The 10 Reasons We Love Vampires

A little more than a month ago I posted a musing on how zombies have managed to become their own genre in film. Now it’s time to focus on the monster genre that has reigned supreme for centuries: vampires.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon comes out tomorrow or in most people’s case, at midnight tonight. But Stephenie Meyer’s books and their cinematic counterparts are merely the crowning achievement of the vampire in today’s day and age.

The fact that vampires have been around since before recorded history is impressive. In fact, it’s probably proof that vampires really exist, but that’s a topic for another day. Vampire lore and mythos, however, have undeniably remained immortal in that time, reaching a new zenith in our time with Twilight and HBO drama True Blood.

The appeal of the vampire to the human race and our culture is perhaps stronger than any other single thing of myth-based origin. Nothing has withstood the test of time in like the vampire – its appeal both cross-cultural and cross-generational.

There is a reason for this. In fact, I’ve come up with ten good reasons why we love vampires (and why we’ve loved them for so long.) No particular order, but they do tend to be more important later down the list

1. Fear Factor

The first and most obvious reason why vampires are popular is because they can be scary. They can transform from being human-like to bats or ridiculous-looking creatures (think 2004’s Van Helsing). We like being freaked out a bit and fangs, blood and bats will often satisfy that desire.

2. A Long History

I encourage you to look up vampire on Wikipedia for a wealth of vampire history, but because stories of vampires and in the more basic form of vampirism have existed as far back as what we have recorded of history itself, this only strengthens the appeal. The genre is so rich with depth and has its own historical context as deep as anything else in history. Vampires are all the more intriguing because of this extensive history and because they’ve maintained popularity all the way to the present day.

3. Early Branding

How early were you introduced to vampires? The Count on Sesame Street? Count Chocula Cereal? Plastic fang teeth? If you were on Family Feud and asked “name on creature associated with Halloween,” “vampire” would be the number one answer. We know what they are from a very young age, which later in life manifests itself as nostalgia, which is a very powerful agent when it comes to enjoying a story and also getting you to pay money for it.

4. Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Nosferatu

We can thank Stoker’s classic novel for the modern incarnation of the vampire as well as the German silent film Nosferatu for the first inclusion of “Dracula” in film. Naturally, vampires and their characteristics have evolved over some time and we have these to thank for the earliest modern depictions.

5. Immortality

We as humans are obsessed with the notion of our own mortality. It is the only thing we can never explain which has made the allure of immortality in fiction one of the most enduring themes. The Fountain of Youth has been a myth as long as vampires have and it continues to pop up in all art forms. Vampires possess immortality, so immediately that makes them interesting. We wonder what it’s like, what its downsides might be and ultimately if it’s worth it.

6. Association with Wealth

Think about this one. Have there been any stories about poor or working-class vampires? Even Edward Cullen of Twilight comes from a wealthy family. Part of this idea traces back to social critique in literature, but vampires have held power in more ways than just agelessness. The allure of power merely becomes another reason we’re intrigued by vampires. They have so much that we do not despite being demonic creatures in a sense.

7. Human Appearance

Vampires are more powerful than humans. They’re dangerous but also susceptible to things humans are not. Most importantly, however, they’re human in appearance and they can be either gender. Vampires are often times converted humans as well. It would be one thing if they were all bat-like creatures with wings and a distorted face, but they can live amongst us. Not only does that make them complex, but it also makes them more appealing to us and believable. The fact that they can be either sex too makes them appealing to a wider audience. We automatically ascribe certain characteristics and make certain assumptions when we see a human form and face. Vampire genre writers get to use that to their advantage and for vampire romance writers, it’s the very foundation of their success.

8. Sex Appeal

Ever wonder why the vampire genre has so easily blended with romance? Vampires are damn sexy. Just the notion of vampires sinking fangs into the necks of humans is sexual in itself. The neck is a major erogenous zone and whether we care to admit it or not, the sensations of pleasure and pain are interminably linked at the subconscious level at the least. There’s something so horrifying and satisfying at watching or reading about that one act. Make a vampire movie and put sexy-looking actors in it and it’s hard to ignore the appeal.

9. Forbidden Romance

Then there’s also the timeless theme of forbidden romance, which Twilight drains (pun intended) all it can from the genre. Vampires drink human blood, so they’re a threat to us, but at the same time, they look and act like us, making it feasible for the two to become romantically involved. Throw on top of that the idea that vampires live forever while humans die and vampire/human romance is ripe with great romantic drama. Will the human insist to be bitten and live forever or will the vampire refuse because immortality is far from desirable? Great thematic questions.

10. A Clear Set of Rules

The storytelling power of the vampire can be attributed to this chief reason: a clear set of rules that apply to the vampire. The rules we apply to our make-believe are what make it so believable. When we know exactly what an imaginary creature or character is or isn’t capable of, we can make plot predictions, formulate our own solutions on how to “defeat the creature” and we become invested in the fictional story.

