Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘movies’

beastyA twitter from earlier in the week:

AboutThisLater: Just invented a new superhero: the Lampshader

6:32 PM Jul 3rd from TwitterMail

He’s like a cross between Deadpool and the parodically thinly-conceived Midnighter from The Authority.

I’ve been reading a lot of TVTropes lately (thanks to Stubby43 for the link), so where before I already knew that Deadpool was a classic fourth-wall breaker, I now have the vocabulary to describe Midnighter as textbook Cursed-with-Awesome and an egregious and obvious tribute to Batman, which writer Warren Ellis made entertaining by comprehensibly lampshade-hanging the character with Meta Fanservice/Going to Bed With a Trope: hardcore haunted Crazy Prepared bully-boy Midnighter is gay, and in a loving, settled marriage with Apollo, his universe’s Superman.

From TVTropes:

This practice is also known as “hanging a clock on it”, “hanging a lantern on it”, or “spotlighting it”. We went with this title because it’s the one used in the Mutant Enemy bullpen… Lampshade Hanging is the writers’ trick of dealing with any element of the story that threatens the audience’s Willing Suspension Of Disbelief—whether a very implausible plot development, or a particularly egregious use of a trope—by calling attention to it… and then moving on.

cannibalism not prostitution

(From Nobody Scores!. You just wait for an upcoming post where I stretch the bounds of critical taste with my theory that cannibalism is the most extreme form of various behaviours all similarly redefined by the internet: once viewed as a symptom of barbarism, people-eating is now tinged with an aura of terrifying, inpenetrable connoisseurship.)

And with that brilliant segue, on to the main event: a trailer for a film whose writers have clearly been studying the Buffy playbook for ideas, not just for do-nots. Sam Neill, Ethan Hawke, Willem Defoe and Placebo star in a vampire flick which will quite literally have to be 100% lampshade (ah ha ha), and which annoyingly has taken a title which I’ve been kicking around for some time.

I’m reserving “Nightfallers” for the sequel, though.

It looks like a cross between Gattaca, Equilibrium and Jack Frost, the only good thing in the Blade movies. Awesome. [edit: he’s actually called Deacon Frost. False memory there. Thanks to @benfrenchman]

p

What have I been doing, you ask?

Today’s schedule: Up and into town for work for an upcoming feature on the Museum of Asian Art’s Triennale. Conducted an interview with a trio of artists from Japan, Korea and China, whose work involves inventing a tiny fictional country and its flag, laws, currency etc. They even held their own Olympic ceremony, in Beijing, to coincide with the “real” one. I’m amazed they survived. Interesting lads who communicate through sketches and very limited English but who’ve been collaborating for years. Blog post will go up tomorrow, hopefully.

Then wandering around in the sweltering rain trying to follow email instructions on my phone, before finally finding the headquarters of the local branch of the General [foreign] Worker’s Union. A very interesting, earnest presentation about changes in immigration law and its implications for workers. Was kicked out before their AGM started, but again they’re nice, self-sacrificing, smart lads. Again, post up tomorrow, if I can make head or tail of my notes on Japan’s tortuous health insurance law.

Then to Niko’s for cannonball-heavy but delicious lentil stew, and finally starting to lay out pages of iland. Really awesomely exciting, but it’s weird to be doing it with only about three weeks before I leave. I have a long way to go before I can be sure I’m speaking the same language he is when trying to skype-describe how I think a frame should be oriented and where characters’ gazes should be going.

Finally home on the last train full of Sunday night drunks, reading an introduction to political philosophy and writing notes on my wrist. Came up with two great philosophical comebacks/punchlines for iland, but I guess you’ll have to wait and see.

9bb6fb8521f4d74804b4a7f7469b86c684ea07e7

please allow me to introduce myself

p

“If the change is a result of a Face Heel Turn, see Superpowered Evil Side and Good Is Dumb. If it’s a result of a Heel Face Turn, then it’s a case of Evil Is Dumb. If the change is due to time travel, see Future Badass. If it is the result of finding a powerful object, see Amulet Of Concentrated Awesome.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

thumbnail aeJust got back from watching the hypnotically disappointing Transformers 2. Now, I’m going to try to keep this short, partly because I need to work on getting my post length down and count up, and partly because I don’t want this to become a movie blog, since I have little to no opinion on the vast majority of them. By half way through the film, however, the thought of being able to vent on it was what was keeping me sitting there. That, and fascination.

