Over at one of my favorite sites, io9, wonderful writer Charlie Jane Anders posted a rant about why live-action fantasy movies seem to be cursed at the box office, and all of which I think rings pretty true. But Charlie Jane provided such an extensive list of movies to pick apart to see just why we can feel that way.
So just as a fun experiment I'm going to do just that: Pick these movies apart. But for the sake of being exactly what I am, a red-blooded American movie goer with a huge love for sci-fi and fantasy, I'm going to pick all of these apart from just memory, and not look up a single thing about them, like I'd normally do to keep my facts straight.
First off, I've got to start off by saying that just about every one of those movies was bad for some reason or another. That there's not going to be a huge amount of praise here. Actually most of the praise in this post was gobbled up by my admiration for Charlie Jane. But what I also want everyone to remember is that this is all opinion, and opinions are subjective, but I have some very strong feelings for all of these.. Or at least those that I've seen. So lets take the plunge, shall we?
Last Airbender - This movie had a ton of issues before the movie even came out, with the whole "controversial" white washing situation. But I really don't think anyone other then the people who were paying attention ultra-closely even cared about that situation, otherwise I think we would have had more of an uproar over it in the media (and if there was one, it died pretty fast) that would have actually served the movie a lot more then the dead air it seemed to get.
But the one thing I can think about when it comes to this movie, that could have killed it without much help, was its universally terrible critic scores, and how all of the critics were actually spot on about how terrible the movie was. It was just a really really bad movie.
The movie really takes away any wonder anyone could have about why M. Night Shyamalan didn't direct anything for a few years between it and After Earth, which also failed at the box office. Even Will Smith hasn't been shy about saying how sad he's been about that.
What Shyamalan wrote/produced in between, the horror movie Devil, was a pretty terrible movie, having just finally watched that recently.
(P.S. I hate to sound like I'm bashing Mr. Shyamalan, I really do love some of his movies. Unbreakable didn't leave my dvd player for months after buying it on its release day. One of my all time favorite movies. His movies are always really great ideas that don't quite come together. I equally hate to say that this is why not all writers are allowed to make the movies they've written.)
Eragon - Didn't seem to get a lot of marketing support. Frankly I've not seen the movie, I just haven't had much of a reason to seek it out and still don't feel like I do. If you didn't read the books, you didn't feel forced to care. I wasn't made to care.
Spiderwick Chronicles- The same thing, weak marketing, but it was also mostly trying to be the next Harry Potter but wasn't from a series so beloved that it could hold that end up. This is a movie I keep wanting to attempt to watch, but keep forgetting to Netflix.
Nice hat
(This poster is the epitome of everything I've said below, Gods =bright, everything else = dark)Immortals - This wasn't that bad of a movie, but I think 2 things happened here: The cinematography and the story.
The story was... It wasn't that great... And ultimately pretty forgettable. In fact I think Mickey Rourke chewed the scenery so much, he ate the whole movie.
What I felt hurt it most was the a-little-too-artistic cinematography/art style the movie had that movie DARK, like not just the tone of the story, which was pretty dark, but the film itself made it hard to see what was going on. It was either REALLY bright when the gods were around shining on like the brightest Tap Lights in existence, or they were hiding the flaws of the cinematography between action sequences by making the scenes VERY dark.
Golden Compass: Seems like weak marketing -no real reason to feel excited for it if you've never read the book. Don't remember much about the release of this movie over then it had a crap videogame tie-in.
Bewitched - As someone who grew up on the reruns on the show, I have to say I have a pretty decent bone to pick with this movie.
The story was horribly retarded. Sorry, I don't like to use that word, but it was. The set up just killed it. If the movie was just the show, in movie form, I think it could have worked. But as a movie based on the production of a revival of the show, that happened to have a real witch, playing the part of a TV witch.. No.. Just stop...
The casting was also weird/stupid too. Nicole Kidman was fine, I guess, but Will Farrell.. Sorry, I like him in most things, he's a funny guy and I really liked him in some dramatic roles, like Everything Must Go, but he didn't work in that movie and it felt like they were just using him to pull people into seats rather then him really needing to be there for the movie. Thats never good casting.
So much wrong, even on this poster
Dragonball Evolution- Come on... Do we really need to recount how much of a train wreck this was? Very little of this was "Dragonball" so even fans of the series, Ball;Z;GT and Manga were alienated.
