I like to make it pretty clear how I feel about reboots(which is that I don't think much of them at all), but I don't like to let aesthetics ruin a movie for me. And I have a feeling Terminator Genisys is going to be its own new series, or at least that seems to be the idea. Like it or not, the dang movie happened and can't just unhappen so whatever they've done to the Terminator timeline is done. But it got me thinking.
Everyone knows The Terminator has always had impossible timeloop problems which I like to refer to as "The Terminator Conundrum". Namely, How can Kyle be John's dad if John sent him back in time, et cetera. You know what I'm talking about unless you haven't seen The Terminator in which case, what have you been doing with your life? Of course, the easy answer is "dude, it's a movie, don't think about it too hard" or if you prefer, Dr Who's "wibbly wobbly timey wimey" copout works here, too. But maybe there's a way it can make sense.
Alternate timelines always make things tricky, but the main thing we have to keep in mind is that we are dealing with a reality in which time travel exists, obviously. And if there's one thing I've learned about time travel from the movies, it's that it's just generally a BAD IDEA. Nothing good ever comes of it because once you start interfering with events which have already taken place, you change the way events unfold. Something that's always bothered me about that is if you change events, it seems you wouldn't know the difference because then things happen differently and that's where it gets weird. For example, in Back To The Future, why does Marty McFly's brother start to disappear from the photo? Or more importantly, why does he notice? You'd think he would just never remember having ever had a brother, right? Well, it's a good thing I'm talking about Terminator and not Back to the Future because that would probably be a lot more difficult to explain.
So let me break it down the best I can. When you send people back in time, you just proceed with business as usual, I guess. That includes the people who have gone back in time, except now their business happens at an earlier point in history but for them, it's still a straight line going forward. But when you change things, they happen differently but still follow the same course of time up to the point at which the time travelling happens. So new timelines must be created. The real good question is what happens to the original timeline and everyone in it? Maybe nothing. Does that mean there's an alternate universe that occupies the exact same space as the one we're in? Go ask Michio Kaku, that's a bit too sciency for my little brain to handle
There must have been an original timeline in which time travel didn't exist until the time of its invention and use. That means a lot of things could have happened differently but none of us would know the difference.
Big question: was Kyle Reese always John Conner's father?
So what if he wasn't? That just means that there was some other guy who had sex with Sarah Conner and they had John who grew up to be the leader of a resistance against the machines. Now the machines know thier number is up and the fleshy humans are going to win, so what better strategy than to invent a time machine to stop the human leader from being born?
So...
Timeline 1-
-Sarah meets John's dad and they have sex and perhaps live happily ever after. At least until the machines launch nukes at Russia and all that other stuff happens. Maybe he was never important enough for the machines to know who he was or care, or maybe he wasn't really in the picture much to begin with. Either way, he's not relevant as far as we know.
-Skynet does its Skynetting and the war against the machines happens. The machines realize they are losing to the human resistance because of some asshole named John Conner. Now, Skynet would have probably had access to a lot of public records and other useful information and may have been able to determine the exact date of John's conception(or at least pretty close). Since their plan was just to eradicate John Conner from existence, it probably makes sense to a machine to go to the very beginning of his life and just stop it from happening. Problem solved.
[This means it's possible that Sarah might have conceved John that very night on which Terminator 1 takes place if the dang T800 hadn't showed up and cockblocked her. Or maybe the morning after, who knows?]
-John finds the time machine and figures out about the plot to send the Terminator back in time to kill Sarah. He presses redial and selects Kyle Reese to go save his mother for no particular reason but he happens to be standing there and also has a picture of John's mom for some reason(I'm sure porn was probably scarce at that point so that's a bit awkward).
[If I remember correctly, Kyle has the polaroid of Sarah with him in Genisys even though it was shown burning in Terminator 1. Alternate timelines, bro. But it may be a clue as to where and when in the time continuum Genisys takes place. Or maybe the director is just an idiot]
Then they all celebrate the victory over the machines and it doesn't really matter for them if the plot to kill Sarah Conner is successful or not because now we're in...
Timeline 2-
Terminator shows up and tries to kill Sarah which already changes events so that she might not have ever had John anyway since who wants to have a kid when killer robots are coming from the future to kill you? But they're machines, so they probably didn't think of that. So what happens instead is Kyle Reese fucks Sarah(ok fine, he makes love to her) then John happens and now he's Kyle Reese's son which may possibly be an upgrade. But more importantly, now Sarah knows how important it is that she has this baby because he will one day lead us against the machines. Plus now he's going to be prepared to fight the machines and lead the resistance. So it seems the machines just keep making their own enemy more difficult to kill. Nice going, machines.
-The same things happen. Skynet is built and launches missiles, et cetera, the humans fight and are winning the war again. Since they're machines, it stands to reason that they would come to the same conclusions and have the idea to build a time machine and send a Terminator back in time to eliminate their enemy. As previously mentioned, Skynet most likely has access to public records and other useful information. It's not unlikely that they could have deduced from police and news reports about the events of Terminator 1(also knowing they just invented time travel) that they had already tried this. Since there is still a John Conner and a human resistance, obviously the plan failed, so they change the details. They upgrade to the T1000 and send him instead. It's possible they even came up the idea for the T1000 because the resistance was more prepared and efficient at destroying their earlier models, given that John would have had foreknowledge of their existence and what it takes to destroy them. So making your enemy better goes both ways.
-John Conner knows a human is no match for a T1000, or maybe now he knows Kyle Reese is his dad and doesn't want to send him back in time to die. But then he wouldn't be born, right? But he was already born so it doesn't actually matter[Did she ever actually tell him about his dad?]. Instead, he finds a perfectly good T800 which is no longer under Skynet's control since Skynet has assumably been destroyed or deactivated. He programs the Terminator to go back and protect his younger self from the T1000, hits redial on the time machine, then pops the cork on the champagne to celebrate the victory all over again. Although for him, it's the first time this has happened.
[Conjecture: The T800 may have at one point been part of the plan until Skynet decided to upgrade to the T1000 and then set it aside. So it's not inconceivable that the Terminator in T2 is actually the exact same one from Terminator 1 but reprogrammed]
Timeline 3, starting from 1995-
-T1000 goes back to 1995 to kill John Conner. They may have chosen this particular date because they knew that Sarah was in the mental institution and therefore unable to protect John from Terminators. Then the Austrian model shows up and everything gets awesome.
-John, Sarah, and the T800 try to stop Miles Dyson from creating Skynet and destroy as much stuff as they can to prevent Judgement Day. Miles Dyson also dies, so we're meant to assume Skynet doesn't get created. But we are wrong.
Somebody else continues Dyson's work and creates Skynet, but it happens differently and probably later so the date of Judgement day is changed.
-The same events occur including the machines having the idea to invent a time machine and also figuring out that it isn't the first time that's happened. Maybe instead of sending the T1000, they create the TX and send it to the time just before Judgement Day to make sure John doesn't survive. I suppose after that, there wouldn't be much point in time travelling to kill John since they were already sending Terminators to kill him in their present.
[I kind of get lost here, but I always thought t3 was a bit superfluous anyway]
So basically, every time there's a Terminator movie, a new timeline is created except with Terminator: Salvation since there is no time travel. But at some point in Terminator Genisys, A Terminator is sent all the way back to Sarah's childhood which begins an entirely new timeline that overrides all the others we've seen so far since it started before the events of all other timelines occurred.
We could figure the beginning of Terminator Genisys to be the end of timeline 3. But since Genisys(Matt Smith) is present, something must have happened that changed the whole game. From what I've read, it's been stated or hinted by the creators that some kind of inter-dimensional travel is involved, so we'll probably just have to wait to see where they go with that. But as far as we can tell, the reason for the new timeline is the Terminator getting sent to kill young Sarah, resulting in her going off the grid and changing all events that would have led up to John getting born and everything else that happens in the first 3 timelines. But Pops is very keen to ensure that John Conner is still born. But what we want to know is who sent Pops.
[With the timelines overlapping, Pops could still be the same T800 from the first Terminator]
We could speculate that the T1000 was sent back in the same vein as the other 3, with the machines realizing they've already had the time travel idea and changing their tack again. So the obvious answer is John did the same thing he did in the T2 timeline and sent the T800 he just found lying around after reprogramming it. But that can't have happened, can it? We saw Genisys grab John just as Kyle was being sent to the 1984. More interesting question: Why would Kyle have been sent to 1984 unless this was meant to have taken place at the end of Timeline 1? Keep in mind, I only call it Timeline 1 because we don't know enough to imagine any others before that. There could be many timelines that we don't even know about. Just a thought in case none of this complicated timeline stuff is challenging enough for you.
We know that Pops knows when the T800(maybe even a different version of himself?) is supposed to appear and it still happens just like in what we call Timeline 2. But going back as far as he did should have prevented the other timelines from happening since Skynet wouldn't have had any reason to send a Sarah Conner killer back to that exact same date.
It seems there must be some kind of inter-timeline dimensional warping or something going on here. I can't tell if I'm way off with all this or if the movie is just poorly conceived. Either way, I'm just going to have to wait until they make a sequel and hope they do some splainin'. Unfortunately, it sounds like it might be up in the air at this point whether they will even make one or not. I think I may be the only person who actually wants to even see it happen and I'm the one who keeps saying how sick to death I am of all the god damn reboots.
But I need more information for my hypothesis. Personally, I wish the Hollywood film makers would just let old movies just be what they are and make something new, but I want this trainwreck to happen for movie science.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Thoughts On Mad Max: Fury Road
I just (finally) watched Mad Max: Fury Road and my first reaction is that even from the very beginning of the film, I already regret not having paid to see it on the big screen. But I've become just completely unwilling to give Hollywood my money for making more reboots.
Q: Is this, in fact, just another reboot, or simply a new installment in a long running film series and just as relevant as all the ones before it?
A: Well let's see, it's a full 30 years later. The original actor has been replaced for the first time with someone who looks younger than Max had been in the previous installment. On the plus side, it's directed by the same director of all the other films in the franchise so it does have some sense of consistency with the series. But the audience is different. The audience of the earlier Mad Max films are still around but now there is a whole new generation in play. So it has both the attraction of something that already has notariety and fan-base but is also something relevant to the current age.
Verdict: It's hard to say. It seems to be an even split between keeping with a brainchild franchise from the same creator but also a market tool to just sell movies to people who are much more inclined to watch something they recognize. But I think the absence of Mel Gibson is mainly what gives it the quality of being naught more than just another reboot in an endless series of reboots. Actually, even Mel probably wouldn't have saved it from that but at least it wouldn't have been a recast. And I am aware that George Miller has mentioned that the Mad Max films are not necessarily connected. Except they obviously are. So you can take your pick with that.
I will contrast it with the Zatoichi series which went on for about 28 years with a total of 26 installments and also a tv series and starred the same actor in the lead role the whole way through. Conversely, the James Bond had a bit of difficulty at first with changing the lead actor, but eventually grew into a long running pan-generational series that is still around today and still evolving along with rest of the cinematic world, although I can't help but regard the new films as being part of an all new, yet again, rebooted series.
The truth is that Mad Max came and went. This new generation of film makers and audiences needs to get their own heroes. There is a time and a place and even a way to bring things back and it seems to the current age that these are right now, right here, and with lots of CG effects and action and notable actors. The reason these movies sell so well is because they are not a risk to anyone. There is no risk to the audience because if nothing else, they will be finding out if this new version or adaptation or sequel will be any good and how much of the original material they will try to sneak into the film in the form of easter eggs and cameos. That's become the whole point of watching movies now. To see what they do with things that you already know about and to see how many references you can "get" to prove how geeky you are. This means that the film makers are going to make their money off of this curiosity and, if nothing else, people's desire to just know how much they need to hate this new version of something they didn't even think needed to be made.
But all that aside, let's adress the movie itself.
Firstly, though I think Tom Hardy is one the more interesting actors of his time, I couldn't help but keep wanting him to be Gerard Butler. I mean, if you had to replace Mel, I personally think that Gerard would have made a better Max, but that's just my private impression. But what I would have liked a lot more is if Mel Gibson had just reprised his role again and let it just be a much older Max. I think that could've worked out just fine and then it might've seemed more like a sequel than a reboot. And maybe the main reason that didn't happen is because nobody wants to cast a well known anti-semite in their film, but who knows? Maybe he was just busy. In any case, replacing the actor with a much younger and more relevant one just screams "new version". The one saving grace about it is that it is directed by George Miller whom I'm actually a little surprised managed to keep the series to himself all this time.
