Today's Column: Franchises fighting their past

Another month, another column of mine:

Column: Franchises in gevecht met hun eigen verleden

Nostalgia is key in the current Hollywood strategy. Of course the studios are eager to get the new generations acquainted with classic fare it might not have bothered to check out on their own accord - if their parents think it's awesome, it can't really be, right? - but at the same time, the existing fan base and its substantial financial potential are not to be ignored. So today's new istallments in major franchises like Terminator, Jurassic Park and Star Wars are drenched in the stuff that generates that good ol' feeling for the older fans. Old actors return, old oneliners are uttered throughout and old locations are revisited. Not to mention old plot lines are blatantly rehashed, as with the disappointing Terminator Genisys. However, the nostalgia of these new films only brings to mind the truly classic installments, ignoring those sequels that didn't either turn a profit or please the fans. Do we want to be remembered of less than stellar fare when we can set our minds on the glory of the true undying classics that preceded them? Maybe not, but it sure as heck doesn't help the consistency in these franchises. They're not remakes, or even reboots. They acknowledge what happened before happened in the same universe, but they refuse to acknowledge all of it, leaving us with major questions. What has become of Isla Sorna? Did Ripley not die, but was it a hypersleep dream? Terminator Genisys uses the Trek way out and states the current story takes place in an alternate time line, which is supposed to be a smooth way to ignore Rise of the Machines and Salvation, but makes for an overly convoluted whole in the Terminator franchise. So that wasn't the smartest move, or the most respectful since there are still plenty of fans - myself included - who actually didn't think so little of Rise of the Machines and Salvation.

Basically Hollywood is suggesting to us which films we should remember fondly and which had best be forgotten. But why should the studios dictate what is canon and what isn't? Isn't that up to the fans who embrace these franchises and the stories they tell, taking the good with the bad? The case of the recent 'recanonizing' of the Star Wars universe, to make it work more in Disney's favour, is a poignant example of how a studio is appropriating a franchise for its own gain rather than the fans'. Thirty years of Expanded Universe, mostly written by fans who turned their love for the space saga into a profession, is brisquely declared 'non canon', even though many stories are actually more intelligently crafted and more emotionally compelling than some of the canon entries. Such rewriting of history won't stop the fans from appreciating the good stuff and detesting the bad in the future. They'll make up their own mind on what things they will lovingly look back at.

Judging from the lackluster box office results and the poor audience reception, Terminator Genisys might not be one of those things...

Today's Review: Terminator Genisys

Told you I'd be back with another review?

Terminator Genisys - recensie

And Arnold's back, too. Again. Wish he wouldn't be, considering the disappointing result. Once again a franchise is mucked up by messing with its time line. The producers obviously tok a hint from the financial success (brief as it was) from the recent Star Trek reboot. I hated it, because it created a new time line that hardly acknowledges the old which was running for nigh 45 years, basically saying 'anything goes' from here on out. I would have preferred it if they had shown more loyalty to the existing time line and its fanbase. Surprisingly, that is the route taken for Terminator Genisys, with equally lackluster results. In this movie's case, the new time line does nothing but acknowledge the old, resulting in a total nostalgia fest that rehashes characters, events and particularly oneliners from the previous installments. It offers nothing new, and only shows you the limits of the Terminator franchise if there is a mandate in place to incorporate the ingredients of its past successes, which was put in place because the previous installment, Terminator Salvation, offered too much novelty for many. I appreciated that movie for it. There's no innovation or novelty in Genisys, whereas in Trek's case by comparison, there was a little too much for my taste, so much so that it just didn't feel like Trek anymore. This movie undeniably feels like a Terminator movie, but still leaves a lot to be desired.

Maybe it's a sign that starting new time lines to retcon existing franchises just is a bad idea in general. How about creating new franchises instead, rather than desperately clinging to nostalgia? That's probably too revolutionary an idea for Hollywood's taste...

Today's News: Hateful Terminator captains

The end of the week witnessed news of a lesser magnitude:

Nieuwe foto's Tarantino's Hateful Eight

A colourful bunch of characters. A lot of guns. A batch of terrific actors. The prime ingredients of any Tarantino movie, and Hateful Eight proves no different, judging from these pictures. Though another Western, directly following Django Unchained (which may not wholly fit that moniker, it must be noted), this movie seems a whole different animal. It's got more principal characters, but less characters as a whole. It also seems limited in terms of setting, taking place for the most part in and around a stagecoach stopover during a heavy blizzard. Eight characters with divergent pasts, many haunted by their experiences in the recent American Civil War, get holed up together and soon tensions erupt with explosive results. And there you basically have the Western version of 12 Angry Men. As is usual for Tarantino, it's not a novel concept, but it's the way it's handled that makes it enjoyable and successful. And with such talent among the cast (and apparently Channing Tatum, too), it seems like little can go wrong in terms of quality. Same can't be said for these characters, most of them likely won't leave that cabin alive. Tarantino will put those guns to great use in making sure of that.

Meer Avengers in cast Captain America 3

Speaking of the Civil War, here's another conflict with the same name for you. Different time, different sides though. Should a masked man with a secret identity and an essentially dangerous set of superpowers take responsibility for his actions, or let the government do it for him? Iron Man says yay, Cap says nay. And thus the Marvel heroes are at each other's throats. Which heroes, you may ask? Well, from the looks of it, virtually all of them and then some. Basically all the Avengers from the previous film (that made it out alive at least) are returning, and a bunch of new names - like Ant-Man, Spider-Man and Black Panther - are thrown into the mix. You gotta have an ample batch of superheroes for a superhero war, after all. But why then, isn't this movie basically your Avengers 3? Isn't Cap A gonna get lost in his own film? There's two sides to the conflict and he's only representing one of them. I'm sure the powers-that-be take this into consideration and make the ideological questions at hand and the characters through which they are addressed the most, Cap and Iron Man, take centre stage. Which still means Iron Man is likely to assume a role at least as important as Cap's. Hey, that's what you get for not making an Iron Man 4. However, there's still a true bad guy to take out amidst all the superhero fisticuffs, and it's former Nazi Baron Zemo, one of the classic Cap villains. Surely that will tip the plot in Cap's favour, though not so much the stakes, if he has to fight both him and the government lackey Avengers. There's a reason Cap died at the end of the original Civil War storyline, you know...

Nieuwe posters Terminator Genisys

My first thought upon seeing these posters is they enlarged Emilia Clarke's breast size. That's gotta show how excited I am about seeing Ahnuld as the Terminator again. Sure, he made it into an iconic character back in the days, but in my mind Terminator Salvation showed you can have a decent Terminator flick without the Austrian Oak. Audience attendance for that movie disagreed with me. And now that Arnold's political career is over, he's back (yes, that line is impossible not to use in this context these days). The plot kinda helped him out in returning, crafting an alternate timeline to twist the old (and there's lots of that both in terms of characters and rehashed dialogue) into something new. Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, T-800, T-1000, been there, done that. So now we get a T-3000 to provide the new action. I recognize an abandoned concept from Salvation in this character. A fiendishly sinister original ending shaped in a character, to be exact. Originally, Sam Worthington's character in the predecessor was gonna save the day and then unexpectedly kill off the good guys and take John Connor's place as resistance leader (basically with the intent to lead it to its doom). Too daring and dark, so they let it go for a more cheerful, positive resolution. Now the new model Terminator on the block assumes Connor's appearance, and possibly more than just that, as it's unclear from the trailers where its loyalties lie. Interesting to see this notion return in a different form. But thanks to the alternate timeline, basically every Terminator notion returns in a different form here. The oneliners stay the same though. We loved them then, why wouldn't we now, the studio likely assumes. Same thing as with Schwarzenegger.

Today's News: marvelous termination of Trek director

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158238/eerste_trailer_terminator_genisys

This trailer is receiving a lot of negative feedback. I can understand why. The plot exposed in the first half of the trailer bears a striking recemblance to that of the original 1984 Terminator movie, so much so you would think it's a remake. Then the twist kicks in and things start to turn out differently. The cheap explanation for this (dis)similar turn of events is the 'alternate timeline' route so popular in recent years. Where everyone hailed it as an inventive and effective way of rebooting things while paying homage to the original works with 2009's Star Trek - I didn't, I thought it was disrepectable baloney - by now people have gotten rightly sick of it. Which doesnt leave much to look forward to for Terminator: Genisys. It's apparently another chase movie with all the usual suspects in place. Poor Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese have to try and shake off two different Terminators - the genuine article and the nifty liquid metal type - but get help from an older model reprogrammed in the future. Basically, the plot of T1 and T2 combined. With slick modern FX of course. Some nice new faces (among them both Emilia Clarke and Jason Clarke: no relation, just the eerie hand of fate involved in this bit of casting) in age old roles. And old fossil Schwarzenegger once again doing his Terminator thing, since he's the guy that always says 'I'll be back' and sticks to that promise. Problem is, he need not be involved. Terminator Salvation showed us there's different ways to explore this universe than dragging poor old Arnold in the mix and rehasing the same plot over and over again. Sadly, Salvation failed to convince audiences and box office of that fact. So now studio execs think we'll settle for the routine of the first three movies instead, just tweaked via messing with timelines because that is 'a thing' right now. If only it was an alternate time line, where alternate things happened. From a story perspective, we seem to be stuck in a time loop instead...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158247/marvel_bevestigt_casting_strange_en_jones

Double casting of Marvel protagonists this week. First, Benedict Cumberbatch has finally been outed as Doctor Strange. Not so surprising, since his name kept reappearing in this casting contest. With Tom Hardy opting for Suicide Squad after all, Cumberbatch proved the last man standing. So the British actor will soon assume the mantle of the Sorcerer Supreme and defend us from interdimensional wrongdoers accordingly. I'm cool with that. Sherlock and The Hobbit have made me largely forget about his Khanberbatch debacle of Star Trek Into Darkness. The other Marvel casting news comes a bit more out of left field, since the project hadn't been discussed as much. Breaking Bad's Krysten Ritter will play Jessica Jones in the new Netflix show that is now called A.K.A. Jessica Jones. And it will debut in the fall of 2015, shortly after Daredevil first paves the way for the announced Defenders miniseries which will incorporate both characters plus two more. Since Ritter so far hasn't had any starring roles, I hope she proves up to the task. She surely made me cry when Heisenberg dramatically let her die in BB, so she's got my sympathy already.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158250/regisseur_star_trek_3_stapt_op

Well, that's just good news for Trek, for two reasons. First, giving the director's chair of a big blockbuster movie to someone who has never directed anything in his life is just an asinine idea (similar to handing the captain's chair to untested cadets, as inexplicably happened in the first Trek relaunch flick). Second, Orci already showed to have little respect or affinity with 40+ years of Trek lore in his piss poor screenplays of the previous two Trek reboot movies. So now someone can step in who does care and at least knows the score of directing. I'm fairly positive that person won't be Edgar Wright, who's on top of Paramount's short list. Considering the studio is in a real hurry to get this starship off the ground - should have built it in a space dock, guys - the new director will have to make do with the script that is available, which leaves little to no room for improvements at rewriting on his part. Wright just left Ant-Man after prepping it for the better part of a decade due to script issues with Marvel; you really think, as big a fanboy as he may be, he'll take kindly to not being allowed the slightest bit of leeway, with another big studio telling him exactly what to do and forebidding him any input of his own? Not gonna happen. Star Trek 3 is in real trouble. The 50th anniversary of the franchise is just around the corner and there's a strict deadline to be reached. There's no director, a script written by rookie writers involving the old and new cast alike (bad idea!!), and shooting is supposed to start within two months. If it's gonna be made at all in time, it's gonna be terribly rushed, and no movie profits from that. Once again, I blame J.J. Abrams for the trouble the franchise is in. He just left a series he never did care that much about to do what he always wanted to do (Star Wars), and things just deteriorated rapidly in his wake. Not to mention cast contracts will expire after having three pictures and I doubt any of them is willing to continue. The only good thing about this debacle is that the studio can only fix it by reboting the franchise yet again. It doesn't seem it can get worse, so a fresh fresh take may be just what Trek requires...

Today's Triple News: horrible witch terminators

More news posted at MovieScene this here few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157120/eerste_foto_vin_diesel_in_the_last_witch_hunter

As has been proven before on several occasions, Vin Diesel likes using social media to reach out to his fanbase (and movie news hungry editors like myself) about his current projects. It's good to see a Hollywood star keeping in touch with his followers himself rather than letting the Hollywood propaganda machine do that for him, though of course, we should not tell ourselves that anything Diesel posts isn't done with permission by the studios' promotional think tanks. This is the first we've seen of The Last Witch Hunter (not surprising, as it's still only half way through production). Doesn't show us much, but assures the Diesel fanatics their hero will play yet another gruff, masculine man of action, this time (partially) in a medieval setting. Whether the movie will be any good is hard to tell from just this single teaser image. The story doesn't seem all that inspired, combining ingredients from recent flicks like The Sorcerer's Apprentice (fantasy warfare in present day New York City) and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (witch hunters teaming up with good female witches to stop evil covens: plus the title of the film) without adding much novelty and seemingly swapping the element of humour for a more serious Gothic tone. The supporting cast seems decent enough, with the likes of Elijah Wood, Michael Caine and Rose Leslie. Especially the latter has her work cut out for her, as this is her first major Hollywood role. She had time for it apparently, now that her character didn't survive the last season of Game of Thrones.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157121/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_horrible_bosses_2

I'm still not convinced of the need for a sequel to Horrible Bosses by watching this trailer. There isn't any really, other than the fact the predecessor made ample money to tell the studio a sequel might do the same. And so we basically get more of the same story, just with situations added and rearranged to some extent to let the audience know they're not looking at exactly the same picture. Again we have the trio of incompetent protagonists screwed over by their employer and plotting a revenge. This time it involves kidnapping rather than murder. Enter Chris Pine as the victim. And re-enter Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey as two of the titular bosses from the original who are somehow woven into the new plot, even though their story lines seemed to have been over and done with at the climax of the first film. How ingenious the ways of Hollywood story telling, just to ensure enough characters return to repeat jokes and make the movie seem repetitive. At least we'll have one new boss, played by Christoph Waltz. There's something new for you, though not enough to make you feel the need to go to theaters to see this film. Seems more like the stuff of illegally downloading on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157130/terminator_sequels_aangekondigd

Another example of a studio getting way ahead of itself by planning multiple sequels based on the hopes the first film, which is what this will be somewhat as it's clear by now we're dealing with a rebooted franchise, will do well with audiences. Reboot or not, it still stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though the guy seems way too old to do the stuff he used to do on the first trilogy by now. Rumour has it he will not be a killer cyborg this time though. But as always, it would make much more sense to work off guaranteed success rather than spending millions of dollars pre-producing two sequels that may get scrapped if the box office results of their predecessor disappoint. And isn't this exactly what happened on the last Terminator film, Salvation? That movie, too, was meant to take the franchise into new directions 9without the Austrian Oak, mostly) and spawn a new trilogy, but disappointing financial grossing put a stop to such plans beyond this single project. Down the drain went that second trilogy, leaving a poor standalone film in its wake. It wasn't a total financial failure, but scored last in the list of released Terminator films thus far. The studio (that is, a different one, as the previous owner went bankrupt) appears to feel adamant that by bringing Schwarzenegger back in a prominent role, whatever it may be, that critical element that guaranteed box office success (which it did, in the Eighties) will do so again. It didn't work on The Expendables 3 though, so they ought not get their hopes up too much. But apparently, they do. Hollywood will never learn it seems.

Today's Triple News: zombies, terminators and mockingjays

A short summary of recent news by my hand follows. As usual.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156816/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_leeft_weer

Glad to see this offbeat project in the land of the living (dead) once more. We could use more weird movies like these. The premise is overly simple: take a classic piece of literature and spice things up with a rather unusual element few people would commonly associate with it, and you got yourself a movie with an intriguing title that begs a visit in theaters to see what exactly must be made of this. Worked well enough with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, by the same author, which proved a rollercoaster thrill ride of an action flick that actually connected the history with the horror in a fashion that made sense from a narrative viewpoint - i.e., vampires controlling the Southern slave trade to guarantee an unlimited amount of human blood while keeping the human economy rolling - but didn't pretend to be anything but utter fiction. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies seems determined to repeat that notion in very much the same way, perhaps carrying the risk of feeling repetitive. Nor does the title alliterate as delightfully as its own follow-up Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. However, I say go for it, and so does the creative team behind it, including producer Natalie Portman, who wouldn't give up on it. So far the casting seems to be doing well, especially if they do manage to acquire Jack Huston for a part. With his particular character from Boardwalk Empire on his repertoire, a deteriorated undead look is right up his alley.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156838/schwarzenegger_onthult_titel_nieuwe_terminator

Strange title. I assume the deliberate misspelling refers to a plot point which has yet to be revealed, so I won't bitch and moan about that until I can either confirm or disprove that assumption for myself, even though I am a bit of a grammar nazi. It's not a title funky enough to get me geared up for this film though. The cast does a better job at that. I can't get over the irony that Sarah and John Connor are being played by Emilia and Jason Clarke respectively, while there is no direct relationship between them. I also appreciate the trick of fate that Emilia is now playing Sarah Connor, while her Game of Thrones co-star Lena Headey assumed that mantle before on the unfortunately short lived TV show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I'm quite pleased with this assembled cast overall, except for Schwarzenegger. Personally I felt Terminator Salvation was a breath of fresh air because it shied away from using him, making it feel different and less predictable than its predecessors, which started to feel repetitive. Same goes for the aforementioned TV show, which also established convincing Terminators can be played by a diverse range of actors of various shapes, sizes, races, ages and creeds. Schwarzenegger in my mind is the cliché the franchise would do well to avoid. However, considering the series' cancellation and Salvation's lackluster worldwide box office takes, public opinion might be against me in this matter. I guess most people just want to see the Austrian Oak kick ass in their Terminator films, despite the much wider story possibilities available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156834/nieuwe_posters_the_hunger_games_mockingjay

Mockingjay's marketing strategy seems to follow Catching Fire's closely. The routine of a logo poster first, character posters second, is strictly sustained for this second sequel to The Hunger Games. No doubt a 'Katniss on fire in logo' poster will follow soon. This time, there's more than a trio of character posters though. So far, six different one-sheets have been unearthed in the viral marketing campaign, and more are likely to follow. I guess there's just much more characters, and much more fine actors portraying them, to go around this time. I reckon the studio wants to capitalize on the loss of Philip Seymour Hoffman by attributing a poster of his own to his character: dead actors mean public interest in their final movies after all, like it or not. Simultaneously, if you hooked a great and well respected actress for a part you want to convey that in your promotional campaign too, and so Julianne Moore also gets her own poster, which makes for the debut of her character in the public mind. Interestingly enough, so far all of these character posters seem to revolve around supporting characters, while the movie's main trio - the subject of Catching Fire's comparable character one-sheets - is nowhere in sight as of yet. Considering how much the teenage demographic loves - or how much the studio execs think it loves - the love triangle that is going on between Katniss, Peeta and Gale, I bet their place in the spotlight is simply reserved for later. So these character posters showcasing much of the fine supporting cast are basically a treat to people who love movies and good acting, while the franchise's fanbase with its various Team Gales and Team Peetas will no doubt soon get to drool over posters depicting their young heroes. By which I don't mean to imply Jennifer Lawrence can't act. I meant to imply Josh Hutcherson's and especially Liam Hemsworth's acting capabilities leave a lot to be desired. So now I might need to prepare myself from vicious attacks by Hunger Games fangirls. Thankfully I happen to know few of those read this blog of mine.