Skull Island: More Son of Godzilla than King Kong?

Recently, the first behind-the-scenes look was revealed on Kong: Skull Island, the upcoming reboot to the King Kong franchise. Have a look at it below: … actually, scratch that. It was uploaded by MTV and they don’t like making their videos accessible (that leads to a socialist internet). So here is the link to their site, and below I’ll just stick an IGN recap of what was said. Sound good?

Anyway, so this Kong is a bit different from the one that Peter Jackson brought to life back in 2005. Jackson’s Kong was a remake of the 1933 classic, plain and simple. It told the same story, albeit with minor alterations and updated effects. This new movie is going for something different.

Cinematic universes are all the rage now and Universal and Legendary are looking to make one of their own. As recently confirmed (and accurately guessed on this website long before), Legendary wants to remake King Kong vs. Godzilla, the most financially successful Godzilla movie ever made. Makes a lot of sense.

The original ultimate crossover.
The original ultimate crossover.

Yet we all know that good cinematic crossovers need establishing films. When companies just throw a lot of properties into a film without first establishing while the audience should care… well, bad things happen. Kong: Skull Island is meant to establish King Kong in the same universe as Gareth Edwards’ 2014 Godzilla, and set the stage for future monster rumbles.

What does this mean for the movie itself… well, quite a bit. Don’t expect Kong to climb the Empire State Building this time out. Don’t expect Skull Island to be populated with dinosaurs. Don’t expect the relationship between Kong and Brie Larson (the female lead) to be the center of attention. In short: don’t expect a lot of things that you would expect in a King Kong movie. A lot of this has to do with size.

Kong will be a lot larger this time out.
Kong will be a lot larger this time out.

In order to battle the King of the Monsters, Kong needs to go through a growth spurt. Kong is typically 25 feet tall, whereas the newest Godzilla clocked in at about 360 feet tall. That would look like this:

Comical but not blockbuster material.
Comical but not blockbuster material.

So obviously, bring Kong up to size. They’ve done it before and they can do it again. Yet this creates problems for the typical King Kong mythos. Either Godzilla becomes very mundane or Skull Island cannot be full of super-sized dinosaurs. This means that Kong will either be alone on his island (like he was in the other King Kong film set in the 70s), or they will be other creatures. To spoil what was said in the MTV First Look: There will be other creatures.

Gorosaurus is one large dinosaur-like creature that Kong could fight, having already done so in the Toho film, King Kong Escapes.
Gorosaurus is one large dinosaur-like creature that Kong could fight, having already done so in the Toho film, King Kong Escapes.

Where will these creatures come from? Well, there’s an intriguing possibility here. Let’s look at the facts. Gareth Edwards has long put forth the idea that he would like to establish the concept of Monster Island in his Godzilla movies. For those who don’t know: Monster Island is an island that houses all the Earth’s monsters. Pretty self-explanatory. In the Toho universe, Monster Island is somewhere in the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands. No location has been given yet for the Legendary universe but hmmm, wouldn’t Skull Island do nicely?

Another fun factoid to know: Legendary has purchased the rights to multiple Toho monsters, meaning that they now have access to the largest famous kaiju (giant monster) library in existence. This sets the stage for Kong to have some noteworthy adversaries in Kong: Skull Island.

Kumonga, the main enemy in Son of Godzilla, would actually make for a decent villain in a King Kong movie.
Kumonga, the main enemy in Son of Godzilla, would actually make for a decent villain in a King Kong movie.

A movie, set on a tropical Monster Island, with giant monsters battling and a team of humans struggling to survive… sounds a lot like 1967’s Son of Godzilla. The movie, which follows a scientific team conducting a weather experiment, seems to line up a lot closer than the original King Kong likely will.

The team seems a lot more military-oriented this time out.
The team seems a lot more military-oriented this time out.

For one thing, Kong will most likely not be traveling to the mainland this time around – as the film is set in the 1970s. If Kong went mainland, and this film shares a universe with Godzilla 2014, how come the army seems unprepared to handle giant monsters forty years after one publicly appeared? It’s not likely. Edwards already tweaked the story of the 1954 Godzilla to avoid a similar situation.

So Kong: Skull Island will likely take place entirely on the island, following a team that discovers, and likely then attempts to escape from, the creatures they encounter. There’s few films like that out there, and Son of Godzilla is one of the better ones. I would not be surprised if that film becomes a blueprint.

They could also use Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster as a blueprint, which would be oddly fitting.
They could also use Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster as a blueprint, which would be oddly fitting.

Marketing Method: Ghostbusters (2016)

So finally, the trailer for the new Ghostbusters is out! Here it is:

So far, the reaction has been… mixed. Some have loved the new trailer and celebrated it as an exciting new entry. Others have had a… different reaction. Well, it’s sparked debate – so that’s something the marketing department did right, I guess?

Let’s get into it.

