I thought I'd post something else for a change. Something wickedly cool, naturally (though admittedly, the video quality when posted on my blog leaves a lot to be desired). Me and my partner in promotional crime recently built this giant standee for the upcoming movie Transformers: Age of Extinction. It took us just over three hours to complete this daunting task, though you would not guess so from this little 11-second video. This footage gives a decent impression of the activities I usually engage in on Thursday afternoons on the job. Of course, most standees aren't nearly as big or complex as this particular specimen (which is why they don't get spiffy timelapse videos like this one). I can safely say that building this standee was much more fun than watching the actual movie. Considering its running time of 165 minutes, it would take up an equal amount of time too. I doubt many people would have the privilege of building this one though, as it sets the distributor back a whopping 2,500 euros, so not many have been produced. Which is why there's only two of these in the Netherlands, though you can spot its small sized counterpart (only about half as big) in most other commercial theaters. As the climax of the video flashes by in mere milliseconds, below you'll find a picture of the final product so you can experience its splendid detail and admire the craftsmanship that goes into building these huge standees.
It's gonna be a damn shame to tear this one down when the times comes. But hey, it's too big to take home with me by train...
Little to add to these bits of news. I'm getting ever more stoked for Guardians of the Galaxy, due to its increasingly weird and wondrously colourful space opera vibe. It was about time Marvel added something different to its mix, to showcase the diversity inherent in its comics, which really are not all about superheroes (honestly!). Not that there's anything wrong with superheroes, mind you. But there's an awful lot of that going on in theaters these days. So now we get a fun space movie with talking raccoons and trees and saucy green ladies instead. Something else entirely! This sensational trailer reveals a bit more of the personas behind the galaxy's would-be protectors annex fugitive outlaws. An eclectic bunch with a wide array of opposing personalities, just the type of ensemble that characterizes Marvel, and not all that different in make-up from, say, The Avengers. I truly hope this movie will help revitalize the space opera genre, which previously failed to re-win the hearts of the audience when John Carter flopped. The Marvel brand ought to steer people in the right direction, though it may make for misguided expectations at first. If director James Gunn does the source material justice though, there should be little difficulties getting the audience to embrace these characters too. Even that darn talking raccoon.
After all, the general audience had little difficulty accepting the mindless incredulity of giant extraterrestrial robots morphing into Earth vehicles. Nor did the lack of a decent, balanced, intelligible plot, hurt the box office three times in a row. So the financial success of the fourth Transformers flick seems to be secure. Michael Bay unfortunately returns to the director's chair to terrorize our ear drums yet again with his overly loud bombastic scenes of digital action and trademark emphasis on big ass explosions. New characters notwithstanding, the plot doesn't seem to differ much from before. Big bad robots from space mean to wipe out humanity and gentle giant robots help us out. This time the latter group is also hindered by mankind itself, fed up as we are as a species with these Trannies continuing to run amok on our planet. Misunderstood heroes, not exactly a novel motif. Titanic robots from outer space morphing into prehistoric terrestrial creatures, that is a new one though. Nevermind the absence of logic. People have shown not to care too much about logic three times before, and they will undoubtedly do so again. And against better judgment, so will I. That's the price you pay for getting to go to the movies for free I suppose.
I got some more stuff up on MovieScene yesterday and managed to post it here today, as ought to be the natural routine I have increasingly less time to adhere to, alas.
This is so typical. I loathed the previous threesome of Transformers flicks, yet I still keep looking forward to the next installment even though I know it's gonna suck robots balls (and that these robots even have genitals is something unfortunately established in the second movie). I should know better by now. Maybe it's because this time there's dinosaurs involved too? Yeah, like that makes a difference for the overall (lack of) quality as long as Michael Bay is still directing! If I didn't care for supposedly paleontologically correct dinosaurs in the recent Walking with Dinosaurs 3D flick, robot dinosaurs also doesn't exactly sound like stuff right up my alley. I guess I've become too picky as I've grown old and sour. Trading in Shia LaBeouf for Mark Wahlberg is also less than a stellar improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. As was the case with the previous Tranny films, there's some good actors around, but this is not the type of films that revolves around acting. These are eye candy movies for immature audiences, where half the movie consists of overly loud, endless action scenes with explosions every other minute and the rest of the time is filled with hot chicks bending over socially sexualized vehicles while utterly cringe worthy poop jokes are produced. Inbetween there is something of a story line to discern but it makes little sense and is otherwise completely forgotten when the credits end rolling. There are visual FX driven movies that provide a singularly memorable, thoroughly absorbing viewing experience, like Gravity, and there is its exact opposite: Transformers 1 through 3. Fourth time is the charm? I don't think so. Yet I will still end up torturing myself as I go and see it (for free, obviously: torturing yourself and paying for it is just too much pain). It will probably be another bad film, but at the very least robots morphing into dinosaurs can't be worse than robots shapeshifting into cars. It just can't, I refuse to believe it...
And then there's the type of VFX movie where the effects form the setting, dominating the visual style but not driving the story per se, as that is still up to the actors. Like Sin City. And its sequel, A Dame to Kill For. In the case of such films, acting is a quintessential ingredient, and the actors find their capabilities tested to their absolute limits acting against nothing but blue (or green, it varies) all around them. Some actors don't do so well in this scenario, as Rosario Dawson and Jessica Alba showed in the previous adventure taking place in the City of Sins. Hopefully they've grown and prove more up to the task in the sequel, as both of them are back for more. As are characters like Hartigan (Bruce Willis) and Marv (Mickey Rourke), despite both of them kicking the bucket before. As this movie takes place before the events of the first film, that ought not be an issue. In fact, this film will answer questions raised by its predecessor. For one thing, why did Dwight have to change his facial appearance (from Sin 2's Josh Brolin to Sin's Clive Owen)? With exactly the same people both in front and behind of the camera, I have full faith in this project, though I agree it doesn't score points in terms of originality. If the quality of the movie gets anywhere near the level of the first installment - still a much appreciated entry in my personal Top-29 of 10/10 rated movies - you won't hear me complaining. Even if Alba once again takes out her no-nudity clause and keeps her clothes on while playing the stripper, despite the graphic novel the movie so faithfully reproduces for the big screen revealing quite a lot more black&white skin.
Needless to say I am not fond of the overabundance of digital effects in the cinema these days. It has caused an 'effects saturated' visual market, as well as raised a spoiled audience that has seen it all. Of course, this does make the consumers more demanding in terms of plot, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Except that they're finding it at home on TV instead of at the movies, which slowly but surely degrades cinema as a medium. I'm not at all against good television of course (quite the opposite in fact!), but I would like to believe the possibility of quality television and quality movies co-existing is reachable. Of course there's still plenty of excellent movies made, but people are having an increasingly hard time catching them in theaters as they're often dropped from regular circulation swiftly or aren't awarded a decent cinematic release at all. Watching them on-demand at home is a solution, but nothing beats seeing them on the big screen as their makers intended (usually, at least). They're often only making money in the long run, as opposed to the big budget spectacles that get all the attention in theaters but are ever more often relying solely on visual sensations that make them ever more interchangeable, bland routines, despite the hype generated for them to lure audiences in. But every once in a while, a visually spectacular blockbuster sees a release and provides something new in terms of technology, transporting the audience to brave new worlds and sights as yet unseen. This year it's Gravity, definitely the most immersive viewing experience since Avatar (which was released four years ago). Alfonso Cuarón's thrilling tale of space peril continues to advance cinematic technology in a tradition of fantastic films over the course of the evolution of the medium that have truly amazed and inspired audiences like few other movies have done. It really makes you wonder how these amazing effects were accomplished, a question most modern audiences find themselves asking less and less. And that's where the angle of my column kicks in.
Another column done, now for next month's piece. Currently I have no clue as to what it will be about. But I'm sure I'll manage, as I've done so far.
Transformers: Age of Extinction it is. Derivative title to say the least. Recently we were treated to the revelation that the next Avengers flick will be called Avengers: Age of Ultron. And what's that one about? A robot threatening mankind with extinction! Other sub-titles Paramount reportedly considered for Transformers 4 were Apocalypse, Future Cast and Last Stand. Also all less than original. Remember Resident Evil: Apocalypse, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men: The Last Stand? Paramount must be thinking it can shave a few bucks off this hugely expensive project by copying better movies' titles.
Oh well, there's robots in the shape of dinosaurs in this one - as there are in Power Rangers, by the way, so also not a wholly novel concept - so I may be forgiving for once. Not that I care much about the Transformers franchise under Michael Bay's continuous supervision. I've sat through three shitty movies about alien robots inexplicably changing into Earthly vehicles, so I'm not interested in a fourth. But 'Dinobots' sounds simply so mesozoically cheesy, this film might entice even me. And if it ends up a dud, there's fortunately plenty of other dinosaur related movies in store. Walking with Dinosaurs 3D this year, Pixar's The Good Dinosaur the next, and hopefully (finally!) Jurassic Park IV in 2015. It seems the dinosaurs are back to stay. Again.
