'  I don't even dislike Dwayne Johnson, but let's face facts: He hasn't had a great track record of hit movies.

But you know what?  That still isn't the part that scares me.

What scares me is the fact that they've replaced Stephen Sommers, the man who directed The Rise of Cobra, with Jon Chu.

Now, most people may not be familiar with Mr. Chu, so I'll give you a  bit of his film making history.

Jon Chu really hit it big with another Channing Tatum vehicle: Step-Up 2!  He followed that up with Step-Up 3D, and broadened his horizons when he worked as a writer/director on the hit show The LXD: The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers.

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

But have no fear, for Jon Chu is no one-trick-pony.  His most recent work was directing a documentary that actually saw a theatrical release.

What documentary was that?

Well, it was Justin Beiber: Never Say Never, of course!

Because when I ask myself questions like: "Who should be directing a live-action adaptation of such a beloved action franchise?  Who best to recover from The Rise of Cobra and turn G.I. Joe into the Real American Hero he's supposed to be?  What man is up to this job?"

I immediately think of the guy who directed such timeless classics like Step-Up 3D.

I think I've made my point.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Comic Book Movies: I Don't Want A Carbon-Copy!

Let's get something straight:

Taking a comic-book and making an almost exact replica for screen is like communism;  It might make sense on paper, but in practice it sucks.

Now, I'm writing this article because over the next few articles I'm going to be talking quite a bit about comic-book adaptations.  I will be throwing out the term 'complete faithfulness' a whole lot.

What do I mean by 'complete faithfulness'?  I'm glad you asked!

Would this have made Spider-Man any better a movie?
When I say 'complete faithfulness' I'm talking about taking a concept from a comic and making an almost exact carbon-copy for the film adaptation.  Examples would be things along the lines of Wolverine's costume.  Yes, there were people that, when X-Men came out in 2000, were actually pissed that Wolverine wasn't wearing his classic yellow costume from the comics.  Another example might be Spider-Man's web-shooting ability.  For those unfamiliar, in the comic-books, Spider-Man doesn't shoot webbing from his own wrist like he did in the movies, he actually wears a piece of equipment on his arm that shoots the web out for him.  These would be examples of what I mean by 'complete faithfulness'.

My position on issues like these tend to make me rather unpopular with the hardcore comic-book fanboys of the world.  I am a member of the camp that claims that the movies need to be looked at as their own entities, and shouldn't be held to such constraints.

...That's not Deadpool
However, that's not to say that I'm in support of changing the core of a character.  There are film-makers out there that change every aspect of a character until it no longer resembles it's source material.  When that happens we get crap like Baraka-pool, and nobody wants to see a travesty like that happen again.  It may just be the greatest bastardization of a character in film history.

There's a fine line that must often be walked.

Let me walk you, dear reader, through one of the more memorable debates I've witnessed.

This isn't a debate that I had myself, but actually a debate that a friend of mine got into.  Oddly enough, that's the friend I am usually debating against.

At the surface, this may seem like a change to the core of the character.  I mean, Peter Parker has always been a little nerdy white boy from Queens, right?  While this may be true, it isn't the core of the character.  His race has nothing to do with how the character acts, or why he decides to fight crime as the web-slinger Spider-Man.  Peter Parker, as a character, was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962.  To have a Black super-hero at that point in time was not only unheard of, but would have been career suicide.  You don't have to like it, I certainly don't, but that's just the way it was.  The core theme of Spider-Man is 'with great power comes great responsibility.'  As long as he is a nerd who gets bitten by a radioactive spider and lives life by that credo, the core of the character is still there.

The man who could've been Spider-Man
It's no secret that I'm not a supporter of the Spider-Man reboot.  There are plenty of things about that project that I have issues with.  However, the only thing that did have me excited about the film was that they were considering the young, and talented, Donald Glover (a self-professed nerd) for the eponymous role of Spider-Man.  To me, this was a healthy change.  Not only would this help to set the new movie apart from Raimi's movies, but also it would just be an interesting change.  Of course, as most of us probably are aware, Glover didn't get the role.

I would have been curious to see who they got to play Peter's dear Uncle Ben.

For those who are still skeptical as to whether or not the Community star could have pulled off the required level of 'nerdosity' for Peter Parker, go check out the movie Mystery Team.  I do have to say, after seeing The Social Network, I'm confidant that Andrew Garfield will do a fine job in the role.  I just don't like the fact that their rebooting it on principle.

So what is it that I'm really trying to say?  That there's a very fine line that film-makers must walk when adapting a comic-book (or any other source material, really) for film.  I can't say that enough.

Look at some of the more successful superhero movies over the past few years; They've remained faithful to the character, but they weren't afraid to change aspects about the character to serve the film.  Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Nolan's Batman pictures: These are great examples of what a comic-book adaption can, and should, be.

So consider this a brief (if a bit disjointed) primer for the articles to come.

I'm sure I'll be pissing at least a few people off with my upcoming explanation of why Fantastic Four wasn't as bad a movie as you might think.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

A Complete Reboot (We're Going Darker This Time)

Alright friends and fellows, I have to apologize again.


For I have taken another leave of absence from the internets, more specifically, writing on the internets.  Why have I done such a horrendous thing?  Well, to be honest, real life decided to get in the way again.

Now, I understand that a lot of professional bloggers out there would claim that it's not really an excuse.

They're wrong.  Some good things have happened in my real life, as well as some unfortunate things.  Such is life.

However I have been thinking about the blog though!  Fret not, for I did not forget you!

In fact, I made a really big decision about this blog.

You see, there's a lot going on in Hollywood at any one time, and when I say 'a lot' I mean a ridiculous number of things.  Now, when I started this blog I was a bit lofty in my ambitions; I hoped to be able to write stories on all sorts of movies, doing reviews, previews, discussions, so on and so forth.

That's a crap ton of work for one guy who's trying to balance two jobs, college coursework, and all the other important things that make up my life.

For that reason, I have decided to completely change the format of the blog.  In a lot of ways, the blog will not be changing all that much, but in one very big way it's going to change.  In a sense, you could think of it as a 'blog reboot.'

Up until this time my stories and articles have been fairly unfocused.  This isn't what I want to write, and I don't think it's what most of you want to be reading.

From this point on the main focus of the blog will be bad movies.  Not just in a broad stroke sense though, but rather why the movies are bad (or at least not what they could have been) and what could have been done to make them better.

This will allow me to better utilize my knowledge and apply it to the blog and, frankly, I think will make for a better reading experience for you guys.

I hope that you guys will respond well to this change and I look forward to your feedback.