Movies – Page 43 – Colin McMahon

When Good Guys go Bad: Poor Scriptwriting

Posted on June 19, 2013 by Colin McMahon

With the summer blockbuster season in full swing, a recent trend has become apparent: this is an off year. While releases like Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel haven’t been critically panned (although Man of Steel only enjoys a 56 on Rotten Tomatoes and a 55 on Metacritic), the reaction from fans has been less flattering. For me personally, both Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 have been disappointing mixed bags with more to say against than in favor. I still stand by Star Trek Into Darkness as a simple yet enjoyable Star Trek movie. But this article is not about how I feel about summer films, this article aims to look at what is usually a weakness in the blockbuster genre overall: the writing. There’s a lot of areas here we could discuss. Bad writing ruins films by creating plot holes, cringe-worthy dialogue and nonsensical character action. Let’s talk about that last point.

Nonsensical character action is, quite simply, when someone in a movie does something that the audience doesn’t believe he or she would do. Whether it goes against the source material (which nearly every big budget movie has these days) or whether it defies an earlier scene in the movie, these are actions that just don’t make a heck of a lot of sense. I’m going to go into a few examples that will illustrate my point. Warning: there will be minor Man of Steel spoilers to follow. But let’s not start with a Superman movie… let’s start with a Michael Bay movie!

I will never understand how his name isn't as poisonous to the box office as M. Night Shyamalan's is. — I will never understand how his name isn’t as poisonous to the box office as M. Night Shyamalan’s is.

I almost feel that this is an unfair jab. If you’re paying to see a Michael Bay, you’re not paying for the script… at least he and his marketing have been honest about that aspect. For those of you out there who may not know the man pictured above, Michael Bay is the director behind blockbusters like the Transformers trilogy, the two Bad Boys movies, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon and The Island. He’s done others but that’s enough to get the idea. Let’s talk about those Transformers movies, in particular something that annoyed me in all three films:

Anyone familiar with the Transformers universe knows that the Autobots are the heroic good guys and the Decepticons are the evil, horrible, villains. The Autobots, lead by Optimus Prime, are valiant and peace loving while Megatron and his Decepticons would push puppies in front of buses. This is established in both the lore and the movies (I’m giving the movies credit for something). Yet in the movies, while the dialogue establishes this, the action paints a different picture.

The decepticons take autobot prisoners in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Patrick Dempsey's character is the one who suggests killing them. — The decepticons take autobot prisoners in *Transformers: Dark of the Moon*. Patrick Dempsey’s character is the one who suggests killing them.

Wait, the decepticons are taking prisoners? That’s actually really nice of them, you know, given they’re at war with the autobots and everything. Maybe they have some honor after all. Well, I’m sure if the decepticons are this generous than the autobots are even greater pillars of morality.

The autobots kill the decepticons every chance they get. Not just kill either but in most cases tear to pieces. Watch those movies again (if you can) and observe just how brutal Optimus Prime and his heroic autobots are. It kinda adds an underlying sinister element to their characters when the good guy (who constantly professes to be good) is a lot more savage than the bad guy. But again, poking fun at a Michael Bay script is easy. Let’s go after George Lucas instead.

In this instance, I’m going to discuss two scenes in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Let me say up front: I like this movie. Is it perfect: NOOOOOO (inside Star Wars humor there), but it’s still enjoyable and a lot of it really works. Here’s something that didn’t: remember when Anakin killed Count Dooku? He just executes him as a prisoner. This is huge, it is a giant step in Anakin’s fall to the dark side. Jedi don’t kill, they take prisoners whenever possible. Except when it’s this guy:

I know what you’re saying. Yes, I have thought way too much about this… but you’re reading it so what does that say about you?

Anyway, so Obi-Wan kills General Grievous and I personally don’t have a problem with that scene. Grievous poses a lethal threat and is about to kill Obi-Wan so it is in self defense. The Jedi seem to be cool with that. I have problems with all the scenes leading up to the confrontation. When Obi-Wan speaks to the council, and when they are speaking to each other, it becomes very clear that “taking prisoners” is not what they have in mind.

“If he does not give up his emergency powers after the destruction of Grievous, then he should be removed from office.”

That’s said by everyone’s favorite cone-head Jedi, Ki-Adi-Mundi (never mind how I know his name). At this point, Obi-Wan has only “made contact” with Grievous so… he should be trying to secure him as a prisoner, right? A whole part of this movie is how Anakin falls to the dark side by being too eager to kill. Seems like the Jedi Council is bloodthirsty too. Maybe the emperor had a point about them.

It’s a small thing but that’s just it. It’s one line of script: fix it before spending millions of dollars.

Last but not least, Man of Steel. As this is a new release I won’t say much here (I could, there is definitely a lot to say on this movie). Let’s go with those trailers, especially the newest ones. You see Superman fighting General Zod in a city. Looks really cool right? That city is full of people. Superman: the man of steel, the protector of humanity, has no problem with collateral damage in this film. He throws Zod through buildings in a city the audience knows to still be populated (the film makes sure to show this).

Disregard buildings and acquire cape. — That’s a lot of devastation in the background.

Again, what makes it worse is that one of the main theme’s of the film is Superman’s morality. How he will do anything to protect the people of Earth from an alien, super-powered, threat. Is he just not getting the irony in that? I know Superman isn’t supposed to be the smartest hero on the block but come on.

If you want to see a film that encompasses Superman's morality and character in a much more competent way, check out this movie instead. — If you want to see a film that encompasses Superman’s morality and character in a much more competent way, check out this movie instead.

So why is this such a common problem? Effects shots sell tickets. That’s the simple answer. That’s what people want to see in their summer blockbusters, right? Right. Because when it works, it’s awesome. When it doesn’t… blockbusters don’t have much to fall back on if they’re not enjoyable. I put this one on the scriptwriters and the directors. Movies shouldn’t be made for the sake of cool scenes, they should be able to work cool scenes into a great movie.

Christopher Nolan: putting cool scenes in great movies since 2000.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Don’t Judge the Original by its Remake: GODZILLA

Posted on June 10, 2013July 11, 2020 by Colin McMahon

With 2014 bringing the second remake of the 1954 classic, Godzilla (Gojira if you use the original Japanese title), to western audiences, I figure it’s a good time to talk about what happened in 1998. First off, a lot of good things happened that year: media giant, Google was founded, Bear Grylls became the youngest man to ever climb Mt. Everest at 23 (wonder what he drank to celebrate at the top) and The Big Lebowski was released on an unsuspecting public. All of these things were pretty awesome. Then there was Roland Emmerich’s remake of Godzilla.

Let me say this now and get it out of the way: I am a huge Godzilla fan. I own and have seen all of the films multiple times. I own over two hundred Godzilla themed pieces of merchandise. I could tell you trivia from any of the 28 films. I… I’m just going to stop right there. Needless to say, it’s a passion that I’ve been hooked on since I was a little kid (watching Godzilla movies on the Sci-fi channel made being sick fun). Now the common opinion held by most diehard Godzilla fans is that the 1998 “remake” is a disaster of epic proportions and an insult to the name, Godzilla. I agree with this opinion. I don’t think Roland Emmerich’s film is the worst I have ever seen by any stretch (I don’t even think it’s the worst Roland Emmerich film I’ve seen – that honor goes to The Day After Tomorrow) but I do think it might possibly be the worst remake I’ve ever seen and I would agree with this statement: If Godzilla (1998) is the only Godzilla movie you have seen; you have not seen a Godzilla movie.

Godzilla is ranked by film historians as the second most influential film to ever come from Japan. The only film held above it is Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. — *Godzilla* is ranked by film historians as the second most influential film to ever come from Japan. The only film held above it is Akira Kurosawa’s *Seven Samurai*.

Now if you’ve seen the 1998 movie, you might be thinking might now: it’s about a giant, radioactive, monster that attacks a city and fights the military – that sounds like Godzilla to me. And it does, it does sound like Godzilla. But it’s not. The biggest failure of the remake lies not in its cast, special effects or choice of location but rather in its genre. Godzilla released in 1998 is not the same genre of movie as the 1954 original.

But wait, you say, aren’t they both giant monster movies? No, the original Godzilla is not a giant monster movie. Allow me to elaborate my point.

A giant monster movie can be defined by a few key ingredients: the presence of a giant monster, the presence of destruction, the presence of military and a human subplot that usually involves scientific exposition and a love interest. Nearly all giant monster movies have these elements (or at least manage a 3 out of 4). There can be one addendum to the presence of destruction: it is always destruction without consequence. What I mean by that is: buildings are destroyed, people are killed but the consequences aren’t felt more than five minutes after you’re done watching the scene. There is no feeling of loss, rather a different sensation of “oh, wasn’t that a cool explosion!” This means that all giant monster movies are supposed to be fun to watch. They are films of pure spectacle. Let’s talk about Godzilla (1954).

I don’t know if it’s possible to have fun watching this movie. Ishiro Honda’s Godzilla is an event film. It focuses on the human drama of people forced to suffer through a disaster. In this case, that disaster is spelled about: Godzilla was made to be an escapist’s portrayal of the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This film was made just 9 years after the bombs fell. That’s incredible to think about. Also consider this fact: in the years following Japan’s surrender, their cinema was not allowed to make films that portrayed America as a villain. These films would have been considered propaganda and in breach of the terms of Japan’s surrender. So what do you do when you wish to make a film about the horrors of nuclear war without directly involving the nation that bombed you? Use a giant monster… and fill that movie with loads of veiled anti-American sentiment.