Vampires are the single greatest example of a fictional creature adhering to rules. They have super-human ability: great strength, the ability to live forever and sometimes more, which makes them more interesting than humans. They also have a weakness that makes them fallible: fear of (or sometimes death because of) sunlight, hate of garlic, fear of the cross, can be killed with a silver stake to the heart, etc. There also are other characteristics like turning into bats, feeding only off blood, sleeping in coffins and more. There’s a clear definition for vampire and we all know what it is and these attributes make them interesting to us.

As you’ve noticed in your many vampire books and movies, different writers play off these rules in different ways, making so many unique possibilities for the vampire world. The opportunity for novelty with a sense of familiarity is abundant and that’s why the genre continues to evolve.

F*@% No, G.I. Joe!

As a journalist, I don’t do this very often, but let’s do a little math. Yesterday, November 3, summer flop Year One was released on DVD. The movie initially hit theaters on June 19. Days elapsed = 156.

Also out on DVD yesterday was action flick G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. That movie didn’t come out in theaters until August 7. Days elapsed = 89. And I think some second-run theaters are still showing it …

Now let’s pretend you’re me, someone who thought “G.I. Joe” looked cool but would probably not be good or at least not be worth seeing in theaters. If you were on the fence about going to see it in theaters back in August and you knew it would be on DVD less than three months later, would you go? F@*% no.

Shame on you, “G.I. Joe” and Paramount. In the age of $10 movie tickets across the country, how dare you break the unspoken 156-day minimum window and cause a scare among theater chains nationwide. Theaters aren’t happy about charging double digits for ticket prices; it hurts them, but they have to.

Now, Paramount has the balls to put a super early DVD release on a big-budget summer movie that was released in August, a month when theater attendance drops off as it is. For those not following, the sooner a DVD comes out, the more likely someone is going to not pay to see it in theaters. It’s a dangerous precedent and I’m sure Paramount’s decision caused a few industry spats.

I get it – DVD sales are a big part of the money on a film, especially one with a $170 million budget. It made $300 M worldwide, but that’s nothing compared to similar films released this summer like the $800+ million for “Transformers 2.” 156 days would put the disc out in January, which is only the time for gift card purchases, but if they just held off until Christmas, that would be better. That I could understand.

I’ll admit I might not be as annoyed if this was District 9, another – and better – August release, but I can’t say I’d go out and buy it right away on that precedent alone.

All we can do now is hope “G.I. Joe” stays an exception and doesn’t change the rule.

This Is Exploitation

When Michael Jackson died over the summer, my life wasn’t exactly turned upside-down; I didn’t really learn to love his music until high school. So maybe I’m not the right person to say this, but This Is It, the film that is basically a release of behind-the-scenes footage of Jackson’s preparations for what would have been a farewell tour, feels a lot like exploitation.

For $60 million, Sony purchased the rights to the footage from concert promoter AEG and at midnight showings alone, a public that wasn’t mourning all that long ago paid $2.2 million, which yes, is a record. Who knows what other records will be broken come the box office estimates on Sunday. Sony will be turning a profit and then some.

And I thought I was usually the first one to make completely inappropriate jokes at the expense of a dead celebrity.

Ok, maybe that’s extreme; maybe all is fair in Hollywood and Michael Jackson; maybe I’m still peeved that I finished second to Josh Weis in the Mr. DHS 2005 competition because he did the entire “Thriller” dance while the video played in the background. All these things are possibly true, I won’t deny that.

But in the age of the Internet, entertainment comes at us faster and faster and we don’t seem to care. For example, it took awhile for World War II movies to hit the screens, whereas Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center came out less than five years after 9/11. What’s happening with This Is It would be akin to ten years ago there being a film released called Princess Died. Can you imagine that?

Sure, there are differences between Di and MJ, namely that one is an entertainer, and there’s the theory that he would’ve toured the country and racked in all that money anyway, but there’s something about Sony paying money in order to make a fortune off the fact that one of the biggest names in pop culture died more or less yesterday.

Maybe this is AEG’s fault too. They had the ability to decide what would be done with this invaluable footage. I’m not aware of Sony saying the profits were going anywhere but into their pockets, but think of how much good the money that will be made on this film could have done in the world. Michael had his causes, why couldn’t they find a way to arrange that or organize a giant tribute concert/showing of the footage and televised it and made it stand out in the collective conscience of the world. No, we get a movie instead.

The reviews have been very favorable so far and I don’t doubt that it’s well done, but I don’t go to the movie to see these kinds of things. In my opinion, it’s not the place or the venue. Michael deserved something bigger and more special, not something that will be remembered in the form of DVDs in people’s living rooms come another 4-6 months from now.

I’m not going to argue that you shouldn’t go see this movie, especially if Michael Jackson was part of who you were growing up, but just because it was made and it’s a good movie doesn’t make it the best tribute to the King of Pop.

