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 News: He'll be back, both on the movies and on TV

Posted this late last night on MS:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152233/terminator_komt_terug_op_tv

He'll be back. He keeps saying it far and beyond the point that it has become a oneliner cliché, but he keeps making good on his promise. Even more than we might like. I wish The Sarah Connor Chronicles would come back too, since it ended on quite a cliffhanger (which should be considered a crime against humanity!) and any series that stars both Summer Glau and Lena Headey (and killer cyborgs) is well worth watching. Unfortunately that's not gonna happen and we'll be treated to another Terminator TV-series as well as a new movie, which share the same narrative universe (unlike The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Terminator Salvation which both followed their own timelines). Ever since Marvel created such a successful multimedia empire where everything is connected to everything, even though you might forget it until the studio reminds you of that fact, all the other studios join in on the bandwagon to try their luck with a similar set-up. It comes as no surprise that the Terminator franchise follows this dominant pattern. Whether it will pay off remains to be seen. In fact, the same can be said for Marvel, since they have only debuted a single TV-show so far despite plans for many more, and it hasn't even run a full season yet so there hasn't been that much intertextuality other than the occasional cameo appearance and throwaway line referring to other characters and places from every conceivable corner of the Marvel Universe. The concept of forging interrelated TV and movies is largely new in the way it is done presently (i.e., letting a film franchise and a TV-series exist alongside one another simultaneously instead of one following the other) so even though Marvel seems to reap the benefits, it's really still too early to tell whether it actually works. But neither the Hollywood film industry nor the television networks are known for their patience.

And what could this seminal moment in the original 1984 Terminator movie from which this TV-series is intended to spring be? No specific hints have been dropped so it's all open to speculation. Personally I haven't got a clue. The sex scene maybe? Unlikely, as the new series isn't likely to be picked up by HBO. Maybe it's the scene where Kyle Reese gets killed, in which case he isn't this time around. You never know. Or maybe the Terminator succeeds in his mission and does manage to kill Sarah Connor, resulting in another alternate timeline. Doesn't sound so farfetched. Another thing: will Arnold Schwarzenegger be involved? He's said to join the cast of the new movie, but you'd think the TV medium is sort of "beneath" him (despite the changed social perceptions regarding quality television series). Either way, I hope he's not joining the fun. For some reason people can't separate the Austrian Oak from this franchise, even though The Sarah Connor Chronicles - and to a lesser extent, Terminator Salvation - revealed you can have compelling story telling in the Terminator universe (no matter which timeline) without the signature character that started it all. It's about time we were reminded of that fact again, since the Terminator franchise has so much more to offer than that guy going around chasing and killing people again. I'm okay with the Terminator being back, but let's stop dragging poor Arnold into this all the time.

Today's News: Schwarzenegger will be back... again. And again.

I had this to report on Schwarzenegger's busy upcoming schedule on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147930/schwarzenegger_terug_voor_expendables_3_en_terminator_5

Now I'm not afraid to say I like Schwarzenegger and his action movies. Some of them I consider to be among the finest action flicks in existence (first and foremost Terminator 2: Judgment Day). And judging from his performance in the recent Expendables 2 and The Last Stand, he can still pull off solid action scenes without making you stop and think 'this guy is too old to be doing this'. In fact, you don't have to think about it, since his scripts are doing that for you in many a moment of good-humoured, tongue-in-cheek hilarity. However, nobody can continue doing this forever without the risk of losing credibility. Especially a guy who was once one of the top-grossing action stars who now seems to do little else than recycle past glories. Schwarzenegger appears to be going that way, considering all the sequels he has in store for us. The Expendables 3 I'm least worried about, since that franchise is basically built around action movie veterans getting together to blow shit up in acknowledgment of a long career of doing just that, so Schwarzenegger fits in perfectly with the rest of them. He did it to great comedic effect in the second Expendables movie, after teasing us with a glorified cameo appearance in its predecessor. The Expendables 3 can merrily have him continue down that path of rampant death and destruction with the other warmongering musclemen that have done the same for many many years. After all, why bother spending old age sitting at home playing Scrabble when you can go out and engage in massive shootouts, maiming people and blowing up tanks and helicopters?