The directing style is solid. I don't know how best to describe George Miller, but it definitely reads as having been made by someone who actually knows how to direct a film rather than a 2 hour long self-advertisement. There is a great deal of depth and intrigue and you never get a lot of direct explanations of anything but get the idea that there is a lot happening in the universe in which the story is being told. You get the idea that there is a whole world here, just in the context of this episode, which has been very elaborately thought up and could be explained to you if George Miller decided he felt like it. The action is made to be very exciting and fast but the CG effects are used minimally but effectively and not relied upon for everything. As usual, there is a story going on that Max seems to have just inadvertantly walked into and in which he ends up being a catalyst rather than the main focus. I think this has always made Max a more compelling character than your average walking mcGuffin Mary Sue protagonist.
It's as though Hollywood has actually figured out that a film series like this works out a lot better when you get the same director on board. Progress, I guess. But what it amounts to is that it's just the only reason Fury Road is just another piece of crap with no substance. Instead, it's a really awesome well directed piece of crap with no substance but at least a sense of consistency with its franschise.
Yes, Imperator Furiosa is an both an awesome character and also a woman. Can we move on now? NO OF COURSE NOT! I really wish I could have simply watched this movie and enjoyed it or not based on its own merits and downfalls. Maybe it's my own fault for being even slightly interested in the dialogue between feminism and whatever its opposite force actually is, but once the idea that this is a character who has been deliberately placed in a spotlight that would usually be occupied by men, and also the paranoia idea that people object to this on the grounds that it somehow is an emasculation of men has been planted into your head, it's impossible not to see it. I could have just watched this movie and thought, "damn, this one-armed chick is a badass! and hey, another good woman character to prove those damn feminists wrong.". Or I might not have taken much notice of her at all other than thinking she was a cool character. But the way feminists ruin everything isn't by wanting to see more women playing tough and cabaple characters but by being such a squeaky wheel about until creators finally start capitulating to them just to show how modern and unsexist they are. It's now too hard for me to tell if a character was written as a woman just because that's how the creator thought her up, or if they were just responding to feminists' foot stamping. But let's forget about that too.
Besides the directorial style that is consistent with the series, one of the film's major strengths is despite how action-packed it is, it doesn't seem as though it's trying way too hard to impress me. I respect a film a lot more for just being itself and not just keeping me at the edge of my seat so I can find out if the world ends. The action is well done and I really can't find any way to justify that opinion, it just seems to be a matter of personal taste. But one of its major weaknesses is that it seems to be completely uninterested in any kind of content that isn't either a chase scene or an obligatory breathing period between chase scenes. The film even stops and turns around mid way through and goes in reverse so it's as though you've just watched half a movie and then hit rewind and watched it again in reverse. Yes, it's exciting. Yes, it's actually well done. And yes, I even like it. But it's just not the least bit engaging. The whole movie is the world's longest chase scene. If all you want is to go to the theater and be entertained for a couple hours, then Fury Road is exactly your kind of movie. But in the long run, I don't think this movie really gives us much to remember it by.
This entire cinematic generation seems to be almost entirely devoid of quotable dialogue that gets shoehorned into real life situations by people who have seen the movies way too many times(no such thing, I know). And I am confident that when people look back on this era of film-making, they will find that it has very little in it that is unique to its time. The best you can hope for these days is a very successful knock-off.
In the end, Fury Road amounts to a really awesome post-apocalyptic car chase.
Self-gratifying afterthought about remakes
As I mentioned, there is a time and a place to revisit. For example, The Thing From Another World(sometimes known as simply "The Thing") was an old piece of sci-fi schlock that is so campy in comparison to the films of today that it's impossible to take seriously. John Carpenter's The Thing was more an alternate interpretation of the original short story than it was a remake, although it does, to some extent, pay homage to the older film. But it was done in a style particular to Carpenter that makes it quite a bit more memorable than simply another monster movie. To put it in another way, (and again, personal taste) John Carpenter just did it better. Now there's a new version of The Thing that was clearly made to emulate John Carpenter's but turns out actually to be a prequel despite having the same title. It falls short of doing anything better or even as good as Carpenter in my opinion and serves as nothing much more than a supplement to his film.
More on that in another post
Q: Is this, in fact, just another reboot, or simply a new installment in a long running film series and just as relevant as all the ones before it?