They just can't leave the '80s alone

Johnny 5 is angry, Hollywood. Very angry.

Listen, I know the '80s are the laughing stock of pop culture, but today's pop culture owes itself to triumphs and failures of that decade, not to mention many people hold '80s movies and TV shows close to their hearts. With all that said, is there any reason to update and remake an '80s classic?

The most recent movie to get remake treatment is now Short Circuit, the beloved E.T. meets Terminator meets War Games classic a.k.a this movie embodied the '80s. It didn't take long for the news to spread like H1N1 through the net news wire when Paul Blart: Mall Cop director Steve Carr signed on to the project.

I posted my review earlier today in light of this most annoying news. Short Circuit was actually one of the good bad ‘80s films. It was a culmination of Hollywood’s computers/future/alien fixation and it pokes fun at it. That’s half the film’s charm right there and by remaking it, you’re automatically downgrading.

And Dimension Films better not blame WALL*E for the reason this remake would have potential. I’m sorry, but you’re not Pixar. Plus, the comparisons that Johnny 5 will draw to WALL*E aren’t going to help this reboot. Johnny Five might have come first, but people are smart enough; they might not know who Johnny 5 is, but they’ll think this movie is just trying to exploit WALL*E’s popularity.

Oh, and another thing: if the way the U.S. Cellular dancing robot commercials have been received is any indication of how America feels about another scooter robot movie, then they should stop now.

I’m a very firm believer in not remaking a movie unless the original was somewhere between moderate and awful or the movie would resonate with us in a refreshing new way thanks to a modern context.

So you might be surprised to hear that I’m encouraged by George Miller’s announcement of a Mad Max 4. Honestly, I didn’t like the first two films Mad Max and The Road Warrior so I didn’t bother with Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. You’d think I wouldn’t care for a number four, but quite the contrary: I think the concept was great, I just didn’t like the execution. Read about that here.

I’m a huge fan of post-apocalyptic science-fiction and I feel like I know what makes for a good one. Conceptually, the Mad Max films are great: recycled materials, barbaric humans hording gasoline and a revenge-filled ex-cop taking justice into his own hands, but I was unimpressed with Miller’s execution. It’s likely he would still direct, but some modern special effects would do this film some good. It needs a more vivid imagination and 20 years of new minds working in the business might be all it takes.

Then again, many people loved these films and would disagree with me entirely on giving them a 21^st Century look. I certainly can’t blame those who covet this franchise for feeling that way either. We need more novelty in the movies these days, stuff like District 9. Retreading movies barely 20 years old is stale thinking.

So, Hollywood, leave our ‘80s movies alone. Stop the Short Circuit, Mad Max and Conan the Barbarian remake/sequels/reboots and whatever else you have up your sleeve.

Do we owe the Saw franchise respect after six years?

This is the one weekend every year (in recent memory) where a majority of the film-loving community lets out a collective groan. It’s “Saw Weekend,” and in 2009 the Saw franchise celebrates its sixth birthday.

Groan.

Then again, it’s not that I’m really all that miffed this time around. When Saw IV and Saw V came around, that’s when I was miffed. Now that we’re all the way up to Saw VI, I just feel apathy.

After all, if a movie franchise is strong enough to join the ranks of the Police Academy series and The Land Before Time anthology, it deserves a lethargic tip of the cap at the very least. Then there’s the business end of things. When you can spend somewhere between $1 and $10 million on a film and make at least twice the high end of that in your opening weekend guaranteed, that commands cinematic respect, even if you disagree with the product.

I watched the first “Saw” back in ’05 at the recommendation of a friend in my dorm on a night where we knew of no parties to mooch off of. Then I watched one scene from the second when it came out on DVD and I happened to be in the room. I thought it was creative horror, the kind that really gets under your skin, but I imagine the novelty of that feeling has to wear off eventually if not just seem stupid.

But as much as many of us might frown upon the gratuitous amount of torture horror in theaters these days, very few filmmakers ever have the opportunity to release a film annually with the assurance of making a profit. And they don’t even have to add colons with subtitles to entice their audience – just up the Roman numerals ever year – and the money rolls in.

Last year, Saw V racked in $30 million for Lions Gate in its opening weekend, which would have made it No. 1 for the fourth year in a row had it not been for High School Musical 3. Still, even with the competition, it did just as well as its predecessors, all of which fell in the $30 million range in their first weekend. The competition is nothing near HSM levels this year, so the stage is set for Saw to see No. 1 again.

Look at total domestic gross, however, and the Saw films have dropped from $87 million (Saw II) to $56 million (Saw V). The user ratings have steadily dropped from a 7.7 (Saw) on the imdb scale to a 5.8 (Saw V). Is this the year where fans of the movies decide they’re not getting enough quality in return for their dollar? My guess if the film will take a 10 percent first weekend cut due to this and the economy, but old habits die hard. Why else would I still be watching Smallville now in its ninth Season? What you’re seeing here is hooked fans going right away and then because of the tedium and decline in quality, a consistent drop in the number of borderline fans going a week or two later.

