I'm feeling blah today. As excitement builds around the Watchmen movie I feel like the little boy screaming that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. I don't understand why someone is allowed to get away with altering so many things about one of the greatest comic books ever written and that my "nerd" friends are all welcoming this with open arms. Crap all over our genre and beloved books and evidently the fecal material will be eaten with the largest spoon the "nerds" can find. Change giant important elements of the story and it's all okay as long as the buildings look the same as in the comic book. The most solid arguments made in favor of this just sound like a beaten woman explaining to me that it's okay because her husband really does love her deep down.
Kevin Smith isn't allowed to judge what should and shouldn't be in an action movie until he makes one and it doesn't suck balls. As Funny as the giant spider story is, it pales in comparison to how cool that moment is in King Kong when Kong comes through the gates. This isn't some made up villain to increase box office gross like the giant spider, in the case of Watchmen, the nuclear bombs (or whatever it ends up being) ARE the giant spider.
I guess this whole sub-rant is the point of this article.
I'm not sure why it came up on GeekRoundTable.com but lately there has been a lot of buzz around the idea of a Wizard of Oz remake. I don't know if it's because of the remake that's been slated that now has a director or what, but here's my problem with it; The original Wizard of Oz is the definition of a classic movie. Even if it differs greatly from the book and books sequel return to Oz (which also was made into a much darker but much more book accurate movie) Judy Garland and company gave us what the definition of what the Wizard of Oz means.
The original book for Wizard of Oz was populist party propaganda from beginning to end (Thank you senior year US History) and in the book it's so thick it even manages to come across in the movie (if you're looking for it). The difference between the book and movie I think is BOTH the book and movies strong suit. This isn't the book you read if you want to see more of the land of Oz, this is the book you read if you want your perceptions of what the Wizard of Oz is changed. That option has always been there. Nothing about this situation has changed for the better part of a century. Until Hollywood ran out of ideas.
About a decade and a half ago Hollywood plain ran out of ideas. Good ones anyway. In response it began a desperate hunt for new material in which to feed the giant money machine it had created, it turned to comic books and remakes. Remakes of all kinds of things from old television shows to movies that could have fared better in the end with a little computer animation and an extra explosion or two. Even this sat alright with me because thus far they had managed to keep their greed away from the classics.
Today when I turn on my computer (I don't watch TV and the Internet is where I'm subjected to advertising) I see movies like King Kong and The Day The Earth Stood Still remade by people with far less imagination than their creators and acted out by pretty boys who don't have the talent the original actors had in their pinkie fingers.
All I'm saying is just because the source material exists doesn't mean it should be made into a film. I understand that the original Wizard of Oz is much different than the book it's based off of, but if you're so bent up about that, you COULD read the book. You read this rant, and if you're capable of that I'm sure you could eat right through the original book without so much as breaking a sweat. You might even, like me, find the exercise relaxing and enjoyable. Your laziness doesn't warrant the trashing of a novel or artistic idea. Why should I have to sit through another half arsed attempt by a director to make a great story his own by altering and skewing it away from it's original perfection? Because you're too lazy to read a book and wait around for movies to be made of it?
Now you might say to yourself, "But you're all about sticking to the source material", and admittedly, I am. I'm also willing to take into account that the original wizard of Oz was made in a time when sticking to the source material of the book would have been impossible and that now that it's been made, we should just leave it at that. Also if you think this new movie is going to be any more faithful to the book than the original one was, you're on crack. There isn't anything in Hollywood that isn't taken to extremes. That's why Micheal Bay keeps getting to make movies. When they hear the book was darker, they do their best to make it look like Tim Burton directed it. The idea of a Tim Burton version of the Wizard of Oz gives me cold sweats.
I guess the decision is yours to make. you can choose to take it laying down for the rest of your existence. Be the stereotype the rest of the world has for Americans. You can take your McDonald's version of art with your big explosions and money is most important ideals and march happily hand in hand with a Disney-tastic New York City. Maybe it's the years I spent listening to punk rock that affected my brain this way, but maybe just maybe, the art is important. The integrity of the original ideas. That some things in this world weren't meant to have a sleek Hollywood finish lacquered onto them in an effort to squeeze another record box office weekend into the WB's bragging rights. That sometimes art means making the effort. That the relationship between artist and enthusiast means the viewer should make an effort to understand it instead of shutting off their brains and letting JJ Abrhams take over what you should feel for two hours of pretty lights.
I choose to make the effort, can you?
Oh, one last thing too. A side effect of any comic being turned into a movie is that it generates interest in the original comic itself. In the last month or two alone I know of at least 4 people who have picked up a copy and read the Watchmen because they wanted to know what all of the hub bub was about. In the last month I've had at least a dozen separate conversations about the issues brought up in the book, and the moral questions it raises. Regardless of whether the film turns out to be good or not, isn't it at least a positive thing that the film is being made because it gets people to read the comic? After the first trailer for the film came out, the Watchmen graphic novel's sales went through the roof. Comic stores across the country sold out of them, hell Amazon sold out of them for a few days. I even saw the other day that Target of all places is now selling copies of the Watchmen in its stores. As a result of the movie, the comic is now being exposed to audiences that never would have found it otherwise. So in my opinion, even if the film turns out to be a horrendous piece of crap, it's not going to matter because through it thousands of people were turned on to an amazing piece of literature. And even if only one or two of those people decides to buy more comics to find other cool stories, then the movie has done its job to promote comics as a valid medium for serious storytelling.
ReplyDeleteWhich Wizard of Oz are you referencing, Wes? The remake? Because Judy Garland's version is a remake. It was first made in 1910, then a "sequel" in 1914. Then MGM decide to make it again into the version we all know and love. So, by your rationale and argument, the version you use in your argument is not a valid example. Ben Hur with Charlton Heston is a remake; The Ten Commandments with Heston is a remake; The Man Who Knew Too Much with Jimmy Stewart is a remake (Hitchcock remaking his own film, no less). The argument of original ideas dying X amount of years ago is a frustrating one to me. That's not true. Comic films are en vogue right now because someone proved that they could make money: there's an entire thought process and theory as to why now and not before, but that's another day. They're ready made in many respects and the technology can no support them. I'm not an entirely huge fan of changing texts, but I also get frustrated about things "jumping the shark." Say what you will about the holiness of Alan Moore, but he's not immune to jumping the shark. The octopus is an example. It works in the comic. It may not be my favorite plot device, but it works there because I'm reading it, I'm interpreting it differently. However, on film, presented to me in photorealistic means, I find it a little tough to bite. The point of film is not to be a true and absolute representation; it is supposed to be an interpretation. Would Wolverine have looked as badass in yellow spandex? Sometimes even changing the story doesn't entirely hurt either. Look at LA Confidential. Great book; great movie. Plot points were changed in the movie that make if significantly different, but the heart and the theme are still there and it takes a 600 page book that should have been 1000 pages (he took out articles like and, an, the and others to shorten it) and condensed it to a good 2 hour movie. So, change happens. I think that fans embracing it is a good sign. Fans need to be open to some change, otherwise some ridiculous things can get through. Sure, Kong coming through the gates and fighting with fantastic animals is a stretch of the imagination, but it happens on a fantasy island. When Kong comes off the island and into the "real world" he's destroyed, perhaps because subconsciously we cannot accept him in the real world.
ReplyDelete