Tag: Film

Snake-Eyes Solo Movie….no thank you!

Posted on by CV Whitfield

Again, Hollywood has no clue. Yet, I still blame Hasbro too. Because Hasbro could oversee and control the out come as they “own” the property.

I’ve never understood the motives of film writers and producers that have (literally) the easiest job when it comes to adapting a iconic 80s property. The backstory is there. The characters are there. Heck, the fans and viewership is already there! All you have to do is come up with a great story! How hard is that?

But noooo. Producers and writers have to come in and F*#k it all up. Why? I truly believe its because they have absolutely no clue about the actual source material. Either this is complete ignorance or simply a matter of no respect. Because its all about the money.

Thus, if these producers (or Hasbro) had any clue, they would not be moving forward with a Snake-Eyes solo movie. Snake-Eyes is a product of G.I. Joe. G.I. Joe is a team. G.I. Joe, in definition, is a group of diverse characters with unique skill sets that work together to defeat Cobra, a terrorist organization determined to rule the world. Snake-Eyes excels when he’s fighting alongside Duke, Scarlett, Roadblock and Tunnel Rat.

Honestly, Snake-Eyes is a bad-ass character and he’s freaking awesome. But I don’t want to see him in a movie by himself. He needs his supportive cast. And if you bring even one of those characters, or a member of Cobra (i.e. Storm Shadow) then it’s a G.I. Joe movie. Why not just make that one?

There’s over 200 stories in the form of comic books. Its okay to use those as the basis for a good story – a great story. Yo Joe!

0

“Doctor, Oscar is Flatlining!”

Posted on by CV Whitfield
photo courtesy of Hollywood Reporter

Let’s be blunt. The Oscar broadcast is dying. Eventually it will be dead.

Facts are hard to dispute. The numbers are falling. There’s several factors for this.

In the last 24 hours, the Academy has released that several awards will be presented during commercial break. And for some ridiculous reason, “professionals” are now throwing tantrums of how this destroys the work these people do. Really?! It doesn’t undermine their work. It’s a freaking award show. I don’t recall box office numbers aiding in what is considered the best movie of a year. No, its a closed group of peers that vote. A movie can win best picture that only had a box office draw of $22M. Yet, something like Avengers can bust records at $1.5B. (Oh, its because Avengers was on 4K screens and the best picture was only on 207–uh, no.). There’s a reason the best picture is on 207 screens. Because the average movie going audience wouldn’t go see it. Does it make it a better movie? I guess it’s a matter of opinion and certain points of view….

This isn’t the reason the Academy Award show is declining. The real reason: THE INTERNET!

Yes, its the World Wide Web. And honestly, I believe the show will be exclusively broadcast stereaming on an Academy website very soon. Now, why is it dying? I read an article several years ago and I can’t recall who wrote it or where it was published, so I apologize as its not my intent to disrespect that intelligent soul. Yet, that person predicted why the Oscars would die. And they were right. That person predicted that the use of Social Media would destroy the viewership of the Oscars. It’s coming true.

The reason people watched the Oscars was because it was a way to see your favorite stars outside of the movies. They wanted to see the glamour and the glitz. They wanted to see their favorite actors arrive on the carpet and talk to the reporters. It made these stars more earthborn more relatable. Something magazines couldn’t do. Now, we have Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These actors are watched by millions everyday. They know what they eat. They know when they run to the grocery store. Why would I want to watch a 4 hour show on them sitting and clapping?

And don’t get me started on the Polictical Correctness and Identiy Politics that Hollywood seems to be infatuated with lately. This hurts the bottom line although they can’t see it through their moral righteousness. BEFORE you send me hate mail (email), I speak honestly as a consumer of movies and someone that is currently trying to make them. Movies made me who I am. I love it. Yet, I don’t think a contrived award show dismantles the hard work we all do. That’s just the gravy, baby!

0

World’s Finest: analysis.

Posted on by CV Whitfield

So, I wrote how history was different in the mid 90s and we had the awesome luck to have a Superman and Batman movie in 1995 with Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton. The geek world would have truly rejoiced if that had happened nearly 25 years ago.

Yet, I also want to point out that the movie back then would have been completely different than what we finally got in 2016. It would have been a positive and heroic journey – a team-up in every sense of the term. Back then, we wanted movies that inspired. Movies to look up to. We wanted reassurance that the world is still great – where good defeated evil. Our super-heroes were symbols of hope and perfection. They were role-models. We wished we could be like them. Superman was super because he didn’t represent the stereotypes but instead represented righteousness. The character taught us morals and ethics. Then, this changed….

