Disney – Colin McMahon

Star Wars Episode VII: We Owe George Lucas an Apology

Posted on December 18, 2015 by Colin McMahon

While waiting to see Star Wars: The Force Awakens this week, I re-watched my least favorite Star Wars film: Episode II: Attack of the Clones. For weeks, as the hype built up and we waited with bated breath to see what director J.J. Abrams would do, I heard a lot of renewed hatred for the prequels.

“At least it can’t be as bad as the prequels.”

“Thank god it won’t have Jar Jar in it.”

“J.J. can’t do any worse.”

People really hate those movies. They have been ripped to pieces in the years since their release. Video reviews (longer than an hour each) have been created to talk about what trash they are. For the record – I think that pretty much every criticism of the prequels is valid. They are a poorly acted, wooden mess of a story. That said… I don’t think that any film, even Attack of the Clones, was outright horrible on its own.

That may be the reason, beyond the fact that it’s Star Wars, that the prequel trilogy inspired such hatred: it’s not entirely awful. There is some good there… but it’s broken. It’s too weighed down with all the problems going wrong to ever let the innocent, fun charm of the story shine through. I’ve seen – and forgotten about – many films that are just crap. The prequels, for all their faults, stand at least as memorable.

They attempted to add something real and new to the Star Wars universe. They failed.

I read the reviews, the hype of Episode VII: The Force Awakens. It sounded like J.J. had done it, that he had done what Lucas could not and given fans the sequel we wanted.

Then I saw the movie… (minor spoilers to follow)

Let me say this up front: Star Wars: The Force Awakens is not a bad film. It’s fun, it has great performances (particularly Daisy Ridley as Rei and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren), and it has a lot of the heart that was missing from Lucas’ CGI heavy prequels. I absolutely would recommend seeing it in theaters.

The mix of practical effects and CGI give the film an excellent look, one that is evocative of the originals while still allowing sequences that used to be impossible to film.

That being said – this is not the “sequel” I was looking for.

The quotation marks should say everything. Let me give you a premise: members from the Resistance (not the Rebellion – totally different “R” word) have to get a droid that has secret plans to help them stop the First Order (doesn’t even start with an “E”) and stop their use of a massive super weapon capable of blowing up planets.

I'm almost surprised they didn't recreate this sequence as well. — I’m almost surprised they didn’t recreate this sequence as well.

Sound familiar?!

To be fair, the droid this time around does not have the plans to the Death Star, *cough*, excuse me – to the Star Killer, it has part of a missing map to find Luke Skywalker – the man whose absence seems to be dooming the galaxy. Still, the plot unfolds with quite a feeling of retreading. Even Rei’s origins as an orphan on an out-of-the-way desert world seem overly familiar.

And unlike Return of the Jedi, which had a similar structure to New Hope (start on Tatooine, finish by blowing up a Death Star) but different feel… Force Awakens never breaks the New Hope mold. Its climax hits nearly all the same notes as its predecessor.

The worst scene in the movie arguably comes when someone says "is it like the Death Star?" and another responds with "I wish!" So maybe the next movie will have a weapon that can blow up ten planets at a time and is even bigger? — The worst scene in the movie arguably comes when someone says “is it like the Death Star?” and another responds with “I wish!” So maybe the next movie will have a weapon that can blow up ten planets at a time and is even bigger?

Finally, we must mention the (maybe) main villain: Supreme Leader Snoke (voiced by the one and only Andy Serkis). In general, the villains of Force Awakens are a little conceptually weak, but Snoke stands head and shoulders above the others in this regard. Stop me if you’ve heard this before: a shriveled, scarred old man with vague desires of revenge – or some evil motivation – who likely has advanced knowledge of the dark side of the force. But he doesn’t wear a hood – so, you know, totally different from the Emperor.

While I was okay not having Thrawn, using such a boring villain as an alternative was such a shame to see.

At the moment, critics and fans are eating up the “nostalgia” of this movie, but it leaves me worried. Lucas’ prequels may have failed, but at least they were trying to do something different. This movie plays on the “remember how awesome this was/felt” feeling way too much.

For example: the cantina scene in New Hope – iconic. Seeing all the aliens gathered around, drinking and playing games, opened up the idea of a huge galaxy. The Force Awakens has the exact same sequence, intended to create the exact same feeling… except I had seen it before.