Then again, that’s still $46 million in profit for Saw V, and that’s just domestically. Overseas, Saw films are loved even more, so double that figure. There’s really no end in sight (and apparently the current story line is supposed to take us through at least Saw VIII.)

Groan.

I don’t know. There’s a fine line when you’re huge movie fan between respect and loathing for successful movies in a genre you dislike. That’s why at this point I just don’t really care. We’re going to get more “Saw” whether we like it or not. We could get upset about that one weekend a year being monopolized, but HSM 3 proved Saw films don’t suck away dollars from competition: They target their fans and that’s it. They’ll get them, get their money and put the next into production right after. Things are only harder for the other horror films that want to come out around Halloween. Why else would Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2 come out in August? This might seem weird, but fans of other horror movies should be more miffed about Saw VI than I am.

Perhaps a day will come when Saw movies go straight to DVD and we don’t have to have this discussion about them each time. Perhaps it will go on anyway to break the record for the most theatrical releases in a series (though it’s got nearly a couple decades to beat out James Bond). If it does, the way I see it is that some of us will care – and some of us won’t.

Five children's books deserving big-screen treatment

Spike Jonze’s film adaptation of one of the all-time greatest children’s books Where the Wild Things Are comes out Friday and it makes me wonder, what took ‘em so long? If feature-length films could be made of Dr. Seuss legends How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Cat in the Hat and Horton Hears a Who!, what’s to keep Maurice Sendak’s ode to the child’s imagination from becoming a successful motion picture?

Well, we need not answer these questions, because we’re a day away from what looks to be a box office smash. If the nostalgia of the story, beautiful lighting or wonderfully furry costume/CGI wild things didn’t hook you in the trailer, than the amazing choice of Arcade Fire music did. Whoever thought we’d see an indie send-up of a family movie and think it was a great idea? Anyway, I’m convinced this will be the best wide release film of the fall movie season.

So when it does happen, when Where the Wild Things Are surpasses expectations critically and financially, we can expect some kind of immediate response from major production companies who will be convinced there could be a market for more of these films. The question then becomes, what’s next?

My childhood was full of books that I’d love to revisit cinematically as an adult and with that thought came this list: The five beloved children’s book best-sellers that ought to be optioned or whose options should be dug out of some dusty file cabinet and put into production. What do you think? Leave a comment if there’s a key piece of your childhood I didn’t mention that ought to be made for the big screen.

The Little Engine that Could

This book has been poisoning children’s minds for more than a half century with the unrealistic notion that optimism equals progress and that if you believe in yourself you can do/overcome anything – but what the kids don’t know can’t hurt them – until they graduate college and can’t find jobs. But that’s for another day.

At the least, I’d think a producer is smart if he says “I think I can” in terms of adapting this classic story of a small train that hauls a broken loco over a mountain when all other trains think it impossible. Adapted as a 30-minute film nearly 20 years ago, I still think this story could be expanded and even done live action/without sticking a dumb pasty Thomas the Tank Engine face on the train. Add some human characters to help or maybe try and loot the train, stretch out the perils of the journey and change the title to something more adventurous and maybe The Little Engine can.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

It’s hard to believe Eric Carle’s book about a ridiculously insatiate caterpillar that feasts on lollipops and Swiss cheese is already forty years old, but it’s been teaching how to count and read short words as well as learn about metamorphosis to every generation in that time period. My thought is an animation studio could borrow on Carle’s beautiful illustrative style to bring the world of the VHC to life.

Ok, I admit there’s not much of a plot to this book; you can’t make an entire scene about how on day three that darn hungry caterpillar ate three strawberries, but you could thread that into a bigger, more imaginative (and probably humorous) narrative. Give him a friend like the Dieting Grasshopper and there’s some potential. I can perfectly imagine the VHC being voiced by Seth Rogen, a bit of a lazy caterpillar as well who for some reason hasn’t managed to pupate yet, maybe because he’s too fat for a cocoon. Heimlich in A Bug’s Life is a good example though I’m thinking a little more toned down than that. Anyway, bugs and food have sold well in the past on the screen, so adding 40 years of reputation to that formula seems like an idea.

Green Eggs and Ham

Of all the Dr. Seuss books that have gotten big screen treatment, you’d think someone would’ve tried adapting one of the best ones. I understand that GE&H is more about the rhymes than the story, but that means total creative reign over what it’s about. As long as you include a couple kids and a character named Sam I Am and some food with green food coloring in it, you can let the title sell the rest.

I think an adaptation unlike what the last couple live-action Seuss films have done could suit this story well. Those tried to recreate the Seuss world as well as the stories, but this could work in a totally contemporary setting. It would give the Seuss-ian events more of a magical impact too – you’d really get a sense of green eggs and ham being totally weird.

