Thursday, August 22, 2013

Ben Affleck is Batman: Initial Thoughts

People like me have known for a long time that Christian Bale would be Batman for a maximum of three Batman movies.  We've known this since before "The Dark Knight" was released.  So, in a way, we have been preparing ourselves for this moment.  The moment we get a new Batman.

Ben Affleck has kind of had a splotchy career.  He broke in with Matt Damon in 1997's "Good Will Hunting."  Unlike Matt Damon (who was cast as Jason Bourne and hasn't had trouble finding work since), Ben Affleck was immediately put into menial pretty-boy roles, and his occasional action role either never really panned out (Paycheck) or blew up in his face (Daredevil).  

Even so, by 2007 he had enough clout to make his directorial debut with "Gone Baby Gone."  As usual with high profile actors directorial debuts it was a smaller release that not many people have heard about.  But it earned him a whole pile of awards for directing.

In 2010 he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in "The Town."  It was a bigger production with a bigger cast and it was aimed to appeal to a bigger audience.  It was successful!  Again garnering awards for his directing.

Some of you know this, but at the most recent Academy Awards Ben Affleck won Best Picture for 2012's "Argo."  And it was considered controversial that he wasn't even nominated for Best Director for the same movie.

The point of telling you all this is to show you two things.  First, he has a real full-fledged directing career now, which means he can be picky about his acting jobs because that's not his main focus.  Second, his films get awards which means he knows quality when he sees it.

What does this have to do with Batman?  Well, to get him to sign up for such a high profile role, they really must have something good in the works.  Otherwise, he wouldn't take it.

But can he act?  Well, he was the lead in the Best Picture winner last year.  I know that means nothing to a lot of you, but it's good enough for me.

* * *

Before I let this go I have to add something.  There is a bigger issue here.  Can a Batman follow up so soon after Nolan's iteration be any good?

DC is playing this pretty smart I think.  Ben Affleck is to play an older, established Batman.  A Batman who will show their new Superman what it is to be a superhero.

WHO IN THE WORLD DOESN'T WANT TO SEE BATMAN LITERALLY SCHOOLING SUPERMAN???

It's perfect.  The appeal of that situation alone will draw audiences.  And thinking of the dynamic there could be between Henry Cavill's Clark Kent and Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne . . . my instincts tell me it will work.  And I do, in fact, have instincts for this kind of thing.

Here's hoping my instincts are (still) correct!

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic

Monday, August 12, 2013

Keeping Up With Marvel: A Brief History Of Comic Books On Film

There was a time when Spider-Man, The X-Men, and The Avengers were not known to moviegoers.  A time when just about the only superheroes the common moviegoer knew about were Superman and Batman.  A time when D.C. Comics (creators of Superman, Batman, and a few others you've heard of) ruled the film market among comic book adaptations.

Oh, how things change.

The first comic book movie of any real significance was "Superman" in 1978.  It did very well for it's time (it is still the 32nd highest-grossing comic book adaptation of all time), and it was only three years before "Superman II" was released in 1981.  It did well, but not as well.  Then "Superman III" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" did worse and way worse, respectively.

I should note that, just like today, when one successful movie of a certain type came out then, more were produced.  There were other comic book adaptations that followed soon after the first Superman, but none of them had the staying power that Superman did.  And Superman remained essentially all alone on the big screen.

Surprisingly, it was only two years after the abysmal fourth Superman that Batman came to the big screen in a very big way.  "Batman" was released in 1989 to HUGE success (it is still the 12th highest-grossing comic book adaptation - it even made more than "Batman Begins").  Superman's success in theaters had dwindled by this point, so it's safe to say that is not why Warner Bros. took another risk.  The reason this movie even existed is because Warner Bros. was pleased with what Tim Burton was doing before and thought they'd give him a shot at one of their bigger properties.  He came through.

Naturally, the sequel came through the pipeline very quickly and "Batman Returns" was released in 1992.  While not doing quite as well as the first, the follow up didn't disappoint.  It was a very successful film commercially and critically (the 90's were a different time).

Even so, Warner Bros. felt "Batman Returns" should have made more, so they benched Tim Burton as director to go with a more mainstream approach to Batman.  They wanted a family Batman.  With the approval from Burton, Joel Schumacher was hired as director and they started work on the script.  The finished draft didn't please Michael Keaton (who played Batman in the first two) and he left the project.  Val Kilmer was brought in and "Batman Forever" was released in 1995.  It made money, but the critics didn't like it as much as the first two.  

But it made money.  Sequel!  This time a sequel was put on the fast track to come out in two years instead of the usual three.  And they wanted more tie-in merchandising as well.  Schumacher was hired straightaway and two years later out came "Batman & Robin" in 1997.

All you need to know about that is that it was a miserable failure.  But most of you probably knew that already.  What you probably didn't know (but it's still interesting) is that even before "Batman & Robin" was released, Warner Bros. had already greenlit another sequel!  This was promptly cancelled after the massive failure of "Batman & Robin."

Thus ended D.C. Comics' near 20-year reign of the superhero on the big screen.

For in the background, this whole time, Marvel was busy busy busy.

Marvel had been trying to have an X-Men movie produced since 1989 (and a Spider-Man movie had been in various stages of development even before that).  Marvel just had rotten luck back then.  They licensed their properties to be made into movies, nobody ever really came through, and with all the money going around Marvel wound up bankrupt.  But in 1998, like the Phoenix of Greek mythology, Marvel emerged ready to kick butt (and now merged with ToyBiz), and their luck turned around.  Fox was impressed with the success of the X-Men cartoon show that aired in the 90's and they acquired the licensing to produce X-Men films.  The studio offered Bryan Singer the directing job after seeing his success directing an ensemble cast in "The Usual Suspects" in 1995, and he accepted (after a while, but that's another story).  Fox was never pleased with any of the treatments (a treatment is like a blue-print of a script in narrative form) until Bryan Singer himself and his producer turned one in of their own.  Theirs took the social issues behind the story more seriously, and treated the subject matter as more than just entertaining eye candy.  Fox accepted it (with minor changes) and the film was produced.  Singer was put into a very tight schedule for production and "X-Men" hit theaters in 2000.  The world, evidently, was ready for superheroes to dominate the silver screen.

"X-Men" is very special among superhero movies in that it is the progenitor of the current superhero movie craze that we live in today.  Not because it made some insane amount of money, but because it was successful enough to get other films (Spider-Man, X2: X-Men United, etc) greenlit for production.  And since then, there has been an unbroken chain of superhero movies being greenlit because something that came just before was successful. So every superhero movie you see (since 2000) can trace its "production heritage" - if you will - to the first X-Men.  It is without a doubt the one that started it all.

I couldn't possibly (and by that I mean 'easily') go into every single ramification after X-Men.  First came "Spider-Man."  Then "Hulk."  Followed by "X2: X-Men United," "Fantastic Four," "Spider-Man 2," "Batman Begins," "Superman Returns," "X-Men: The Last Stand," "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," "Spider-Man 3," and that's only the ones I can think of off the top of my head from 2002 to 2007!

After that superhero films were raised to a new standard :)

Two special things happened leading up to 2008.  The one that is easy to explain is "The Dark Knight."  After Nolan's "Batman Begins" everyone wanted to see where he was taking things.  Especially when Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker (and more especially when he died, but let's not get into that).  The other thing was something Marvel did.  Whereas all their past film releases were through licenses to other companies (Fox had X-Men, Sony had Spider-Man, etc.) they had now prepared themselves to make their own movies - in house.  Marvel Studios was a full-fledged studio and was ready to release their first in house production: 2008's surprise hit, "Iron Man."

