![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaEntertainment is factory-made these days, and the best we can hope for out of it is the occasional glimmer of meaning. This week ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cowgrrl and I went to see "X-Men: First Class" and agreed it may well be the best superhero movie yet made. That praise may be fainter than it sounds, considering that the genre exists primarily as an excuse to give us elaborate CGI action scenes featuring muscular men and svelte women wearing skintight costumes. This movie, at least, makes a coherent statement about oppression and the mistreatment of minorities (and even at that level, its treatment of this issue is problematic).
The movie, though, is a retelling of a story that's already been told, and as such the story could not have deviated on any of the major details. And so we're left with nonsense such as Angel Salvatore deciding on a lark to join with the scary bad guys who just broke into a CIA compound and killed every last non-mutant in the building. Why? Well, because she was a bad guy in the comic books, of course.
This isn't storytelling; it's ritual re-enactment of an established myth. By the end of the movie, things have to be in their proper place, the world must have its established and familiar shape.
There's more I could say about the movie, but it would take me off the topic I originally set out to write about. Consider, also, that 2013 will be the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who. There, too, we have a franchise straining under the weight of its continuity - an especially tricky continuity in this case centered on one single character, and which spreads out across time and space and even into multiple universes. (Multiple universes/timelines is a trick that has been used in numerous long-term continuities to enable writers to keep telling stories - DC and Marvel comics, Doctor Who, Star Trek, you name it.) Lately attention has turned to "reboots" as a way of keeping alive just a while longer the viability of an established intellectual property.
We can cast this net even wider and include video games, which no one even really pretends is an artistic medium, but which is also stuck in an established-franchise rut. As David Wong writes,
So, just how much blood can you squeeze from a stone? The "why" is obvious. Creating a new genre franchise is extremely difficult and risky (when development of a movie or video game costs hundreds of millions of dollars, how much of a risk would *you* take on an unproven concept?), whereas the established stories are a safe bet -- the established fans will turn out, will keep watching, will keep buying, even if they complain bitterly about the most recent content. But as a continuity continues, the more iconic it becomes, and from there, and the less likely it becomes that you'll be able to wring a meaningful, original message out of it.
cowgrrl and I went to see "X-Men: First Class" and agreed it may well be the best superhero movie yet made. That praise may be fainter than it sounds, considering that the genre exists primarily as an excuse to give us elaborate CGI action scenes featuring muscular men and svelte women wearing skintight costumes. This movie, at least, makes a coherent statement about oppression and the mistreatment of minorities (and even at that level, its treatment of this issue is problematic).The movie, though, is a retelling of a story that's already been told, and as such the story could not have deviated on any of the major details. And so we're left with nonsense such as Angel Salvatore deciding on a lark to join with the scary bad guys who just broke into a CIA compound and killed every last non-mutant in the building. Why? Well, because she was a bad guy in the comic books, of course.
This isn't storytelling; it's ritual re-enactment of an established myth. By the end of the movie, things have to be in their proper place, the world must have its established and familiar shape.
There's more I could say about the movie, but it would take me off the topic I originally set out to write about. Consider, also, that 2013 will be the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who. There, too, we have a franchise straining under the weight of its continuity - an especially tricky continuity in this case centered on one single character, and which spreads out across time and space and even into multiple universes. (Multiple universes/timelines is a trick that has been used in numerous long-term continuities to enable writers to keep telling stories - DC and Marvel comics, Doctor Who, Star Trek, you name it.) Lately attention has turned to "reboots" as a way of keeping alive just a while longer the viability of an established intellectual property.
We can cast this net even wider and include video games, which no one even really pretends is an artistic medium, but which is also stuck in an established-franchise rut. As David Wong writes,
Everybody complains about sequels and reboots in Hollywood, but holy shit, it's nothing compared to what we have in gaming right now. For instance, each of the Big Three game console makers took the stage at E3 to show off their biggest games of the upcoming year. Microsoft led off with the aforementioned Modern Warfare 3, which is really Call of Duty 8 (game makers like to switch up the sequel titles so the digits don't get ridiculous). Next was Tomb Raider 10 (rebooted as Tomb Raider). Then we had Mass Effect 3, and Ghost Recon 11 (titled Ghost Recon: Future Soldier). This was followed by Gears of War 3, Forza 4 and Fable 4 (called Fable: The Journey).
So, just how much blood can you squeeze from a stone? The "why" is obvious. Creating a new genre franchise is extremely difficult and risky (when development of a movie or video game costs hundreds of millions of dollars, how much of a risk would *you* take on an unproven concept?), whereas the established stories are a safe bet -- the established fans will turn out, will keep watching, will keep buying, even if they complain bitterly about the most recent content. But as a continuity continues, the more iconic it becomes, and from there, and the less likely it becomes that you'll be able to wring a meaningful, original message out of it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 10:02 pm (UTC)In that case, how do you define storytelling?
I mean, the medium of presentation is newish, but something that is told and (more often than not) retold is the traditional definition of a story.
I would argue that franchises are the modern descendent of the oral-tradition mode of storytelling.
I guess I'm basically saying that I think it is important to keep in mind that story telling and story creating are distinct arts.
But as a continuity continues, the more iconic it becomes, and from there, and the less likely it becomes that you'll be able to wring a meaningful, original message out of it.
It can be dangerous to conflate "meaningful" and "original." Even stories that uphold the worst of the status quo have meaning. If we see the status quo as a force of nature instead of as just one meaning among many, how can we really question it?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-23 03:18 pm (UTC)This is an excellent point. I guess my caveat is that I think stories are essentially about people, but that the modern way of re-telling a story gets distracted by plot and convention. Plot is easy, even really complex plot; characters and dialogue are hard, and it's easier to get plot and special effects right.
This movie, for example, did an excellent job depicting the character of Magneto, but did a horrible job with some of the supporting characters like Angel. She was handled in a very rote way and it felt like her primary motivation was... doing things the way they happened in the comic books.
But I definitely concede the point about "meaningful" not being equal to "original."
no subject
Date: 2011-06-23 06:22 pm (UTC)So, she was basically presented in the manner of a stock character, but to understand her role one has to have knowledge of all things X-men? I can see how that would be problematic.
From what you describe it sounds like the movie is sorta mis-marketed. Like it is a story about Magneto and the rest of the mutants are a back drop and device to telling his story, instead of the story being about the X-Men?
(I haven't seen it and I know very little about the whole X-Men world in the first place, so doing a lot of guessing).
I think feature length motion picture is a really poor vehicle for character development of an ensemble cast if things like plot are action are also central to the story (as opposed to simply being a device to further characterization). There just isn't enough time.
I think it is fair to ask if a "reboot" can really be done in a stand alone installment, or if that requires a longer serialized format.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-23 07:21 pm (UTC)I understand that the movie was originally intended to be an installment in the "X-Men Origin" series focused on Magneto and his background.
I think feature length motion picture is a really poor vehicle for character development of an ensemble cast if things like plot are action are also central to the story (as opposed to simply being a device to further characterization). There just isn't enough time.
I agree.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 06:52 pm (UTC)