Movies – Page 24 – Colin McMahon

Talking Down to Children: a Look at Family-Friendly Dinosaur Cinema

Posted on February 12, 2015 by Colin McMahon

Dinosaurs are awesome. From their initial scientific discovery back in 1824, dinosaurs have captivated human imagination. The idea of an entirely different ecosystem, filled with fantastic creatures, that lasted millions of years has rightly secured a place in our collective cultural imagination. Dinosaurs lived on Earth, they were real. Yet somehow their world was almost completely alien. It is only natural that such creatures occupy a place in cinema as well, one of the few ways dinosaurs can actually still “come to life.” Yet when they are reborn, just how glorious is it? This article will look at three of the more major family-oriented dinosaur films over the past thirty years. Cinema has presented the complex world of the dinosaurs as brutal, harsh, and in some cases completely childish.

1. The Land Before Time (1988)

Oh course if we’re talking kid-friendly dinosaurs, we gotta talk Littlefoot and The Land Before Time. Steven Spielberg came up for the idea of this film, and he and his collaborator George Lucas had an interesting idea: no talking. Like Fantasia, The Land Before Time was originally envisioned as a silent film with no strong plot to drive it forward. Instead, it would simply tell the story of five young dinosaurs growing up. An interesting idea but Universal felt the film needed more appeal. Dialogue was added to help the audience relate to the characters and the dinosaurs were anthropomorphized (given human characteristics) to make them relatable. Did this detract from the science of the film, of course. Yet I highlight Land Before Time as an example of pandering done right. Was the film made more kid-friendly: yes, but that did not stop it from portraying the tragic nature of survival:

Now obviously the science in The Land Before Time is woefully outdated today, but at the time this was really well done. The decision to make the film easier to follow did not cripple it, or take away from its educational aspects. Let’s move on:

2. Dinosaur (2000)

Ready for déjà vu? When Dinosaur was first conceived, it was going to be a harsh story set at the end of the dinosaur era, with no dialogue. Instead of Universal, Disney CEO Michael Eisner was the one to make the call to make the film lighter and to add dialogue. Did lightning strike twice, as with The Land Before Time? It did not. Sadly Dinosaur became a very generic story with ideas and plot basically carbon-copied from the Land Before Time. The Great Valley became the Nesting Grounds, Sharptooth became a Carnotaurus, Littlefoot’s band of friends got replaced with another band of less interesting friends… the movie thoroughly existed without braving anything new. What makes it worse is that the science was lacking this time around. Not trusting its saurian stars, Disney added present-day lemurs to the cast. Bizarre. The initial trailer revealing Dinosaur‘s visual splendor remains the highlight of this theatrical endeavor:

An intriguing idea that turned into just another movie. Still, it can get worse.

3.Walking With Dinosaurs (2013)

When Walking with Dinosaurs first debuted as a show in 1999, it was heralded as a state-of-the-art dinosaur experience. For any out there curious to learn about the world before our own, this show was a good start. Fast-forward fourteen years… and you’re better off going with the show. Walking with Dinosaurs 3D is as brainless as its name sounds. Starting off as (say it with me now) a film with no dialogue, Studio interference once again turned the tale kid-friendly. This time, however, it appears that production was further along. All the dialogue is merely “thoughts” meaning that there is no animation for the dinosaurs speaking. This was supposedly done to keep it accurate, but my title was inspired from this movie. Talk about taking out intelligence with the lame excuse of “it’s for kids.” Which kids, I wonder? I do not think of myself as a child prodigy, but if I saw this film at six… I am pretty sure I still would have found it dumb. Using a name that brings to mind intelligence (courtesy of the original series) Walking with Dinosaurs has maybe one or two nuggets of education within its short (but still too long) 88 minute run time. Couple with that, this was a film made in 2013. Our understanding of dinosaurs has changed drastically in the past twenty years and Walking with Dinosaurs reflects none of that.

There are cool visuals to be had. It is a pity that there are more poop jokes than facts, however. For the kids. You know... cause poop is more important. — There are cool visuals to be had. It is a pity that there are more poop jokes than facts. For the kids. You know… cause poop is more important.

There is a definite pattern here. It seems like no theatrical dinosaur movie will ever see the light of day without first being tailored down for audiences. Is this overly tragic: not really since the information can be found elsewhere. It is simply said that “for the children” is used as an excuse to make things dumber. Oh it is for the next generation? Yeah, they don’t need to know facts.