Both "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" broke new ground in a handful of ways.  "Iron Man" was praised for characters that seemed more real than ever before in a superhero movie.  They loved the dialogue, and it showed that Marvel was not only taking things seriously, but they were truly a forced to be reckoned with as their own studio.  "The Dark Knight" meanwhile, well, you probably know a lot of this already.  It generated superhype.  More importantly, it delivered!  It was the first superhero flick to make over one billion dollars.  That's right.  $1,000,000,000+.

Comic book adaptations were officially BIG BUSINESS.

While D.C. Comics were the ones who struck it rich with "The Dark Knight," they are ultimately the ones who are being left behind. This brings us to the world of comic book films as it is today.  

Since Nolan's Dark Knight D.C. has released 9 films.  Most of them you didn't even know were D.C. Comics (Red, V for Vendetta).  Not bad, but Marvel has released 15.  Not only have they released more, but through their licensing agreements and other fun circumstances they have - I dare say - almost inadvertently created a monster!  

Let me explain.

Let's start with Sony.  They have the Spider-Man license.  As long as they produce a Spider-Man movie every five years (at least) they keep the rights to produce them.  As a side note, that's why "The Amazing Spider-Man" came so soon after "Spider-Man 3."  Sony will keep making Spider-Man movies as long as they can.  That's money in Marvel's pocket.

Now Fox.  Fox has the X-Men.  By the end of next year there will have been seven X-Men films, if you include the Wolverine solo outings.  And you know they aren't planning to stop soon.  More money in Marvel's pocket.

Now Marvel itself.  When they set out in 2008 they had more in mind than just great individual movies.  Somebody had the brilliant idea, "why don't we have three or four franchises all play into a mega franchise?"  And so Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America all started independently and joined up in 2012's "The Avengers."  Add all this to the fact that Disney bought Marvel in 2009 - that's an awful lot of backing to work with - and you have a true powerhouse.

And they aren't stopping there either!  They aren't done wowing us!  Marvel has this plan that involves things called Phase One, Phase Two, and Phase Three (at least).  I don't know how to explain it so I'll write it out.

MARVEL PHASE ONE:
 - IRON MAN
 - INCREDIBLE HULK
 - IRON MAN 2
 - THOR
 - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

CULMINATING IN - MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS

MARVEL PHASE TWO:
 - IRON MAN 3
 - THOR: THE DARK WORLD
 - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER
 - GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
 - ANOTHER ONE I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW

CULMINATING IN - MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON

MARVEL PHASE THREE:
 - ANT MAN? (I THINK)
 - DOCTOR STRANGE (FOR SURE)
 - LIKELY THOR SEQUEL
 - LIKELY CAPTAIN AMERICA SEQUEL
 - I DON'T THINK THEY'VE REVEALED THIS ONE

CULMINATING IN A THIRD AVENGERS MOVIE YET TO BE TITLED

I think you get the idea, even if I don't remember all the slots (give me a break though, not all of them have been confirmed).  As you can see, we are in Phase Two now, coming up on the release of "Thor: The Dark World."  And that third Avengers movie is slated (everyone in the world estimates) for 2018.  And Marvel says they have plans out to 2021!  These guys know how to do work!  It's amazing!

Meanwhile, back at dreary old D.C., the best they've got is a Superman/Batman film in 2015, a Flash film in 2016, and Justice League (their version of Avengers) film in 2017.  Forgive me if I'm not impressed given what Marvel's been up to.  And did I mention their plan involves a new Batman that has a whole lot to prove since Nolan's trilogy is now over?  They have an uphill battle in front of them.

To think Marvel probably envied D.C.'s success in movies for a lot of years.  Things change.  Welcome to the movie world.

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Why Jason Segel (star of the last Muppets) Isn't In "Muppets Most Wanted"


There you have it!  "Muppets Most Wanted" hits theaters March 21st, 2014!

But where's the guy from the last one?

His name is Jason Segel and he never wanted to be in this one.  He is a Muppets fan and the last one was his baby.  He made it so the franchise would live again and he could watch them again - from the outside.  He's done a great thing for us all in bringing back the Muppets, if you ask me.  He made the first happen and now they are self-sustaining again!  How great is that?

Here's what Jason had to say about it:


"My goal was to bring The Muppets back and I did that leaving them in very good hands, my writing partner and James Bobin the director. I did what I set out to do, and now I wanna pursue more human-related projects (laughs).

All I wanted to do was to set the stage for them to do whatever they wanted. I’m sure I’ll return in some capacity here and there, but that was half a decade of my life. Five years of hard work. I’m ready for a little puppet break.

Sounds pretty intelligent to me.

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Burning Question: Who Will Direct The Next Star Trek?

Fairly soon after the news broke that Disney bought Lucasfilm and was to be making Star Wars Episodes 7, 8, and 9 it was revealed that J. J. Abrams turned down an offer to direct Episode 7.  And the world of people like me collectively laughed in our heads thinking, "Wouldn't that be silly.  The same guy doing Star Trek and Star Wars?  Hahaha."

But after a few months with no details or rumors about a director it came out that J. J. Abrams will direct Episode 7!



J. J. did explain this to the world.  He said he was right at the start of post production on Star Trek Into Darkness (a very busy and stressful time for a director) when they approached him about directing Star Wars.  He basically said that at that moment the last thing he could possibly want on his mind is the responsibility to direct the next Star Wars film.  But when he was done with Star Trek he found the breathing room to think about it and accept the offer.

And this left the world with some more questions.  Will J. J. still be able to do the next Star Trek?  If not, who will direct it?

These questions are technically both still unanswered but we can say with some certainty that, sadly, J. J. will likely return to the 24th century only as a producer.

It broke news yesterday that Neill Blomkamp turned down the next Star Trek.  Neill Blomkamp is known for 2009's "District 9" and this year's "Elysium."  Both movies with heavy sci-fi elements and both movies with heavy social commentary - something that was integral with Star Trek in the beginning but not as much now.  It might seem like a good fit - Neill and Star Trek.  And there are some compelling arguments for it.  But in the end Neill's type of storytelling just wouldn't work for Star Trek and he knows that. He likes to show gritty futures where today's ills of society are exaggerated.  Star Trek is all about a future where humanity, as a whole at least, has moved past all its issues and shortcomings.  I don't think Mr. Blomkamp is even capable of telling a story in such a world!

Evidently there is (or was) a rumor running around that John M. Chu is in competition to direct.  You can just forget about that one.  He's known for movies like "Step Up 2 The Streets" and "G.I. Joe: Retaliation."  It's just a bad fit and Paramount would never do that.  Besides all this his plate is full with the G.I. Joe franchise and plans to bring He-Man to the big screen again (no joke).

Today I read that Rupert Wyatt is the actual leading contender for the director's chair of Star Trek.  This is something I can get behind.  Mr. Wyatt's only major credit so far is 2011's "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."  That movie was a critical (and to some degree commercial) sleeper hit.  That is to say it was a pleasant surprise.  No one really expected it to make that much money or to be that good as a film, but it was.  Since then Mr. Wyatt has stayed pretty well out of the spotlight, even turning down the directing job for next year's "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes!"  In my opinion he has stayed too far out of the spotlight (one good credit to your name isn't enough to get super picky with your projects).  But if he wants to do Star Trek I am ready to get behind him.  His directing style, from what I recall, is very steady and precise.  He didn't rush any payoffs.  

If you want my guess here it is.  J. J. will return to produce and Rupert Wyatt will direct.  Also, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have both signed on to return as writers, that's confirmed.

As for J. J. not returning to direct - I think it's a good thing.  It's not like the same director did all the first 10 Star Trek films!  For the franchise to return to its former glory there must be a variety of directors!  It'll be just like the good old days.

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic

UPDATE: It's almost been a year and a half since I wrote this but today I heard something VERY EXCITING!