Poe Dameron was an interesting character who we really didn't get a chance to get to know. — Poe Dameron was an interesting character who we really didn’t get a chance to get to know.

“Do, or do not. There is no try.” These were the words of Master Yoda in Empire Strikes Back… and they seem to have been the mantra of the movie. Lucas tried and failed to do something new – so don’t try anything new. The Force Awakens is fun, but I have a feeling that – as time goes on – it will lose much of the praise it is currently receiving. It has too many new elements to be a good remake, and too many remake elements to make for a really interesting (or truly great) sequel.

For a universe so rich in original stories (Heir to the Empire, Knights of the Old Republic, Jedi Knight) this may be a sign of the dark side. Disney’s bold plan for a sequel to Avengers was just… recreating the Avengers after all. The vision was lacking. We may never know what Lucas’ original idea for Episode VII was, but I’m going to guess it wasn’t “let’s just do A New Hope again.”

A Different Product for a Different Time: Donald Duck Comics

Posted on January 27, 2014August 19, 2016 by Colin McMahon

Who doesn’t know Donald Duck? The crass companion of Mickey Mouse and Goofy has been around for the better part of the century. While Donald had humble origins (he started off as a side character to Peter Pig… I know, who?) the character quickly grew into the most clearly defined of all the major Disney animated characters. Mickey Mouse is a nice guy, Goofy is a nice guy – Donald, well he’s a jerk. A real jerk, with a fiery temper and abusive tendencies to his nephews. Yet with all that aside there is something really endearing about him. Yeah, he’s selfish but then: aren’t we all?

Like all major Disney creations, Donald Duck appeared in many forms. Movies, cartoons and comics: there was hardly a media platform that was foreign. This article focuses on those early comics, created by Carl Barks. These stories took the form of humorous adventures that took Donald and his three nephews (and occasionally Scrooge and others) to every exotic corner of the globe. Have you ever seen DuckTales? Think that but more politically incorrect… like really more.

I own a collection of the old Donald Duck stories, comics published between 1944 and 1952. Needless to say, the world was different then. In these tales, Donald and his nephews head to the arctic, the tropics and everywhere in between. In the ten stories they meet pretty much every type of people on the planet and well, there’s a lot of this:

Today, this would be unacceptable. Disney would face massive repercussions and have to at least make a public apology. However, I do not believe Barks had racism in mind when he was writing the stories. There is a focus on “political correctness” now that did not exist back in the early 20th century. Older ideas, such as imperialism, were still alive and well (not that they aren’t today, they’re just thankfully less popular). From John Carter to Batman, every character reflected this attitude.

Wasn't even the worst thing Donald did back then. — Wasn’t even the worst thing Donald did back then.

As times changed and culture evolved, the content of these works is now deemed offensive. To be labeled “politically incorrect” is to be accused of damaging culture. All people are created equally therefore it is not right to offend anyone. I take issue with the whole idea of “political correctness” but that is an article for another day. The question is: are these comics damaging?

No. These are not works of influence. These are flights of fancy with Donald Duck. In some ways his personality allows this behavior to be more acceptable. Looking at a list of other questionable content, it’s sad to see all these beloved characters behaving this way because it was socially acceptable at the time. Donald Duck has never been socially acceptable. As stated at the beginning of this article: he’s a jerk. Donald is the character the audience learns from, not emulates. There is an argument to be made that, in this culture, Donald worked better as a teacher. Regardless, times have changed and Donald along with them. Thankfully, there is more than one way to be a jackass.

Seriously, stuff like this has always disturbed me.

Why Aren't We Getting David Fincher's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea?

Posted on July 17, 2013 by Colin McMahon

The year: 1954, the movies: awesome. Seriously, so many of my favorite films came out in that year, it’s not even funny. While Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea may not make my top ten list, it was still one of my favorite movies to watch as a kid. Before I was old enough to appreciate the characters or the themes, I had the giant squid scene – and boy did I have fun with that.

I used to fast forward my VHS copy to just watch this scene. I think I saw the giant squid sequence at least 50 times before I ever watched the full movie.