Where’s Waldo?

Talk about plot freedom. Obviously you wouldn’t just have a search for Waldo, but Waldo going missing and his friends the Wizard, the dog and the cute nerdy chick-Waldo going all over the world to find him. The adventure story potential is through the roof here.

One of my favorite things to do as a kid was look around and find all the little sub-stories going on in all the locations. There are literally hundreds of ideas in the pages of a Where’s Waldo? book. He’s an iconic character begging to come to life and as long as he’s not played by Will Ferrell, we should be fine.

The Giving Tree

Shel Silverstein’s classic is an automatic tear-jerker and if done properly and in a similar spirit to Where the Wild Things Are, it could be just as good on the screen as sort of a family drama/coming of age story with a twist of fantasy. The book is about a young boy who bonds with a tree in his childhood but ends up dismantling her for use in his adult life. It’s a beautiful story of growing up and selflessness and sacrifice that with a good accompanying story line could be nothing short of moving.

It could even be done as 1960s period piece, since the book was published in ’64 and the ‘50s and ‘60s were the heyday of kids growing up and discovering themselves – according to film. Truthfully, however, they didn’t have nearly enough to amuse themselves indoors as we do now, so a boy bonding with a tree in the ‘60s makes more sense than a boy bonding with one when he can just sit on the couch and bond with his Nintendo DS.

Zombies: What's with all the dead faces?

Have you ever really sat down and thought about this? Why there’s an entire film genre dedicated to zombies? In honor of Zombieland coming out this week, I could have tried putting together a Top 10 of zombie movies, but I’m going to be honest – I haven’t seen ten of them. I can think of at least five or six (which are mostly recent) so I imagine at some point I’ll probably get there – I do have plans to watch the classics (Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead) – but that doesn’t answer the question of why zombies have a niche in the film industry.

I mean, really. They’re stupid, disgusting, unrelenting and they travel in large groups; it’s like watching a gang of fifth grade boys attack people. I can understand the vampire craze (and a musing on that is certainly in the works); at least they’re intelligent, immortal and generally kinda sexy, but zombies?

I’m sure there is a good deal of history and a handful of essays out there explaining this phenomenon or that I could go ask George A. Romero who has been cranking out these films for more than 40 years now, but I figured I’d take a stab at it myself.

Personally, I’m a fan of zombie comedy. Mentally slow, disgusting but persistent mother fuckers make for some really good creative kills and subsequent laughs. I’ve seen Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive and Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead, and I have to say the comedic twist on this horror genre seems to work for me. That’s why I’ve given Zombieland a chance.

But that’s me getting excited for a good laugh, not to see those horribly disfigured blemished creatures oozing blood and black pus from their orifices for two hours. I suppose to get the real answer, I’d need to have seen the classics of the genre, but to truly understand its explosion, I think we all know where to look.

Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” music video.

I mean, it’s still considered the No. 1 greatest music video of all time and why? Zombies. Zombies creeping up from out of nowhere, walking jarringly in rhythm to the holy grail of ‘80s synth pop beats. In their ragged clothing and fabulous make up they taught us dance moves that broke generation barriers and brought races together in harmony under the letters MTV.

In “Thriller,” zombies earned their stay in Western culture. They could have faded away into the filth from whence they came, but they rode to the top upon the shoulders of the King of Pop. And then they didn’t stop.

Modern equivalent: let’s say, I don’t know, Beyonce made the most baller music video of all time – and it featured Hello, Kitty and friends. That’s right, those little Japanese animals from the turn of the Millennium with the over-sized eyes doing some sweet dance moves to an anthem of single women’s empowerment. We’d all be like “well, I guess it’s been awhile, but Hello, Kitty – hellz yeah!” Then, when it went up for best video at the VMAs and Taylor Swift stole it from her, this time no one would hate on Kanye if he did it again.

Next thing you know Pixar would seal the rights to a Hello, Kitty movie in 3D, a massive relaunch of the toys and assorted stationary would hit shelves and then twenty years later we’d be like “why the **** is there still Hello, Kitty stuff being made?” And then we’d remember it was Beyonce and we’d think well, Hello, Kitty’s earned it.

Ok, promise that’s the last you’ll ever read of Hello, Kitty on my blog – I hope. Point is, suddenly zombies were more than just cult horror movie icons. We saw their pop culture potential, even their comedic potential and somehow they were saved. Now, if an emerging filmmaker has a good idea of how to reinvent zombies or vampires, he or she can break through because we’re never tired of them apparently.

Then there’s the second and somewhat less extreme option: budget concerns. Nowadays, to make a movie involving something that isn’t a human or a zombie requires a large CGI effects budget. Your average Joe Filmmaker can’t go out and create a non-human creature without extensive make-up or CGI. He can, however, convince his friends to tear up some old clothes, cover their faces in generic make-up and walk down the street like they’ve got thorny sticks lodged in their rectums.

Hands down, a zombie is the cheapest iconic bad guy out there and you don’t have to pay to acquire the rights to use it. Like vampires or generic aliens, no one owns the concept of zombie. We’re talking about a nationally recognized concept (they’re decomposing living dead, they turn you into a zombie if they bite you and they moan because they can’t speak) for FREE. If you pitch a movie or a book to a producer/publisher with an original creation no one’s heard of, it’s tough to get accepted. But mention “zombies” and well, everyone knows what those are and they’ve made a pretty penny in the past. Project is go.

Zombies are the cheapest branch on the tree of non-copyrighted monsters. That makes them great for filmmakers. All it takes is some creative make-up artists and you have zombies. These guys are like the sea monkeys of the movie world. All it took was a couple big hits and we’ll never see the end of them.

Don't feed us more Hancock

As a big fan of the superhero genre, it’s my responsibility to lambast movies that should not be made. “Hancock 2” is one of them. 

“Hancock” director Peter Berg has been in the news a lot lately, mostly for his announcement that the sequel to his horribly mediocre superhero with a PR problem movie is moving along quickly.

The plans looked set in stone last month, but last week it was confirmed that the movie will get stars Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman back for round two, to be written by different writers, which might be the only good news in this post. Berg also confirmed that another big name will be added to the cast.

If you didn’t see “Hancock” and don’t want a spoiler, skip ahead. In the last film, we learned – out of nowhere – that Hancock and Theron’s character are superhuman gods that grow weaker when near each other.  Berg told Sci-Fi Wire that this third character will be some kind of evil god and that some origin stuff will be explored as well as the characters’ home world.

This mythology pretty much stunk up what we thought was a disgruntled superhero comedy. You can read my review about it here. Now that we know this, is there anyone that actually wants more of this “mythology”?

Then again, this is all sort of inevitable. The film grossed over $225 million and it cost $150 million. But whose fault is that really? I don’t think I can be blamed for going to see it when I was outright deceived. When a film pitches itself through trailers as something cool and then ends up something awful, there’s a false sense of success. “Hancock 2” can’t go back. We know what it is now. If I had to predict right now, it will probably pull in significantly less money as an August release in 2011 or 2012. Think along the lines of this year’s “G.I. Joe.”

Even with new writers, I don’t think this concept is salvageable. Hancock reformed his drunkard ways and is now a mighty superhero. That was the hook, now it’s gone – concept exhausted. This is a genre at a point where it’s constantly varying itself and meeting much or little success, with no real in-between space. “Hancock” didn’t work critically despite what the numbers say; this is going to be bad from start to finish.

Unfortunately, you and I will get to see numerous “Hancock 2” trailers and popcorn bag advertisements whenever the film takes off.

 

Disney buys Marvel Entertainment, monopolizes my childhood

Completely out of nowhere, it was announced this morning that Walt Disney Co. had purchased Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. Wow. 

I've been following the news on JoBlo this morning, and the superhero movie-lover inside me wondered immediately how it would affect the current Marvel films in development. The answer is apparently that it won't -- any contracts already an existence between Marvel and other studious will be honored. The other exciting bit of news is that John Lasseter, the mastermind behind Pixar, has met with Marvel's creative staff and apparently already gotten the wheels turning on how the two might work together. Oh yeah, i felt a shiver right there too.

Well we know Marvel stockholders are dancing in the streets right now and that Stan Lee and Mickey Mouse are probably kicking back somewhere, but what about the rest of us who care very little about the financial side of the deal? Do we want Marvel's superheroes in the hands of a family entertainment conglomerate?

From the fan perspective, there's definitely negative and positive. As far as future films, we definitely won't see the results anytime soon, but it's hard to imagine that Disney, the biggest family friendly brand name in the world, would put Cinderella's castle before before the opening credits of a dark PG-13 superhero movie like "The Dark Knight." Perhaps it could just carry the Touchstone name, but then there's also the risk of a Marvel character getting dumbed down to PG levels to snag that family audience. 

Disney clearly likes superhero movies -- "The Incredibles" and "Bolt" -- so in hindsight their interest in Marvel's properties makes sense. It's hard to imagine X-Men and Spider-Man becoming any more globally recognized considering Marvel's dozens of toy contracts and TV shows (and Broadway musicals) and whatnot, but with Disney it's definitely possible. 

What first comes to mind is theme parks. Orlando already plays host to Spidey and Hulk rides at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure so I'm curious how Disney World might take advantage other than the obvious selling of merchandise, Spider-Man in the New Year's parade, some corny stage show and maybe something in Tomorrowland.

The possible Marvel-Pixar collaboration is the most exciting; talk about two of the movie business' most respected brands. I don't think this means a Spider-Man action figure will be a last-minute addition to "Toy Story 3" (although a cameo would be cool to get the buzz going), but any kind of spin-off of a Marvel character(s) could have huge commercial cash-hoarding potential.

