A Dreadful Sort of Anticipation

There's a little over two weeks to go until John Carter hits movie theaters, and I have to say, I am both super excited and a little afraid to see it at the same time. I've been following its development for several years now, ever since Pixar dropped official word that they were moving forward with a movie based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic series. I am already making plans with a dear friend to go see it on opening day. Dread or not, my butt will be there in the theater to find out if Pixar managed to pull of a miracle.

Some recent analyses have people predicting that John Carter is going to tank at the box office. I can only roll my eyes at the suggestion. Not because I think it is a ridiculous assertion but because in fact I think it is kind of hopelessly optimistic to think that it will even come close to breaking even. I mean, saying that this movie is likely to tank is like saying that milk goes sour if you leave it out on your counter for too long. For the record, I am not rooting for this movie to flop at all. I'd love to be surprised and find that it does end up becoming a blockbuster after all. I just think if one is realistic, expecting that to be the case is rather silly.

There are a few reasons for this, of course. The most obvious being that the vast majority of moviegoers today have no idea whatsoever who John Carter is. Even people familiar with Burroughs' other most enduring series, Tarzan, are unlikely to be able to tell you Burroughs' name, let alone to know that he wrote tons of other works, including another series that, in its time, was even more popular than Tarzan. I have been a fan of Burroughs since I was very young, and I absolutely adore his stories, but he wrote pulp, and pulp does not endure. The only reason that Tarzan is still so prominent in the public consciousness is because it caught the eye of Hollywood early on and those original few movies (which bear very little resemblance to the books themselves) captured a wide enough audience that they became considered classics in their own right. The story has been adapted and retold for the screen )and in comics) countless times in the last few generations, and that keeps it alive. But precious few people today have read the books, and many don't even realize that there were books to begin with.

The John Carter of Mars series never had such good fortune to be so adapted from page to screen and so it sort of faded from the public consciousness. That isn't to say it was ever really forgotten. Many people stumbled across copies of A Princess of Mars in their libraries or bookstores and found themselves transported to Barsoom (the name the people of Mars have for their planet) along with Carter. Some people like myself might have enjoyed reading the Tarzan books and picked up the series to see more from the same author. I wasn't trying to insult Burroughs' writing when I called it pulp, because it is mighty tasty pulp, after all. Hollywood hasn't completely ignored the franchise either. There have been several attempts to adapt the movie to the big screen (and at least one disastrous made for television movie), but they've never really gotten very far off the ground, and none of those that did ever approached the arena of success. In fact, that is yet another reason why John Carter has the deck stacked against it. To be considered a success by the studio, it is going to have to recover all of those wasted funds from all of those previous attempts to get the story brought to the big screen. On top of the not inconsiderable costs of actually making and marketing the movie. That is a lot to expect out of such a little known franchise. It's not fair, but hey, it's Hollywood. This movie wouldn't have gotten made at all if Andrew Stanton, with all of his Pixar clout, hadn't made it a personal project because of his own love for the series.

The third real detractor here is the fact that the marketing has kind of been a mess. I mean, yes, it is clear that money has been spent in getting the word out about this movie. Ads and posters and trailers and such have been running for a while now. It's safe to say the larger movie-going community is aware that this movie is coming out. But. Good lord. First there was the whole name debacle. The movie is based on the first book in the series, originally titled A Princess of Mars but the powers that be decided that they would reach a wider audience *cough*men*cough* if they made the title of the movie something more "accessible" and so it was instead going to be called John Carter of Mars. Okay, that annoys me as a woman and as a literary buff, but whatever. Then, just after the advertising campaign had started, they changed the name of the movie again, dropping the science fiction connotations of "of Mars" for the more simple (and boring and generic) sounding John Carter. I'm not going to get into the reasons given for the why of that decision. I don't believe them, for one thing, and at best they make me roll my eyes so hard I am afraid my contacts are about to pop out.

Point is that at this juncture, the name of the movie tells you absolutely nothing regarding what this movie is actually about. People who have read the books might realize who John Carter is, but that name is pretty run of the mill if we're being honest, and it could easily be about someone today as it was about someone one hundred and fifty years ago. The trailers aren't helping, either. Again, I can watch them and I have a pretty decent idea about what is going on. But I've read the books multiple times and have been following the development of this movie. The very vast majority have not done either of those things. To those people, these previews must seem like a vast jumble of nonsense. At the best, they are very confusing and don't do much to get the basic idea of story across. They just show off skimpily dressed people, aliens, and lots and lots of fighting. I am trying to figure out how all of that, without a cultural touch point that is going to appeal to more people than "guys who like half-naked women and explosions" is going to draw very many people into the theater. I've also seen mention online in several places about confusion as to what audience exactly the studio is trying to target with these trailers. Those people have a point, the trailers seem to be geared towards everybody, hoping to draw as many people as possible in to the theater, but they have ended up being appealing to nobody because they are so darn generic and lacking in information.

