The Classics – Page 2 – Colin McMahon

"Nobody Calls Me Chicken!"

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Colin McMahon

If you’re from the eighties or nineties, odds are that you’ve seen the Back to the Future trilogy. They’re awesome films filled with memorable characters and quotable lines. The first of the trilogy, the original Back to the Future, was released in (you guessed it) 1985 with the two sequels coming in 1989 and 1990 respectively. Wow, those sequels sure got pumped out quickly. There’s a simple explanation for that: they were shot back-to-back. This is not the only time such a technique has been done. Other examples include the Pirates of the Caribbean films (two and three were shot back-to-back, we’ll talk about those another time) and The Matrix (two and three shot back-to-back). The most famous example is obviously The Lord of the Rings where all three films were shot one at the same time. Anyway, let’s talk a bit more about theses Back to the Future sequels.

They were not made for the story. Director Robert Zemeckis is on record as saying that the original film was not envisioned with sequels in mind. Pretty obvious really, despite the film’s classic cliffhanger ending. Back to the Future is a quirky family comedy built around the mechanic of time travel and what it would be like to see your parents in their teen years (turns out it’s really disturbing). That’s great material for a single movie but doesn’t work so well stretched into three. Good thing they didn’t do that. The sequels have their own moral lesson that is spread over the two films and that is: a person chooses their own future. A lesser moral lesson is don’t mess with time travel.

Yet whenever there are unplanned sequels (that happen due to a studios financial desires over a director’s creative ones), the writing always takes a hit. Characters get deeper, they have more emotional traits than we’ve seen before (and not always for the better). Plots can get needlessly convoluted and interesting aspects of the original run the risk of feeling tired after three movies. Casting problems can also drastically effect shooting (for better or for worse). The Back to the Future trilogy suffers from all four of these afflictions.

When this baby gets two sequels, you're going to see some serious shit. — When this baby gets two sequels, you’re going to see some serious shit.

Let’s start with Marty. As my title implies, he develops a pretty serious character flaw. Mainly, calling him chicken is the key to getting him to do literally anything. From fighting to drag racing, there is nothing Marty McFly won’t do if someone (doesn’t really seem to matter who) calls him chicken. The problem: Marty looks really stupid. Seriously, the person didn’t even swear at him and he flies off into a completely unrealistic and cartoonish reaction. This is a strong departure from the Marty McFly of the first film who essentially played the straight man (comedy term) in a world that’s gone topsy-turvy. That Marty was identifiable and likeable.

In the sequels, the audience is expected to still feel those emotions for Marty, who in the future is a ruined wreck of former ambitions. What happened to screw his life up? Somebody called him chicken… so Marty recklessly raced him and got into a major car accident. It’s like asking someone to feel sorry for Aaron Hernandez right now. Yeah something bad happened, but the character totally deserved it. (I do not mean to accuse Marty McFly of something as serious as murder, he may be an idiot but at least he’s not a psycho) There is no sign of this trait in the first movie. Granted, no one calls him “chicken” but to have such a complex would warrant additional bizarre behavior. Like I said before: Marty is the normal guy in Back to the Future.

The sequels needed to artificially create a flaw in Marty that could be solved at the end.

So that didn’t work out so great for the sequels. Another problem (and on this one the movies themselves agree with me): don’t mess with time travel. Any writer will tell you this. Unless every aspect of plot has been painstakingly thought out, there will be problems. Even in the first film – not everything makes sense. It’s okay then because the plot is never grievously affected. Let’s look at Back to the Future Part II.

Old Biff and the time machine. He takes it, that’s fine. How Doc and Marty get it back? Biff returns to the current future timeline (the one that Doc and Marty are in) despite the fact he has just radically altered past events. I know: it’s a movie. But this movie draws attention to the concept of its timeline in a later scene.

Doc forgot to add variable "X" for plot holes. — Doc forgot to add variable “X” for plot holes.

Right there, Doc is saying that old Biff created a new timeline in the past. So how was he able to return to the old one? Come to think of it, the plot in Back to the Future Part II feels the weakest of the three movies. Sure there’s the cool future scenes but those are sadly over and done with in about twenty minutes. Then there’s a brief stint in a hellish nightmare version of 1985 (also interesting) before the finale returns to (at this point worn out) 1955. That’s two movies about time travel that center the bulk of their story in the same year. The audience saw 1955 in the first movie, they didn’t need to see it again.

There is an explanation for this. Really simple one too:

Crispin Glover did not return to reprise the role of George McFly. They wanted him to – it wasn’t a writing choice. It was a financial one. When Glover could not return, Back to the Future Part II was rewritten to largely remove his character. So, because of the casting department, no one out there will ever know what the original plan for the sequel would have been. It’s really too bad as Glover is such a presence in the first film and is missed in the other two. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are great, don’t get me wrong, but Glover is arguably the third best actor in the first movie. He is missed in the two sequels. Also missing:

This was a problem of a different sort. The original Jennifer (Claudia Wells) could not return to the sequels for personal reasons. The role was recast with Elisabeth Shue filling her shoes. The problem: Shue is not a great actor. She doesn’t have a lot of presence or comedic timing. Really, one can’t be sure if Wells would have been better but Jennifer was a much smaller role in the first movie. As they had to recast anyway, don’t you wish they could have gotten someone a little better?