A: Well let's see, it's a full 30 years later. The original actor has been replaced for the first time with someone who looks younger than Max had been in the previous installment. On the plus side, it's directed by the same director of all the other films in the franchise so it does have some sense of consistency with the series. But the audience is different. The audience of the earlier Mad Max films are still around but now there is a whole new generation in play. So it has both the attraction of something that already has notariety and fan-base but is also something relevant to the current age.
Verdict: It's hard to say. It seems to be an even split between keeping with a brainchild franchise from the same creator but also a market tool to just sell movies to people who are much more inclined to watch something they recognize. But I think the absence of Mel Gibson is mainly what gives it the quality of being naught more than just another reboot in an endless series of reboots. Actually, even Mel probably wouldn't have saved it from that but at least it wouldn't have been a recast. And I am aware that George Miller has mentioned that the Mad Max films are not necessarily connected. Except they obviously are. So you can take your pick with that.
I will contrast it with the Zatoichi series which went on for about 28 years with a total of 26 installments and also a tv series and starred the same actor in the lead role the whole way through. Conversely, the James Bond had a bit of difficulty at first with changing the lead actor, but eventually grew into a long running pan-generational series that is still around today and still evolving along with rest of the cinematic world, although I can't help but regard the new films as being part of an all new, yet again, rebooted series.
The truth is that Mad Max came and went. This new generation of film makers and audiences needs to get their own heroes. There is a time and a place and even a way to bring things back and it seems to the current age that these are right now, right here, and with lots of CG effects and action and notable actors. The reason these movies sell so well is because they are not a risk to anyone. There is no risk to the audience because if nothing else, they will be finding out if this new version or adaptation or sequel will be any good and how much of the original material they will try to sneak into the film in the form of easter eggs and cameos. That's become the whole point of watching movies now. To see what they do with things that you already know about and to see how many references you can "get" to prove how geeky you are. This means that the film makers are going to make their money off of this curiosity and, if nothing else, people's desire to just know how much they need to hate this new version of something they didn't even think needed to be made.
But all that aside, let's adress the movie itself.
Firstly, though I think Tom Hardy is one the more interesting actors of his time, I couldn't help but keep wanting him to be Gerard Butler. I mean, if you had to replace Mel, I personally think that Gerard would have made a better Max, but that's just my private impression. But what I would have liked a lot more is if Mel Gibson had just reprised his role again and let it just be a much older Max. I think that could've worked out just fine and then it might've seemed more like a sequel than a reboot. And maybe the main reason that didn't happen is because nobody wants to cast a well known anti-semite in their film, but who knows? Maybe he was just busy. In any case, replacing the actor with a much younger and more relevant one just screams "new version". The one saving grace about it is that it is directed by George Miller whom I'm actually a little surprised managed to keep the series to himself all this time.
The directing style is solid. I don't know how best to describe George Miller, but it definitely reads as having been made by someone who actually knows how to direct a film rather than a 2 hour long self-advertisement. There is a great deal of depth and intrigue and you never get a lot of direct explanations of anything but get the idea that there is a lot happening in the universe in which the story is being told. You get the idea that there is a whole world here, just in the context of this episode, which has been very elaborately thought up and could be explained to you if George Miller decided he felt like it. The action is made to be very exciting and fast but the CG effects are used minimally but effectively and not relied upon for everything. As usual, there is a story going on that Max seems to have just inadvertantly walked into and in which he ends up being a catalyst rather than the main focus. I think this has always made Max a more compelling character than your average walking mcGuffin Mary Sue protagonist.
It's as though Hollywood has actually figured out that a film series like this works out a lot better when you get the same director on board. Progress, I guess. But what it amounts to is that it's just the only reason Fury Road is just another piece of crap with no substance. Instead, it's a really awesome well directed piece of crap with no substance but at least a sense of consistency with its franschise.
