If you enjoy this production, please consider becoming a contributor to The MovieBob Patreon.
(NOTE: Watch while you can - the usual bogus copyright-claim is currently in dispute. Wasn't YouTube supposed to start helping users with annoyances like this?)
Hey! Fans of this blog will likely recall this recently concluded bit of business, whereby we had ourselves some fun at the expense of reboot-happy Hollywood and held a little poll of various psuedo-dormant pop-culture franchises I figured I could (or had already) easily/amusingly brainstorm a "modern" pitch-treatment for. The last poll wound up with pieces for CAPTAIN PLANET, MEGA-MAN, X-MEN (a "joining the official MCU" version) and CARE BEARS.
Long story short, since it's the end of the year and I could always use the distraction and the writing exercise, we're going to do another one - but this time with a two little twists: Firstly, in addition to counting votes made in the comments for THIS post, I'll be conducting random Twitter-based polls as well and factoring in the totals from that at the end of voting. Secondly, this time, to keep everyone invested and (hopefully) sharing the post and links, there's going to be FIVE possible choices instead of the previous four, and while the top four will still be written/published in order of popularity, choice #5 (aka "the loser") won't be written/published at all (or at least not until if/when I do a third run of these. So, basically, if there's one you're particularly enamored of? Do your part and get the word out :) In any case, your FIVE potential "nominees" are:
THE FANTASTIC FOUR Hypothetical new adaptation as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
GREMLINS 3 Real-time sequel set 25 years after the conclusion of GREMLINS 2.
STREET FIGHTER Adaptation of the game series, primarily based off SFII with broader series tie-ins
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET Re-imagining of the NOES series, not connected to either the original series or the remake.
UNIVERSAL MONSTERS This would be a pitch for an entire series of interconnected films based on new versions of the classic Universal Monsters. This is something Universal is actually doing, but I bet they wouldn't do it how I would - so it'd be fun to lay that out.
Alright. Get yourselves down into the comments and rank your choices from 1 (being most) to 5 (being least), and keep eyes on my Twitter (@the_moviebob) and let's see who comes out on top. Polls will close at Midnight on Christmas Day.
NOTE: This review is possible in part through contributions to The MovieBob Patreon. If you enjoy it and want to see more, please consider becoming a patron. It's fine. Relax.
SPOILERS (not big or important ones, but story details and allusions) FOLLOW: CONTINUE AT YOUR OWN RISK. The weirdest moment in my evolution from movie fan to professional film critic (SHUT UP it is too a real job!) was when I realized that I had been both totally wrong and totally right about the STAR WARS prequels (SHUT UP *again!* - that era is now as over as it’s gonna get you got your way you can afford one more look back).
Viewed objectively, the prequels are “bad films” for the same reasons that plenty of other (substantially worse!) special-effects blockbusters are bad films: Poorly scripted, badly acted, tonally askew, etc. But as a young-ish fanboy back in the day, what really bugged me was that they didn’t “feel” STAR WARS enough, by which of course I mean that they didn’t remain slavishly devoted to the aesthetic and trappings I’d grown up obsessed with and didn’t throw out nearly enough references and callbacks and, well… “Star Wars” stuff. Whatever bad things you can say about THE PHANTOM MENACE, you can’t accuse George Lucas of pandering to the audience – that was ATTACK OF THE CLONES
My point is: I’ve long held a sneaky (and depressing) suspicion that if the prequels had been exactly as lacking on a technical filmmaking and storytelling level BUT had also been suitably packed to the gills with the requisite amount of fan-service, said fans would’ve largely overlooked those flaws and still be arguing their merits today.