First things first.  Rupert Wyatt went on to direct The Gambler, which will be released this Christmas (2014).  J. J. is now neck deep in post production on Star Wars, and even the writers on Star Trek 3 have been juggled quite a lot with the latest draft not being done by Alex Kurtzman or Roberto Orci.  Bottom line, things have changed some.

Roberto Orci had the directing job for Star Trek 3 for a while but he backed out a couple weeks ago.  Now for the exciting part.  JONATHAN FRAKES has been in contact with J. J. Abrams and the other producers with the intention to direct the next Star Trek film!  This just fits so well and I really hope they take him seriously.  I kid you not this is the most exciting film news possibility since Bryan Singer signed to direct Days of Future Past.

Jonathan Frakes played Commander Riker in Star Trek: The Next Generation and those subsequent films.  He also directed several episodes of The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise PLUS two of the Next Generation films.  Since all this he has been heavily involved in directing for various television shows.  It is also worth mentioning that one of the two Next Generation films he directed (First Contact) is without a doubt a fan favorite.  Maybe you can all understand a little bit why this is SO EXCITING to a Star Trek fan like me!

So, J. J. Abrams and Paramount, #BringInRiker!!!!!

FYI

It is important that you know that this blog isn't meant to be a news outlet.  If you're looking for news there are other places where you can get it faster.  And I won't be doing all that many reviews of movies either.  I don't see enough movies for that.

This blog is where you can read my commentary on movie news.

So-and-so is directing the next *blank* movie?  Oh good.  What does that mean to me?  That is where I can help you.

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic

A Preview

Just so you know a little bit about what it's like being me I've decided to tell you a very short story.

Yesterday I was watching "Godzilla."

Er . . .

Now that I think about it that really says it all, doesn't it?  But there's more!

I was watching "Godzilla" and in the credits I noticed a name:

Assistant to Mr. Broderick - Michael Arndt

Michael Arndt?  How many Michael Arndt's could there be in Hollywood?  Is that the same Michael Arndt who wrote Toy Story 3?  It was the same Michael.  It turns out he was Matthew Broderick's personal assistant for several years before starting to write full-time!  I find little things like this minorly fascinating.  That is likely a difference between you and me.

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic

By Popular Demand

Hello.  My name is David.  I am not a Big Shot Critic.  But I have taken on the name "Big Shot Critic" for this blog (and my twitter account) because it reveals the subject matter and is appropriately snooty as a name.  I wanted something with a slight air of obnoxious-ness.  Because that is how I am.  :)

Just about all of my friends and family know I have a penchant for knowing about what is going on in the film world, and some of them (that's you, Josh) have more or less insisted that I start a blog because they like the bits of movie news I post on other sites.  And, more importantly, because a blog just might be the right outlet for something like this.  With a blog I'm not limited to 140 characters (as with my other outlet).  And with a blog I can possibly reach my audience more effectively and even create a following.

Imagine that!  People who know what I'm talking about when I compare one of Joe Carnahan's once-potential future projects to "Groundhog Day!"

Beyond all that, I did, in fact, already kinda want to start this blog.  I've had this blogspot name reserved for more than two months now.  I have a passion for this stuff.  And putting it into words is good for the soul, or something, probably.

So as long as this blog is gonna happen I'm gonna set down some ground rules.  Like a mission statement almost, except it's not meant to make you care.

1. I am opinionated.  This is my blog.  I think you know what that means.

2. I will likely mostly post about stuff I care about.  But if you want to hear my opinion on something I don't post about just leave a comment somewhere.  I'll look into it.

3. Any comments I don't want on my blog I will delete.  Harsh, rude, or inappropriate language are some examples of stuff I don't want in comments on this blog.

I think that about covers it!  These days there is an endless stream of movie news and I do not have an endless supply of time to post about it all.  But I will do my best.

      The one.  The only.  Big Shot Critic