Yes, Imperator Furiosa is an both an awesome character and also a woman. Can we move on now? NO OF COURSE NOT! I really wish I could have simply watched this movie and enjoyed it or not based on its own merits and downfalls. Maybe it's my own fault for being even slightly interested in the dialogue between feminism and whatever its opposite force actually is, but once the idea that this is a character who has been deliberately placed in a spotlight that would usually be occupied by men, and also the paranoia idea that people object to this on the grounds that it somehow is an emasculation of men has been planted into your head, it's impossible not to see it. I could have just watched this movie and thought, "damn, this one-armed chick is a badass! and hey, another good woman character to prove those damn feminists wrong.". Or I might not have taken much notice of her at all other than thinking she was a cool character. But the way feminists ruin everything isn't by wanting to see more women playing tough and cabaple characters but by being such a squeaky wheel about until creators finally start capitulating to them just to show how modern and unsexist they are. It's now too hard for me to tell if a character was written as a woman just because that's how the creator thought her up, or if they were just responding to feminists' foot stamping. But let's forget about that too.
Besides the directorial style that is consistent with the series, one of the film's major strengths is despite how action-packed it is, it doesn't seem as though it's trying way too hard to impress me. I respect a film a lot more for just being itself and not just keeping me at the edge of my seat so I can find out if the world ends. The action is well done and I really can't find any way to justify that opinion, it just seems to be a matter of personal taste. But one of its major weaknesses is that it seems to be completely uninterested in any kind of content that isn't either a chase scene or an obligatory breathing period between chase scenes. The film even stops and turns around mid way through and goes in reverse so it's as though you've just watched half a movie and then hit rewind and watched it again in reverse. Yes, it's exciting. Yes, it's actually well done. And yes, I even like it. But it's just not the least bit engaging. The whole movie is the world's longest chase scene. If all you want is to go to the theater and be entertained for a couple hours, then Fury Road is exactly your kind of movie. But in the long run, I don't think this movie really gives us much to remember it by.
This entire cinematic generation seems to be almost entirely devoid of quotable dialogue that gets shoehorned into real life situations by people who have seen the movies way too many times(no such thing, I know). And I am confident that when people look back on this era of film-making, they will find that it has very little in it that is unique to its time. The best you can hope for these days is a very successful knock-off.
In the end, Fury Road amounts to a really awesome post-apocalyptic car chase.
Self-gratifying afterthought about remakes
As I mentioned, there is a time and a place to revisit. For example, The Thing From Another World(sometimes known as simply "The Thing") was an old piece of sci-fi schlock that is so campy in comparison to the films of today that it's impossible to take seriously. John Carpenter's The Thing was more an alternate interpretation of the original short story than it was a remake, although it does, to some extent, pay homage to the older film. But it was done in a style particular to Carpenter that makes it quite a bit more memorable than simply another monster movie. To put it in another way, (and again, personal taste) John Carpenter just did it better. Now there's a new version of The Thing that was clearly made to emulate John Carpenter's but turns out actually to be a prequel despite having the same title. It falls short of doing anything better or even as good as Carpenter in my opinion and serves as nothing much more than a supplement to his film.
More on that in another post
Some Observations On The Immortality Of Yojimbo
It's pretty well agreed upon that Yojimbo is based, however loosely, on Dashiell Hammet's novel Red Harvest whose main character is simply called "The Continental Op", but most other references in film seem to be more derivative of Yojimbo or Fistful of Dollars. Yes, I know you knew all that. I'm just formalizing my observations.
Just some things I was noticing one day and decided to write it all down. It's interesting how this one story keeps getting retold over and over as though it has some kind of significance in and of itself. Although, I can't imagine why that would be. I can't tell you enough how bored I am with all the damn movie remakes and reboots and nostalgia going on today, but I think there is a time and a place for That sort of thing. This is one that I hope gets remade or at least referenced again. I don't know what's so special about this particulary story. Maybe nothing. But I think if there ever comes a time that it stops popping up this way, I will take that to mean that film is dead.
Yojimbo/Sanjuro
In Yojimbo and its sequel, Sanjuro, the main character gives his name as "Sanjuro"(Japanese for "thirty-year-old guy") and whatever he happens to see when he looks out the window.