The other trouble is that the (currently known) world of dinosaurs is more fascinating than Hollywood makes it out to be. These creatures probably never even looked like the giant lizards we see on-screen, but that is how we still see them. Maybe the future will hold a smart dinosaur film that is “for adults”…

Then again, maybe not.

Hobbit Changes Part One: In Defense of Tauriel

Posted on January 15, 2015 by Colin McMahon

Well, it is done. Peter Jackson’s Hobbit movies are out. Love them or hate them: the journey is over. Now comes the time for internet reflection. As with any hyped production, there were a lot of gut reactions to The Hobbit. One casting decision in particular appeared to irk some fans. In 2011, Evangeline Lilly was announced as Tauriel, a wood elf of Mirkwood. To say that the majority of people reacted with a “hmmm, that’s interesting, let’s wait and see” attitude would be a bit of an overstatement. The immediate reaction came more in the form of comments like these. There was even a wonderful little song put together, have a look:

Fun fact: that video was published on December 15th of 2013, just two days after The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug was released. Either these artists were very moved to write, shoot, edit, and release a song in two days or… it was made before any of them had even seen the film. For the record, there is nothing innately wrong with this. People are allowed to have opinions and reactions of any kind to fictional characters – there are bigger problems in the world to deal with.

One of the many more important problems gripping our world.

But that said, there is also an innate problem of jumping to conclusions and facing new material with a closed mind. Also I titled this blog post with “in Defense of Tauriel” so I am going to defend her inclusion in this Hobbit trilogy. While Tauriel “may not be in the book,” she brings many improvements to the story of The Hobbit. First and most obvious is the addition of a woman in a world where vaginas are more mythical than dragons.

Eowyn is great but it is nice to see that there was more than one active woman in Middle Earth.

Now that I got my cleverness out-of-the-way, let’s dive into the more substantial contributions. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings did not exist. In short: the Hobbit was written in a vacuum that has not existed since (and never will again). As with any simple story that was later expanded into a full universe, there are inconsistencies. For starters, let’s talk about those wood elves: what a bunch of dicks.

Seriously, how are these people good guys? When reading the Hobbit, the wood elves are terrible. The are greedy, selfish, and imprison the dwarves for basically no reason (starving dwarves stole food, can you believe their nerve?). Sure they don’t want to directly kill them like the goblins do, but is rotting in a cell really that much of an upgrade over a quick death? And once the dragon is dead and the dwarves and men are having a stupid (but kinda legitimate) battle over the treasure, the elves show up and pretty much declare it is theirs because….

They’re assholes.

"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how pretty I am." — “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over how pretty I am.”

As much as some people like to claim that the Hobbit is a perfect book and that all problems came from Satan (Peter Jackson), the reality is that this was one of the biggest problems in the story. If we are to believe that the elves are good guys (and Lord of the Rings seems to say so) then they cannot be so easily compared to the bad guys.

A good way to do this while staying true to the book is to keep Thranduil a jerk while adding two elf protagonists who are a bit more relatable. Enter Legolas and Tauriel:

People can make jokes but this is the scene of the movie that argues that the elves should actually you know, do something positive.

Sure, neither one is in the book but where else (as prince of the Mirkwood elves) would Legolas be and again, it is nice to have a character calling the elves out on their hypocrisy.

The other great contribution that Tauriel makes is Kíli . Now, I say this as a huge Tolkien fan and as someone who loved the book: I never gave a sh*t when Fíli and Kíli died. I know I know, burn me at the stake. The Hobbit was a book about Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and twelve other dwarves with different names who were all basically also Thorin. There was no real difference between them. Yes, some were fatter and some were taller and some were older but really: who cared. It is a mark of poor storytelling to have so many named characters with so little character between them. Yes, I just criticized Tolkien: deal with it.

Even with three movies, can you name all the dwarves?

When I saw the Battle of the Five Armies in theaters, I heard something I did not expect. Gasping. People gasped when Kíli died. Now, people who read the book would not gasp since they would know it was coming. Generally also, people do not gasp at the deaths of characters they do not care about. What then could be the reason?

Tauriel made people care. The love story made people care. Was it a perfect love story? Not by any stretch, but it was better than Twilight and it worked the way that Jackson had designed it to. By including a new character, he was able to add to the character of the dwarves.

Okay... I will give you that. The dialogue in this scene sounded right out of high school. — Okay… I will give you that. The dialogue in this scene sounded right out of high school.

So while she was a lady, Tauriel was added for more than just her gender difference. She improves upon weak areas of the book and allowed for people who have never read the Hobbit as children to care a little bit more about this Middle Earth journey. Was the addition a successful one? Maybe or maybe not (that’s a matter of opinion), but it was a defensible one.