Speaking from a personal standpoint as someone who has followed the development of this new Ghostbusters, this trailer is confusing. Look at how it starts, “30 years ago, four scientists saved the world…” or something like that. Oh cool, so it’s a sequel right?

Apparently not, no. In a recent interview regarding his new movie, Paul Feig confirmed that his Ghostbusters is a reboot(or remake, whatever the popular term is these days). He even went in-depth to explain his reasoning in avoiding a sequel. Agree or disagree, as director – he gets to make that call. Unfortunately, the people making the trailer must not have seen this interview.

If it's a reboot, then it makes sense to have a "coming together" opening. Here's hoping the film moves a little more quickly than the original.
If it’s a reboot, then it makes sense to have a “coming together” opening. Here’s hoping the film moves a little more quickly than the original.

This did the trailer no favors as audiences received an opening that promised a sequel and went into a lot of shots that frankly looked familiar. Remember this library opening from the original? This one:

Well, here it is again!

Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-8.30.06-AM-700x291

Three scientists coming together to fight ghosts?

Check.
Check.

An additional black Ghostbuster who is not initially part of the team (and probably not a scientist)?

Check.
Check.

Ghostbusters saving the city of New York from an apparent sudden ghost surge?

Well… okay that one isn’t fair. Every Ghostbusters movie should hopefully involve Ghostbusters fighting ghosts in some way. I would hope. Oh, but there’s also Slimer:

gb6

Point being, for a trailer that opens with the implication of sequel, there is a lot of retreading common ground. This likely goes a long way to explain at least some of the negative reaction. Personally, I think this addresses most of the fair criticism. The rest is subjective but probably a little reactionary.

“The jokes don’t work. The ghosts look CG (spoiler: they are). The writing sucks. The movie isn’t funny.”

Calm down – we’ve seen less than two minutes. Now, have I seen better trailers? I have. That being said, and this is again personal opinion, is too much emphasis being placed on the trailer rather than the team behind it?

Let’s look at another movie coming out soon: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. That film has trailers that are kinda all over the place. The first trailer offered an emotionally charged look at why Batman and Superman would fight. It didn’t get into too much plot, but provided a hook. The second trailer… likely told the entirety of the movie. Seriously, I don’t know for sure but I’m going to bet that after I see Batman v. Superman, I’m going to feel the same way.

That, in my opinion, was not a well put together piece of publicity. It suggested the unending need for more to satisfy the audience.

“Bored with Batman – we got Superman! Don’t like Superman – how about Doomsday? We also got Lex Luthor! Oh, here’s Wonder Woman! Justice League!!!!”

"WE ALSO HAVE AQUAMAN! PLEASE BE EXCITED!!"
“WE ALSO HAVE AQUAMAN! PLEASE BE EXCITED!!”

It cried a certain desperation that Batman and Superman are not interesting enough on their own.

But I am getting sidetracked. At the end of the day, Batman v. Superman is a movie made by Zack Snyder, a director with a… less than steady history (to put it objectively). Man of Steel, Sucker Punch, 300, Legend of the Guardians… Snyder does not have a consistent record when it comes to quality cinema.

Let’s look at Paul Feig, creator of Freaks and Geeks, Bridesmaids, the Heat, and Spy. While I have not seen the Heat (which has the lowest critical ranking of his recent films), that is a more impressive list to me. Spy was one of my favorite comedies of last year and has a trailer that looks:

Okay, I got it. Feig needs to hire some new trailer people.

It is strange to note that Snyder’s name is still being used for advertising, while Feig’s name is left off the Ghostbusters trailer.

Is there something more behind the seemingly incredibly malicious response to the trailer? Remember: people seem to love Star Wars: the Force Awakens, a sequel that had quite a few remake-ish similarities with a New Hope. I’m not going to get into it in this article – my short answer is I don’t know, maybe.

“I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that’s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really … It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn’t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part].”             - Bill Murray on why he ultimately decided to be in the new Ghostbusters.
“I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that’s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really … It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn’t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part].” – Bill Murray on why he ultimately decided to be in the new Ghostbusters.
There are legitimate criticisms to be sure, and the most frightening possibility that the studio might be trying to interfere with the movie in a classic example of “wanting it both ways.” That would not bode well.

So is Ghostbusters a sequel or a reboot? Who knows. Hopefully it’s not both.

Is it going to be a good movie? Too early to tell. At the very least, it appears to be in good hands.

Here is a trailer for the original Ghostbusters for contrast:

So full of jokes!

Luke Skywalker will Likely Die in Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I am currently writing a new post discussing the various approaches to haunted house style movies, but then this came out:

Man, Star Wars: The Force Awakens looks awesome. Yet there is one person missing from the trailer, and from the official poster, that has people talking. The question on every Star Wars fanboy’s lips is: Where is Luke Skywalker?

Well… he’s in it. Mark Hamill is confirmed to be in Star Wars: the Force Awakens. He narrated the second trailer, and appears in this shot from the trailer:

The metal hand kinda gives it away.
The metal hand kinda gives it away.

So yeah, he’s in it, but what will his role be? Brace yourselves people… Luke Skywalker is very likely going to die. And this is a good thing, at least in terms of the sequel trilogy (episodes 7,8, and 9) standing on their own feet. But let’s examine the evidence from the trailers, as well as the evidence from good storytelling.

Trailer Evidence

Okay, as seen above – Luke is on a volcanic looking planet with ash flying everywhere. It genuinely does not look like a happy place to be. The final trailer also gives us viewers a glimpse of who else visits that planet: namely the Empire (or what’s left of it) led by new main bad guy, Kylo Ren.

Definitely looks like the same planet to me.
Definitely looks like the same planet to me.

So they are in the same spot, and the empire is there in force. And then there is this:

Almost looks like an execution. He is likely stabbing down at someone. So yeah… not good. Yet while Luke’s life is in jeopardy, this actually is a good indicator that The Force Awakens might be the high quality Star Wars film that fans have been waiting for.

Thematic Planets

George Lucas was a big fan of using the setting to enhance the principle intended emotion of a scene. There is no greater example of this than Mustafar from Revenge of the Sith. This planet is hell, a reflection of the dark depths that Anakin Skywalker has sunk to. It is here that Anakin Skywalker meets his end, and Darth Vader is truly born.

Say what you want about George Lucas, but the man does know about visual storytelling.
Say what you want about George Lucas, but the man does know about visual storytelling.

This new planet looks very similar, yet not as full of rage as Mustafar. It is a grim landscape, but one that is not literally exploding fire and lava every few seconds. This grim certainty may add a powerful element of Luke’s grim acceptance of his fate, and his refusal to fully give in to the anger that destroyed his father.

The Old Hero Dies at the Beginning of a New Trilogy 

Here is a shot of Luke in costume from The Force Awakens:

screen-shot-2015-08-13-5-49-25-pm

As many have noticed, it is reminiscent of Alec Guinness‘ Obi Wan Kenobi, and I agree. There is a resemblance. Now what happened to Obi Wan in A New Hope?

And what happened to Obi Wan’s mentor, Qui Gon Jinn at the start of the prequel trilogy?

Oh yeah. At the time, this was the killing off of a side character. Yet in the prequel trilogy, Obi Wan Kenobi was the main hero. Unlike Anakin, he never falls to the dark side – making him the only person (who lives) that the audience can constantly root for. Yet in the original trilogy, Obi Wan has to go. There are two very important reasons for this:

Establish the Villain

Man, Darth Vader became a real threat in that moment. He was always intimidating (thanks to great costume design and his ability to telepathically choke the life out of people) but once he kills Obi Wan, the audience knows that the stakes have been raised: characters can die. It was a great example of showing us how dangerous Vader was, rather than Obi Wan being like “he helped the empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi, and he betrayed and murdered your father… maybe.” It always does more to have the villain commit a heinous act on-screen.

So now we have Kylo Ren, and if he is going to be our villain for the next three movies – he needs to be dangerous. He’s already cool looking, got that great look going. You know who else was cool looking – Jango Fett, and General Grievous. Yet none of these characters was particularly threatening because they never did anything. Jango Fett was supposed to be a feared bounty hunter, but his battle tactics (fly towards the guy with the sword) left a lot in question. Grevious was the leader of the droid army who stayed alive by… running away for three years? I’m shaking.

(this interpretation of Grievous would have made a more interesting villain.)

Of course, those two were helped with by other villains (namely Darth Sidious) who kept the tension high. Now it’s only Kylo Ren… and shiny stormtrooper Captain Phasma. Unless there is a shadowy mastermind waiting to be revealed – the audience needs to hate and fear Kylo. What better and quicker way to establish this by having him kill Luke Skywalker?

Establish the Heroes

What’s the greatest problem that shows like Teen Titans and Young Justice had (at least in concept)? They were shows about sidekicks. Batman was always around, Superman was always around. There was this cushion – that existed by just the nature of the main characters – that said: someone else can get it if you fail. Luke Skywalker is currently that someone else. He is the head jedi hauncho, the guy who beat the Empire. Who cares about Rey, Finn, Poe Dameron, and anyone else you’re trying to establish? The audience already knows who the hero is.

Unless that hero isn’t there anymore…

Han Solo can survive in a supporting role because really – he’s just an old guy with a blaster. Ditto for Chewbacca. Leia might never have really trained to become a jedi (she likely focused more on being a political leader) so she cannot physically hope to overpower Kylo and his baddies. There is still room for these people, while allowing the new characters to occupy the main roles.

To use a comparison – Legend of Korra would not have worked if Aang was still alive. There needs to be only one avatar. There needs to be one main jedi who is getting things done:

lightsaber

Time for the new heroes to step up. Time for the force to awaken and the saga to begin again… and probably time for fans to bid a teary goodbye to Luke Skywalker. But no worries, after all – since when does death stop a jedi?

JediGhosts-ROTJ