As a child who grew up watching Disney movies only to have them replaced by Marvel cartoons, this kind of deal is pretty exciting. Both are such powerful brands that their reach, albeit a little overwhelming, could really make something special happen. I eagerly await news of that first true collaboration and you can bet I'll be musing about it. 

Why I dislike most horror movies, especially their sequels

As a movie-lover, I sometimes feel bad about alienating the genre of horror movies as much as I do considering how well they perform at the box office. I watch very few of them and it's not because I'm too scared (though I'll admit I get jumpy no matter how many times horror directors abuse the quick reveal), but it's because they're not your usual movies -- they have a very segmented audience.

I bring up the subject this weekend because apparently distributors now think Halloween occurs the last weekend in August. Both "The Final Destination" (instead of 4 they put up a "the") and Rob Zombie's Halloween remake sequel "Halloween II" come out today, probably moved to the end of August to catch the very last of the summer entertainment wave and because the Saw franchise has monopolized the Halloween release the last six years now.

As you might imagine, I'll be staying out of the theaters this weekend, even avoiding the new "Taking Woodstock" with Emile Hirsch because to be honest it looks like a better DVD movie than anything. Anyway, horror movies will almost never get me to drop some cash, especially their sequels. 

Let's start with "The Final Destination" aka "Final Destination 4 in 3D." I suppose the idea of 3D is enough to excite the wallets of anyone who has a moderately successful mediocre movie franchise, especially one as ridiculous as the Final Destination movies. The concept of these movies is always the same. A character is with a group of friends doing something generally considered safe but capable of disaster; character sees visions of disaster and prevents his/her friends from doing said generally safe thing and they live; the living force of death comes to claim their lives in sick and twisted ways. That's it. Always. Maybe there have been unique twists to each one, but I've only seen the first movie, you know, when it was a novel idea.

Essentially, the Final Destination movies thrive on one concept: outside-of-the-box death scenes. There's no slasher/murderer, no zombies, nothing. When death works as a supernatural force, anyone can die in any way possible and its the writers' jobs to make it creative and frightening. This is much in the same way that Saw can invent endless torture games for people to do horrific stuff in order to save their lives.

What we have here is not a film, but a thrill-seeking movie. Horror is entertainment in its purest form, like raw sugar. There's little reservation about sacrificing characters and developing lackluster story lines because people go in to these movies to get freaked out. I, on the other hand, love movies for their depth of visual storytelling. Occasionally I'll find a horror/thriller/mystery hybrid that does both, but it's rare. I reviewed "Rosemary's Baby" a couple weeks ago -- now that's a great story under the horror genre. "Alien" is an awesome sci- fi horror movie. Creative storytelling has basically been zapped from today's horror films, because filmmakers keep re-imagining and recycling the same premises.

Rob Zombie remade "Halloween" and "Halloween II" with the idea of reinventing Michael Myers and giving him more dimension, but it was the original Laurie Strode played by Jamie Lee Curtis that made the original a classic. I can't say if Laurie was given the same strength in the 2007 remake, but odds are no. Why remake a classic? The only answer to that question is for money. When has a classic, an undeniably great film, been remade and done better? I think this happens because horror producers are lazy SOBs who can't come up with anything new, understand it takes little effort to turn a profit in their genre, and so they turn to old favorites, sequels and Japan for their projects.

I fully respect those who get escapism by watching people die or get hunted or whatever the individual formula might be, but it's not why I go to the movies. I've given enough horror movies a chance and the result for me has always been that I get nothing but a raised heart rate and elevated stress levels. I don't feel like I'm being creatively challenged and entertained at the same time, I feel like the creator's goal every time is to see if I'll crap myself. That's not why I watch movies and its why few critics will give better than passing grades to a horror movie.

Musings: A Jew on the release of "Basterds"

To fairly represent myself while sharing my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino's 7th feature film release, "Inglourious Basterds," I should be forward in mentioning that I'm Jewish, and if you know anything about this movie, it's more or less a Holocaust revenge fantasy.

I recently watched Edward Zwick's latest film "Defiance" starring Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber (read my review of "Defiance" here), a film a bit more based on truth than "Basterds," to be nice, about Jews fleeing into the woods and arming themselves against Nazis. There were plenty of Jews putting guns to Nazi heads in that movie without too much reservation in pulling the trigger and now "Basterds" appears to bask in it.

As a Jew, I've always wondered, maybe even fantasized, about what the world would be like if six million Jews hadn't been eradicated from the face of the planet at the hands of the Nazi regime, if Americans or any of the Allies had gone in and stopped them. With "Defiance" and Bryan Singer's Hitler assassination plot thriller "Valkyrie" having been released within a year of "Basterds" now, it appears that this subject has intrigued many filmmakers, not surprising given how often they revisit the Holocaust in general.