The American version of Godzilla was heavily altered to remove all Anti-American feeling and greatly reduce the sense of tragedy. The character of Steve Martin (Raymond Burr) was also added in to further distance the audience from the horror of what they were watching. — The American version of *Godzilla* was heavily altered to remove all Anti-American feeling and greatly reduce the sense of tragedy. The character of Steve Martin (Raymond Burr) was also added in to further distance the audience from the horror of what they were watching.

The 1998 movie does not have a trace of this subtext. Yes, Godzilla is created from nuclear fallout in both films, yet the function is different. In 1998, it is just used as explanation (in accordance with the giant monster movie formula). How does this thing exist: radiation. In 1954, radiation and nuclear fallout wasn’t just exposition, it was the theme of the whole movie. Godzilla itself served as a metaphor for the horrors of nuclear war. Losing that took away Godzilla’s identity and is the main reason why diehard Godzilla fans don’t consider the 1998 remake to be a part of the series.

The genre and scene construction of the 1998 film make it a far better remake of Jurassic Park than of the original Godzilla. — The genre and scene construction of the 1998 film make it a far better remake of *Jurassic Park* than of the original *Godzilla*.

If you still don’t believe me about how different in genre these two films are, please look at the picture below:

This scene takes place after Godzilla’s rampage. These children have survived the initial devastation only to be found to have fatally high radiation levels. Yep, they managed to not be crushed in falling debris or perish in the fires (there are scenes of that happening to families) but they will still die anyway because that’s how atomic destruction works. Is there any scene like this in the 1998 remake: no. This scene pictured above is not the only of its kind in the original, either. I know I don’t need to hammer the point anymore but, in terms of genre and effect on the audience, Schindler’s List would be a more faithful candidate for remake than the 1998 film.

Okay, so how did this happen? How did the 1998 remake fail so completely in capturing the spirit of the original? Simple answer: Roland Emmerich doesn’t like Godzilla. He has said as much in multiple interviews. He doesn’t understand the movies, he hasn’t seen a lot of them, he doesn’t like what he’s seen. Great candidate to remake the vision, right? Hollywood screwed up (to the point that Toho Studios nearly sued them).

Now, in 2013, production is underway on a new remake. This time Gareth Edwards (of Monsters fame) has been asked to direct. Rest assured, he is a Godzilla fan and has stated multiple times his desire to return to the tone of the 1954 film. Personally I’m a little weary: the film has experienced time in development hell, going over multiple script rewrites and includes two additional monsters (shouldn’t need other monsters for the first film). However, Edwards is a fan… so I guess that’s something.

This image is from promo art released for the upcoming remake. At least this time it looks like Godzilla.

So if you’re in the mood for a powerful piece of film making, check out the original 1954 Godzilla. However if you’re only acquaintance with the king of the monsters came in 1998… you may be in for a surprise when you go into the theater next year. You might be about to see your first Godzilla movie.

Movie triva: Lucasfilm didn't like the 1998 Godzilla's tagline of "Size Does Matter" as they felt it was an attack on Yoda. After the film was released, Phantom Menace marketing released this... and when Phantom Menace is able to make fun of your movie's plot, you know you screwed up. — Movie trivia: Lucasfilm didn’t like the 1998 *Godzilla*‘s tagline of “Size Does Matter” as they felt it was an attack on Yoda. After the film was released, Phantom Menace marketing released this… and when *The Phantom Menace* is able to make fun of your movie’s plot, you know you screwed up.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Wasted Source Material: Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

Posted on June 3, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Vampires, they’re everywhere in popular culture right now. Thankfully today’s post will deal with vampires more resembling the works of Stoker rather than Meyer. However, I’m not interested in discussing Stoker’s characters – Dracula, Mina Harker, Abraham Van Helsing – we’ll save them for another day. This article will discuss a different vampire hunter by the name of Abraham. Yep, old honest Abe, 16th president of the United States and, if you believe author Seth Grahame-Smith, one of history’s best vampire hunters. I just had the good fortune of reading Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and recommend it to anything out there looking to read something that manages to be both incredibly intelligent and hilariously stupid at the same time.

The cover captures the book's tone nicely. — The cover captures the book’s tone nicely.

I almost didn’t read this book. Not because I heard it was bad, quite the opposite. I heard nothing but glowing praise for Grahame-Smith’s novel. There was only one thing that made me want nothing more to do with President Lincoln’s secret crusade: the film. I saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter before I read the book and let me just say this about the movie without going into too many details – it’s dumb. We’re not talking about about the fun kind of dumb either. This is not an entertaining movie to watch. It’s boring, cliched and does nothing to distinguish itself from any other sub-par action film (despite the fact Abraham Lincoln is it’s star). How are two such wildly different reactions possible? It is hard to believe, especially given the fact that the book’s author, Seth Grahame-Smith, wrote the film adaptation’s screenplay.