Part Two here.

Where did the Muppet Love Go?

Posted on January 2, 2015 by Colin McMahon

2011: The Muppets hits theaters. Critics are overjoyed, with some people calling it one of the best films of the year. Jason Segel, who wrote and starred in the film, accomplished his dream project. A $45 million dollar film that grossed over $165 million and became a critical darling. The Muppets was so successful that a sequel was immediately rushed into production. Fast-forward three years and…

Muppets Most Wanted grosses a paltry (by Hollywood standard) $78 million. An achievement made even more disappointing given the film’s additional $5 million budget. So… what happened? Where did all the Muppet love go?

More like Muppets Least Wanted, HAHAHA... I'm so clever. — More like *Muppets Least Wanted*, HAHAHA… I’m so clever.

At first glance, the answer appears obvious: critical reception. I mean, who didn’t hear about how good The Muppets was when it came out? I can remember the film being considerably hyped, I also cannot recall another film in the franchise ever earning that much critical praise. When Most Wanted hit screens, the review buzz was slightly different. “Worse than the first,” “a step down;” these were some of the common complaints. I can only speak personally, but I know my excitement dwindled when I heard that reaction.

Weak human subplots was a common (and fair) criticism of the new movie.

Yet how differently were these films really received? Rotten Tomatoes points to the largest discrepancy. The Muppets earned a whopping 96% while Muppets Most Wanted managed only a 79%. That is a large drop… but 79% still is far from terrible. Yet on other critical scales, the gap was far smaller. IMDB rankings give The Muppets a 7.2 and Muppets Most Wanted a 6.5. Likewise, Metacritic scored The Muppets at 75 and Muppets Most Wanted at 61. Yes, there is a drop in all three cases but not as drastic as Rotten Tomatoes suggests.

Therein may lie the answer.

Was the return of these three really as beloved as Rotten Tomatoes would have their readers believe?

Rotten Tomatoes is by far one of the most popular movie review sites on the web. Yet the system they use is very simple: a movie is either fresh or rotten, reviews are sorted as either good or bad. This allows for a skewing of numbers. If a large number of critics think a movie is just “good” (not great, not anything special), the movie will appear more highly rated than it really is. Likewise if the majority of critics declare a film “mediocre,” the score will reflect more negatively. Rotten Tomatoes actually also uses a system very similar to Metacritic, but hides the number under the “Average Rating” heading, located in small print under the overall score.

Perfect recent example: How to Train Your Dragon 2, a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes... with an average score of 7.7. — Perfect recent example: *How to Train Your Dragon 2*, a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes… with an average rating of 7.7.

So good movies can appear great… or not so great. Certainly it explains the difference in the two numbers and could contribute to another huge factor concerning why Muppets Most Wanted so underperformed: a lot of people (myself included) felt that the 2011 film was overrated. Not terrible by any stretch but this was, according to Rotten Tomatoes, supposed to be the highest rated film of the year. That is a huge expectation to live up to.

Chris Cooper giving The Muppets a rarely seen skeptical eye. — Chris Cooper giving *The Muppets* a rarely seen skeptical eye.

The Muppets was a good film, but far from perfect. Legitimate criticisms existed and many people felt that it was too praised. When Muppets Most Wanted came out, it is a good bet that at least a few critics were venting frustration at just how talked about The Muppets became. With something as subjective as film review, it is very difficult to say but I can say that, when I finally watched Muppets Most Wanted: I enjoyed the film more than I was expecting. While overall I would call it worse than its predecessor (overlong and slow in places), the film had superiority over the 2011 film in several areas.

Ricky Gervais just can't bring 'em in like Jason Segel. — Ricky Gervais just can’t bring ’em in like Jason Segel.

Most notably: the Muppets. There was a lot more Muppet action going on in this film. Gone were Jason Segel and Amy Adams, the stars were only the Muppets themselves (along with Ricky Gervais and Tina Fey in supporting roles). Not as much star power sure, but shouldn’t a Muppet movie be about the Muppets first? That would be like making a Transformers movie that was more about the people than the robots…

The plot is simple (maybe too simple for the runtime) but the jokes are funny. Anyone who likes the Muppets will not be disappointed, and those looking for good family entertainment could do far worse. Yet, for probably no singular reason, the Muppets’ future is again uncertain. What happened to that nostalgic love so present in the 2011 film? Did it evaporate so quickly? Maybe it really, truly, is not that easy… being green.

One can do far worse when looking for Muppets entertainment.