Knowing Quentin Tarantino's style, however, I'm a bit apprehensive about seeing such a fantasy played out on the screen. Murder is difficult to watch no less root for, even if these Basterds are playing its moral hand. Tarantino has always made good sport out of killing, with strong influences coming from kung fu movies (which inspired his last features "Kill Bill Vol. 1" and "Kill Bill Vol. 2") and Sergio Leone westerns, and from what I read, both influence his filmmaking in "Basterds" once again. 

It's not that I'm afraid Tarantino will handle Holocaust themes without sensitivity, especially if one of the film's main characters, Col. Landa aka "the Jew hunter," shows off any of his skills, but the idea of Nazi's killing Jews, then Jews killing Nazis brutally in return all mixed up in a film branded as part comedy makes me a little uneasy. I could guess with little hesitation that this film would not sit well with any of my grandparents.

I'm not prematurely labeling "Basterds" as offensive or making light entertainment out of the Holocaust. With the Jewish presence in the film industry, nothing minus Mel Gibson's "The Passion" could get away with flagrant anti-Semitism. This is about me, this about all Jews, many of whom have an affinity for film, going out and considering this a couple hours of entertainment.

That's where "Basterds" becomes a fine line. As a Jew I'm no stranger to guilt, and thinking about what my great-great grandparents would say if they knew their great-great grandchildren were going to see an action drama/comedy about Jews and Nazis killing each other -- well, that's a lot of guilt. Personally, the thought of watching that movie and really enjoying it, of being entertained by it, makes me uncomfortable. I don't expect it to upset me, and it might even add to my perspective on the Holocaust, but the idea of "Basterds" is not a cinematic comfort.

Would all this stop me, no less a cinephile than Tarantino himself (ok, maybe a little), from going to see "Basterds"? I can't say. I can tell you I'm not running to the theater like I was to see "Grindhouse" a year and a half ago, but having seen every Tarantino film minus "Jackie Brown" (moving higher up my list with all this buzz), there's a definitely inevitability here. Film is also about challenging us, at least good ones should, and no one has bent genres with more success than Tarantino, so regardless how I feel, I'm curious to see what I'll do.

Check out some reviews of "Inglourious Basterds" below:

Cinematical's "Basterds" Review

Rope of Silicon's "Basterds" Review

Box Office Ramblings: Thank God it's District 9

As I prayed for so fervently, Peter Jackson produced sci-fi alien actioner "District 9" took first at the Box Office with $37.4 M this past weekend. I'm not trying to see to it that all films I like cash in at the box office, but like I said in my review, this is the kind of small budget great story film that you want to see more of in Hollywood. In other words, less "Transformers" (est. $200 M budget) and more "District 9" (est. $30 M budget). Hollywood needs as many examples as it can get of great stories getting turned into great films for cheap ("District 9" already surpassed its production budget), and that's a real rarity these days for science-fiction films.

The competition wasn't easy either, with date target "The Time Traveler's Wife," Will Ferrell/Adam McKay-produced comedy "The Goods" and Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki's "Ponyo" hitting theaters and finishing in the top 10, but "District 9" endured the hype and it will be interesting to see what happens to it next week.

That doesn't mean the box office was all things happy this weekend as far as I'm concerned. "G.I. Joe," which was not screened for critics because of how they would tear it apart, moved down only one spot out of first and into second, taking in another $22.3 M and bringing its gross to nearly $100 M, doing what guinea pig kids actioner "G-Force" did in a month in just two weeks despite an older demographic. This is almost entirely counteracting the message of "District 9." I haven't see "G.I. Joe" and maybe I'll take a fly on it on DVD, but when stuff like D9 is out there, nobody should be giving it a second look.

The biggest flop by far was "The Goods" starring Entourage's Jeremy Piven as a used-car salesman with great coercive powers, with just $5.6 M. The effort just wasn't there to promote this film other than the same exact commercial spots with the same clips as the one trailer, despite okay reviews from critics. Compare this a year ago to "Tropic Thunder" and the advertising isn't even close in magnitude. Meanwhile, Judd Apatow's comedy "Funny People" has fizzled out to No. 10 after only its third weekend ($3 M). Its gross is about $20 M short of budget, making it a rough summer for Judd after "Year One" and now this, though nothing choked like "Year One."

Next week will be a competition to see if D9 can hold off Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds." By comparison, Tarantino's last big directorial feature was "Kill Bill Vol. 1," which took just $20 M in 2003, so it could be close. Everyone else though should surely come in below it.

1District 9 (2009)$37.4M/$37.4M

2G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)$22.3M/$98.6M

3The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)$18.6M/$18.6M

4Julie & Julia (2009)$12.1M/$43.3M

5G-Force (2009)$6.92M/$99.1M

6The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (2009)$5.64M/$5.64M

7Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)$5.14M/$284M

8The Ugly Truth (2009)$4.45M/$77.5M

9Gake no ue no Ponyo (2008)$3.59M/$3.59M

10Funny People (2009)$3.01M/$47.9M