Also, the story itself is about a Civil War-era soldier (with opinions and beliefs decidedly from that time frame) who is suddenly transported to a Mars based on scientific beliefs long since disproven. That doesn't make it a bad story at all, but I do suspect that it will be kind of hard to swallow for the general movie-going populace. I would love to be proven wrong on this.

So, those are the reasons why I don't suspect this movie is going to be a huge success at the box office. None of that actually has any bearing on whether or not this movie will be any good however, and that's where my sense of dread comes in. Because I really can't tell. I love these stories, I really do, but the track record of faithfulness in adapting Burroughs' work to the big screen is not good. Part of me is quite frankly terrified that we will be looking at another Eragon here: a bad adaptation that can't even be forgiven because it was also just a bad movie with no redeeming values at all. The trailers are so focused on the fighting and explosions and scenery that I can't get a good bead on how the acting or story fit in to the picture. Taylor Kitsch, for example, who plays the eponymous John Carter doesn't match any mental image I have ever held in mind for the character (although, funnily enough, I do think he would have made an excellent Tarzan, at least if we are just going by appearance). That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to be won over, but I am not familiar enough with his work to even have expectations of his acting ability. Doubly troubling since a glance at his list of roles shows that I've seen him in several things, yet I still have no idea who he is.

Sigh.


So yes, I am really really looking forward to this movie. Burroughs is such an amazing world builder and I can't wait to see his Barsoom brought to life on the big screen. I can't wait to see his crazy inventions and creatures realized before my eyes. Andrew Stanton loved this story too, it is clear when he talks about it in interviews. I trust him as a filmmaker, because I have seen time and time again what he is capable of through Pixar's movies. That gives me some hope. But...he's not the only person who has had his fingers in this pot. This is Hollywood, after all, and their track record isn't nearly so reassuring. The fear of being let down is great.

To be clear, I am not trying to be all elitist and say that I think only "true" fans will like this movie or that I can't believe Andrew Stanton is ruining my childhood or whatever. I hope with all of my heart that this movie does insanely well and that a whole new generation is drawn into the worlds of Burroughs' imagination. I just fear that the marketing of this film has killed any chance of that wider appeal, and I worry that the movie itself might not only not live up to the hype, but actually not be very good because, Andrew Stanton aside, it seems to me as if the people involved don't get it. Again, would love to be proven wrong here.

A fan recently cobbled together a new trailer from those released by the studio that provides a much better sense of the story than anything the studio has actually put out. It gives me a little more hope, I'll admit.

But March ninth is fast approaching, and I will be there for good or ill, my fingers and toes crossed as I wait for the room to go dark and the screen to come to life. I guess we will just have to see what we will see...

Tingly With Anticipation

With the start of a new year, the internet is rampant with people getting excited about the cool new things to look forward to in 2012. Lists are everywhere. A common theme I keep seeing is "most anticipated movies of 2012."

Now, I don't get to the movies nearly enough (by my reckoning, at least) now that I have a kiddo. It is possible this will be the year that changes that--she's growing up and soon we'll be able to do our mommy/daughter movie lunches together. I am really looking forward to that, but it won't come to pass probably until at least the back end of the year.* Even when it does, we'll be limited in what we can see together, because I know there will be a higher chance of her sitting still (and quietly) throughout if she is also engaged in the story. I don't think she'll be ready yet when this is released, but, if she is, this is probably the first thing I'll take her to see:



I'll be going to see Brave in theaters regardless, but it would be awesome if I could enjoy it with Baby Girl. We shall have to see.

Other than Brave, there are three other movies that I know I will be making the effort to see in theaters this year. I am super excited for each one of these.



The Avengers should, I hope, be a super fun romp. I absolutely adored Thor, found myself surprisingly engaged by Captain America, and also enjoyed the Iron Man films more than I expected. Add to this the fact that Joss Whedon is directing and I (and most of geekdom) have high hopes that this is just going to rock, pure and simple. Marvel has really done an amazing job with these one-universe films and I think that The Avengers will be the deciding factor on whether or not they keep it up. I hope they do. It's nice to have these things all tied together just a little bit. It makes the story feel a little bit more complete in my mind.

Next up, there's this:



John Carter, based on A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. This...this is something I have been waiting for for a long time. I discovered Burroughs when I was about ten or eleven, picking up the first Tarzan book and becoming completely captivated by the world that Burroughs created on the page. I picked up many of his other series, and while the John Carter books aren't my favorites by a long shot, I have grown to appreciate them more in my adulthood, despite the problems arising from the fact that Burroughs was a man writing at the turn of the twentieth century with many of the outlooks and prejudices of his times. Still, his heroes always do feel like true heroes to me, and his world-building is absolutely phenomenal. I am very pleased to know that the movie is keeping the original era of the books (post-Civil War) intact, and I am quite curious to find out how this adaptation plays out. "Squee" doesn't even begin to cover my reaction to the approach of this film.

Finally, I am also waiting on tenterhooks for:



The Hobbit just squeaks past John Carter as the movie I am most looking forward to. Mostly because I am not really worried about it letting me down like I am with John Carter. Peter Jackson has more than earned my trust in regards to this franchise. I am not entirely sure I even need to explain why I am so excited about this one, but I'll try. Martin Freeman! Dwarves! Dwarves singing! I think every card-carrying geek on the planet is looking forward to it at least a little.

Honestly? I don't even care what else comes out this year. Let these four films entertain me, and I will be more than satisfied.

What movies are you guys most looking forward to this year?

*Yes, I know that many theaters have "child-friendly" viewings, where parents are welcome to bring their young kids and the lights aren't turned down all of the way and whatnot. I personally have no desire to attend one of those. For me going to the movies is a special kind of experience. I don't even like to get up to take a bathroom break during the film. I like to nip down in my seat and just let the movie take me away. Hence my personal decision not to take my daughter to the theater until she is able to at least sit more or less still and quiet throughout the film.

Props to Scalzi

This week it was announced that the book Old Man's War by John Scalzi has been optioned for a movie. Yay for Scalzi!

What I love even more than the news that an awesome sci-fi book has been optioned to be made into a movie is the very upfront and realistic way in which Scalzi is discussing the news.

He is very calmly reminding his readers that the movie, while he has high hopes for it to be awesome, will most definitely not be the book. This is because in order for the story to make the move from printed page to silver screen, changes will have to be made. That is why when a book is made into a movie it is called an adaptation. Scalzi very calmly reminds his enthusiastic fans that even if the movie based on the book somehow goes wonky and is royally screwed up, it will in no way, shape, or form harm the original book, which already exists as it is and isn't going anywhere.

I give Scalzi two big thumbs way, way up for this.

So often when a group's favorite book gets translated into a movie, a big chunk of the audience will waste time and effort nitpicking all of the differences between the two, often lessening their enjoyment of the movie greatly, if not completely. I can admit I have been guilty of this myself a time or two, though I try really hard to judge a movie adaptation on how well the story is portrayed in this new medium, rather than the little details. Sure it is fabulous when the movie-makers get the little details just right, but let's face facts. Everyone who reads a book pictures the characters and events described within in their own unique way. When a screen-writer, director, and producer adapt a book to a movie, they are only showing us their unique vision of the author's text. It may not be the same as ours, but that doesn't mean it is automatically bad.

Sometimes authors don't help the cause by publicly lambasting the resulting movie. I would think it is safe to argue that in those cases, the author was usually shut out of the creative process while the movie was being made. When the author doesn't decry the movie we see on our screens, that probably means that they were at least engaged by the screen-writer/producer/director's interpretation of their story, even if it isn't necessarily what the base audience was expecting. Sometimes that can lead to some very interesting results.

For example, Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Did you know it was not originally a book, but in fact first appeared as a radio play aired by the BBC? Yup. I am lucky enough to have copies of that original series, and I can tell you it is very, very different from the book of the same name that Adams subsequently published. I love them both though. The spirit of the story and of the main characters was very much the same in both versions, to be true. Some of the events were slightly different, sure, but that was because Adams really got what I am trying to say here. Different mediums lend themselves to different stories. Sometimes you can do things in one that aren't feasible in the other. The more recent movie of the same name was also very different from the book and the radio series, but I still love it. Adams worked with the movie's creators until his death, and they were dedicated to making sure the finished product was something he would have approved of. Knowing that, and keeping in mind the fact that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has a track record as a fluid story, flowing from medium to medium and shaping itself to fill each new cup specifically, allowed me to keep a more open mind than at any other movie based on a book I have ever seen.