And I’d been worried that I’d get a chance to test this hypothesis ever since it became clear that Disney and Lucasfilm were intent on selling THE FORCE AWAKENS based almost-exclusively around proving that they’d been listening to the last decade-plus of fanboy complaints; with a pre-release hype machine that ignored almost all discussion of story, themes or characters in favor of: “We’re using practical effects and models again!” “NO midichlorians!” “X-Wings and Tie-Fighters and Storm Troopers and The Falcon!” “Luke, Leia, Han and Chewie are all back!” Heck, they even went so far as to hire JJ Abrams – a remarkably UN-remarkable talent whose only skillset of genuine note is being an exceptional mimic of the style and feel of other peoples’ movies. If ever there was going to be a recipe to make O.G. STAR WARS fans spontaneously combust with joy *regardless* of whether or not the movie was actually any damn good, this was it.
BUT! My hypothesis will have to wait for another day. Because in spite of all that (and, if we’re being far, probably because of some of it) STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS is a pretty damn good movie. And since it in no way needed to be, I suppose that’s damn impressive in its own right.
Make no mistake though: What we’ve got here is effectively the world’s first $200 million STAR WARS fan-film – and I don’t use that designation to be flippant nor entirely critical. THE FORCE AWAKENS is scratching a nostalgia itch out of pure profit motive, but for good or ill the attachment generations of filmgoers have to the sights, sounds and characters of the original trilogy is a real, palpable thing that exists on a level above the base toy-salesmanship that grew to feed off of it. Yes, the narrative is pretty much a leisurely stroll down memory lane (with frequent detours onto Homage Avenue) but mostly feels organic and natural about it at least until you stop and start questioning the coincidences that have always been a big part of the series’ storytelling.
Which, it turns out, is equal parts amusing and frustrating: Abrams isn’t even half as clever a storyteller as he thinks he is… but he IS pretty darn clever, and his sleight of hand trick here is to make both the cyclical nature of the STAR WARS canon and a mad drive to re-live (and live-up-to) the events of the Original Trilogy part of the subtext and “meta”-text of the overall piece; in as much as our new bad guys (The First Order) appear largely to be a cult of Empire-revivalists while our heroes (and at least one villain) are consumed with finding and honoring the spirit of the exploits of Luke and company which, to them, are the stuff of (literal) legend.
This, depending on your point of view, either necessitates or allows for Abrams’ most naked stroke of “fan-film”-ism: That the actual surface-level story of THE FORCE AWAKENS is a deliberate, near blow-for-blow retread of the original STAR WARS; as we once again concern ourselves with a droid who crash-lands on a desert planet carrying top-secret information regarding an old Jedi Master, a newly-completed planet-destroying battlestation and a high-ranking villain in a black mask who’s more personally invested than they’re letting on.
The film (and filmmakers) aren’t simply playing with the original series’ vintage toys, they’re using them to re-enact their favorite parts with their own tweaks and revisions. To be honest, if you can picture a modernized remake of the first movie but where they actually knew the big revelations from EMPIRE and could allude to them ad-nauseum (plus an admirable diversity-boost to main cast), you’re a long way to knowing more-or-less what you’re getting from EPISODE VII; with Abrams clearly feeling comfortable enough in his term-limited position as Star Wars Fanboy King For A Day to also find room for his own versions of Mysterious Uber-Villains Meant To Be Explained Later, a character with a cool, instantly-iconic look who gets a ton of tangential build-up but ultimately doesn’t really do anything and an angry confrontation about paternity on an absurdly-unsafe catwalk.
I’d be lying if I said that this level of reliance on mythic reference for gravity and scope doesn’t start to wear thin at the seams – Abrams is putting way more of his weight on Lucas than Lucas himself *ever* leaned on Joseph Campbell – but it eventually holds together and proves (mostly) able to stand up as its own thing thanks to the one Original Trilogy lesson it seems to have commited most of all to heart: That a lot can be forgiven with compelling characters and a sense of humor. Daisy Ridley’s Rey, John Boyega’s Finn and Oscar Isaac’s Poe Dameron are all fun, engaging characters whose future exploits I’m already looking forward to; and despite all the homage and allusion the plot puts them through there is indeed a lot more to each of them than simply “the Luke” or “the Han” from scene to scene.
Boyega in particular essays a great likable everyman caught way above his head by his own good intentions, Ridley is compelling and strong even while saddled with the unfortunate duty of having every word spoken by or about her coming branded with a footnote reading: “THIS WILL MEAN SOMETHING IN EPISODE EIGHT!” But it’s Isaac who pretty-much walks away with every scene he’s in – making probably the biggest and most instantaneous turn from “Good actor you’ve seen around” to “HOLY SHIT this kid is a born movie star!!!” since… well, yeah. And speaking of which, while they occasionally get right up the line of it, the returning Hall of Famers acquit themselves admirably and largely avoid overstaying their welcome.
Possibly most interesting of all is Adam Driver as Kylo-Ren, ostensibly the "new" wannabe Darth. I say possibly both because his storyline is another one that's clearly being left half-realized so as to be a "to be continued" for the next movie, and also because it's not fully possible to talk about him without getting into a series of huge spoilers. Suffice it to say I was profoundly intrigued to see Abrams and company introduce a character whose (no exaggeration) entire being feels conceived as a pre-emptive "fuck off" to whiny, entitled, backwards-looking, legacy-obsessed, easily-enraged fanboy culture itself (think Superboy Prime) only to say: "Y'know what? This will work better if we're subtle about it." Of all the characters new or old, his is the story I'm most interested to see play out further.
If there’s a weak link, it’s in the writing. Not necessarily in the overall storytelling – the story they’ve got is fine even if you can hear the gears turning a little too loudly as they attempt to reverse-engineer Lucas’ original “think up a giant epic, then tell one small part of it” approach – although it does do a fine job of using the fallout from a casually-revealed, seemingly “major” plot detail that at first feels like it should have been a huge twist as a narrative smoke-screen to conceal a much bigger twist *almost* well enough that you’ll be irritated with yourself during the credits when you start thinking: “Wait a minute, that might be one astronomically massive coincidence too many.”
The problem, rather, comes in the dialogue – where too often a character’s already perfectly-clear reaction to something goes on several beats longer than it should while they lay out the emotional-exposition for said reaction to a third party. There isn’t too much of this, but there’s enough that you start wondering if there’s a joke being told that you don’t have the proper context for.
Ultimately, I’m not sure that it’s possible to give a fair and complete overview of THE FORCE AWAKENS that will stand the test of time – much like the Prequels, it feels structured around a sense of pre-planned inevitability in a way that frustratingly obscures which moments of under-writing or “plot-holes” are “bugs” of clunky screenwriting and which ones are “features” of setting up the next two movies: for example, DON’T go in expecting to find out WHY the First Order formed, HOW it’s buildup was accomplished or WHAT they’re grand scheme or unifying ideology is all about just yet.
For now, what I can safely say as a film critic is that – if the stated goal here was to emulate the original 1977 STAR WARS? Mission accomplished: Both films are energetic, hugely enjoyable, visually-spectacular space-adventure romps from imaginative filmmakers who are perhaps better as technicians than auteurs that are immensely fun to watch and contain intriguing glimpses of a bigger world and more substantive story just beyond the frame. And if this commitment to emulation continues, then here’s hoping next time we once again get the deeper, richer, more narratively-satisfying continuation made by a better director (they’ve already got that second part pretty-much locked-in.)
And as a STAR WARS fan? …yup, it’s pretty goddamn awesome. In the end my objectivity and detachment were no match for just how satisfying it is to see all The Good Stuff polished up like new and our Old Friends stepping back up to take their well-deserved bows; and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t experience visceral, powerful emotional response to a handful of big payoffs – even when you can see them coming from miles (or years away.) THE FORCE AWAKENS has practically been *genetically engineered* in the vast Disney manufacturing collective to make long-time STAR WARS fans shrug off the weight of Prequel Disappointment, get all misty and gratefully declare “Star Wars is back.” And… yeah, so be it, I’ll say it, you guys win: STAR WARS is back. NOTE: This review is possible in part through contributions to The MovieBob Patreon. If you enjoy it and want to see more, please consider becoming a patron.
NOTE: Film coverage like this made possible in part through donations to The MovieBob Patreon.
I'm a confirmed "hater" of the JJ Abrams STAR TREK reboots so far. Bent over backwards trying to like the first one so as not to be judged as a change-averse reactionary, openly and utterly hated INTO DARKNESS on every conceivable level (mostly because it was bad on every conceivable level) and have pretty-much written the series off. And yet, the trailer for STAR TREK BEYOND just dropped and... I kind of like it? A lot?
...and I seem to be in the minority on that.
I won't say that I don't "get" why this has people apprehensive. The feel of the trailer, as an individual piece of work apart from what it's selling, is aggressively "anti-fanservice;" especially in that it's structured (seemingly deliberately) among the most obnoxiously in-your-face "Not your father's Star Trek!" things from the first reboot movie i.e. the anachronistic Beastie Boys track and super-obvious "extreme!" action beats (motorbike-jumping, in this case.) And yeah, that I can see - just like I can already hear the rage coming as people make the connection between "I saw a vehicle-stunt" and "Director from FAST & FURIOUS movies." The pitch here is entirely "Star Trek as an action flick," and if the very idea of that is anathema to you, well... yeah, anathema. There you go.
For me, though, the issue with Abrams' STAR TREK was never that he made it "action-y." Frankly, after multiple Generations (see what I did there?) of Trek being ponderous and navel-gazing, I was more than ready for a deliberate return to the "big ideas plus exciting pulpy space adventure" stylings which, from where I sit, defined the original series and was thus the true heart and soul of the franchise. Which is why it was all the more disappointing that Abrams' vision (over two movies) was not only not particularly exciting or adventurous, but also had nothing in the way of big ideas beyond references to better previous films, convoluted self-justification (the first one) or inane 9-11 "truther" allusions (INTO DARKNESS.)
Now, to be certain, the BEYOND trailer isn't exactly promising any big ideas (yet); although I am intrigued at hearing Idris Elba's (I think?) unidentified alien character talking about "The frontier pushing back" - If TREK has an under-explored element to itself, it's recognizing that it's Utopian progressive self-image is somewhat at odds with the Colonial/Expansionist undercurrent of the "To Boldly Go..." business. But so far that's just an inkling of potential in a trailer that's mainly selling a big-scale action/adventure movie in the TREK universe.
So why am I so enthused by this (and puzzled to the point of minor irritation that so many others seem to not be?) I'll be honest: It could just be that seeing actors in TOS-style uniforms scrambling around on colorful boulders with aliens in weird/elaborate makeup feels aesthetically closer to "Classic Trek" than everything else in the reboots so far and that I'm an unapologetic mark for exactly that, but mostly I just like that it looks like it's trying to be fun. And if there's one thing that's been missing from this series so far, fun would be it. Sure, there was plenty of action; but of the portentous, grim, "People sure seemed to love that DARK KNIGHT picture!" type - and that's never been STAR TREK, even at TNG's mopiest low-points.
What I think this exposes, at least to a degree we haven't really had to "confront" in awhile, is that there's still a fundamental split in STAR TREK fandom. For a long time "Trekkies" (or Trekkers, or whatever) have been treated like a monolith in the popular culture, particularly as the post-TNG aesthetic came to dominate the ancillary arms of the franchise and the revival of "Wars v Trek;" but it isn't. TOS vs TNG/etc is still very much a thing, and I feel like you can really see it (and will see more of it) in the reactions here.
See, I'm TOS/Kirk all the way. So for me, the mere presence of some bike-jumps and martial-arts (that's Sophia Boutella from KINGSMEN as the lady alien, incidentally) doesn't in itself undermine anything essential about STAR TREK - especially since it's the Kirk-era that's being rebooted here. Original-recipe TREK ("my" TREK) was always at its best balancing adventure and intrigue with big ideas and forward-thinking vision. Yes, it would explore out-there sci-fi concepts like parallel-evolution or time-travel and grapple with issues like race, class and philosophy, but it would also "hook" you with action, melodrama, alien monsters, etc. TOS would frequently (an unapologetically) use whatever space-magic it could conjure in order to throw Kirk and company into old-west gunfights, gladiator arenas, monster battles or whatever else - if they could've afforded a motocross stunt, I'm sure they'd have done it and Shatner etc would've been all over it.
But that's me, I'm a TOS guy. If you're coming from the (totally legitimate) place where THE NEXT GENERATION and it's progeny are the "true" STAR TREK, well... firstly I'm always interested to hear how that squares with the now widely-understood revelations that TNG was only able to flourish creatively when other writers and producers were able to wrest control away from Roddenberry. But beyond that, I "get" where this looks like a total pass for you.
Or I could be completely wrong. Right now, I'm digging the audacity (which is a different animal from from the plain "not getting it" of the Abrams movies) at play here, and it's not difficult for me to see where the mix of solid action chops and team-dynamic skills that Justin Lin brought to the FAST & FURIOUS movies could turn out to be what the franchise needs to salvage itself, even as its biggest liability (Chris Pine remains a charisma-vaccum in everything other than his INTO THE WOODS comic turn) continues to be present. But this could just as easily be a bad idea all-around. For now, though, I'm feeling good about it.
NOTE: Film coverage like this made possible in part through donations to The MovieBob Patreon.
Give Fox a certain level of credit for not promoting this over a year in advance. They've got a near-gauranteed gargantuan blockbuster on their hands just based on the title and hitting the Millennial Nostalgia market at what's probably going to be its peak (don't forget: JURASSIC WORLD just got done becoming the biggest hit ever) - regardless of how you feel about INDEPENDENCE DAY (I've made my position pretty clear) there's an audience to whom it's a generational touchstone who will turn out in force for this - so they can afford to not bury the planet in advertising before now:
In any case, I mostly like what I'm seeing. I'm curious to see how they solve the problem presented by the aliens (part of the charm of the original is that it treats "alien invasion" like an impersonal natural disaster that doesn't need much explanation or any background, but we'll probably need some of that this time) and it feels anticlimactic to lose Will Smith's character offscreen (see below), but otherwise it looks like the best pitch you could reasonably have for this. I'm especially interested in the idea that they're going with an significantly altered timeline (with the original invasion still dated to 1996 and this being an alternate 2016 world spinning out of those events) rather than futzing around trying to keep a "normal" present like the last three TERMINATOR sequels. Hell, given the ongoing state of the world, "endless war-preparation even as the inciting attack gets further and further into the past" is eerily appropriate.
Along with the trailer, they've also launch a "War of 1996" viral site to handle some inter-film worldbuilding. This is where we learn (among other things) that Stephen Hiller (Smith) died in a test-pilot accident (Jessie Usher is playing "Dylan Dubrow-Hiller," i.e. Jasmine's now-grownup kid from the first one) and that David (Jeff Goldblum) has become a sort of Steve-Job-but-for-weaponry guru leading the adoption of alien tech by humanity; along with other (potentially) interesting details like surviving Invaders still being alive (and fighting with human troops) in Africa.
So... call it a maybe. Well-intentioned failures aside, Emmerich remains one of the best action-spectacle filmmakers working, and I'm excited to see him return to full-on science fiction after all this time. We'll find out on June 24th (the July 4 weekend having been previously claimed by Spielberg's BFG adaptation and, for some reason, Warner Bros' new TARZAN movie.)
NOTE: Film coverage like this made possible in part through donations to The MovieBob Patreon.
So... yeah, they pretty much say right upfront that Apocalypse is, in fact, God - as in "the God." That's something you probably wouldn't have seen in a mainstream superhero movie a decade ago.
Beyond that? Looks okay. The lack of more than a handful of people in any given scene kind of undercuts the "epic" feel (scale, along with action, simply isn't Singer's forte) and it looks like Jennifer Lawrence is going to have to keep seeking out roles where "palpable lack of engagement" is the only appropriate trait to express; but it looks the least Bryan Singer-ish of anything in the franchise apart from FIRST CLASS, so that's a good thing - though I imagine plenty of people are going to be disappointed in Archangel looking like nothing so much as a fashion-show floorwalker.