I’m going to go back and forth a bit, but first I should establish the basic reaction: what irritated me the most wasn’t some frivolity of the script, but the ability of the production as a whole and, inevitably, Michael Bay in particular, to disregard their own previous film, which I had enjoyed immensely. The sequel treats the original not as an interesting story which should be responded to but as a weary preliminary now  out of the way: after all, Megatron is back so fast he’s barely had time to rust, and the world is infested with Decepticons (and apparently always was).

The previous film is the means to have the ball well and truly rolling at the start of #2, with a host of bitterly-held adolescent fantasies rightfully fulfilled in protagonist Sam. Sam has a devoted, bitchin’ girlfriend, a puppy-like Camero homie, magic powers, and ultimately a mandate from the Transformer gods. He has already saved the world once, everyone has to take him seriously, and despite his sufferings and embarrassments the joke is on those who don’t.

Now this is weird, since writing about Star Trek the other day I tried to debunk picking on movies for discontinuity in general. It’s a question of deciding to like a movie, I said. Well, T2 is best approached that way too. About an hour in, having decided that I very firmly didn’t like it, I was still sat next to my 15-year-old friend who was raucously enjoying every minute of it, fart jokes, bitchslaps to authority and sex predicaments included.

And I couldn’t bring myself to proselytise to him, I suppose because I have an outlet here. He didn’t take it personally that our opinions differed, and I would hopefully never give him the impression that I judged him for his, mainly because I know he’s an intelligent bloke. None of my most hotly-phrased arguments mattered, since none of the things that my liberal mind wanted to rail at were really going to damage him: inanity, gleeful destruction of libraries and monuments, and poorly-concealed rage at some past Prom Queen-related humiliation.

If I were going to proselytise, and let’s face it I am, I would have to respond to the film’s obvious hatred of women by saying that if you’d seen the previous film, (or even the Trailer for the current one) then you’d only need to know two additional things in order to be able to predict more-or-less exactly the events of the first hour or so of the second film. 1) Sam is going to an easily-stereotyped Ivy-like college, in a long-distance relationship with Micaela; 2) In defiance of all the story’s other logic there is now an evil seductive Deceptaslut transformer with a serpentine robot tongue.

Yeah.

Now, I’m sick of the idea that predictability alone is enough to make a movie bad: after all, I’m assuming you have half a brain and a grounding in Freud when I give you the above information and tell you to put two and two together and make a blatant neurotic jump.

[Note that the above video contains dialogue not in the final cut. I’ll give you a hint: it’s everything interesting or intelligent or speculative.]

It’s important that you’ve seen the first movie for that predictability to become easy (and enraging), because the second has all the first’s slightly worrying gung-ho tics writ large. It’s worshipfully military-fetishistic, and not simply apolitical but contemptuous of any kind of political context to military affairs and clean might.

Similarly Michael Bay’s now-notorious comment to Megan Fox when she asked what she should be doing to develop her character between films: “look hotter”.

Lord knows I couldn’t bring myself to love Bay’s version of the woman, with her tannic scorch and painfully blown lips, but watching her in T2 reminded me of nothing so much as watching Nicole Kidman in Lars von Trier’s experi-sploitation flick Dogville. It’s probably equally vile to over-react to Bay’s ability to hugely raise the sex of female action film stereotypes without a similar rise in intelligence. But all the same I left feeling like she was hard done by the film, overexposed and under developed, on and probably off screen.

Whatever. She’s a big girl. It’s a proudly sexy film, in the sense that it’s standing on the roof gable waving its dick around. It’s proud, too, of whatever it is that knits together Black Hawk helicopters, fixed notions of the absurdity and lechery of academia, easy professionalised racist archetypes and finally the urge to add slogans and fake genitalia to vehicles.

T2 quite literally adds gold teeth and swingin’ steel balls to the motherfucking Transformers.

