No More R-Rated Comic Movies?

Splash Page is reporting an interesting rumor: Warner Bros. may be backing away from R-Rated comic movies after the intake for Watchmen was less than they had hoped. The unnamed inside studio source sites the recent over-whelming success of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, both of which were PG-13, as strong factors in Warner Bros. supposed decision to back off darker films in favor of more "family friendly" fare.

This is a move that on the surface makes sense financially. PG-13 films have a wider audience, as parents are often willing to take their kids to see "harmless" superhero violence. But the use of The Dark Knight as a reason to back away from R-rated material is a questionable defense. The Dark Knight was a film that pushed the envelope for violence in a PG-13 film, and it is the opinion of some, including myself, that the film should have been rated R. The film was a top at the box office long enough for word of mouth of its violence to drive away customers, but people kept on coming for first and second showings, until the film finally topped $1 billion dollars in world-wide box office receipts. If Knight had actually received an R-rating, would the success have been the same? I think so.
The critical acclaim combined with the hype created a monstrous wave of consumers that just couldn't be stopped, and I don't think that an R-rating would have catastrophically affected those numbers.

So what, then, about Watchmen, a comic book film that did receive an R-rating, and despite months of hype, including the public struggle of Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox over the rights to the property, failed to gross more than $56 million (domestic) in its opening weekend. To compare, PG-13 Iron Man raked in over $98 million in its first weekend. But there are more factors at work here than simply the film's rating. First, reviews were all over the place, from calling it a plot where "you really don't care" about how it ends to praising it as a film of "psychological sophistication." Compared to overwhelming praise for The Dark Knight, this is not the word of mouth that is geared towards roping in an audience, especially, as Slash Film points out, with the economy as tight as it is right now.

Now add in the fact that the film opened in March, as opposed to May, the kick-off month to the summer blockbuster season, which is usually a track to guaranteed success. Releases dates can make or break a movie. Prince Caspian, which opened in May 2008, while still earning a considerable amount of revenue, didn't hit the numbers Disney was hoping. There's a good deal of analysis that suggests that the film should have been slated for a December release, as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was, instead of sitting in between the two heavy weights of Iron Man and Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In a similar way, maybe Watchmen should have waited for the summer season for its release, when more people are on vacation and looking for a movie to spend their money on.

Quite simply, though, Watchmen was not a true superhero movie. The focus was on the politics, not the crime-fighting, a fact that probably deterred a substantial chunk of potential audience members. That, combined with the above factors, worked against the film to give it the weak turn-out it received. Does this mean that studios should stay away from R-rated superhero movies? Not necessarily. It more likely means that Watchmen should have been more solidly written and filmed before it was ready to join the league of superheros who have come before it.

The Theme is Green: Superhero News

A nice chunk of superhero news has come out of the wood-works, and the Vault has it for you here in a nice neat post. First off, The Green Hornet, the project I fear will never die, has had a new director assigned to it by the name of Michel Gondry. Also a screenwriter, Gondry has only directed a handful of films that have been released in theatre, but he does have Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind under his belt, not only directing but winning an Oscar for writing the Original Screenplay as well. Eternal Sunshine is also one of the 400 movies nominated for the top 100 films of all time; that being said, Gondry also directed Be Kind, Rewind, a film starring Jack Black that was released last year. Given the lesser quality of that movie, it's easy to worry that Gondry may be a one-hit wonder who will fail to deliver. Readers will know that I have been fairly unsupportive of this project for a while now and the directing choice has done nothing to assuage any of my fears.

Keeping on the "green" bent of the post, a currently untitled Green Lantern film has had its release date set for December 17, 2010. Considering that the only solid info on the film is the writers, the basic plot (possible spoilers in link), and a rumored director (Martin Campbell of Casino Royal), this date may be optomistic. No names have yet been announced as to who will play the Green Lantern, a superhero with a power ring given to him by a dying alien.

And for some interesting musings on superhero films, turn to Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, who speculates on why DC superhero movies fail to connect with audiences. Whedon may have some insight, especially given the fact that he has penned two different scripts for a potential Wonder Woman movie, neither of which were given the green light to proceed to production. The basic difference, Whedon argues, between Marvel and DC is the difference between ordinary people and gods. Whedon has a point. DC superheros tend to be much more epic, much more invincible then Marvel characters. How do you make Superman, the alien who is virtually indestrucible, relatable to us average mortals? Even Batman has a bit of mystique about him, being a billionaire who can afford or create any gadget he'd like.

Marvel characters, on the other hand, tend to be average joes who are just trying to make ends meet while saving the world in their spare time. Spider-man and X-men run along this vein. Of course, neat categories never work out; Tony Stark in Iron Man also fits the billionaire prototype; and what could be more god-like then an actual god, embodied in Thor? And Marvel superhero films are not infalliable: see Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider if you have any doubts, or Jennifer Garner in Elektra. Still, Whedon may be on to something, as Marvel has been turning out one superhero movie after another these last few years, while DC has been much slower to the get-go.

Emily Blunt Most Likely Will Not Appear in Iron Man 2

Sad news for Iron Man fans. Slash Film is reporting that Emily Blunt will probably not appear as the Black Widow in the upcoming sequel. Contractual obligations to 20th Century Fox are rumored to have forced her to drop Iron Man in favor of Gulliver's Travels which is due to begin shooting at the same time as the comic book film. If this news is true, and it looks to be fairly solid, then Marvel will be losing a talented actress who would have done an excellent job in their movie, and fans may be forced to live with Scarlett Johansson instead. Casting news is always iffy until the contract is sign, but I had my hopes on this one and am sad to see Blunt have to part ways with the metallic crusader.

Super Franchise: Why it's NOT a Good Idea

In what may be a less than surprising announcement, Warner Bros. declared today their desire to spawn several more Batman movies in the near future, as well as expand other franchises like Superman and Sherlock Holmes. Its not hard for the execs at Warner Bros. to do the math: The Dark Knight was the second-highest grossing movie of all time, second only to Titanic. If they can replicate even half that success, the studio would be rolling in dough, which is why they are most definitely keeping the possibility of a sequel open. But while the concept may be good for the bottom line, is it good for the franchise? The answer to me seems to be no.

First off, these movies that are such great success, like Dark Knight, are often because all the right players both behind and in front of the camera came together and almost magically clicked into place. Its rare to continue duplicating that success, as anyone can tell you who's watched a series play out its life. Look at the life of the Spider-Man films. The first one was pretty good, the second one was amazing...and then came number three. I had such high hopes for that film, that came crashing down around my ears. Overdone special effects, bad writing, and too many villains made for a colossal train wreck. Perhaps it was not as bad as it appeared to me, but because expectations for myself and the rest of the public were so high, we were greatly disappointed when the film failed to be merely adequate. And that was a sequel that had all the principle players still in line. The longer these film franchises go on, the more people will start drifting away. Actors often don't want to be type-cast, and sticking with one string of films is a surefire way to get locked into a stereotype. Will Christian Bale want to keep playing Batman? Will Michael Caine stick with Alfred, or will he perhaps retire from acting? As people leave, they'll need to be replaced, and the odds are that the chemistry will be lost. All it will take is for one failure of a sequel to drag the name of the original films into the mud.

Of course, series of films have been done in the past with some success. But when I say "the past," I am referring to the 1940s and '50s, when the studio system ruled and B-films were in fashion. Then it was easy to keep a tight control on talent and ensuring they went to the projects you wanted. It was also the heyday of the B-film, the acceptably low-budget picture that could be made quickly and easily. It was during this time period you got Hopalong Cassidy, Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, and other series films that starred the same actor getting into a new scrape every few months. Nowadays, the B-film is dead, and everything has to be big budget or not at all. It also follows that a film has to make good money in order to cover the expenditures.

Will these franchises succeed in getting the go ahead? Spider-man has already gotten the green light for pictures 4, 5, and 6. Despite luke-warm reviews, the film made out big at the box office, and the same movie-goers will most likely turn out in droves for the fourth film because it has name recognition; it may be hypocritcal of me, but I most likely will see it as well, in the hopes that the third film was a fluke. But Hollywood doesn't seem capable of keeping a storyline fresh and creative for more than a few films. A franchise is either enormously successfull in its initial run and bombs in its second, or it starts strong in the first film, peaks in the second, and crashes in the third. As Christopher Nolan once asked a reporter, how many good third movies can you name? Very very few. In fact, there are barely any film franchises that have lived beyond three films beyond the horror genre, though that trend is starting to reverse; besides Spider-man, Pirates is making a run at a fourth movie as well.

I would love for Hollywood to be able to successfully create these movie franchises. It would give me great moving-going pleasure. But I am cynical enough to doubt that Hollywood is capable of turning out anything other than less-than-adequate sequels which will quickly become a joke. What do you think readers? Do I need to find faith again in Tinsel Town or am I justified in my skepticism?

Wolverine and the X-Men: Review

Being currently situated in the United Kingdom for a study abroad program, I have been able to view the first three episodes of the latest X-Men series before it airs in the United States via the BBC. Wolverine and the X-Men (undoubtedly named as such to gain publicity for the Wolverine movie due out this summer) will premiere on the Nicktoons Channel this Friday, January 23rd, at 8 PM. My initial reaction to the show is positive, though it is a bit rough around the edges. The animation is not as polished as that of its predecessor X-Men: Evolution. Still, considering the growing abysmal standards for animation, its probably the best that can be hoped for at the moment.

Plot-wise, there is no gentle edging into the world of mutants. The show hits the ground running, fully expecting its audience to have a basic grounding in the characters and their relationships. Since it seems to start in the middle of things, I'm hoping some of the back story of events that take place before the opening of the show will be explored in flashbacks later down the road. The tone wavers between bordering on cheesy and edgy, accomplished by mixing "We're going to save the world" camp lines with a setting where mutants are hunted by the government and locked up, where politicians manipulate prejudice to turn the public into an angry mob, and military police arrest any civilians suspected of helping mutants avoid detection. Add in a few main characters who have mysteriously disappeared within minutes of the opening, and you've got the groundwork for a good show.

If Wolverine and the X-Men can get through its initial growing pains, we may have in our possession something worthwhile to watch while we wait for the new X-Men movie (which is exactly what Marvel execs are hoping for, I'm sure). Be sure to check out the debut this Friday and leave your feedback here!

X-Men Reshoot: Good or Bad news?

In an announcement that caused great concern for X-Men fans, 20th Century Fox revealed on Friday that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is returning to the sets for "extensive reshooting." The film, due out in May, follows the beginnings of the mutant Wolverine in a prequel to the three already released X-Men movies. The report of the reshoot has sparked rumors that director Gavin Hood is having on-set battles with Richard Donner, of Superman: The Movie fame, who is supposedly trying to ghost-direct the film. Adding to speculation was an email actor Hugh Jackman sent to Aint It Cool News, claiming that these reshoots were always in the schedule due to scheduling conflicts and weather problems. To mollify fans in the meantime, Jackman attached a new publicity teaser photo that contained a good chunk of the cast.

Although Aint It Cool News suspects that Jackman's story is merely a cover-up for on-set conflict, he believes that the reshoot can only bode well for the film, calling it "very good news" and continuing that the success of The Dark Knight over at Warner Bros. has sparked Fox to put some serious effort into the film. Slash Film is also "hopeful" about the news, believing that director Hood will now be able to put together the film as he originally intended it. Back over at First Showing, however, Alex Billington is more doubtful, wondering if Fox was being too controlling of director Hood's project and is now backing off to try and save the film. If the film is a failure, he lays all blame at the studio's doorstep. Where does the Vault stand? If the rumors are to be believed over the official news, and this is really a desperate last-minute attempt to fix the film, then I am deeply worried. That Wolverine was seen as beeing in desperate enough trouble to warrant reshooting, especially given the economic climate, cannot be a good sign. True, the new sequences could turn the film around, but I hold my judgement for the final cut. Suffice it to say for now that my expectations for the movie have dropped a couple of notches.

Vampire Mania Continues

The niche of vampire-fantasy material doesn't look to be running out of steam anytime soon. It's a genre that exploded with popularity with the advent of the Twilight series, the first movie raking it in at the box office despite luke-warm reviews, and the sequel quickly confirmed within a few days of the initial film's release. Its little surprise that studios are latching onto this latest craze and looking to turn out more vampire-related pictures. Last November, it was announced by Variety that producers Michael Birnbaum and Jeremiah Chechik had optioned the House of Night book series, which revolves around a special school for vampires. No word has come on the development of that property in a film, but it most likely isn't coincidence that the decision was arrived at the same month Twilight hit the big screens.

But what is more likely coincidence is the convergence of another pair of vampire-related stories that were announced yesterday. The first is the rumor of villain Morbius appearing in Spider-Man 4. Morbius, for those who have not been initiated into geek-hood, is a scientist who, through an experiment gone awry, takes on vampire-like attributes. Granted, director Sam Raimi makes a fairly solid case for why he wants to incorporate the character into the next film, but is there a chance he was influenced by the recent demand? The second announcement is not directly related to film, but still interesting. Director Guillermo del Toro has apparently written a trilogy of vampire novels that will be released last year. How this man manages to write an "epic" scale trio of novels and turn out films like Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, as well as being booked with directing gigs for the forseeable future, starting with The Hobbit is beyond me, but I will watch with interest to see how well these novels are received.