Today's Column: Crossovers and childhood dreams

September's column has arrived:

Column: Crossovers en kinderdromen

Oh boy, did I devour Batman versus Predator as a kid... Even though the subject matter was far more gory and gruesome than your typical Batman story and may not have been wholly suitable for a youngster my age. I think I turned out alright (I don't abide blood sports, for example). Of course, this wasn't your typical Batman story, since it was also a Predator story and those are usually the stuff of R-ratings. If they're not, they fall short of being a Predator story like the fans expect or desire them, which is one of the reasons no doubt the PG-13 rated movie Alien VS Predator was so lamented by the fanbase. But it does present another challenge when adapting crossovers: incompatibility. Batman is one of those characters which can suffer multiple age ratings, though the grittier, harder Dark Knight stories are usually received more fondly by the majority. But Predator, if done right, simply isn't suited for people under 16, or shouldn't be from a social viewpoint (like teenagers under 16 are not going to check out stuff the law says they can't, in the privacy of their own homes). Likewise, King Kong versus the Smurfs seems equally incompatible, though that's more because of the vastly different subject material rather than the age category. I put that in for a joke, but needless to say you can find some fan's home video depicting such a meeting on YouTube easily enough.

Fact is, crossovers are popular, and have always been so. Ancient Greek mythology already got that ball rolling by throwing several notable heroic characters together in the story of the Argonauts, like some Avengers of Classical Antiquity (and again in the Trojan War). Thanks to our contemporary Avengers, crossovers are a hot topic again, which even leads to rival studios teaming up (in itself a bit of a crossover) to bring the fans just the crossovers they want to see (I'm talking about you, new Marvel Spider-Man!). But crossovers are hardly a novel notion in the annals of film. Universal joining its iconic horror creatures together sounds more like they're remaking the likes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man rather than them mindlessly copying Marvel, though it's likely a bit of both. But this wave of crossover movies will die down soon enough, since crossover stories usually are far from world class material.

Most of them actually are total gimmicks, cashing in on people's own perceptions of chance encounters between notable characters from different walks of popular culture. Not much story is needed really, the idea of two (or more) characters meeting, often fighting, suffices to draw attention. Batman versus Predator got it right at least, but Batman/Aliens proved less stellar material. The original King Kong versus Godzilla was a total dud, a typical Japanese Kaiju movie in which Kong looked nothing like the giant gorilla previously smashing New York. Crossovers are always fascinating, but not many of them are truly good. They're not designed to be, nor do they need to be. The characters meet, the characters part ways again, usually never to meet again. In the meantime, money exchanges hands between audience and producers. That's all there is to it really. Or is Marvel going to change this? After all, the notion of a shared universe that can endure for a few decades is a new thing, at least. And the number of crossovers between that universe's characters keeps growing, but there needs to be more story meat to it to keep the audience from losing interest. Same thing for the upcoming DC Cinematic Universe. But it remains to be seen whether the same will hold true for the Universal Monsters, the iconic Kaiju creatures or other popular franchises thrown in the mix together. You'd kinda need a separate universe for those, to keep these crossovers outside of continuity if needs be. That's how they always did it in the comics, to explain away why superheroes of different companies didn't join forces/clash more often if they inhabited the same realm: they didn't actually, these crossovers took place in other universes, outside of established continuity. A handy loophole, one that Marvel and DC can't seriously utilize anymore at the movies because that might make them lose face. But it works well enough for the likes of Freddy VS Jason (an actual movie), Tarzan VS King Kong (an actual book), or Godzilla VS the Smurfs (pure fiction).

It needs to, to stop fans from contemplating the possibilities to severely. Because if the Fantastic Four once fought Godzilla, Godzilla squabbeled with King Kong, King Kong battled Tarzan, Tarzan fought Predator, Predator warred with Aliens, Aliens plagued Batman and Batman co-operated with Spider-Man, that would mean Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four share the same universe! Now if only I could fit the Smurfs in there somewhere...

Yesterday's News continues Today

Having binged GoT (hell yeah!), I'll pick up where I so shamefully left off:

Wilde terug voor Tron 3

Neither good nor bad news to me. Olivia Wilde is a gorgeous gal and her acting was okay (though not mindboggingly compelling or anything), but it's not what I watch TRON movies for. Unlike most movies (though less so for summer blockbusters), TRON is all about the visuals. Of course those from the first movie were a lot more revolutionary than the effects of its late sequel, but Legacy too definitely delivered some cutting edge vistas. However, this time the question of the plot is more important, considering visual effects won't have developed so intensely since the last film (from 2010), compared to the gap between the first and second film. Not to mention where the story of Legacy left us. And then there's more room to consider Wilde's character. She's the first character from TRON's digital world to have made it to our everyday reality, as opposed to vice versa. The bad guy apparently has been destroyed and the good guy returned home after an arduous ordeal. So why would the good guy and his girl return to TRON's world of pixels? Aside from offering us more visual goodies, of course.

Johansson gewild voor Black Lagoon

Naturally Universal wants Scarlett, everybody wants her. She has grown to be one of Hollywood's most bankable and popular actresses. With that status of course comes the freedom to pick any project she likes, and I doubt a remake of a Fifties' horror classic counts among those. Especially one that already is a soft retreat of similar fare, repackaging a familiar Beauty and the Beast tale in an only moderately different guise. Plus, considering all the 'shared universe' business Universal is proposing for the various remakes of their horror flicks - which is not necessarily a rip-off of Marvels cinematic universe, considering Universal pulled off the same scheme to attract audiences 70 years ago -  it's not unlikely Johansson would have to sign for multiple pictures, repeating her Marvel contract. I doubt she's be willing to do that, now that she's a mom. That is, assuming the studio wants her in the role of the blond babe chased by the horny, oh so misunderstood prehistoric creature. It's not a given that is what the studio wants her for. Maybe it's just what our conservative mind suggests in case of this casting. Considering Johansson isn't only hot but quite talented as well, maybe we got it all wrong. This is the 21st Century after all. Could it be she'll play the creature itself? A female creature falling for a handsome human male, perhaps, in a wonderful reversal of roles? Or a female creature with the hots for a female human, to deliver some sizzling sexual situations to entice bi-curious audiences? Yeah, that's so not gonna happen. But hey, Joss Whedon just accused Universal's Jurassic World of sexism in traditional gender roles (based on a single clip, which may not be the smartest idea), so maybe someone at the studio was listening and decided the time was right to switch sexes around for a change and surprise us all. I'm sure that would attract Johansson a lot more than following age-old movie routines.

Redmayne in Fantastic Beasts?

Notice the question mark there. Only a few weeks ago I posted the news that Matt Smith likely nabbed the lead role in this Harry Potter spin-off. Now it turns out Eddie Redmayne is the new favourite, and Smith's name is nowhere to be found. Other names also keep floating around, which suggests the deal with Smith fell through after all, despite both parties seeming eager to start filming. So yeah, I need to post more question marks in the case of casting rumours like these, since unless contracts are signed, they're always just rumours. So now I may have falsely gotten people's hopes up and those that yearned for a cult series actor playing Newt Scamander might face the harsh reality that's not gonna happen, as he has likely been replaced by a recent Academy Award winner. Sorry, folks. But hey, Eddie Redmayne is a good actor at least, so he, too, is a decent choice for this new lead character we know next to nothing about. As for the actor, he's very British, that's as good a sign as any. Only Englishmen have a shot at playing in a J.K. Rowling based flick, after all. But even among British actors, some Brits are better than others. And personally I think Redmayne is a safer bet than Smith. But then, I've never seen Smith in Dr. Who.

Creature Walks Among Us, The

Rating: ***/*****, or 5/10

Second sequel to the original Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), set closely after the events of its predecessor Revenge of the Creature (1955). Previous director Jack Arnold, so talented in making Fifties' science fiction films work effectively instead of making them cheesy, has left the director's chair and delivered it to John Sherwood, who unfortunately lacks his finesse and understanding of the genre (his only other noteworthy directorial credit is the fun but campy The Monolith Monsters (1957)). After busting out of its marine park prison, the creature is tracked down in the Everglades and again captured, but horribly burned in the process. Surgery saves his life but also necessitates the removal of his lungs for his survival, so scientists turn him into an air breather with an overall more human appearance, but still undeniably not human. Used as a scapegoat in a melodramatic love triangle and the resulting murder plot between his new owner, his wife and her lover, the creature again breaks free and goes on a rampage, after which he is again subjected to man's violent nature. It's clear who is the monster this time. Though opening on an eerie note with the Florida swamp scene, the movie quickly loses steam and takes the franchise in a dull new direction, largely removing everything that made the monster so intriguing in the previous films. Though the movie contains some moderately thrilling action scenes and excellent alternative creature make-up, it's definitely the worst of the trilogy, and the only one not released in 3-D.

Starring: Jeff Morrow, Rex Reason, Leigh Snowden

Directed by John Sherwood

USA: Universal Pictures, 1956

Creature from the Black Lagoon

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Classic monster movie from the 'House of Horror', Universal Pictures: the last monster to be added to the staple of 'Universal's original monsters', as well as the only monster from the Fifties in the bunch, since the rest of them were all released in the early Thirties and Forties. As a dessert to the creature cake, it turns out a damn tasty course, even though in many respects it's a poor man's King Kong. It's also an interesting transitional movie between Universal's classic studio monster movies of old and the typical creature feature science fiction films of the Fifties, courtesy of Jack Arnold, one of the most prolific directors of the genre in this decade (his other works include It Came from Outer Space (1953), Tarantula (1955) and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)). A band of scientists stumbles on the remains of an 'amphibian missing link', a Gill Man (never mind actual science here). However, the animal was not the only one of its kind, since a live specimen starts stalking the group, in particular the beautiful girl (Julie Adams) among them, resulting in an (in)famous underwater swimming duet between the pair. Sadly, the romance is one-sided as the creature finds out when he tries to get a little closer to the object of his fascination but is instead met with fear, violence and eventually greed as the explorers mean to capture the beast and take it back to civilization. However, the monster has some thoughts of his own on that subject and doesn't surrender so easily, with deadly consequences. Beautiful – and for that time, spectacular – underwater photography, a solid cast (including fan favorite Richard Denning, who starred in a number of Fifties' Sci-Fi flicks, not all of them as good as this one) and an excellent balance between drama, action and romance. One of the first movies to be released in 3-D during the short lived 3-D craze in the Fifties with which Hollywood studios hoped to lure audiences away from the new medium of television (unsuccessfully it must be said).

Starring: Richard Carlson, Richard Denning, Julie Adams

Directed by Jack Arnold

USA: Universal Pictures, 1954

Bride of Frankenstein, The

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

One of the greatest horror movies of all time, in every regard a very successful sequel to the original Frankenstein (1931), which also is one of the greatest horror movies of all time. James Whale once again directs, with a satirical and even campy view on the macabre goings-on of the film. After the monster created by Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive once more) has been deemed destroyed, the good doctor tries to save his marriage. However, sinister colleague Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) blackmails him into creating life a second time, while the creature itself (still Boris Karloff in his most iconic role) turns out to be far from dead. In an overtly melodramatic but effective scene the latter befriends a blind old hermit who teaches him to talk: despite this vocal addition Karloff manages to keep the monster's eerie character intact, while his childlike but grumbling speech pattern makes him extra sympathetic. However, the angry mob of townspeople still thinks otherwise, driving the monster once again to mad rage as he hooks up with Pretorius to force Frankenstein to create a bride for him. Only 75 minutes in length, but containing the full range of compelling emotion, plus fabulous Gothic set dressing and lighting, this movie remains one of the most emulated but unsurpassed classics of the heydays of Hollywood. Boris Karloff would reprise his signature role a final time for the sequel Son of Frankenstein (1939), also an excellent addition to this “frankenchise”.

Starring Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson

Directed by James Whale

USA: Universal Pictures, 1935