In general, so much attention is paid to the talking robots in an effort to avoid fan fallout (Optimus dies again, and gets the best lines, and is heroic in a bumper-sticker sort of way) that something by turns lazy and mad can happen in the huge swathes of the film which don’t even involve them. And that includes the puddle-eyed orphan Jerry Springer robo-ho and her whole sordid bit.

Sabine_women

In case it’s not thoroughly spoilt, I urge you to check out this excellent Transformers 2 FAQ on Village Voice’s Toplessrobot, which provides the beginnings of an explanation for the movie’s various massive clangers.

Why would a robot need to fart, pee, or vomit? And why would it need testicles?
Michael Bay does not understand what a robot is.

-via ToplessRobot

Michael Bay’s “hilarious” comment to Megan Fox is starting to look like one of those little hints you should have spotted in your neighbour, before he started shooting people in his underwear and screaming about whore-aliens. He managed to make a film devoid of any sense or type of responsibility. A gleefully adult film which my 15-year old friend enjoyed, and rightly described as a “toy movie”.

A multi-million dollar adult toy movie.

Don’t give me that

p

[Edit: I forgot the most important thing! As Stubby points out in the comments, the above can mostly be applied to Transformers 1 as well. I just happened to enjoy that movie, and chose to dislike #2. Or wasn’t feeling quite receptive enough for its bullshit. Once I’d chosen, the evidence mounted up: the plot is nonsense, continuity is utterly nonexistent the setpieces undramatic.

I would say all this, if I was going to gripe. If I was going to gripe I would say something about the apparently unnoticed irony that in a movie with such a visible erection for tanks, aircraft carriers and planes, that unquestioning protago-geek hero-worship results in confused American soldiers dying in the desert based on one teenager’s hero fantasy.

If I was going to gripe. I suppose the point of all this was going to be some magnanimous edict that action films are what you make of them, or something. But the more I think about T2 the less inclined I am.

T2 is a movie designed to insult the intelligence of almost everyone watching it. And if you’re okay with that, then fine. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what action movies are supposed to be about.

Read Full Post »

So, imagine:

You’re the guy JJ Abrams comes to and says “we’re going to make a new Star Trek”.

And you say No!                                        No.

p

No.

No. no. no. why? no.

And he says “wait, hear me out,  it’s not what you think. It’s not just an extended episode of Next Gen. It’s a pseudo-definitive prequel!”

And you say NOOOO. No. no.

No. no. no no. Stop. No.

p

And then he makes you the guy who has to write the damn thing, and make sure it isn’t an unwatchable piece of filmwork. And you have to get paid a huge amount of money, and go on the witness protection program, and take your inspiration from fanfiction in order to write the plot of a film which auto-retcons itself out of canon, and then you see it made and see Zachary Quinto cast as Spock.

I can think of far worse jobs.

X-Men 2006 character list deadpool movie

p

I twittered a while back about how it’s not necessarily the desire to experiment, or even god help us the desire to update beloved properties that irritates their fans so much.

It’s not just that it’s a Star Trek movie, nor even that it’s a prequel, though that does take some chutzpah. No, it’s the fact that it’s not Star Trek: Verb Adjective. It’s supposed to be the Star Trek. It’s pretending to be definitive. You can’t call it Transformers: Thought Experiment or GI Joe: What If? because then normal people wouldn’t go see it. Apparently.

p

Similarly the trailer for Guy Ritchie’s Guy Ritchie: Sherlock Holmes by Guy Ritchie. [Embedding disabled by request] You can’t call it Sherlock Holmes: The case of the hypermasculine reimagining, because then it wouldn’t fit on a billboard, and 18-30s would get bored saying the title before they finished their sentence, and it wouldn’t be deliciously presumptuous and naughty.

Now, I’ve been told by people whose opinion I respect that Ritchie’s new drug-sniffing dog-bashing Holmes is evil, and wrong. And admittedly after several watchings the trailer gets old and you see that it probably isn’t going to be very good. But not on principle. I went to see Star Trek with a friend who knew very little about Star Trek, being exclusively a Voyager fan. (Hmm. Maybe my parents are right, and I do automatically limit my friend groups to people above a certain threshold of nerdiness.)

prom

prom

p

We were in, bliss of blisses, a completely empty theatre so we could make fun of it just enough, and we both walked out having enjoyed it about the same amount, which was quite a lot. I was quite glad I briefed her on the Kobayashi Maru while we were biking over, though it would have been an interesting litmus test if I hadn’t, as I think that bit would have made little sense if you didn’t know what it was all about.

