TRANSFORMERS 3 cannot be avoided: public set images and video
Jul 13
Michael Bay has been busy shooting Transformers 3 on the streets of Chicago and the internet has become riddled with images and videos from among the public crowds gathering to watch the action take place. Optimus Prime has been seen rolling down the road and Megan Fox love interest replacement Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has been spotted strutting her stuff.
Slashfilm have put together a very impressive wrap-up of all the online media from the Chicago shoot, featuring high resolution images and exclusive video. I have posted just a glimpse (believe me) of the goods below.
I must say, considering how dreadful Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was, I’m continually amazed by how much I am honestly looking forward to Transformers 3, even though I know it will likely be another pile of rubbish– something about my childhood affection for the original cartoon keeps me intrigued. Plus, with all of this online action following the shoot, how can I avoid the damn thing?
Transformers 3 is still about a year away, currently scheduled for release on US screens 1 July, 2011.
Top 5 Movies Mistaken for Sci-Fi That Aren’t
Jun 29
In literature, science fiction and fantasy are clearly defined. They are polar opposite in terms of their content: science fiction deals with things that could potentially happen, while fantasy deals with things that definitely couldn’t ever happen.
The two genres have had a tough time making the leap to the film world, a problem exacerbated by the confusion between the two genres. In most people’s minds, science fiction and fantasy are the same genre, an idea that is both confusing and alarming to fans of either genre in literature.
So this list is designed to give people a quick run-down of what science fiction is, and how to recognise it in its new habitat: the screen.
5 – Ghostbusters (1984)
Wikipedia lists the second Ghostbusters film as ‘science fiction,’ and many other websites categorise it as such as well; most people probably wouldn’t have thought of it as science fiction anyway, but it’s a good place to start, so bear with me:
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: It’s about ghosts. That’s about as nebulous and un-scientific as you can get.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Because the characters in the film treat ghosts as scientific phenomena, and pack high-tech gear to deal with the pesky paranormal poltergeists. The tech is treated as a means to an end, though; the focus of the film is obviously on humour, and the only explanations for the ghosts’ existence is mystical in nature. Ghostbusters is still a fine film, but sci-fi it ain’t.
4 – King Kong (1933)
In the 1930s, science fiction was a fledgling genre, barely a blip on the world’s consciousness. Space travel was as alien a concept to folk back then as the internet, and this, of course, was before the splitting of the atom inspired public interest in science, and before scientists like Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins came along to popularise the field.
Nevertheless, a quick google search for “sci fi king kong” turns up dozens of sci-fi sites dealing with the film. Why?
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: It’s about a giant gorilla who lives on an island populated by extinct and fantastical creatures. Nothing about that synopsis mentions technology or hitherto unknown scientific phenomena.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Like I said above, people seem to conflate science fiction with fantasy. There’s some real-world basis to the idea of an isolated ecosystem undergoing rapid and unchecked evolution into strange and unforeseen paths, but the focus of the film isn’t on evolution, but rather, the bond between a woman and a giant monkey thing. Also screaming. So much screaming.
3 – Serenity (2005)
Joss Whedon’s acclaimed but unwatched TV show Firefly mixed elements of adventure, the Western and space opera to create a cocktail alien to TV audiences at the time; Serenity was the follow-up movie that, despite a loyal fan-base, failed to drum up spectacular profits. Serenity takes place in space, so it must be sci-fi, right? Wrong.
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: If you transplanted the action into some alternate-history Earth, with naval vessels replacing spacefaring ones, you’d have a fairly conventional adventure movie; future technology doesn’t impact on the story in any meaningful way (and let’s face it, River’s powers are pretty much mystical bullshit anyway).
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Probably the space setting. As I will go on to explain later, setting your story in space does not make it science fiction. Serenity counts as an adventure, with elements of Western style; I’d probably call it a ‘space opera’ if it operated on a slightly larger scale than it does.
2 – Transformers (2007 – 2011)
Michael Bay has made a career out of making movies that people think are sci-fi. Armageddon, The Island, and now this, the crowning jewel in the crown of awfulness, Transformers. Before Bay got his hands on these projects, they probably were genuine sci-fi flicks, but Bay has this peculiar way of taking anything – anything at all – and turning it into a chase / action movie where the young white guy gets the young white girl at the end of the day.
When I tell people I like sci-fi, I usually get a triumphant “Ah-ha! But you hated Transformers!” in response. This makes me wonder why I talk to people at all, but let me clear this up once and for all:
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi: Because the Autobots and Decepticons aren’t explained beyond their capacity for violence. How do robots reproduce? Who invented them? Why the hell do they need to change into vehicles? Why do they resemble human beings when they transform out of vehicle mode? A true science fiction project would answer (or at the very least, address) these obvious questions. Plus the Allspark is patently mystical in nature — a big no-no in true sci-fi.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Because it’s about robot aliens, and technology far in advance of our own. However, it doesn’t say a single thing about the state of humanity and the way technology affects us; it focuses much more on cartoonish violence, and as such should probably fall under the “action” category.
1 – Star Wars (1977 – 2005)
George Lucas’ hallowed Star Wars trilogy contains all the hallmarks of science fiction: space travel, aliens, and advanced technology. But any genre fan worth her salt knows that it isn’t science fiction; no matter what angle you tackle it from, Star Wars just isn’t science fiction.
It’s the big one, too, the one that causes the most arguments among aficionados (read: geeks) and inspires the most confusion in the innocent mainstream. Let’s clear it up together, shall we?
Why It Isn’t Sci-Fi:
- The aliens in the Star Wars universe are just there, like the different species (elf, dwarf, orc) in Tolkien-esque fantasy. Real sci-fi would’ve dealt with First Contact, represented racism between the various species in the Star Wars universe, had Luke Skywalker fall in love with a Wookiee or something, etc.
- The space travel in Star Wars is never explained, beyond the magic of hyperspace. A handy guide to differentiating sci-fi from fantasy is the AM/FM rule: AM stands for Actual Machine; FM stands for Fucking Magic. Star Wars falls firmly into the latter category.
- The Force. Nothing in this universe suggests some kind of intergalactic consciousness at a subatomic level; the Force is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Star Wars mythos, and immediately flags Star Wars as being physically impossible. Magic is a prominent feature of fantasy literature, however.
Why Everyone Thinks It Is: Because it takes place in outer space.
I don’t know quite what it is that makes people assume “outer space” = “science fiction.” It’s probably got something to do with the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey takes place (mostly) in space. But if you look at E.T., Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Contact, The Abyss, Back To The Future, and a hefty chunk of sci-fi literature, most sci-fi takes place right here, on planet Earth. That helps to anchor sci-fi in some recognisable semblance of reality. But right from the start (A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away), Star Wars clearly sets itself up as a fantasy film. Is that so hard to comprehend?
The take-home message of this particularly geeky list is a two-parter: part 1 is that, as I’ve lamented previously, genre labels are genuinely useless and not to be trusted; part 2 is that science fiction is a serious and mature, but not entirely humourless genre, and deserves a lot more recognition than being confused with tripe like Transformers and shallow pulp like Star Wars.
That’s not to say any of the movies on this list aren’t good movies (except, of course, for Transformers) — they just aren’t science fiction movies. And for some reason, I found it very important to explain that to you.
Reel Thinker Podcast #01, June 25 2010
Jun 26
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
You’re moments away from listening to our first ever podcast. Go ahead, click the players above or below to start streaming from the web or Download the mp3 file (19 mb). Jason Stringer, Danny Clark and Nyrie Anne share their thoughts on today’s movie topics.
