I saw a theatrical release of a movie twice. I saw "Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen" in IMAX the second night it was in theaters, but when I got the opportunity to see it a second time...well, the DVD release is going to be a while away, and I wanted to be sure I got my fill of awesomeness.
Of course, I read a fair share of negative reviews, mostly by uptight Farkers who couldn't get over their hatred of Michael Bay's explosion fetishism, Megan Fox's admitted bisexuality, Shia LaBeouf's perceived douchiness, and the many ways in which our childhood was "raped" by not staying in lockstep with the original. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but I'll hit on a few things here. First, you can't set a movie in the modern day and retain every hallmark of the original. Product placement aside, some of the elements of the cartoon would simply not be realistic or believable for a live-action film. (Thank God they decided on conservation of mass...try imagining a human-sized tape deck transforming into a 30-foot-tall Soundwave.) Second, we're working with a concept that was based upon a half-hour animated commercial designed to sell kids toys! This wasn't fine scripting, it was just a clever marketing vehicle. When a lot of old characters were killed in the animated movie, they brought along new characters...and now, the kids could go buy new toys! (They're not just going to buy a re-released Optimus Prime, now.) The "Transformers" cartoons were certainly influential to our childhood...remember that guy who legally changed his name to Optimus Prime before being shipped off to Iraq? But while they were captivating as children, now we can step back and see what they really were.
I didn't go to "ROTF" to see brilliant scripting and drama as the Autobots adjust to a new home planet. I went to see—holy shit, did six construction vehicles just transform into one giant robot? FUCK! If you grew up watching the Transformers, hell, even if you didn't, that alone was worth the price of admission. You'd have to be really anal-retentive to point out that they weren't all green-and-purple like the original Constructicons, or that Arcee was a bike (or a hive mind of bikes) instead of a car. I'm sure that in the cartoon universe, the world governments just totally overlooked a bunch of sentient alien robots living on their planet and occasionally tearing shit up. In a live-action movie, it makes sense to show that sort of thing, or else why not just go all "Animatrix" or "Final Fantasy" and stage a complete CGI movie?
But this blog entry isn't just about Transformers. It'd be about a month late if that were the case. No, it's because of an article that I read tonight (on Fark, where else?). Now, our generation grew up on these animated toy-centric TV series. "Transformers" was just the first one to be greenlit for a live-action film. Interestingly, it seems that "Transformers" has always had a close link to another animated hit of the time, "G.I. Joe." In fact, both series were supposed to have an animated movie in the late 1980s, but after the poor performance of "Transformers: The Movie," the "G.I. Joe" project was axed. Similarly, some thought the heavy military focus of "Transformers" (the 2007 film) was a reference to a dead-in-the-water "G.I. Joe" movie. Well, in August, there will be a live-action "G.I. Joe" movie released. Lots of people are throwing around the terms "summer bomb" and "cinematic abortion." Personally, while I was never a fan of the series, I'd love it if they work in a Fensler Films reference. Just have one character exclaim "Porkchop sandwiches!" and I'll be happy.
Time will tell how badly the new "G.I. Joe" crashes, if it does at all. But this article I read hinted at another revival of a 1980s classic. Supposedly, a studio is working on a live-action adaptation of the "Voltron" cartoons! You may remember Voltron as the gestalt of five robotic lions all piloted by humans. I never watched the show, but I have a Voltron robot - or most of one - in my bin of Transformers at the parents' house.
This one, I'm not so sure. For one, I doubt "Voltron" had the same popularity or universality as the Transformers. And then, some things don't make sense to film as live-action. Making a live-action "G.I. Joe" movie makes sense, because it's all real people in somewhat real situations. A live-action "Transformers" movie works, because the robots transform into real cars and interact with humans on the planet. But it seems foolish to do a live-action movie about a robot in space, formed of other robot bodies whose pilots will remain unseen in most of the battle scenes. Why not just do an all-CGI movie, with animated human actors? It just sounds less than engaging.
But isn't this what we wanted? We, the nerd collective that grew up indoctrinated in this stuff, called out for a live-action "Transformers" movie, a live-action "G.I. Joe" movie. We all probably considered how cool this would be on-screen, in real life. Some things are like that. Others aren't. They're hard to adapt, so that it's still believable. In the end, we might have asked for it, but did we ask for that treatment? It looks like the live-action "G.I. Joe" turns the characters into extreme warriors, something I never thought they were in the cartoons. We all wanted to see "G.I. Joe," but we didn't want to see a guy with some ultra-futuristic body-accelerator suit, or whatever they have in the trailers. It's "G.I. Joe," not "X-Men."
Maybe the people working on the interpretations treat them with the same reverence that Bonnie Hammer did when she changed SciFi's name to SyFy. The critics seem to have that attitude, the same thing that came up when people felt that "I, Robot" was the cinematic version of pissing on Isaac Asimov's grave. But I think it's something greater.
Remember in "Jurassic Park" (the film adaptation) where a lucid but injured Ian Malcolm laments that scientists get so wrapped up in whether they could, they don't stop to think whether they should? Here's the problem. We're in an age where our special effects are unstoppable. Not only do we have stellar prop and makeup people, but we also can do pretty much anything else we want through CGI. In 1984, "The Terminator" was groundbreaking sci-fi thriller material, but years later, the costuming and stop-motion look dated. Now, we can make a cyborg Terminator so real, you're convinced you can reach your hand into its chest and touch the endoskeleton inside. Add to that that a lot of people in Hollywood are the post-college graphic artists who grew up on the "Transformers" and "Go-Bots" and "He-Man" mythologies, and probably think it'd be cool to bring those to life for real.
But then we're faced with the problem that, while we can create anything we want for the big screen, should we? In some cases, the movies toe the line of gratuitous. I'm afraid a "Voltron" pic would do exactly that. When 90% of the action takes place sans humans or Earth, what's the need for a live-action film? Just shoot explosions and add the robots digitally? Where's the fun in that? Even Christian Bale admitted he didn't want to be in a "Terminator" film if it just meant acting for green-screens. The superhero movies have been made and remade largely because we didn't have the ability to replicate superpowers on the screen so convincingly. But they're also centered around humans. Maybe "Ghost In The Shell" would work in live-action. The Go-Bots? I'd doubt that, though they were just a lame version of the Transformers anyway.
I admit, the movie I would love to see someday would be a live-action adaptation of "M.A.S.K." Few seem to remember this series; Matt Trakker was a wealthy philanthropist who led a sort of task force of people whose vehicles had a combat mode and who wore helmets with some kind of associated power. It was another series built around a large toyline. But in 2009, I doubt there's a following for a cartoon that only ran until 1986. There's no current incarnation of the series, unless they thought they could bring it back for today's kids' enjoyment. Plus, you could never stay totally true to the vehicles. Is 2009 Matt Trakker going to go steal an '85 Camaro from some New Jersey guido to add gullwing doors and thrusters? He'll drive whatever some company offers as product placement. It would have been cool in '87 with today's special effects, but in 2009, it might just seem hopelessly dated. And yet, I still kind of hope they would entertain the thought. Can you imagine the effect of a tractor-trailer turning into an armored half-track tank on screen? Or a Camaro turning into a jet and taking off?
Some may feel they're raping our childhood, but hey, in a way, we sort of asked for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment