So Prince of Persia : The Sands Of Time was pretty much dead on arrival. It had a big budget behind it, some bankable stars, and it's based on a very popular video game series. So what went wrong? Plenty. For example, being accused of white washing (Jake Gyllenhaal is not Persian.) How many other video games have been turned into movies and have just been bad? Super Mario Bros. is a travesty. Street Fighter is about as cheesy as it gets. How about Wing Commander? Has anyone actually ever watched it? I can't name anyone who has. So why is it so hard to make a good video game movie? It's not. The formula is not hard to follow. We're going to use Rampage as the example as to where to start.
The first problem is taking well known plans, and having them adapt to the screen. Usually there are too many changes to the plot or story to make it work, and it loses appeal. So you take a game with a pretty loose plot that you can adapt, like Rampage. The plot of the original Rampage was that up to three players can play at once, and play as a giant ape, George, giant wolf, Ralph, or a giant lizard, Lizzie, and you have to destroy every building on the level to move on. These giant monsters were created by experimenting on humans. Simple plot, and able to be adapted. Newer incarnations has created Scumlabs as the group who experimented on the three humans. We can start here. Three college kids, two male, one female, who are hard up for money get hired as 'taste testers' for a new kind of soda. So they go to the labs on a Friday, so they can stay overnight for testing. They drink the soda Friday, by Saturday night they turn into monsters, and are placed into holding cells to be studied by the Lab. For this to work, you can't use Scumlabs as the name. So the labs can be renamed. Realizing now that they are imprisoned and going to be studied, they devise a plan to get out of the Lab. They subdue a guard, gorge themselves on the 'soda' and turn back into the monsters, but have now grown to be a few stories high. With the Lab trying to recapture them the three college kids, now as massively over sized monsters, set out to destroy the Lab, and their parent company. See, simple.
The next step comes from the writing. The story has to be told in a Ghostbusters/Evolution kind of way. It has to be an action/comedy. There's plenty of visual gags, and commentary gags to go around when the three friends are all giant monsters. Add into this a love story between Lizzie and either George or Ralph, whoever would be decided as the leader of the group, and there's plenty to work with here. The main villain is the owner of the company responsible for the creation of the three monsters. In the game, his name is Eustace DeMonic, and in order to save himself, he becomes a monster himself. This fits well into the movie. The name of the character in the game is a little outlandish, so that would have to be changed. Maybe go with a bit of humor and go with Williams Fences. The climatic battle would be between the three monsters, and the head of the company, all as giant monsters, and laying waste to a city. The looseness of the plot allows for a sequel also. In the newer Rampage games, the monsters fight aliens. So you could establish the founder of the company as an alien in disguise, experimenting on humans in order to weaken them for an alien invasion. This is easily incorporated into a movie.
The trick here is also in the casting. I think exploiting a conflict between the young and old would be useful here. For George or Ralph I would cast someone who is looking to break out, and change the stereotype that has been molded to them. Zac Effron immediately comes to mind. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to be typecast as a pretty boy high school kid who can sing and dance. The other role would be good for a Mark Salling, or a Dijon Talton. For Lizzie, I would go the same route. I'd be looking for someone like a Naya Rivera, Christy Carlson Romano, Britney Song, or Adrienne Bailon. The evil owner would be a good play for a guy like Alec Baldwin, or Oliver Platt.
I would then promote this movie the same way Die Hard was first promoted. Quick clips, no monsters in the commercials. Explosions, people screaming and running, and a guy on the phone being told 'they're coming for you.' It's mysterious enough for people to be curious enough to want to check it out.
King Kong did well at the box office, and it took itself pretty seriously, same with Cloverfield. So what if we took elements of those movies and made it into an action/comedy, and the heroes are the giant monsters? This movie could easily turn into a franchise trilogy. As long as the script balances comedy and action, and makes the characters even somewhat interesting, it'd be a great summer flick. Explosions, giant monsters, and a crazy kissing scene between a giant lizard and a giant ape or wolf would be hysterical, and top the awesomeness. We're not looking to win awards with this movie. We are looking to have people enjoy themselves.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
I'm trying to remember what my first reaction was when Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT)was first instituted. I really can't remember actually. Looking back now though, I have to ask, what was the goal here? Why was this put into action anyway? How is this really protecting anyone? I don't think DADT accomplished what it was supposed to, except it made certain people feel persecuted, and an outsider to society. Considering how the country was founded, and the rights people have, how exactly did this rule get passed?
Every few decades there's a group of people fighting for acceptance in something. Women wanted equal rights. African-Americans wanted segregation ended. Now, gays and lesbians have to fight just to have the same rights as everyone else. Katherine Miller left West Point because she felt she had compromised her integrity and her identity by lying and acting like a straight woman. Really? This is what we, as society have come to? How many other students have decided not to attend West Point because of DADT? How many of them could have been the next greatest George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Alexander the Great? No one knows. Why? Because of a horrible policy that prohibits the right for people to be who they are. Does it really matter if the military has gays and lesbians in the military? They wanted to serve in the military. That doesn't mean that if they get shipped out to Afghanistan or somewhere else where there is conflict they are going to run away screaming. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they don't take pride in their country, and don't want to fight to defend it. Wasn't the voting age dropped to 18 for a similar reason? The voting age was dropped to 18 with the logical thinking of if you can fight and die in a war at 18, you should be able to vote also. So we're going to ban someone from being a soldier because they're gay? Does this really matter? It shouldn't.
Being gay isn't something like an attack from a vampire, or a bite from a zombie. Just because you're in contact with them, doesn't mean your going to become one. DADT clearly enforces the thought that being gay is a disease, and ignoring it means it will go away, and no one else will be infected. That is such a barbaric thought. If that person next to me is under gunfire with me, and is willing to work with me to survive the battle, then does it matter if that person is gay? Does it mean that *GASP* I'm going to become gay because I fought with them? No. That's a completely irrational thought. So is DADT.
The reason there are still hate crimes against gays, African-Americans, Muslims, and others is because of a lack of tolerance and acceptance. Are we still teaching kids that it's OK to not like someone because they look or act differently from them? It's policies like DADT that reinforce this thought process. Who are we to judge what is right and what is wrong when it's not illegal? You can't change someone just because you don't like who they are, so why try? Accept them for who they are. No one says you have to like them, but you should accept them for who they are. Personalities clash, I get that. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you should hate or dislike them immediately.
Is DADT really protecting anyone? What is DADT protecting? 'This man's army' is about as outdated as fighting against Communism. Everyone should have the right to be who they are, regardless of where they work. If someone is gay, and wants to serve in the military, they should not be told to stay quiet about who they are. In fact, someone coming out and saying they are gay shows a definite kind of mental toughness to do so. That's the kind of mental toughness soldiers should have, and are taught to have during basic training.
Every few decades there's a group of people fighting for acceptance in something. Women wanted equal rights. African-Americans wanted segregation ended. Now, gays and lesbians have to fight just to have the same rights as everyone else. Katherine Miller left West Point because she felt she had compromised her integrity and her identity by lying and acting like a straight woman. Really? This is what we, as society have come to? How many other students have decided not to attend West Point because of DADT? How many of them could have been the next greatest George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Alexander the Great? No one knows. Why? Because of a horrible policy that prohibits the right for people to be who they are. Does it really matter if the military has gays and lesbians in the military? They wanted to serve in the military. That doesn't mean that if they get shipped out to Afghanistan or somewhere else where there is conflict they are going to run away screaming. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they don't take pride in their country, and don't want to fight to defend it. Wasn't the voting age dropped to 18 for a similar reason? The voting age was dropped to 18 with the logical thinking of if you can fight and die in a war at 18, you should be able to vote also. So we're going to ban someone from being a soldier because they're gay? Does this really matter? It shouldn't.
Being gay isn't something like an attack from a vampire, or a bite from a zombie. Just because you're in contact with them, doesn't mean your going to become one. DADT clearly enforces the thought that being gay is a disease, and ignoring it means it will go away, and no one else will be infected. That is such a barbaric thought. If that person next to me is under gunfire with me, and is willing to work with me to survive the battle, then does it matter if that person is gay? Does it mean that *GASP* I'm going to become gay because I fought with them? No. That's a completely irrational thought. So is DADT.
The reason there are still hate crimes against gays, African-Americans, Muslims, and others is because of a lack of tolerance and acceptance. Are we still teaching kids that it's OK to not like someone because they look or act differently from them? It's policies like DADT that reinforce this thought process. Who are we to judge what is right and what is wrong when it's not illegal? You can't change someone just because you don't like who they are, so why try? Accept them for who they are. No one says you have to like them, but you should accept them for who they are. Personalities clash, I get that. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you should hate or dislike them immediately.
Is DADT really protecting anyone? What is DADT protecting? 'This man's army' is about as outdated as fighting against Communism. Everyone should have the right to be who they are, regardless of where they work. If someone is gay, and wants to serve in the military, they should not be told to stay quiet about who they are. In fact, someone coming out and saying they are gay shows a definite kind of mental toughness to do so. That's the kind of mental toughness soldiers should have, and are taught to have during basic training.
Scott Pilgrim and Piranha 3D vs. The World! (Or How To Enjoy Every Movie You See)
So Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and Piranha 3D haven't exactly set the box office on fire. I think the major problem for this is that there is a serious lack of the suspension of disbelief. There is nothing deep about either of these movies. There's nothing Oscar worthy from either of these movies. Does that make them completely joyless and unwatchable? Absolutely not! Both of these movies can be seen as good movies, fun movies, if looked at in the right frame of mind.
If you are going to see Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and expecting a mash up of The Notebook with the love story element, mixed with Rocky IV with the fight scenes, then you are completely off base. If I told you Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was the greatest video game movie ever made, then you are clearly in the right frame of mind to enjoy the movie. I understand that the movie is based off of a comic, but two things here. The first, the comic book itself is a complete homage and reference to video games, and other comics. The second, The Dark Knight and Iron Man has elevated the standard for comic book movies. Not only that, but when you hear 'comic book movie' you expect big powerful explosions, incredible powers, and people in flashy costumes with capes. So taking into account that this is the greatest video game movie ever, you won't be questioning how did Scott Pilgrim, or the Seven Evil Ex's get their abilities, you just take it for face value. They just can. Is that so bad to assume? It is a movie, not a documentary. Not only that, the movie is made for you to escape into and enter a new world. Some people read. Some people play video games. Some people watch TV. You are watching this movie as an escape from your everyday life, and you're looking to be entertained. This movie is very entertaining. This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have seen this year. I enjoyed it because I knew what I was walking into, a movie with a ton of video game, Anime, and comic book references, with fight scenes that look awesome, but couldn't really happen.
Piranha 3D is obviously a horror movie, and it uses 3D to try and enhance the scares. Which it does. The most cliche jump out scenes are used, but they still have that startling effect because instead of seeing the skeletal hand pop out of the water on the screen, it looks like it's two rows in front of you. The movie is a remake, and if you didn't know that, that's OK. If you are going to see this then you know it's a horror movie. Most horror movies are built upon scares, gore, and sometimes nudity. So go in with these expectations, and I bet you enjoy the movie. I don't usually get startled in horror movies, I haven't been scared when watching a horror movie in a long time. This movie made me jump a lot, even after I was like, I knew that was going to happen. That's the point of the movie though. It's supposed to be over the top. The people making this movie weren't making this to win any awards. They made this movie to entertain people. Expectations just need to be tempered.
Not every movie is going to be Avatar or Inception. To expect them to be is absurd. Movies are generally created to be entertaining. Some movies don't have a hidden agenda, and don't want to be artsy. Some just want to tell a story, and hope you enjoy the story. It comes down to, when you buy a ticket for a movie, you saw something that made you want to see it. Going in understanding what you are going to see will help you like the movies.
If you are going to see Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and expecting a mash up of The Notebook with the love story element, mixed with Rocky IV with the fight scenes, then you are completely off base. If I told you Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was the greatest video game movie ever made, then you are clearly in the right frame of mind to enjoy the movie. I understand that the movie is based off of a comic, but two things here. The first, the comic book itself is a complete homage and reference to video games, and other comics. The second, The Dark Knight and Iron Man has elevated the standard for comic book movies. Not only that, but when you hear 'comic book movie' you expect big powerful explosions, incredible powers, and people in flashy costumes with capes. So taking into account that this is the greatest video game movie ever, you won't be questioning how did Scott Pilgrim, or the Seven Evil Ex's get their abilities, you just take it for face value. They just can. Is that so bad to assume? It is a movie, not a documentary. Not only that, the movie is made for you to escape into and enter a new world. Some people read. Some people play video games. Some people watch TV. You are watching this movie as an escape from your everyday life, and you're looking to be entertained. This movie is very entertaining. This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have seen this year. I enjoyed it because I knew what I was walking into, a movie with a ton of video game, Anime, and comic book references, with fight scenes that look awesome, but couldn't really happen.
Piranha 3D is obviously a horror movie, and it uses 3D to try and enhance the scares. Which it does. The most cliche jump out scenes are used, but they still have that startling effect because instead of seeing the skeletal hand pop out of the water on the screen, it looks like it's two rows in front of you. The movie is a remake, and if you didn't know that, that's OK. If you are going to see this then you know it's a horror movie. Most horror movies are built upon scares, gore, and sometimes nudity. So go in with these expectations, and I bet you enjoy the movie. I don't usually get startled in horror movies, I haven't been scared when watching a horror movie in a long time. This movie made me jump a lot, even after I was like, I knew that was going to happen. That's the point of the movie though. It's supposed to be over the top. The people making this movie weren't making this to win any awards. They made this movie to entertain people. Expectations just need to be tempered.
Not every movie is going to be Avatar or Inception. To expect them to be is absurd. Movies are generally created to be entertaining. Some movies don't have a hidden agenda, and don't want to be artsy. Some just want to tell a story, and hope you enjoy the story. It comes down to, when you buy a ticket for a movie, you saw something that made you want to see it. Going in understanding what you are going to see will help you like the movies.
Build the Mosque in New York City
Why shouldn't the mosque be built in New York City? Does it really matter that it's only a couple of blocks away from the 9/11 site? It shouldn't. This isn't exactly Rudy Giuliani booting all the strip clubs and what not out of the radius of schools and churches. It seems like the biggest problem with the Mosque being built is racism.
Too many people are viewing the Islamic religion as a religion that just spawns terrorists. The fact that the group backing the building of the mosque has come out and stated they condemned the actions of the terrorists, and have nothing to do with Muslim extremists, should be enough to allow the mosque to be built. You can't claim someone is a terrorist just because they are part of a specific religion. That's like saying I have blond hair and blue eyes so I must be a Nazi. It really comes down to, not enough people understand the Islamic religion, and are afraid of it. It's not like the mosque is going to be some secret headquarters that are going to be used to carry out terrorist agenda, or train new terrorists to unleash on New York City.
The argument that family of the victims of 9/11 find the plans, and the idea itself, offensive just shows how traumatized these people are. They lost loved ones and friends in a very tragic event in United States history. Having that kind of traumatic episode, and being able to link the event to one specific group, completely makes sense as to why they would have this reaction. Does that mean the mosque should not be built? No. It means these people are still haunted by 9/11, and anyone in their place most likely would be also. This is more of a call for help to help these people mentally progress past the disaster. I completely understand their motivation, and their thought process. They just need some extra help in accepting the building of the mosque. It's not like the mosque is being built to spit in the face of the people who died during the 9/11 attacks. The mosque is being built because the United States allows everyone to practice their own religion without persecution.
Our forefathers came to this land to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted to practice. That right has been embedded into out culture. Who are we to decide that right is only given to certain people, and certain groups? Do you really want to ban people from practicing a religion when you do so yourself daily? Everyone in the United States practices that right daily, whether they are Christian, Islamic, Jewish, an Atheist, or Agnostic, or whatever else. No one is lynching people in the streets because they met someone who is not of the same religion as them. So who are we to deny that right to someone else?
There is no viable reason to block the building of the mosque. These people are just building a center that can be used for the worship and practice of their religion. What's the fault in that? They are not infringing on anyone else's rights, so why should we infringe on theirs?
Too many people are viewing the Islamic religion as a religion that just spawns terrorists. The fact that the group backing the building of the mosque has come out and stated they condemned the actions of the terrorists, and have nothing to do with Muslim extremists, should be enough to allow the mosque to be built. You can't claim someone is a terrorist just because they are part of a specific religion. That's like saying I have blond hair and blue eyes so I must be a Nazi. It really comes down to, not enough people understand the Islamic religion, and are afraid of it. It's not like the mosque is going to be some secret headquarters that are going to be used to carry out terrorist agenda, or train new terrorists to unleash on New York City.
The argument that family of the victims of 9/11 find the plans, and the idea itself, offensive just shows how traumatized these people are. They lost loved ones and friends in a very tragic event in United States history. Having that kind of traumatic episode, and being able to link the event to one specific group, completely makes sense as to why they would have this reaction. Does that mean the mosque should not be built? No. It means these people are still haunted by 9/11, and anyone in their place most likely would be also. This is more of a call for help to help these people mentally progress past the disaster. I completely understand their motivation, and their thought process. They just need some extra help in accepting the building of the mosque. It's not like the mosque is being built to spit in the face of the people who died during the 9/11 attacks. The mosque is being built because the United States allows everyone to practice their own religion without persecution.
Our forefathers came to this land to be free to practice whatever religion they wanted to practice. That right has been embedded into out culture. Who are we to decide that right is only given to certain people, and certain groups? Do you really want to ban people from practicing a religion when you do so yourself daily? Everyone in the United States practices that right daily, whether they are Christian, Islamic, Jewish, an Atheist, or Agnostic, or whatever else. No one is lynching people in the streets because they met someone who is not of the same religion as them. So who are we to deny that right to someone else?
There is no viable reason to block the building of the mosque. These people are just building a center that can be used for the worship and practice of their religion. What's the fault in that? They are not infringing on anyone else's rights, so why should we infringe on theirs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)