DANGEROUS DAYS

Remakes, sequels and reboots

You are Hollywood's bitch and you're too weak to do anything about it

---

Being a science-fiction fan in this day and age is a lot like being on the losing end of an abusive relationship.

Ever since Hollywood discovered that us nerds would gladly open up our wallets on nothing more than a wink and a promise of an epic spaceship battle, or a little bit of alien side-boob, they've been milking us for all we're worth. And we're so eager for the love that we just smile and take it.

They churn out disappointing rehash after disappointing rehash, recycling concepts that Asimov would have considered outdated, thinking that if they just throw in enough explosions or CGI monsters that we won't notice. And the sad thing is that most of the time, we don't.

Our abusers are consistently letting us down, falling short on their lofty promises and yet we always take them back, no matter how severely they've embarrassed us in front of our friends. Why do we do it?

Take "Transformers" as an example. Even if you were never a fan of the cartoons or the toys back in the 1980s, the basic concept of giant, shape-shifting alien robots battling for supremacy itself just sounds so damn good on paper that it's hard to imagine how it could ever go wrong. And indeed, with all the possibilities that arise out of that basic premise, it really should have been a no-brainer.
Yet somehow, Hollywood found a way to widdle all that promise down to nothing. How, you ask? By completely ignoring it to focus instead on the petty relationship problems of a teenage boy and the object of his newly pubescent lust. Don't get me wrong, Megan Fox is a hottie for sure, but given the choice to watch her run around cock-teasing in a skimpy T-shirt or witness a gang of badass robots waging all out war across America, I'd totally go for the epic robot battle.

Hot birds are a dime a dozen, but how often do you see a diesel truck transform into a huge mech and then throw another huge mech into the side of a skyscraper?

So why the hell are we watching these high school students awkwardly trying to put their genitals together when there is robot destruction to be had? High school students are the people I push out of the way to get on the train in the morning, they're the people I have to explain my Carl's Jr. order 15 times before they finally get it. They are not cooler or more interesting than Megatron.

I'm sorry, but in no version of reality would that ever be the case. So why did Shia LaBeouf get more screen time than Optimum Prime? Why was the main character in a movie called "Transformers" not, how do I put this, a Transformer?

But like the reliable punching bags we are, we all still went and saw it, and most of us will even make the same mistake a second time around when the sequel comes out. they show us a flashy trailer of all of the coolest parts of the movie in rapid succession, and we ignorantly think that they've changed, that somehow this time things will be different. And maybe, just maybe, there will be an original script, a fresh perspective, a unique vision at the end of that rainbow.

How long has it been since that happened? I honestly can't remember the last new sci-fi movie I wasn't merely settling for in some way.

Let's take another example, "Alien vs. Predator," Like "Transformers," this one should have been a no-brainer, but somehow the filmmakers made the strange choice along the way to try their hardest to not give the audience what they wanted to see. Not only was the movie rated PG-13 when neither franchise had yet turned out anything less than a hard R, but the battles between the Xenomorphs and the Predators were poorly filmed and wildly unsatisfying.

We went in wanting to see aliens take on predators, and what we got was cartoonish predo-human buddy cop shenanigans and a Tomb Raider-esque pyramid of booby traps.

Regardless of how entertaining these films may or may not have been, they both failed on a fundamental level. They just weren't about what they should have been about for no good reason. If this was a school assignment, they both would have been given F's because they wrote 10-page essays on ancient Egypt when the assignment was to solve a math problem.

The main connection between these two films is that they both rely on non-human characters to tell a story. The writers and producers in Hollywood gave been operating for a very long time under the idea that no audience will be able to enjoy a movie unless they are able to directly relate to the protagonist and thus the "useless story vessel" is born.

The main character in "Transformers" is a teenage boy not because it has anything to do with transforming robots, but because Hollywood just doesn't believe giant CGI robots can carry a movie on their own. The concept that audiences who came out in droves would somehow leave the theater severely disappointed that their Transformers movie didn't focus enough on human issues is completely ludicrous.

Nobody came to see anything but Transformers, so why would they be let down if the story was told from the Autobots perspective? They can talk, they have personalities. What's the problem?

"AvP" is a little different because neither species can communicate in English. But seriously, off the top of my head, I could think of 20 cooler setups for that movie than the one that was delivered. They even had a better concept built right into the movie that they totally slept on -- the ancient Aztecs' first encounter with the Predators. It was right there in the movie and would have been a way cooler story. But instead, they went with the more generic "scientific expedition encounters unbelievable horror" route.

Personally, I think "Apocalypto" meets "Alien" meets "Predator" would have been much more satisfying and much more original, but hey, nobody's paying me to write this crap, so what do I know? All I really know is what I like and what I don't like. I don't like movies that water down their subject matter for the sake of mass appeal.

When will Hollywood open its eyes and realize that people like sci-fi just the way it is? People love "Terminator," they love "Alien." They love Star Wars. But what they don't love is watered down sci-fi that's afraid to commit.

As the victims of constant letdown by the Hollywood system, how can we geeks take back our self respect? How can we break the cycle of abuse?

The answer is fairly simple -- don't believe the hype! Don't let The Man's smooth talking ways seduce you. If they want to get into your pants, make them work for it!

An awesome trailer does not make a good movie. In fact, the more awesome stuff you see in a trailer, the less impressed you should be because it means they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you show up at the midnight screening already wearing the officially licensed T-shirt on your back before you've even seen the first five minutes of the movie, then you're playing right into their hands, and they're going to keep on shafting you time after time. They'll only try what they think they'll be able to get away with.

Support independent filmmakers. With blossoming genre scenes growing out of Korea, Japan, Spain, Mexico, Russia and many other countries, there really is no shortage of alternatives to the big Hollywood blockbusters that have become so stagnant lately. With the cost of special effects and CGI slowly becoming affordable to small production houses, the playing field is being leveled and it's no longer necessary to have a Hollywood budget to get Hollywood-level production values.

A year or two of poor box office turnout might cause the big studios to re-evaluate their game plans, and maybe try a little bit harder to make them worthwhile films.

i am legend

i am a brainless movie-goer

___________________________________________________

just a comparison i'd like to throw out there - i've heard a lot of people who praised the transformers movie going around town saying i am legend is awful. you people need to learn the difference between awful and mediocre.

'i am legend' isn't awful, it just suffers from the same fate that most modern movies do - nobody cared enough to make it a masterpiece. maybe its because they felt like they didn't have to and people would see it anyway, maybe they honestly thought they had created a masterpiece or maybe they were operating under the impression that the world wasn't ready for anything heavier, but most movies these days don't have enough put into them. there are several movies i use as a compass to judge all others by, they range from serious art house fare like 2046 to mainstream action romps like the terminator or die hard. some were considered great in their time, some were loathed, some were considered frivolous and mindless, some were simply forgotten, but regardless, in my mind there is a thread that unites all great films - care. i feel it's fairly evident when watching a movie whether or not the people making it actually gave a shit about what they were creating. as an artist and a lover of art i can tell the difference between someone's obsession and someone's paycheck. it's what differentiates blade runner from impostor. i know when the details of a movie have been labored over, even if the labor isn't apparent and that is one of the things i love discovering about movies.

'i am legend' doesn't lack detail, per say, but it definitely skimps a bit. was it as good as 'blade runner'? oh god, no. but was it as bad as 'impostor'? nah, that's a little harsh. visually it was alright, thematically it was alright (though a bit muddy in places), but it fell far short of its potential because hollywood is simply terrified of taking big risks and failing. the movie was "deep" there was substance to it, but it was very subtle and it seems like a lot of people looked right passed it because they came in half-expecting it to be meaningless hollywood garbage anyway. i mean, let's be honest, there are a lot of people in this world that wouldn't get the theme of a movie if it was right in front of them yanking their ball hairs out, but a lot of the negativity i've read regarding 'i am legend' being "terrible" seems to stem from viewers having only a superficial/completely literal understanding of what's transpiring. it appears to me that most people were too distracted by the questionable cgi choices and the ending to really give the film the amount of attention it deserved.

although i wasn't the biggest fan of 'i am legend' personally and don't feel any sort of obligation to defend it, this kind of thing really troubles me. the majority of movie viewers (even those that consider themselves discerning critics) are only able to see themes, symbolism, deeper meanings, etc. in a movie if they're made overly aware of the fact that its there by heavy-handed techniques or blabby philosophical dialogue. i suppose that's why i despise movies that rely on such methods to hold your hand through every emotion, thought and concept presented. it's my personal feeling that a movie should be entertaining first and foremost, but it should have more to it than a simple chain of events if you should choose to go looking for it. the meat is there in 'i am legend', but there isn't enough to really make it a great film.

one thing i've notice people complaining about was the ending. many compare it to the twist toward the end of signs. they say "out of nowhere this chick and kid show up for no reason and all of a sudden he discovers the cure, gets a crazy message from god, sacrifices himself and saves humanity". well...that's certainly one way to look at it, yea, but is that really what the film was trying to get across? as usual, i see things a bit differently.

robert neville (will smith) lived for 3 years on his own. he learned to survive on his own. in this case surviving involves more than just hunting food and finding shelter, he also had to learn how to exist in complete isolation and cope with the psychological impact of not only being the last human alive, but also of being partly responsible for what happened to his fellow humans. 3 years is a long time and the result of being isolated for so long is that he's become completely self sufficient. though he desires it, he no longer requires human contact and has developed ways to supplement it on his own. he has become so accustomed to existing without that when human relationships are reintroduced to him he can no longer maintain them. when anna and ethan show up, by all indicators, he should be happy, he should have a new found purpose and a skip in his step...it should have brought him hope. instead, he can only focus on how their arrival has impacted the routine he's established for himself ("i was saving that bacon"). the characters of anna and ethan are obviously meant to echo neville's wife and child and where most movies would have hammered that point home, director francis lawrence chooses a different approach. instead, neville hardly seems to be moved by their presence at all and aside from a brief caress, makes very little personal contact with either of them. the story isn't about them, after all, it is about robert neville, the legend, the allegory. it is about how his desire to survive and fulfill his duty led him on a journey away from his own humanity. with this in mind, i view the "signs" at the end of the movie less as messages from god than neville finally realizing that in his quest to survive he had turned his back on the very thing he was supposed to be protecting. in an instant he finally understood that anna and ethan weren't simple annoyances getting in the way of his work and ruining his set-up, they were human like his wife and child, they were what he was struggling to save.

i'm not trying to convince anyone that 'i am legend' was brilliant because it wasn't. it had its moments and i think in a decade or so when the cultural associations are not as fresh and we've got maybe an extended director's cut it will be looked at more positively. what i'm trying to say is, its not awful and if you have an open mind and a willingness to look past the surface of the movie there are some interesting moments, some great scenes and some introspective themes about isolation, survival and obsession, but if you go in expecting mindless drivel, you'll get just that out of it.

ps. i'm purposefully avoiding any discussion about how well the movie adapts the book because, quite frankly, this is not really a strict adaptation of the book. it's more an update of the omega man, a laughably bad, equally off the mark adaptation of 'i am legend' starring charlton heston and his machine gun. even though 'the omega man' was slightly more faithful to the source material, it completely missed the mark of what the true core of the story was, which i think 'i am legend' comes a bit closer to (even though the way they get there is much different). for the sake of this blog, i'm keeping movies removed from their source material unless the connections absolutely must be drawn.