The bit with the Kobayashi Maroo [come on, guys, Japanese pronunciation please] was the closest the movie got to a concession to the fans, since it was hard to follow if you were a non-fan. As geeky archetypes go, Kobayashi Maru is both a shibboleth and a means of feeling exclusive. It’s like Mornington Crescent: you’re either in the know, or you’re not.

superkiss superman lois lane kiss

p

Now, I should point out that my nerdly understanding stems from nerd anthropology. I may well have seen fewer episodes of Star Trek than the friend I went with. I certainly remember few enough. I realised only recently that it was actually always my mum’s decision that we watched Next Generation with tea after school: she exerted so little preference pressure but it always happened. Same with Farscape and later, more transparently, SG-1. I don’t think even she could have thought of herself as someone who could be a sci-fi fan, and it fact it may be the glorious @betterthemask who finally brings out that side of my mum in time to become a boxset obsessive when she retires.

p

truffleshuffle300fm2No, I actually prefer to read Fans! and to read Wikipedia articles about comic books and TV shows, more than I actually enjoy watching or reading the things themselves. I love being able to dip into incredibly hard-wrought expertise, feel the obsessive passion that drives it through the opaque, wry reserve of Wikipedia house style.

You can literally hear the shouts of exultation and the hours of devotion that go into the restrained superlative of Wikipedia pages on James T. Kirk or Rand al’Thor or, for that matter, Michael Jordan. That stuff is like crack to me. I take an interest, because I’m interested in obsessives and in characters with intricate backstories. Whereas my friend who loves Voyager cannot call herself a Star Trek fan.

p

From the Youtube comments on the Star Trek trailer:

Alturiste (2 days ago)           Reply    Spam

Section 31

So, because I’m a fan of only 2 of the 5 other series and because I perhaps haven’t read as many Trek books as you, that makes me a “lesser fan”? What you seem to want do to is impose your own preferences on everyone else. THAT is contradictory to the spirit of Trek.

Don’t make yourself out to be “better” by doing a Nazi-like imposition of your values on other people. If you didn’t like the movie, we can agree to disagree, fine. But don’t demean people who don’t share your taste.

p

What I loved about the Abrams Star Trek was that it was clever, satisfying, and that with relatively little contrivance it made itself into a grinning, joyful piece of fan fiction. It mocked its own pretensions of being authoratative, it reveled in slash, it happened in an alt-universe.

Of course, time traveling is cheating. But thank god they didn’t make too much of a meal of it, and thank god it wasn’t the other two much worse premises in the fan fiction trifecta: mind control and fucking Q.

p

Don’t let the trailer fool you, it is of course Spock’s story. The Kirk of what will come to be known as Star Trek [2009] disqualifies himself early on as a piece of Gladwell-esque psychological thought-experimentation.

He’s barely there at the movie’s centre to begin with, poor chap, and then we discover that he’s only an idea of what might have been?

greedo shot first

Of course it’s not going to please people. Like chess, bemani or amateur dramatics, Star Trek doesn’t drive sane people mad: it keeps mad people able to interact with the world in a normal, if narrow way. It may be that my friend is unwilling to refer to herself as a trekker (see, I know the right terminology) because trekkers themselves have made it such an all-or-nothing thing.

Extremist fans, figures of easy media pantomiming, have made Star Trek seem like an impenetrable, no-love-for-casuals world. As fans will, their stories are dominated by searches for their own authenticity, claims to definitiveness. Janeway is Satan. DS9 is rubbish. The original series alone is pure. The Abrams Star Trek credits had a “Vulcan and Romulan Language Consultant”, for goodness’ sake.

p

(They also had a team of five “Inferno Artists”. How I would love to be able to put that on my passport. Speaking of which: Klingons are conspicuously completely absent from the new film: perhaps they realised that fandom defines itself by its villains, and that they could never modern-gloss klingons to look anything but ridiculous.