Dollars Trilogy
The hero in Fistful of Dollars is referred to as "The Stranger" and called "Joe" by the undertaker. Then in For A Few Dollars More, he was called Manco(Italian for "one-armed" since he used his left hand for everything to keep his gun hand always available for quick-drawing). Then in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, he's called "Blondie". He wore a poncho, perhaps to emulate the way Sanjuro would keep his arms hidden in his kimono.Last Man Standing
The main character's name is given as "John Smith" which seems to be clearly pulled out of his ass in order to avoid actually giving his name. It pretty obviously follows the same story, although the story bears more resemblance to Yojimbo than Fistful of Dollars(maybe).They Live
Like in Yojimbo, the main character is a rugged drifter who just wandered into a new town looking for work and ends up killing a bunch of people(or aliens, anyway). He's never referred to by name in the movie but in the novel on which the film is based, the character's name is George Nada("nothing" in Spanish, possibly meant to be another name-dodge) and is credited in the film as simply "Nada". They Live also features a scene of the main character getting his ass beaten and then subsequently going into hiding as do Yojimbo, Fistful of Dollars, and Last Man Standing.Kaze No Yojimbo
An anime series based directly on Yojimbo but set in modern day. The main character isn't nameless, but he is called "George Kodama" which could possibly be a reference to George Nada, and Kodama in Japanese means "echo". Maybe it's supposed to mean he's another "echo" of the Continental Op character.Kill!
This Kihachi Okamoto film is actually based on the short story "Peaceful Days" as was Akira Kurosawa's "Sanjuro", the sequel to "Yojimbo". Although it does have many similarities to the Yojimbo story such as the cool wandering vagrant coming into town and manipulating the local gangsters and also features a scene of the main character getting his ass beat. Kill! also has many similarities with Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai", but that's another story.Just some things I was noticing one day and decided to write it all down. It's interesting how this one story keeps getting retold over and over as though it has some kind of significance in and of itself. Although, I can't imagine why that would be. I can't tell you enough how bored I am with all the damn movie remakes and reboots and nostalgia going on today, but I think there is a time and a place for That sort of thing. This is one that I hope gets remade or at least referenced again. I don't know what's so special about this particulary story. Maybe nothing. But I think if there ever comes a time that it stops popping up this way, I will take that to mean that film is dead.
A White Sheriff?
A White Sheriff?
Why does anyone care that Scarlett Johannson is being casted as Motoko Kusanagi? Is it because she's just not a good pick for the role? Well, she isn't. But that's not the problem and it has certainly never been a factor for most people as far as I can tell.
IDENTITY POLITICS!
Whoa, where did that word come from? I just kind of showed up right there right then at that exact moment. And it's in red, that's got to be bad. Why would that even happen? Weird. Oh well, let's just ignore that for the moment as I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation.Ok whatever just get to the point
If you don't want to hear my explanation on actor marketability, skip this part.
Let's make it clear that I don't exactly hate Scarlett Johansson so it's not as though it's just a personal objection like when anyone casts Tom Cruise or Russel Crowe for a role. I just kinda hate those guys. I like Scarlett but I just don't think she's right for absolutely every part in Hollywood. I didn't like her as the Black Widow, she was too cute and I just didn't buy it. And it seems like every time I hear speculation about a movie being made out of an anime or some other damn thing, it seems the hypothetical creators almost invariably look to Scarlett to be their prospective lead. Maybe I'm making all this up, I'm not really sure. But it seems like this isn't the first time and probably won't be the last.
Why does anyone think Scarlett is right for every role film makers can come up with? Answer: They don't. She's not a good actress(sorry Scarlett, but you're really not). She's pretty, sure, but pretty girls in Hollywood are a dime a dozen. She's recognizeable. She's familiar. You know who she is and you probably like her and you're probably a huge fan of the Avengers movie so of course you want to see another movie with one of those actors in it. Same reason people keep listening to the same pop singers who are terrible at everything they do but you wouldn't know, would you? You have no taste, you have no style, you just want to be doing what the other people are doing because you want to fit in and be up to date.
Oh great, so I'm Patrick Bateman.
Yeah, basically. But the point is that you will be much more likely to go see a movie which stars someone you know and recognize from other movies which makes it less of a risk for both the moviegoer and the creators. It's less of a risk for you because you figure this actor is legit and so they wouldn't waste their valuble actor time on a movie that wasn't worthwhile. The fact that you are more likely to go and see it is what makes it less of a risk for the creators because they know it's going to make them lots of money off of your ignorance. And at the end of the day, that's all they want. They call it the movie business for a reason.
Ok, I'm done explaining how Hollywood works so you can stop skipping now if you want.
But there's no Asian people. Really, we looked!
