Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 01:40
VIEWED: 14308
PAGE 2 of 11
Been a while since I've seen any of the movies in question, but in most cases, the problem likely starts with the script and/or the development process.
There is a great similarity between all 5 cases:
1) All 5 have a "superhero" as their protagonist.
2) 4 of the 5 are sequels, with the 5th being a remake/"re-imagining."
While there are certainly exceptions, in general, superhero sequels are bad. And there are reasons for that.
At the core of most good movies, there's is a protagonist who has a story arc that allows for meaningful change. "Superheroes" are antithetical to this, because meaningful change destroys the franchise.
Superheroes are generally allowed only so much change, and that is typically in the origin story--which is usually the first movie in the series/franchise. If a man/machine, for example, reclaims a measure of his humanity in the first movie, where does he go in subsequent movies? If he reclaims "more" of his humanity, it's just more of the same, derivative. If he doesn't change, then the protagonist, while perhaps cool, is stagnant, and has no driving conflict. The story then devolves into "Superhero must defeat supervillain," which is (usually) a little lame, because it doesn't bring with it meaningful change.
I would like to present two alternate structures for comparison.
Exhibit A: The original Star Wars Trilogy: While Luke is, like these characters, a "superhero," his evolution is cleverly spaced out across three movies, allowing room for constant growth and change. As his awareness changes, his driving goal changes.
--In A NEW HOPE, he lives in ignorance but dreams of becoming a hero (remember: he wants to be a pilot for the EMPIRE!). By the end, he has lost his old world, but acheived his goal... albeit with the help of his friends.
--In EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, he understands that he has a greater destiny than just being a hero. He is also to be a Jedi. By the end, he is well on the road to that, and is in a position where he can try to rescue the same friends who helped him. (Note that whenever we see Luke attempt something heroic before Dagobah, he is part of a larger group/assisted; after Dagobah, he is generally alone when he starts the effort).
--In RETURN OF THE JEDI, rocked by revelations about his father, his driving need becomes not only to defeat his enemies, but also to redeem his father. By the end of the trilogy, he has acheived that.
By constantly spinning Luke's worldview around, Lucas and his co-conspirators are able to give us satisfying and meaningful change in all three movies.
Now consider, exhibit B: The Indiana Jones Trilogy (I will forgo discussion of the most recent movie, because I feel it's too controversial):
--In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, Indy begins as a non-believing loner with a closed heart. Through his adventures, he comes to believe in something greater than himself... and that allows him to open his heart to love. Although his capabilities are unchanged (unlike Luke), his perspective of the world has changed significantly. In the final moments of the movie, he is able to resist mystery and frustration to, instead, spend quality time with Marion (as is implied by the final stairway scene).
--TEMPLE OF DOOM offers retrograde evolution and shows us the particular danger of a superhero prequel (also seen in the Prequel Trilogy, but that's another story). We know where Indy will end up, so when he starts much the same, there's no room to grow. The growing relationship with Billie may be superficially quite different from what Indy has with Marion, but it's still derivative. Even the attempt to add a new element (a "son" in the form of Short Round) falls short, because it's just more of the same. We've already seen Indy come to trust others and open his heart. We don't need to see it again.
Some folk will tell you that TEMPLE OF DOOM fails (despite being pretty good as an action movie) because of the lack of Nazis. I disagree, and think that it is the lack of character evolution.
--LAST CRUSADE cleverly adds new dime
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very nice analysis, GWEK.
Originally posted by GWEK:
While there are certainly exceptions, in general, superhero sequels are bad. And there are reasons for that.
At the core of most good movies, there's is a protagonist who has a story arc that allows for meaningful change. "Superheroes" are antithetical to this, because meaningful change destroys the franchise.
Superheroes are generally allowed only so much change, and that is typically in the origin story--which is usually the first movie in the series/franchise. If a man/machine, for example, reclaims a measure of his humanity in the first movie, where does he go in subsequent movies? If he reclaims "more" of his humanity, it's just more of the same, derivative. If he doesn't change, then the protagonist, while perhaps cool, is stagnant, and has no driving conflict. The story then devolves into "Superhero must defeat supervillain," which is (usually) a little lame, because it doesn't bring with it meaningful change.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Case #6:
Supernova
Apparent causes of Suckitude-
A) It felt very disjointed.
B) It was almost as if I were watching a Walter Hill movie, almost.
C) See A
Analysis:
A- You BET it felt disjointed, it was edited & re-edited at the behest of the suits.
B- That makes sense, since Walter Hill made the flick, then took his name off it as they mangled his footage.
C- Look at the deleted & alternate scenes on the DVD & you can imagine what it might have been had the PTB let Hill finish it his way. The alternate ending is especially interesting.
So, the money peeps step in where they weren't needed, and a fascinating film becomes merely a bargain bin DVD. Huh.
Next case.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:It was the change in direction the movies took from the first. In the first flick, Neo died, and Trinity held on to the end, and Neo came back.
Originally posted by Storymark:
It's funny, but people complain about everything in Hollywood being repetitive.... but look what happens when someone tries something different - people freak, and flock to the generic stuff again.
THAT makes it seem like a fantasy quality is being weaved into the fabric of the story.
THEN, Trinity dies, AND Neo dies, and we have a frikin' Greek Tragedy in place of an adventure SF film.
Sorry, that's NOT what the first movie implied from a film-making standpoint.
Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that. I don't really see that as a change in direction, as an evolution of the story and characters.
I appreciate and admire the films for trying to be more than just adventure films.
You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very funny.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that.
Quote:Okay, let's say you just don't want to acknowledge the silliness here...
You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.
Neo Dies, is revived by Trinity.
Trinity dies, is revived by Neo.
Trinity dies FOR REAL, then Neo gets blind & dies FOR REAL.
What? Were their first deaths just 'dry runs'????
Oh, and the machines are evil.
But later, only Smith seems to be evil, the rest of the machines can be aiight. Go ahead, harvest our energy, as long as you give up some peeps that wanna go... we know you'll keep your part of the bargain, especially since Captain Neo has vanquished Galactus Smith!!!
Puhleeeeeeze.
I don't deal well with (pardon my humour) OVERKILL.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Very funny.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that.Quote:Okay, let's say you just don't want to acknowledge the silliness here...
You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.
Neo Dies, is revived by Trinity.
Trinity dies, is revived by Neo.
Trinity dies FOR REAL, then Neo gets blind & dies FOR REAL.
What? Were their first deaths just 'dry runs'????
Again, because they survived death once, they're supposed to be immune to it?
Two things you seem to be willfully ignoring. One - they both "died" in the Matrix, where Neo had a degree of power that let him bend the rules. Their "real" deaths were both in the "real" world. A rather important distinction I'm surprised you would gloss over so emphatically.
Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.
Quote:
Oh, and the machines are evil.
That was never stated. Machines were the enemy, yes. But evil is rather subjective, and it was set up pretty well in the first film that the machines did what they did purely out of self preservation. This was covered in Morpheus' expository speech when he lays out the truth for Neo, and then was furthered by the Animatrix shorts.
Quote:
But later, only Smith seems to be evil, the rest of the machines can be aiight. Go ahead, harvest our energy, as long as you give up some peeps that wanna go... we know you'll keep your part of the bargain, especially since Captain Neo has vanquished Galactus Smith!!!
Puhleeeeeeze.
Yes, damn them for presenting an enemy that's not pure evil, and has shading to their motives.
Pardon me, but I kinda prefer layers to mustache-twirling villainy.
And Smith didn't just become evil either, he had a fairly clearly drawn arc that started out in the first film.
Hell, even your final little complaint - that "we know you'll keep your part of the bargain" part, is rather nonsensical, since characters flat out say on screen right there at the end that it probably wont last.
But I also think you're touching on a bigger issue. I think most people wanted to see Neo free everyone from the Matrix, vanquishing the machines entirely - a big happy, simple story. Thing is, this wouldn't make much sense given what established, again, in the first film. Okay, sure, he could conceivably have set them all free - an army of weak, helpless people with atrophied bodies falling en mass, by the millions, into the mucky waters Neo was scooped from, to die hopelessly. Or, even if they had survived, to die of starvation amidst a nascent society not equipped to handle such a population.
The first film, while a fun action-adventure, did set up a complex world that required complex solutions (and thus storylines for the sequels). The seeds for all the things you're complaining about were established for the most part, in the original.
Not saying they're perfect or even great. They do have their flaws (I personally get more frustrated by the 2nd one). But they're hardly train wrecks or awful films as some claims. And referring back to an earlier conversation, I will gladly choose a film that strives for greatness and falls short (as I feel these do) than one that aims for mediocrity and nails it (like say, Iron Man 2).
Like I said, it's not the story many WANTED - a big simplistic adventure - but that's to a degree, their problem. The films established a complex world with complicated issues, ideas and themes, and the sequels followed through on what the first film actually established, not the comic book people wanted them to be.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, here's my final word on it (unless you respond or something), why give us cool martial arts in the flicks? Big guns with unlimited ammo would have sufficed. Giving us martial arts combined with mystic quasi-Buddhist philosophy set me up for the expectation that it would have a philosophical & adventerous ending, not an 'everyone dies' one. And when Trinity died, I was MAD, not sad. It didn't make me fear that Neo would die- at that point I ASSUMED it. And again, I was MAD to be correct. Just like in I Am Legend, I KNEW before the end they were gonna kill him. When movies are predictable to the point of frustration, I don't like them, or the experience. And I gave MR 3 tries.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.
But, I actually quite like Robocop 3 as a superhero flick (despite its Suckitude), so if you like MR, more power to you.
Maybe I need to get stoned to watch it to let my notions of what I need from a movie to drop away, eh?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love looking at bad movies and seing where they went wrong --it's great exercise both as a writer and filmmaker.
I'll agree that the Matrix sequels went off the rails but had the germ of a good idea. I would've made the Matrix itself less like a deathtrap that had to be escaped and more like a coccoon that had to be transcended.