I want to see a word-for-word adaptation of Larry Niven’s Ringworld. That’s what I want.)

darth vader whistler's mother

p

Another friend of mine was very happy to see Terminator 4, and ambivalent on Transformers 2, but utterly opposed to seeing Star Trek. Not because it was a dumb action movie; it was a dumb action movie with pointy ears. Never mind that Terminator is based on a painfully dated pair of superbly clever but inaccessible action movies (and a regrettable, forgettable third movie).

Those films had Arnie, which makes them acceptable popcorn fodder. If I’d banged on and on about how the first two movies were smart and interesting, I would probably have made the fourth film seem less like a fun night out at the movies. Not because my friend is a moron (she isn’t) but because now-gen blockbuster remakes come with a context and a reputation which they cannot escape, and which determines their branding.

Consumers have remarkably sensitive ideas of context for films: a mere six-month trailer campaign can completely buzz a movie, so what did you think forty years of very grounded, personal pre-jusdgment would do?

The producers of the ’09 Star Trek can strip down the uniforms and cut out the Klingons, but they can’t make it not to boldly go, and so wisely didn’t try.

p

Transformers is also difficult because it’s obviously a “known quantity”, but can probably be pigeonholed into “idiot 80’s kids’ stuff revival”, and hence is not completely worthless since X-Men worked. And the Transformers have been subject to brilliant and, more importantly, thorough re-imagining.

The Transformers are barely there in their first film: they are essentially talking firearms. It’s hard to believe that in the comics they’re there in fully realised personality: in one comic there’s an entire pastiche of the detective genre played out exclusively by transforming robots.

This same friend of mine would probably find the idea of a GI Joe movie nothing but comical and interesting, but would never in a million years go to see an Action Man or, worse, a Stretch Armstrong movie. It’s all context. It fascinates me that she didn’t put LOTR in the same vein, nor the new Star Wars trilogy:

“yeah, well, the nerds when we were kids didn’t like Star Wars”, she said. Her reason for not wanting to see Star Trek was the image in her mind of two nerdy trekkies from her school days. One is pretty much normal now. The other, she says, is well weird.

Whoever marketed LOTR and, even better, X-men, deserved a medal for steering their properties out of the waters of fan exclusivity, of fringe. And god help whoever was at the helm of NCC-1701 Marketing, for having to sell a property that has always sustained itself by nicheing itself.

Marketing! damage report!

She cannae’ take no moore, Cap’n!

Simon Pegg probably helped. God damn it that they couldn’t find a Scottish actor, but he probably sold more seats than any other actor in the film. (Winona Ryder was in it and neither of us noticed, and Eric Bana is very good but unrecogniseable.)

p

I’m increasingly losing patience for the idea of picking whether a film is good or bad. Especially using plot holes or general “plausibility” as a measure. It’s the most obvious means by which people who decide not to like a movie can justify themselves, and yet it’s so easily turned off. You just decide to like the movie. It’s not hard.

I would have to watch Star Trek another time and think very hard in order to decide whether or not it was a good film. And it doesn’t really matter to me anymore. Blockbusters are becoming harder and harder to judge; enjoyment is colliding with the sheer skill of screenwriters in adapting crackpot ideas. Some are obvious clangers: Terminator 4, by report. That, I would actually watch again, in order to determine what was bad about it.

But I know that I enjoyed Star Trek, that it was easy to enjoy, that the pacing was a little uneven, but no more. And I still enjoyed it. I know that it stretched the imagination a bit in order to get Star Fleet cadets on the bridge and in command time after time.  But I also know that the older-officer-incapacitated-so-cadet-has-to-take-charge scenario is the bread and butter of Star Trek metafiction novels.  So I can enjoy it at that level, too.

The desire for a film to be better should, I think, always involve an idea of how you would have made it better. For fans, anyway. Maybe it’s a sign that I’ll never have my dream scriptwriting job, that right now I can’t think of a better way to have done Star Trek, given the challenge of doing Star Trek.

Also, John Cho is fucking awesome as Sulu. Roll on Hollywood finally recognising the quantity of Asian talent in its midst.

away party

Read Full Post »