Dylan Dog- I thought this movie was really great, I loved Brandon Routh, and (as a guy speaking) adored Sam Huntington, but it was HORRIBLY under marketed. It just wasn't sold to anyone. Its like the produced it and put it in the warehouse waiting for someone to stumble on it and make them an offer. Like a flea market find.
I also have a funny feeling that the subject matter just wasn't something people cared to see as well. The movie did come off as Constantine lite: all the flavor, but lacking in flashy, calorie filled, effects. That might have scared the studio away from majorly pushing it, or just kept people out of seats (both because of the lack of flare, but also because people don't look fondly on Constantine). But I really do think it was just not marketed.
I'm also going to throw the thought out there that the property this movie was based on isn't exactly a big, worldwide, name. Expecting it to be a huge success is kind of dumb when you're having to sell the entire thing on people while saying, "Hey, you know its an Italian comic book, right?"
Jack the Giant Slayer - I haven't seen this yet, but it just didn't look appealing to me at the time (I'm actually putting it on my Netflix list now). I had known a bit of the back story to the production, about how Bryan Singer walked away from many projects, over the course of many years, to do this movie. It was all he talked about for a while. But the end result just didn't have a "go see it" flare. All the ads for this movie were pretty terrible. I mean, Ewen McGregor was funny in them, but this whole badly edited, "Who are you," "I'm Jack!" crap got really irritating, over and over and over again. They sold this movie, but did-so in a bad way, which is also totally a possible thing that can happen.
Mirror Mirror -This movie actually wasn't that bad, and I remember the marketing was pretty good, but I don't think it got very good word of mouth that it was something worth the time. I mean, it wasn't amazing, but it was a cute story compared to the action flick that other Snow White movie was around that time.
I think maybe the high concept spin on the Snow White story just didn't jive with people. This one played it much fluffier, with a softer cast, and I think that hurt it a bit. It was fun but just wasn't something everyone could swallow their pride to go see.
The other one did palatable, digestible, action, with albeit bigger-with-the-teens names like Kristen Stewart or Chris Hemsworth, which played to both male and females, in many ways (Snow wasn't a wuss and fought pretty hard; The Huntsman was horribly conflicted.. And there was no real love story there! Just a nod like, "sup," at the end, and thats it.).
The target audience for Mirror Mirror didn't really know Lily Collins (who really is pretty great, even with the worst material), and when they'd search her, wouldn't care that she's Phil Collins' daughter, only those of us who lived through the 80s would. I'm sure most people were distracted by what they hell was up with her eyebrows, which were the most distracting feature of both the movie and the marketing material (sorry Lily).
And, I'm sorry to say, for as much as we like to tote about The Social Network being so great, I don't think anyone cares about Armie Hammer too much. The Lone Ranger sort of proved that, and that shit had the much more marketable Johnny Depp in it, stealing the show.
Actually, going to be pretty straight about it, the best parts of this movie were carried by the dwarfs. Those guys were great.
I don't know. I just remember being surprised about how much I liked the story and how it was presented, but not so much about I still don't like Julia Roberts (sorry, not a fan).
This says absolutely nothing about the movie.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice -This movie was fun, but it was like watching National Treasure with a really annoying lead that wasn't Nick Cage, and Nick Cage was along for the ride. It felt like this movie was made for a very particular type of person, and there must not have been many of those people floating around.
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters - Just watched this movie this weekend. Fell asleep during it. Its actually kind of embarrassing how little of the movie I remember while still having it sitting next to my TV, waiting to be mailed back. I'd love to sit and watch it again, but I have things to do, and can't really fall asleep again.
From what I did see, it was just people doing some action-y things. The story felt very loosely there and all for the sake of weird shit happening for no good reason, just to push a movie out. Maybe a cash grab at the whole "lets milk public domain fantasy" craze everyones on. Thats really the base impression I got from it.
From what I recall, this movie had been done for a while before its release, but held back till Jeremy Renner caught more steam after having become Hawkeye in the Marvel's Avengers. Something tells me they should have kept this movie filed away, or let it slip under the couch or something. Actually, I'd do that myself, but I want the next movie on my queue.
Conan -This movie was fun, I liked it, but it was also forgettable. "This movie was fun, I liked it..." is all I can really remember about it though, sadly. It wasn't terrible but nothing about it popped, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people felt that they could have gotten better mileage for a cheaper price by renting/watching one of the Schwarzenegger movies.
The Brothers Grimm - I can't remember much about this movie, I've only seen it once and its been a while, but I imagine the high concept nature of the movie hurt it a lot, possibly like Hansel and Gretel, but with way more charm. I remember it being smart, with a solid cast, but little else.
Oh look, Brandon Frazier.
Inkheart -Honestly don't have much of a clue what this movie is, don't think I've heard of it. So that says something.
The Seeker: The Dark is Rising - Errr... Yeah.. Don't have much of a clue on this either.
Also, the main male's accent thing going on was pretty horrible, even if fitting to the role/setting. He was just too, "I'll be your huckleberry," for my taste. Goofy.
Clash of the Titans and sequel -Clash was good but forgettable. All I can remember is Liam Neeson, A giant scorpion and a Bupo joke/cameo that was a throwback to the original, much more remember-able, epic.
A popcorn movie at best, the movie wasn't good enough to make me want to seek out the sequel, since I still haven't. Actually the movie was fine as a stand alone piece and didn't need a sequel.
Studio trusted a little too much.
Percy Jackson and sequel - The first movie has been cited many times over as being a grab for a the reigns of a Harry Potter replacement, but being made in very much a way that it seems like its trying to copy Potter like a cheap Chinese knockoff... Aaaaaaand then the sequel got called the same thing... Almost exactly, word for word... So its really no wonder no one went to see this.
I also don't feel like the book series is as beloved as the Potter series. I don't think anyone really clamored for it to be made into a movie, unless they were going to make money directly from it.
Chronicles of Narnia sequels - Narnia works against itself. Everyone (or most people) knows the first book, but it seems like many people stop right there. In fact, many people seem perfectly fine stopping right there. A lot of people also wanted to see how they were going to handle the "Aslan is God" allegory. Once they saw that, they didn't need to see Prince Caspian or The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to move the story along (in fact, I didn't want to see Dawn Treader because of the kids obnoxious cousin, alone. He was such an asshole in the book that I didn't want to bother myself seeing him come to life).
The thing I've always found about the Narnia books is that they may follow a path, but they're not largely related. You can really stop at the first one and be fine, specially since everything past Dawn Treader never felt all that interesting to me anyway.
So what do we have here? Well, mostly fantasy based on adaptations of novels, or series of them. That could be a weakening point in the greater fantasy movie strut. Its no secret that its pretty easy to botch up an adaptation, if simply because its hard to transfer and convey the not only the amply described settings, but all the internal struggles of the characters.
I also feel like a lot of these are based on books, or even media, like cartoons, and rather niche that don't have a huge-widespread influence. And then when they try to give it a wider appeal they don't do a very good job of it and it either fumbles the play (Something like a Percy Jackson) or flat out loses itself (Dragonball Evolution).
If only they could all be like you...
And then theres this whole, "we have to be like that other thing that existed and made a ton of money," thing. Or as I'll probably call it: The Harry Potter Effect. It seems like trying to do something for the sake of just copying another things success really doesn't work. I can't think of an example of something that does work, because I'm at a loss. Someone hook us up with an example in the comments.
A pretty large cross section of these movies also got little to no, or just flat out terrible, marketing. One of the best ways to drown a movie, as a studio, seems to be to simply not tell anyone it exists.
Heres always been this rumor/wives tale that Hollywood makes movies sometimes, for one reason or another, just to make them, with no actual goal or thought of them doing well or not, in order to fill some sort of weird quota or something. Crazy conspiracy stuff. I hate to say that some of these movies feel like they're in that category.
Or, you know, people would rather just Netflix these movies, just to play it safe with their cash. These movies alone prove that fantasy movies are hardly a sure thing.
But we also have to remember something here: "Superhero" isn't a genre of its own. "Superhero" is still fantasy, and those movies are still doing very well. We may complain that theres too many of them being made, or that they're stale, but they're also generally an easier thing to adapt in spite of their usually exorbitant budgets, because they're a visual medium that doesn't ask you to spend so much time imagining what everything looks like, and having to interpret that for others in an acceptable way. And it seems to be fairly rare for a hero movie to fail, unless something goes terribly wrong; an example being Green Lantern, or Green Hornet.. Maybe they wouldn't make a Green Arrow movie, or named the show simply "Arrow", because the word, "Green," is cursed?
No comments:
Post a Comment