I would've made the second and third movies about Neo trying to teach others how to become like him (just as Smith was doing by force). Neo and Trinity wouldn't have "died," they would've Ascended, becoming part of the Matrix itself --neither human nor machine, but both.
My contribution, (going more for "bad" in terms of quality; this movie was far more financially successful than it should've been):
Transformers
Apparent causes of Suckitude-
A) Visually incoherent.
B) Failed to make use of the source material.
C) What the Hell, Heroes?
Analysis:
A: Michael Bay is a mediocre director at best, and a terrible writer(*). He represents the epitome of the modern "Music Video Generation" of directors, in that he directs set-pieces --huge, spectacular action sequences-- and uses the script only to connect those self-contained vignettes to each other. Rather than direct what's best for the story, he takes his trademark style (sunsets, explosions, and a constantly-wandering handheld camera) and applies it to whatever's in front of him, like ketchup at a black tie dinner.
B: When the TF movie was first announced (years ago), the producers billed it as the film that would reinterpret Transformers as a serious sci-fi franchise. Let's take a moment to note that this "kids' show" has already set up narrative devices that allow it to discuss mortality, religion, dualistic philosophy, physics, biology, consciousness, artificial intelligence, racism, politics, loss of culture, slavery, forced relocation, sex and gender, family, and the psychological pressures of leadership. If any childrens' toyline could be turned into an adult sci-fi series, it's Transformers.
Instead, we got pee jokes, masturbation humour, Transformers with less personality than the cars they turned into, and inanimate objects being rebuilt into sophisticated alien robots at a sub-molecular level (yet the TFs themselves are made of ordinary metal and need to transform by shifting large chunks of themselves around by brute force. Except when they can inexplicably reformat themselves on the fly with no ill effects 
).
Again, this is Michael Bay's search for punchy, dynamic set-pieces with no regard for narrative logic or intelligence.
C: Okay, so, after securing the Allspark (that they know the Decepticons are after), the heroic US military (and their alien sidekicks) remove said Allspark from the safe and secure military facility in the desert. . . and into the middle of a crowded city at rush hour. Said city is then demolished to an extent we haven't seen since September 11 2001 --most of it by the Autobots themselves, either missing targets, employing human(-filled) shields, or deliberately destroying the area (apparently to give themselves room to move). These are supposed to be the good guys?!?
We are also then led to believe that this cataclysm is completely covered up and forgotten about (perhaps everyone who actually saw the giant alien robots ended up dead. That would certainly stop the spread of information).
This one I honestly can't explain; it's not like a battle in the desert (or an iconic duel atop the dam, as seen in three different G1 continuities) would've been less spectacular. It's not that Bay wanted to play up the human collateral damage --most of the people in the city were just human scenery anyway (and like I said, we never see the consequences). I can only assume that Bay's idea of "Awesome" is sufficiently tasteless to require as many innocent bystanders getting pulped as possible.
(* Whether a director has a writing credit or not, I feel that all directors must have enough "story sense" to be abl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now THAT would have been amazing AND something that had rarely been seen!
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I would've made the Matrix itself less like a deathtrap that had to be escaped and more like a coccoon that had to be transcended.
I would've made the second and third movies about Neo trying to teach others how to become like him (just as Smith was doing by force). Neo and Trinity wouldn't have "died," they would've Ascended, becoming part of the Matrix itself --neither human nor machine, but both.
AND then it would have been my all time favourite trilogy!
BTW, I concur with your Transformers analysis. The only Bay flick I ever liked at all was Armageddon.
(the reason the movie made so much teenage dough)
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Okay, here's my final word on it (unless you respond or something), why give us cool martial arts in the flicks? Big guns with unlimited ammo would have sufficed. Giving us martial arts combined with mystic quasi-Buddhist philosophy set me up for the expectation that it would have a philosophical & adventerous ending, not an 'everyone dies' one.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.
It did have a philosophical ending. And middle, for that matter.
I don't know why martial arts can't have sad or trajic endings. And "everyone" didn't die. 2 characters did. The rest were fine (there's another example of them being different - EVERY other movie would have had the mentor die and the hero live.... even Serenity. But they tried something different).
But basically, you still seem to be complining that they didn't do what you wanted. Which I already knew.
Quote:
And when Trinity died, I was MAD, not sad. It didn't make me fear that Neo would die- at that point I ASSUMED it. And again, I was MAD to be correct.
It worked for me. One's mileage will varry.
Quote:
Just like in I Am Legend, I KNEW before the end they were gonna kill him.
Well, setting aside that the book is decades old and has been done before.... sometimes you're supposed to see these things coming. Building inevitability is just another tool (and really, would you expect a happy ending to a movie about the extinction of the human race?)
Quote:
When movies are predictable to the point of frustration, I don't like them, or the experience. And I gave MR 3 tries.
But, I actually quite like Robocop 3 as a superhero flick (despite its Suckitude), so if you like MR, more power to you.
And no more needs be said. Other than.... I kinda feel sorry for ya right now.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME