Mendelson's Memos

Friday, August 5, 2011

Not sloppy seconds or hand-me-downs, but a new myth for the current generation. Why The Hunger Games film franchise matters...

Arguably the most surprising bit of news dropped yesterday was the admission that Steven Soderbergh would be performing duties as the second-unit director for Gary Ross's The Hunger Games. Even with the friendship that the two of them apparently share (The Playlist goes into details), it is a little unexpected for someone of Soderbergh's stature to agree to do second-unit work, on someone else's big-budget young-adult literature adaptation no less. But that news is merely a segue-way into why the series is indeed far more important than we realize to the long-term health of the industry. The film, due to be released on March 23rd of next year, is an adaptation of the first of three books detailing a futuristic wasteland where teenagers are forced to fight to the death on a reality TV show as a form of tribune to the society overlords. Yes, this is not unlike Battle Royale, which is an absolutely terrific action film/social satire from Japan that basically has the same general premise (it's based on a book and a comic book as well). Having said that, I'll give author Suzanne Collins the benefit of the doubt that she's never seen the 2000 release, as it's never been officially released in theaters or DVD in America. But the film being released in March, which will theoretically spawn two more in the next several years, is indeed a vital and important one for reasons unrelated to its premise.

Back in my day, we had to wait for the first trailer to see what the new Bat-villains actually looked like! There are other unofficial photos out there that basically show the same image from a sideways angle (with Hathaway's stunt woman), but I think I'll still with the legit stuff. Anyway, today is day two of Warner Bros. tries to beat the paparazzi to the punch. The costume is obviously a hybrid of the Dwayne Cooke/Ed Brubaker outfit (the tactical aspects, the goggles) along with a bit from the 1960s Batman show (the free-flowing hair which reaches just below the shoulders ala Julie Newmar). I have no real commentary on the outfit. It looks fine and it's obvious that Nolan and company were going for something that would actually make sense in battle than something that would make a pinup poster. I will say that not even Anne Hathaway wrapped in tight black leather can make that Bat-Pod any less ridiculous looking. I'm sorry, I've felt this way for three years, but that is an absolutely silly looking vehicle. The fact that it was a central part of the ad campaign last time around is a near-joke. Like the main theatrical one-sheet for The Dark Knight, the center of attention in this image is not the character being highlighted but a giant wheel.

How to save the Green Lantern film franchise WITHOUT a reboot...

Word has come down from Warner Bros. that the studio is indeed considering 'rebooting' the Green Lantern franchise after one whiff. The buzz words are 'dark and edgy', as if every comic book adaptation needs to be as grim as The Dark Knight and/or The Crow. There is in fact an easy way to keep the franchise alive without the dreaded reboot, without scrapping what's already come. See, the Green Lantern franchise is unique, and it is precicely that uniqueness that can allow it to start from scratch without actually starting from scratch. There is only one Superman, a young man from Krypton named Clark Kent. And, as far as film fans know, there is only one Spider-Man, Peter Parker (apologies to Miles Morales, who may yet do the mantle proud). But there are about 7,200 different Green Lanterns who patrol the various quadrants of the galaxy. There is no law saying that a new Green Lantern adventure has to focus on Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds). By simply telling the story of a different Green Lantern, Warner and DC Comics has the freedom to tell any kind of Green Lantern tale they wish without tossing out the first film.

It's so nice to see these things first as they were intended to be seen, as opposed to some grainy photos shot by paparazzi or what-not... Anyway, it's obvious that Warner Bros. is keen to reassure fans that this Superman is more of a bad-ass than the previous big-screen incarnations. We're looking at something less like Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh and more like Tim Daly/George Newell from Superman: the Animated Series and Justice League. I haven't written much about the film, as I did not have time to write a blurb every time a piece of high-profile casting was announced. Unlike most people, I really liked Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch, so I'm actually expecting this to be a good movie. Even if you don't like his last film, the action scenes were unarguably incredible and just the sort of large-scale heroics we want to see in a big-budget Superman picture. Furthermore, from what little we know about the story, they seem to be taking chunks from Superman: Birthright, which is EXACTLY what I suggested they do early last year when this project was announced.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Hypocrisy Alert! Why I love the new Looney Tunes Show (because it's great!).

I know, I know... I've spent the last month making various criticisms and rants about the deluge of reboots and remakes and rebirths of old properties arguably to cash in on nostalgia, Hell, last week, I called for the box office failure of The Amazing Spider-Man, a film I haven't seen and may enjoy, purely because of my displeasure in how it was created. So, call me a hypocrite, but I must speak the truth. Cartoon Network has just finished their first 13-episode run of the new Looney Tunes show. It is indeed a reboot of sorts, an attempt by Warner Bros. to reintroduce the classic characters to younger audiences and keep the brand alive. It is arguably a clear-as-day example of just the kind of brand recycling that I often complain about, a naked attempt to get our kids hooked on the properties of yesteryear instead of giving them icons of their own. And yet, by god, I absolutely love it. As a standalone television show, it is an unmitigated triumph on every plausible level.

This is one of a handful of essays that will be dealing with the various trends that were kicked off during the 2001 calendar year, and how they still resonate today.

At the time, the term 're-imagining' was ridiculed and mocked in the entertainment press. 20th Century Fox, Tim Burton, and those involved with the 2001 redo of Planet of the Apes refused to call it a remake, instead calling it a re-imagining of the classic 1968 sci-fi adventure that itself was a groundbreaking venture in several important ways (it was the first ongoing continuity-laden franchise from a major studio, the first sci-fi franchise, the first to do an 'origin' story, the first prequel, etc). While the film was massively successful, the critical aftertaste (read - mixed/negative reviews quickly turned into general dissatisfaction) caused Fox to do, what is now a rare thing. They quit while they were ahead. They took their $362 million in worldwide grosses (off a $100 million budget) and closed shop on the Planet of the Apes franchise. Despite a near-record opening weekend ($69 million) and a $180 million domestic gross, Burton was openly annoyed at the final result (it was among the first films to earn Fox a reputation as a micro manager among the big studios) and vowed not to return for a sequel. Audiences too didn't care for the somewhat flat narrative, the blank-slate Mark Wahlberg performance, or the seemingly arbitrary shock ending. Anyway, the film was a smash hit, but it was a classic quick-kill blockbuster that closed the book on the franchise until this very week, when 20th Century Fox is releasing Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Positioned as part-prequel, part quasi-remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, the film is indeed a reboot of the beloved franchise. Because reboots are all the rage now...

The problem isn't that the new Ultimate Spider-Man is Black/Hispanic. The problem is that Peter Parker had to die to make it happen.

The Ultimate line, from the beginning around ten years ago, was a way for writers and creators to take the classic Marvel characters and retell their stories in a way that was unchained from the decades of continuity and was arguably more realistic and level-headed. From The Ultimates that presented our dear Avengers as a bunch of dysfunctional nutcases to an X-Men mythology that introduced Wolverine as Magneto's assassin, the alternate universe was a chance to try something different without disregarding the narratives and continuity that had been built up since 1962. So it comes as no surprise that the Ultimate line would offer a replacement Spider-Man, one who is in fact a mixed-race teen rather than the traditional lily-white nerd from Brooklyn. Of course, the official announcement today has set off the various criticisms, some of it rooted in racism, some of it merely rooted in the general fanboy whining whenever something is done differently than it was before (see - Sam Raimi's organic web shooters, the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman, etc). Overall, a racial minority, mixed-race no-less, taking over the cowl of Spider-Man in what is as much a mainstream Spider-Man comic book as the traditional 616 universe is an obvious sign of progress and should be taken as such. My problem isn't with Miles Morales becoming the new Spider-Man. No, my problem is that Peter Parker had to die for it to happen.

Stupid, Crazy Love
2011
117 minutes
rated PG-13

Stupid, Crazy Love is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Despite its pedigreed cast and the directing team of Dan Fogelman and John Requa (the very good I Love You Phillip Morris), Stupid, Crazy Love is written and performed like a sub-par sitcom. Despite its promise of adult comedy and genuine insight into love, family, and relationships, it comes off as a shockingly moronic and simplistic fable penned by people who apparently have no experience with real relationships. Every moment of genuine pathos and earned drama is followed or undercut by a ghastly contrivance. It treats women solely as conquests, either as casual one-off hook-ups or as prizes to be won. In terms of teaching its audience how how to deal with the people in our lives, it is far more insidious than the Twilight films, since the supernatural romance is hardly subtle about its disconcerting undertones. Like the loathsome Enchanted, Crazy, Stupid Love hides its regressive and boneheaded notions of love and romance under a guise of progressive maturity and thoughtfulness. I do not yet know whether it is the worst film of 2011. But it surely contains more awful moments than any film I've seen this year.