It's so easy to get upset when your favorite part of a book gets left out of the movie, or worse, included but changed in a way that you don't care for. But movie-makers aren't going to stop adapting books to film any time soon. To be honest with you, I'd rather they do that than make another Saw film, or another remake of a movie that only came out ten years ago. So I am going to do my best going forward to keep Scalzi's words in mind whenever I go to see a movie adapted from a book that I love. I urge you to do the same.

Besides, there's always the chance that the next film will get it just right, and that's worth the risk of a shaky adaptation in my books.

Happy weekend folks, and don't forget to check out today's new Gronk, all about the perils of board games!

Getting Past the Knee-Jerk Reaction

So, a few days ago I stumbled across this quick little post on io9.  It is just a little blurb announcing that the forthcoming fourth installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series will not, in fact, be the last movie in the franchise.  Seems like Disney is gearing up to make a fifth and a sixth film as well, which it is looking to film simultaneously and then release as two films, similar to what it did with films two and three.

My instant, automatic, knee-jerk reaction to this news was "Oh God, why?"  But then something funny happened.  I started actually thinking about it and realized that, you know what, I am actually okay with this.  I love all three of the Pirates movies that we've had so far.  I am truly really looking forward to the fourth one.  I mean, come on, they're big epic set pieces with pretty boats and fantastic costumes.  Johnny Depp says and does many bizarre and often humorous things.  Orlando Bloom is pretty when he channels Errol Flynn.  I actually like Kiera Knightly, though I am not sure why.  Jack Davenport is all kinds of crazy awesome.  Plus, it's historical fiction, which I love.  Also, pirates.

Clearly, I am not alone in this, and there are many like-minded individuals out there, or Disney wouldn't be bothering.  These movies aren't exactly cheap to make.  I am not going to complain.  As long as these movies continue to entertain me, I will continue to go see them.  People who have not been entertained by previous films in the franchise, and expect to not be entertained by future films in the franchise should not go see them.  When people like that start to outnumber people like me, it seems pretty self-explanatory that Disney will stop making these movies. 

But that's not really the point of this post.  The internet is already undergoing a mild explosion at the news (heck, just check the comments thread on the post I linked to above for all of the negativity spewing forth from people who had the same knee-jerk reaction I initially had).  I will leave that be.  There's nothing I can do or say to stop it, so it seems silly to comment further on it.

Why do we, the public, get so darn offended when one movie turns into two, or three, or more?

Seriously, give it a moment to kick around in your brain.  These days, whenever a sequel is made, unless it is an adaptation of, say, a preexisting book series where we know we've signed on for several films to tell the story, there is almost always a huge public cry of indignation and outrage.  Sure, it is likely that a continuation of a story may be unnecessary, but unnecessary doesn't always equal bad.  Just because one story in a particular world was told satisfactorily, that doesn't mean that there aren't more stories from that world to be told.

These are the main objections I tend to see to the continuation of a movie franchise:

1)  The studio is just trying to milk as much money out of us as possible!

Well, duh.  I am completely over this complaint.  I am sick of it.  Done.  The movie industry is just that, an industry.  It is completely, utterly, and totally about making money.  They are trying to sell a product that they think we, the public, not only want, but will give them money to see.  Every once in a while, a big budget film is made that turns out to be art, but that really isn't the goal.  When it happens, it is an unexpected, if delightful, side-effect, but side-effect it is.  If you want to see art when you go to the movies, move to a town where you have access to an arthouse cinema.  Otherwise, understand that what you are getting when you go to see a movie is a product, designed to be sold to the masses.

If enough people enjoyed the original film, there's a good possibility there is a market for more in that franchise.  Sometimes, a story for a completely new and spectacular thing gets pitched, and the studio loves it but isn't sure that we'll bite.  But they look at it and think that it might work as a story set in an existing franchise, and so it gets made as a sequel instead of its own story.  Yeah, okay, this is a little insulting.  But apparently the studios are scared to make movies these days if they aren't 100% sure they will sell.  Nine times out of ten, that means they are going with the known quantity over the unknown.  It sucks, but it is the system.  You know it is the system.  If you keep supporting that system by going to see the stuff that they give you, then your soapbox for this particular issue is pretty much nonexistent.  There are two ways to fight the system:  Don't go see the big-budgeted mass-market films you think are crap, and do everything you can to support the unique, independent, truly different films that do manage to get made.  Griping on the internet is gonna do diddly squat though.

2)  This just shows that there are no original ideas left in Hollywood anymore!