Let’s address that issue first with a simple statement: being a talented author does not always translate into being a talented screenwriter. Anyone who doubts me need look no further than Stephen King. King is one of my favorite authors. Incredibly prolific, Stephen King has written some bad books to be sure but he has also written a wealth of novels that (I have no doubt) will one day be seen as literary classics of the 20th century. The same cannot be said for his movie career (watch Sleepwalkers some time). So authors don’t always write the best scripts. Furthermore, some authors don’t know what is best for the film adaptations of their work. To return to the Stephen King example: King famously hates Stanley Kubrick’s version of The Shining (he wrote his own adaptation in 1997 in the form of a mini-series, give that a watch too).

So Seth Grahame-Smith’s involvement did not guarantee success. If anything, it proved to be the film’s ultimate downfall. The script in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is more than stupid. It’s stunted, sudden and leaves a very anti-climactic finale. So how did this happen? What did Grahame-Smith do to squander such great source material (that he created) in the film adaptation of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter? Let’s look into it.

The character of Jack Barts is very minor in the book but enjoys much greater screen time in the film.

In order to specify the film’s failures, the book’s greatest triumph must be highlighted. Seth Grahame-Smith must have done a lot of research before writing his fictional biography and it shows constantly in the reading. This book isn’t simply an exercise in “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if Abe Lincoln fought vampires”. It is the mythology of vampires and their folklore being painstakingly woven into the actual history of Abraham Lincoln’s life. There is so much in Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter that reads like an actual diary. This effect greatly enhances the believability of Lincoln stalking vampires at night with his hunting axe and leading a Civil War with the main (but secret purpose) of banishing vampires from North America. Every ridiculous moment in the book is given credibility by its historical background.

There is nothing this fictional in the book. Unfortunately there is nothing else remotely this stupidly cool in the movie either.

The movie takes quite a few more liberties with history other than the inclusion of vampires. The result: it doesn’t feel like Abraham Lincoln anymore. Why use such a famous historical figure and then change things to the point where his life is almost unrecognizable? Funny enough, there was a movie that came out in 2012 that was a lot closer to the book’s level of intelligence:

Just add vampires and you have the book.

There is a semi-spoken belief that action movies must be stupid in order to appeal to the masses. I’d like to think films like Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and Inception disprove this notion. After watching Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, I can’t help but wonder if Seth Grahame-Smith believes this to be true and that is the reason why he threw out his research for the film. Why else would he create the character of William Johnson (there was a real person by this name in Lincoln’s life but so completely different that he cannot even be said to be “inspiration”) other than to hammer in the fact that Lincoln hated slavery. I guess making slave owners into evil vampires that were butchering millions of people wasn’t enough to drive home the message that slavery was evil.

There is another character created specifically for the movie called Adam. Adam is the purely fictitious big bad vampire who is leading the order of vampires in the south. In the book it was Jefferson Davis (president of the Confederacy) who served as the final antagonist (Davis is not a vampire but had sold out, effectively selling all of mankind into slavery… pretty clever right?). This change wouldn’t bother me if Adam was interesting but he’s not. The wooden stake that kills him has more personality.

That’s really the biggest flaw in all of the changes. They do simplify, which is needed when there are only 105 minutes to work with, but they do not simplify well. I am very convinced that there was a better way to present this movie and the proof lies in Lincoln, a vastly superior movie released on nearly the same source material as the Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. They are both fictionalized historical biographies, one is simply far more fictionalized than the other.

Mary Todd Lincoln was nowhere near this physically attractive. Another change "necessary" for a successful summer action flick. — Mary Todd Lincoln was nowhere near this physically attractive. Another change “necessary” for a successful summer action flick.

I’m all for stupid movies as long as they’re fun. They definitely have their place in the summer. My disappointment in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does not come from the fact that it took an intelligent book and dumbed it down. It lies in the poor adaptation skills of the author, Seth Grahame-Smith. Apparently for Grahame-Smith, smart writing is a lot easier than stupid writing. I only wish I could say that as a compliment. So if you’re interested in mixing Abraham Lincoln and vampires, do yourself a favor and read the book. Sure it will take you a few more hours but you’ll actually enjoy those hours. Six-eight happy hours vs. one hour and forty-five minutes of wishing you were doing something else with your time: your call.

Kudos to marketing for developing a cool, moody poster. Too bad the final product doesn't have near the same effect. — Kudos to marketing for developing a cool, moody poster. Too bad the final product doesn’t have near the same effect.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.