Anyway, as time passed, I began to appreciate the more mature values of Richard Fleischer’s film. The bitter determination of Captain Nemo stuck out to me and I found a fascination with the character that encouraged me to read Verne’s novels (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and its quasi-sequel, Mysterious Island). Captain Nemo is still one of my favorite literary figures of all time. However, when I read the novel, one thing became clear to me: there are big differences between the page and the film treatment. Verne’s novel reads more like a fantastical scientific journal while the Walt Disney production is an action-adventure epic with anti nuclear war undertones. It makes sense, as with any good adaptation the film version was adapted to fit its time (things change between 1870 and 1954).

Still, that version was 70 years ago and I for one am ready to see Disney try again… too bad it doesn’t look like that is going to happen.

The original is a classic in its own right but time has taken it out of the public perception.

Well, scratch that. We’ll probably get one soon but I don’t know what kind of quality we can expect. After months of trying, an update came today that none other than David Fincher (Se7en, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Fight Club, Alien 3 (can’t resist putting that one in there)) has left the project. As a movie fan, that sucks to hear.

Fincher is a filmmaker known for creating dark, moving atmosphere with smart scripts and talented actors... pretty good fit for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. — Fincher is a filmmaker known for creating dark, moving atmosphere with smart scripts and talented actors… pretty good fit for *20,000 Leagues Under the Sea*.

While I can’t say I’m the biggest fan of Fincher’s work – I personally would rate Se7en as one of the most overrated films I’ve ever seen – I cannot deny his ability. He’s just a good fit for the project, anyone familiar with the original source material would attest to that. There’s certain combinations that just sound like a good fit. Remember when Gore Verbinski (The Ring, Pirates of the Caribbean) was going to do a Bioshock movie? Well, that was also a good fit that didn’t happen.

Anyway, the question then becomes: why? David Fincher is a critically successful director who produces commercial success. Even a big budget (and apparently he planned a big budget) shouldn’t frighten Disney away from the idea of a remake. It didn’t, it was a casting problem.

I know what you’re thinking: Nemo. Of course, the iconic character. One of the greatest creations ever given birth by the pen. Yes, who would play Nemo? Clearly Disney and Fincher must have had some debate over which way to go with the most important piece of the puzzle. Well, fact is they never got to Nemo. Couldn’t get past replacing this guy:

Ned Land marked the biggest change between the book and the original Disney movie. In the novel, he’s a fairly minor character who doesn’t make much of an splash (I’ll stop) on the plot. In the movie… well, he was Kirk Douglas. The fact that the casting of Ned Land was the first priority is telling. Clearly this remake intended to follow closer to the film original than to the book. This was not necessarily a bad thing.

Here’s what happened: initially David Fincher intended Brad Pitt to play the role. Again this fits as Pitt has a similar acting style to Douglas. However, Pitt wasn’t interested (for some reason or other) and the role went to both Daniel Craig and Matt Damon for consideration. While both were interested in the part, neither wanted to abandon their families for a 140 day shoot in Australia (the proposed location for the film). Good news about approaching veteran actors – they’re mostly good. Bad news – they mostly have families they don’t want to leave for long periods of time. So three great ideas for a replacement Ned Land, come and gone. Fincher decided to change tactics and proposed the much longer Channing Tatum for the role. Disney was… not on board with this.

Remember that big budget I mentioned? Well, David Fincher may be a good director name but Disney felt it needed a dynamite actor name to guarantee big box office money. They were fine with Pitt, Craig or Damon, but Tatum? In his (much shorter) career, he has not had the commercial success of the other three. So they said no and instead offered the idea of Chris Hemsworth (Thor) for the role. It was at this point that David Fincher left the project.

Personally I don't see much difference in acting ability between the two actors but Fincher evidently does. — Personally I don’t see much difference in acting ability between the two actors but Fincher evidently does.

So that’s it. Forget Nemo, the studio couldn’t even agree on a Ned Land. This marks yet another dismal chapter in the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea remake development. Oh yeah, Disney’s been trying to make this film for a while. Several directors have been either rumored (Sam Raimi) or attached (McG… thank god that one didn’t happen) to the project. Will 20,000 Leagues ever see the light of day? Of course, there is money to be made. However, it might not be good. Films that exist for long stretches in the dubbed “developmental hell” stage of production rarely turn out to be gems (other films on the list include The Wolfman, Prometheus and Alien vs Predator).

Regardless, the film will one day see the light of day. Who knows, Fincher may even return to the project in the future (unlikely but possible). But whether it is Fincher or (shudder) McG, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is too good a story to remain dead in the water for long.

Sources: 1, 2, 3