Podcast #01 Topics:
- Intro
- Toy Story 3
- Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
- Sequels in franchises
- Transformers 3
- The cinema experience of Transformers 1
- Sam Raimi directing Oz: The Great and Powerful
- The Green Hornet target audience
- Tomorrow, When The War Began trailer
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
+
This isn’t where I parked my Megan Fox: TRANSFORMERS 3 set pics hit the web
Jun 23
Just in case you, like me, were hoping the whole Transformers phenomenon was just a bad dream, reality has struck yet again, this time in the form of set photos from the third film in the fan-lauded but critic-loathed robo-fighty trilogy. The set photos show a man with a gun nearly as big as his ego, a very confused-looking Shia LaBeouf, and a very un-Megan-Fox-looking Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.
I don’t know or care when Transformers 3 comes out. Some time next year, probably.
What is this “genre” thing people keep talking about?
Jun 08
Action. Adventure. Comedy. What do these words mean? Crime. Drama. Epic/historical. Horror. Who decided that what criteria would demarcate these styles? Musical. Thriller. Science fiction. War. Western. Since when did a film’s target audience and target genre feed back into the production of the film itself?
When you browse your local video store, you’ll find the DVDs organised into strictly segregated shelves according to their genre. Die Hard is on the Action shelf, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind is on the Sci-Fi shelf, There’s Something About Mary is on the Comedy shelf. That’s all well and good. But where does Jaws go?
Jaws is a monster mystery movie, a movie that scares you by showing mauled bodies and giant, nightmarish beasts; it’s also a movie about humans and their relationships and interactions, and there are even a few sparse jokes thrown in for good measure. It echoes Moby-Dick in its men-on-a-boat style, and brings to mind the old Western archetypes: the sheriff, the doctor and the outlaw band together to rid the community of a potentially ruinous problem.
So Jaws is a monster-mystery-thriller-action-comedy-Western-adventure-drama. But what shelf is it on? I’m pretty sure it’s on the Thriller shelf at my local; god only knows why.
The point I’m making is that movies are rarely about just one thing, and the ones that are are usually relatively shallow or generic. So why do we insist on classifying the movies we watch according to some preconceived ideals of setting, tone, content, themes and characters?
A lot of the currently prominent film genres got their start in literature. Comedy has its roots in Ancient Greek plays, later deconstructed and recombined by William Shakespeare into a more Anglo-centric “comedy of manners” style; horror reaches back to folk tales of yore, myths of hideous beasts, whispered tales of possession, and religious superstition, greatly aided by 19th Century novels like Dracula and Frankenstein.
Science fiction has its roots in late 19th / early 20th Century works by the likes of HG Wells and Jules Verne, and takes further inspiration from the scientific explosion of the 20th Century; drama films, and particularly melodrama films, hark back to the Ancient Greek tragedies, designed to elicit sadness and tears from an audience; Sherlock Holmes novels and rampant criminality throughout the United States’ first few centuries inspired the crime, noir and Western genres; while musicals are holdovers from a bygone era of stage and theatre.
Action stands alone as being one of the few purely cinematic genres. The advent of editing, in combination with stunts, music, and the sheer energy of film, gave rise to the set-piece, and to a whole genre of films driven almost solely by action set-pieces.
Truly great films often transcend their genre; Jaws is just one example. Star Wars is a regurgitated mess of Western archetypes, Greek tragedy, high fantasy, and serialised space opera, yet it always winds up on the Science-Fiction shelf, much to the chagrin of SF fans.
Gone With The Wind deals with war, romance, drama, tragedy, and takes a historical setting, but it always winds up on the Classics shelf (a useless genre if ever there was one). The Godfather is a historical epic dealing with crime, death, revenge, family relationships, love, and the nature of violence, but it usually winds up under the catch-all Crime. The Shawshank Redemption is a slow-boiling character study, and a tale of loss, friendship, and redemption, while also taking a very close look at the reality of the American prison system, dealing with institutionalisation, corruption and (briefly) false justice. So why is it on the Drama shelf?
Because the vast majority of films produced in Hollywood are pushed through cookie-cutters into pre-determined shapes. It’s easier to market a film to someone if you can compare it to a film they already saw, and enjoyed, rather than saying “It’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen before in your entire life!”
A recent example is Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time, whose marketing dropped Jerry Bruckheimer’s name while reminding viewers of his relationship with Pirates Of The Caribbean. Notice they avoided mentioning that Bruckheimer also produced adventure films (National Treasure), action films (Transformers, Con Air), crime flicks (Bad Boys) and bad films (all of the above); they specifically mentioned Pirates so that you’d subconsciously link Prince Of Persia to swashbuckling, fun characters, over-the-top production design and a supernatural element linked to the whimsical and romantic story.
Prince Of Persia was conceived to cash in on the success of Pirates by following the same blueprint. Prince failed spectacularly, for various reasons; most importantly, it should have been a creative gamble, instead of a safe business plan.
This example is played out ad nauseum across Hollywood. Die Hard gave way to a never-ending raft of tough macho blokes shooting and punching their way through hordes of foreigners. Star Wars and Close Encounters saw a resurgence of science fiction in the 80s, some of which were good, most of which were inept. There’s Something About Mary kick-started the teen-comedy gross-out, where perennially hilarious bodily functions are combined with comedies of error and manners to create the prevalent comedic genre of the noughties.
So what’s the remedy to this constant pre-production pigeon-holing? After all, the studios wield all the power. If 20th Century Fox wants three superhero comic-book films a year, that’s exactly what it’ll get. If Universal wants two romantic comedies and an espionage flick by winter 2011, then you can expect a couple of chick-flicks and a new Bourne reboot to hit screens pretty soon. What’s missing from this equation?
Creative honesty. If you really want to tell a story about something, or someone, you don’t care about genres. You might be mindful of other artists who have tread similar ground before you, and you might accept or reject some of their ideas and techniques. You might be vaguely mindful of the type of demographic who will eventually buy your product, and look at the kind of stuff they’re buying to gauge what they’ll be interested in.
But ultimately, filmmakers need to make films for themselves, and studios need to stop regurgitating the same guff purely for the sake of profit, and have faith in talented filmmakers to do the right thing and bring them money with creativity, originality and honesty. That’s why non-genre-defined flicks are often better than even the best cookie-cutter genre films.
One of the few Hollywood filmmakers who can do whatever he wants and get away with it.
The article is done now, but here are some more examples for you anyway, just in case you don’t believe me:
American Beauty – postmodern comedy, satire, with narrative voice-over and dream sequences; dealing with everyday characters in everyday settings. On the Drama shelf.
Schindler’s List – a war film, a character study, a melodrama, and a historical epic. On the Drama shelf (because of all the Oscar nominations?).
Fight Club – a postmodern comedy, satire, and mystery, with a heavy narrative style, serving as a damning exploration of consumerism and the American Way. On the Thriller shelf (because of the twist ending?).
Starship Troopers – a heady examination of the political and moral nature of war, a rollicking sci-fi yarn heavy with symbolism, violence and vicious satire. On the Action shelf (because the violence is cartoony?).
Watchmen – a strongly sci-fi slanted tale of vigilantism and the nature of humanity, with scenes of graphic and disturbing violence, some romance, and overtones of rape and prejudice. On the Action shelf (because that’s where all the comic-book movies go, right?).
Pirates Of The Caribbean – a supernatural adventure film. On the Action shelf (because there are explosions and people dying in it, right?).
Jurassic Park – a thrilling exploration of the moral and physical implications of cloning extinct animals; an adventure with elements of horror. On the Action shelf (because there are guns in it, right?).
Unforgiven – a complex and dark character study set in 19th Century America, with strong performances and heavy elements of drama. On the Western shelf.
Any other examples you can think of? Or am I completely off track; is the concept of “genre” vital to the conception and production of big-budget films?
OPINIONS COUNT