Okay, look. I am not going to deny the veracity of that statement.  But if my choices are a new story set in an existing franchise or a remake of a movie that I still clearly remember seeing in theaters at some point in my lifetime (dude, I'm only 30, that's not a huge catalog), well, I am definitely going to take the former.  I can get behind extending one movie into a series of movies.  The remakes still give me the heebie jeebies unless they are done well and a significant period of time has passed between the original and the new one.  Very very few remakes fall into either one of those categories, and so, I don't go see them unless I have a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Also, as I noted above, there are plenty of "new" story ideas being pitched all of the time, it's just that right now new=scary to movie studio execs, so those movies are not getting made.  This is sad, but unlikely to change in the current economy.  Also, honestly, there really are very few actual new ideas left on this earth.  We as a species have been telling each other stories for thousands of years now.  At this point, we're just getting variations on a theme.  What we're asking for when we want "new" movies is a really cool variation that is unlike those that have come before. 

If I would be forced to answer my own question, I would say that the reason people get so upset about a movie becoming a franchise is that a) the follow-up movies aren't any good, and b) the follow-up movies somehow diminish their enjoyment of the first.

Granted, often, the first part of this claim is right.  Just because Hollywood is embracing the idea of series over one-shots doesn't mean they have actually figured out how to pull it off.  If you didn't like the sequel to a beloved movie, I can see being irritated that you wasted your money on seeing it in theaters.  But...that's not the kind of grudge a person really needs to hold on to for more than a day or so, is it?  After that, your trust has been lost.  There's no point in getting angry about future movies in the franchise.  Just don't go see them.  Then the only thing about those you have to worry about is the marketing campaign, which, honestly, should be pretty easy to ignore assuming you are capable of turning off your television/radio, changing the channel, not surfing a website you know will be taking about the movie, deciding not to look at a billboard or other print ad, etc.

The second part of that answer, though, that's just bull.  I am sorry, but if you liked the first movie, you liked it.  The second, third, whatever movies in that franchise are separate entities.  You can completely ignore the fact that they exist and just watch the first one over and over at your leisure.  If seeing the second one points out huge plot holes you didn't know existed in the first one, well, that sucks, but those plot holes were still there when you watched the movie and liked it the first time around.  Chances are you would have noticed them eventually.  I know I've addressed this specific topic before, about a sequel's actual inability to lessen your enjoyment of whatever it is a sequel to, so I won't get into it too much here.  It just baffles and saddens me, and I think people who use this as an excuse are just looking for a reason to be angry.  And honestly, if that's the case, that's a whole different set of problems that need to be addressed.  Let's not blame the movies, okay?

What strikes me as so odd about this regular reaction to a movie turning into a series of movies is that it is pretty much the exact opposite of the way things work in the book world.  There are plenty of stand-alone one-shot books out there, certainly.  But there are tons of series, and no one seems to bat an eye if one book turns into a trilogy or if a planned trilogy turns into an eight book run.  People often, in fact, seem to beg for them to do so. 

Maybe this is just me, and maybe this is why I have less of a problem with the movie conundrum than others, but I love book series.  Most of the books I read are series.  Sure, a one-shot or even a trilogy is easier to get into further on down the line, and with an extended series, you run the risk of never finding out how the story ends.  But with the really good series, each book is a stand-alone tale.  There should be an overarching story arc, sure (one that lasts for just a few books or for the entire series), and the stories should all be about the same person/group of people or at least set in the same universe.  This way they can tie together and fit under the umbrella of a series.  I think what I enjoy most about these is that when I pick up a new book in a series I am already invested in the world I am diving into.  There is less for me to figure out, and so I can enjoy the details more and jump right into the action of the story.  I don't have to wonder why this character is doing X while that one is doing Y, because that is just how I would expect those people to behave.  It is lovely.  Upon reflection, I am sure this is why I have gotten so much more into television series than movies over the last few years. I don't think it is a bad thing for movies to take advantage of this formula. 

I guess maybe the better question here would be:  Why do people get so emotionally involved in movies that they let themselves get so worked up about more of the same being made?  I mean, really, if a movie comes out that you don't want to see, don't get mad that it got made instead of, possibly, something that you did want to see.  Just don't go see it.  Instead, go watch the movie you did enjoy again.  Or pick up a book, or watch a television show.  Heck, go for a walk outside and enjoy reality for a bit.  There's plenty of originality there, I guarantee you.

Me, well, now that I've realized I have this knee-jerk reaction, I know that I need to work on getting past it.  If enough of us can do that, then I think the world will be a much better place.  Full of loads of second-rate movie sequels and series, maybe, but also full of happier people.  I'll take the first any day if it means I can have the second.