Somehow, the studio (publisher too) in charge of our favorite characters (more specifically my favorite character: Superman) needed to be part of the modern status quo. He/Them is/are flawed. Superman needed to have inner demons. He needed to question everything and everyone around him. Johnathan Kent thought him he couldn’t trust anyone so why would anyone trust him, and vice versa. We got a Superman in the post 9/11 world (you know, where parents sue the Kents because Clark could have endangered lives when he actually saved them. No one blames the tire. Or the guys at the garage for putting faulty tires on the bus. The parents should be thankful instead they call him out. It’s not a positive scene anyway you look at it.) This is a world where Superman should be feared. A Superman with all due respect was not super. This disappointed fans. They even tried to force feed us hope stating his S was Kryptonian for the very word. (Not just a family crest but a perfect time for some moral lessons). Superman wasn’t there to save kittens from trees and stop jewel thieves. Instead he was running from his destiny. How’s that sending a message of hope? Oh well.

Batman was now introduced not as a dark, lone vigilante but an aging cynical man that feared Superman. Not only fear him, but to blame him for the rain of destruction on Metropolis or more specifically the Wayne Building in Metropolos (say what? That’s convenient). The entire point of Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman was for everyone (not just the characters in the film but the audience) to fear Superman. Why? Is it just the time we’re in today or does someone think that he’s more interesting as flawed, unpredictable, scary, powerful alien. In Superman II (1980), Superman battled General Zod (and his henchman). That Metropolis had its citizens cheering Superman, supporting the fight even though it was causing millions in property damage. Heck, they even tried to take on Zod when they thought Zod had killed him. In the new version, citizens of Metropolis are blaming Superman for bringing evil to our planet. They blame him for wrecking the city – they demand justice. They are inconvenienced. They have no loyalty. Everyone seems out for themselves. It’s a world where they demand security but forgot that it takes people to risk their lives for it. They forget how Superman is there to unite – to save them. Now, it’s politics and pointing fingers. We can’t just have simple heroes anymore. No. We must be skeptical. We must reject the ideology. We have lost faith in truth, justice and the American way!

The 1980s (filmatically) was an era of hope and positive community. The movies were fun. They made us laugh. They made us cry. They were great movies because we’re still talking about them to this day. I just feel like the post 2010 movies are more about dividing and trying to direct blame at our faults than working together to over come them. Maybe its just me but I felt we’ve definitely lost something not only in society, our culture, but our pop-culture too. I’m curious if anyone in 20 plus years will be still talking about Man of Steel or Justice League. They may be it wont be the same….

0

Bird Box

Posted on by CV Whitfield

From time to time, I’ll see a movie and then I spend hours – (actually) days thinking about it. It doesn’t have any real rhyme or reason behind it. Sometimes they are insignificant films: like Passengers, Baby Driver and Bird Box. And they aren’t like big geek features either. I’m not analyzing it. I’m not trying to figure out a theory of how the Avengers will defeat Thanos and get their friends back. Or why Luke just sat on a rock instead of zooming off in that submerged X-wing. I just replay scenes over and over again in my head. Perhaps, I’m trying to relate to the characters. Or maybe, I’m infatuated with the story. It could just fall under a simple fascination (like the colors in a sunset) to it all. And that, I can’t explain.

If anything, Bird Box kept me hooked. That could be the secret. I was exuberantly  curious to know what happens next. I wanted to know if they would explain the “mystery”. Was it a virus? Was it a mind control weapon? (I won’t spoil anything here). Is this the gimmick to a great story?

It could have been: the premise of the plot is just plain bonkers! A woman and her 2 kids make a long and dangerous journey but must do it blindfolded. The thought of traveling through a forest or down a river; but not able to see where you’re going, is inherently a fear we all have. Is the movie a metaphor for taking risks? Especially in an environment – or activity – that has grave consequences. Am I subconsciously relating this scenario into my writing? I suppose I feel blindfolded in the outcome of this venture. What if no one reads it? What if I can’t find readers to buy it?

In the process of writing this post, I’ve done what I said I don’t normally do. I’m analyzing (over analyzing) the movie. Or more accurately, I’m analyzing myself in context to the it. Not sure which one is more troubling….

0