I'm sure we've probably all heard the old defense that there are just no marketable Asian actresses available for the role SO FUCK IT LET'S GO WITH SCARLETT JOHANSSON!!! Yeah, that makes sense when you say it like that. But let me tell you why this is bullshit because it's probably not for the reason you want it to be. But first, let's consider that you have no idea what it's like to make a film and have to find just the right cast for it. It's easy for you to make suggestions about what part should be played by what actor when you're just a person on the internet or otherwise not actually the one making the dang film. Maybe you just made a list of 10 or so Asian actresses who would be much better for the part of Major Kusanagi than this silly white lady. But what if every single one of those actresses were offered the part and not a single one of them had the slightest interest or were currently engaged in other projects. You do realize that actors are people, right?
OK, so maybe it's harder than it looks. But couldn't they at least have found someone a little more...Asiany?
Yeah, they probably could. But then you would be bitching about how Hollywood will cast a white actress and try to pass her off as "Asiany" instead of just casting someone who fits the part. Just like The Human Torch, right?
Whoa, what do you mean by that, bro?
Nevermind for the moment. Wasn't I supposed to be explaining why the defense of unavailable Asian actresses was bullshit? It's because they don't owe you a fucking explanation. All the film makers want to do is make money off their film and you are going to do see the damn movie anyway, idiot. So you're helping them to keep doing all the things you hate seeing them do.
So I should boycott Hollywood?! But what if I get bored?
I know, I know. The other(real) reason the no available marketable Asian people defense is bullshit is because it matters less that you have a marketable actor as it does you have someone playing the part who makes it work. Nobody gave a shit about Harrison Ford before he was Han Solo. NOBODY! But now he's a legend and don't you dare even think about recasting Han Solo! Terry O'Quinn had been an actor since probably before I was born and nobody noticed. You still don't know who that is, do you? He's been in marginal parts in marginal films seldom if not never playing a lead character. Awwwww, just like all those poor Asian people! Then he was cast as John Locke in Lost and now you still don't care who he is. But he made the character work and the character made him work. But it's TV so who cares?
Sorry, who are you talking about again?
See? The point is if you get the right actor for the right part instead of just getting the most marketable actor to make sure you sell the thing, you'll get a much better film and it will probably have better longevity. But I don't think producers care about longevity, they just want to make the money and move on to the next one.
It's only wrong when you replace non-white people
You know that's true. Search your feelings. If someone proposed a remake of Superfly and wanted Ryan Gosling, people wouldn't be having any of it. But people who aren't even in any way a part of the film business start saying we should have Idris Elba be the new James Bond and everyone says awkwardly, as though at gunpoint,"Oh yes, great idea! Let's do have that!". And as I understand, Elba will be playing the lead character in a movie version of Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" who is undeniably meant to be a white guy and anyone who has anything to say about it is a racist. It's almost like people(somebody, I don't know who really) were just bound and determined to have a black guy play a white character just to stick it to us and Idris Elba is the only black guy anyone can think of besides Samuel L Jackson(who is doing that very thing already).
Here's why I don't care
As long as Hollywood keeps making high profile big budget action blockbusters based on comic books, anime, video games, or whatever else they can mine for ideas, people are always going to go see whatever is new even if it sucks. And it won't. At least, not if you're gauging the movie's worth by how cool it looks. And you do that. The Ghost In The Shell movie doesn't need to happen in the first place because it's already a movie and doesn't need to be redone. But that never seems to stop Hollywood from doing it anyway. It might be cool and perhaps even worth watching, but it'll still be something you already knew about. And no matter how you feel about Scarlett Johansson playing the part, you will go see it anyway.
I will not. At least, not until I can see it without paying money for it. But my objection is not that they should have found a more Asian actress to play Major Kusanagi(she might not be called that either, btw) but they should have found someone who just fits the part better. It's not that it's any business of mine what decisions are made by Hollywood film makers, but I lose respect for them when they're such pussies that they think it's neccesary to cast the most marketable person possible for their lead role(and usually all other roles) as though nobody would want to go see their film otherwise. It makes it seem like they know their movie is going to be crap and they're trying to dupe us into seeing it anyway and then laughing all the way to the bank. So often do we get the idea that They are giving the people what they want. They are giving us what they know we will pay for. And while I can't fault them for wanting to make money or for succeeding in doing so, I will be much more inclined to go to the movies again when Hollywood grows a pair of balls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)