Terminator 5 is a more delicate matter in my mind. After all, the various powers-that-be (or in most cases, have been, considering the rights to the franchise have passed through many production companies' clutches up till this point) have carefully and increasingly moved away from Schwarzenegger's involvement in this cyborg-infested universe. Terminator Salvation briefly included a cameo of the Austrian Oak's digitalized head - the Governator himself only had to give his permission for the use of his facial features, instead of actually doing any physical stuff  - but none of the other Terminators in that film had much to do with Schwarzenegger. Furthermore, the TV-series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles ignored Schwarzenegger entirely, and revealed that in the story of this world, anyone's face and body can be applied over a metal endoskeleton for Skynet's nefarious genocidal purposes. Sure, there were quite a few muscular dudes straight out of the gym who could be viewed as obvious stand-ins for that iconic but inaffordable (and unavailable) ultimate Terminator, but there were also quite a number of people who played similar cyborgs, and one of them - Summer Glau, naturally! - pulled off a totally un-Schwarzeneggerish killing machine with more complexity and emotional subtlety than we ever witnessed in any of the actual films, without losing anything when taking up arms and brutally shooting people up. Something Glau managed to do compellingly for 31 episodes (that show should have run longer, especially considering the major cliffhanger that now ends the show and leaves us in the dark). Plus, she looked better in her undies than Schwarzenegger did in his bare butt.

So basically, we started getting used to the idea of a Schwarzenegger-less Terminator universe, a world where Ahnuld is not actually needed to make for interesting 'man vs. machine' drama and visually appealing future battles. The Terminator franchise has proven to do just fine on its own without repeatedly reintroducing the daddy of all Terminators, and thus having the original Terminator return might hurt that notion. I for one have little interest in seeing more of Arnold in T5, since T3 already felt like an uninspired rehash of T2, were it not for its surprisingly dark ending. If Terminator 5 follows Terminator Salvation, which seems likely - though we should never take this for granted, considering the constant messing with the timeline that, for one thing, allowed TSCC to follow T2 while retconning T3 and TS completely - it would be the first time we saw Schwarzenegger's T-800 in a future setting (not counting the T2 3D theme park ride). What to do with that notion? Either he's a real Skynet controlled Terminator and he's out to kill people (like in T1), or he's a reprogrammed Terminator and fights for the human resistance, as was the case in T2 and T3. He might be a bit of a 'grey zone' killing machine, like Marcus (Sam Worthington) in TS, a cyborg whose loyalty is undecided, but that too has already been done in both TS and TSCC. Plot wise I can't think of much scenarios that would help reinvigorate the franchise with Schwarzenegger's presence, but then I'm no producer or screen writer, so what do I know?

And then of course Schwarzie is slated to do the very late sequel to Twins (1988!), called Triplets: a project I'm sure few people really are actively interested in watching after having to wait no less than twenty-six years for it! And to top it all off, he's scheduled to do another Conan the Barbarian flick (which should have been done in the Eighties as was promised, but sadly that proposed third installment called Conan the Conqueror got scrapped and we got that shitty Red Sonja movie instead). This despite that fact Conan has already been rebooted only a few years ago, starring Khal Drogo Jason Momoa, but that film flopped somethin' fierce, so it comes as no surprise that the studio would be eager to make us forget all about it. Fortunately there's still a few original projects in Arnold's pipeline, but for the most part he seems adamant to return to past success. And if he continues to go the tongue-in-cheek way for all of those projects, like he has done so far, his old age could soon prove very repetitive for his audience. Like a granddaddy with memory problems who continues to tell his grandchildren the same jokes over and over again. That would be a sad final phase of Schwarzenegger's otherwise illustrious career...