Oh, and not to leave Back to the Future Part III free of criticism. The sole reason the old west was chosen for the setting was because Michael J. Fox thought it would be cool. Turns out he was right. That’s not the criticism, this is:

Remember that whole moral lesson that time travel was bad? Doc was the one preaching it. Frequently in the two sequels, Doc outlines his plan to fix things and destroy the time machine. Yet at the end of the trilogy, what does he do? He builds another time machine. Don’t worry, this time it’s a flying train so it’s so much less conspicuous than a delorean. This action completely flies in the face of the Doc character that the sequels have been establishing. It creates a confusing ending that only makes sense if…

Yeah, they were leaving the door open for Back to the Future Part IV. It never happened. Still, this is what happens when things are done solely for dollars. Everything else is sacrificed to produce cash revenue. For the record: I really like the Back to the Future trilogy. I grew up with it and, despite the plot holes and other logic gaps, I find them to be funny and entertaining movies. That’s the most important thing. They still work. It’s just sad they were made for the dollar first.

On the plus side, we did get to see Michael J. Fox in drag.

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

An Unexpected Journey Unexpectedly a lot like the Fellowship of the Ring

Posted on June 24, 2013 by Colin McMahon

The past weekend in Montreal was humid and rainy making it downright unpleasant to be outside (apart from going for the occasional run). As a result, the weather prompted the decision for a Lord of the Rings Extended Edition marathon. Really I will look for any excuse to do this – I love those movies. But wait, there’s another one now. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has not received the same reception as its predecessors. Overall the feelings have been positive but there are a lot of fans of the book out there who did not take kindly to Peter Jackson’s liberally epic adaptation (well the first part of it anyway). I am not one of those fans. I love The Hobbit, it is one of my favorite books but I take no issue with the first part of Jackson’s trilogy. Yes there are some scenes that obviously exist solely for the sake of setup (White Council, I’m looking at you) but as long as there is a pay off in the later films, I’m fine with it. The movie trilogy is not the simple story but then it never had a chance to be. Going back to a simple adventure after the release of Lord of the Rings would have been a difficult if not impossible tonal shift.

But reviews aside, this is not a review. The only reason I mention the fact that there are those who like and not the other is because I find it odd. Really, after watching the two back-to-back (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey followed by Fellowship of the Ring), those two movies are very similar. Both films carry a lighthearted tone and are adventure/journey movies with a subplot of pursuit. I could write more but, in the case of this article, let’s let pictures be worth thousands of words.

Both films begin with a fairly epic prologue before cutting to the Shire for Bilbo's 111th birthday. — Both films begin with a fairly epic prologue before cutting to the Shire for Bilbo’s 111th birthday.

Both films then have a hobbit who is shaken out of his normal life by an unexpected visit from Gandalf.

We are then introduced to new characters including the obvious comic relief.

And a disgraced figure of noble heritage.

I will interrupt right here to acknowledge a difference. In the Fellowship of the Ring, the full fellowship is not formed until they reach Rivendell. In An Unexpected Journey, the full fellowship is formed right away. It is a difference, however let’s keep going and see how much it really breaks up the structural similarities.

Both parties encounter difficulties when Gandalf is strangely absent from a situation he should be present in.

Luckily they receive some speedy aid to help them reach safety. (Incidentally the above quote is included because it is just that awesome).

Where the party briefly rests... — Where the party briefly rests…

And there is a council wherein new information is revealed. Most of this information isn't relevant until later films. — And there is a council wherein new information is revealed. Most of this information isn’t relevant until later films.

Well back on the road again. Both parties first take mountain roads where they suffer from extreme weather which turns out not to be related to normal weather patterns.

To a gave teaming with orcs/goblins. — To a cave teaming with orcs/goblins.

Here we encounter another diversion. There is no equivalent of Lothlórien in An Unexpected Journey. Wait, maybe there is. In Lothlórien, Frodo is tempted by the ring. There is a pause in the action while he has dialogue with a being who knows more about the ring than he does. This being (Galadriel) reveals to Frodo the dangers of what happens when one becomes too absorbed by the ring and does not resist its temptations. Frodo then leaves with a new resolve for his quest. Hmm, might there be something similar in An Unexpected Journey?

Once that's done we got pursuit again. — Once that’s done we got pursuit again.

Ending in a face-off between the pursuer and the disgraced noble character. — Climaxing in a face-off between the pursuer and the disgraced noble character.

Ending with a scene celebrating friendship.

An ending forecasting darker challenges to come. — And forecasting darker challenges to come.

So there you have it. There are a few other scene similarities there that I didn’t mention but I think I made my point.

Yes, there are differences to be sure. Overall the main difference in the films comes down to tone. The Fellowship of the Ring is darker with more focus on the presence of evil (since the ring is the focus) whereas An Unexpected Journey focuses more on being a light adventure. Both films end of relatively high notes. No one dies at the end of An Unexpected Journey (sorry Sean Bean) but Thorin comes near death in a scene that is set up incredibly similar to Lurtz’s execution of Boromir. Are the two movies exactly the same: no. Is it valid to like one and not the other: sure. But you have to admit, they are quite similar in terms of their setup.

For any out there who still doubt me, I encourage watching the two films together… followed by The Two Towers and The Return of the King (extended editions of course) cause why not? As we look ahead to the next two Hobbit films, I can’t help but wonder if the trend will continue. I’m calling it right now: The Desolation of Smaug will end on a down note. Smaug will be destroyed, signifying the end of a great battle (like Helms Deep) and a new, more powerful threat (the Necromancer) will take center stage. Just a prediction.

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.