Wachowskis and Lucas and Jackman, Oh My! John Scalzi Answers Your SciFi Questions
This past week my brain has collapsed like the proverbial flan in the cupboard, so rather than think of a whole column topic, which is hard, I'm going to answer some e-mails I've gotten from readers, which is easy.
First, a letter from Karen:
"Last week you wrote that you thought the Wolverine film would do good but not great business. I think you're underestimating its potential, because you're forgetting about one large segment of the audience: The women who are going to the film to stare at Hugh Jackman."
Ah, yes, the Hugh Jackman Estrogen Brigade. And, well, who can blame them? When Jackman's all ripped and snarly and bearing the most impressive sideburns this side of the Civil War, even straight men start questioning themselves ("Hmmmm, maybe just this once..."). Don't ask me how I know that one, incidentally. Also, don't tell my wife. Please.
That said, I'm not entirely sure the HJEB is all powerful, because Jackman was pretty much all man-candy in Australia, and look where that one ended up, box office-wise. Maybe the sideburns are the key. In any event, while I don't discount the appeal of Jackman in an artfully torn T-shirt for some people, I'm not entirely convinced that those people will be the key to taking Wolverine's ticket sales into the stratosphere.
Second, a letter from Bill:
"New reader, catching up on your columns. They're great, except for all the Lucas hating. Seriously, what's up with that?"
Good question. I don't hate George Lucas -- in fact, I'm fond of saying that I think he's easily the most influential filmmaker of the last several decades, and possibly of all time. The modern cinematic experience is what it is because George Lucas has decided that's what it should be, and by and large I like the modern cinematic experience: I like seamless special effects, theaters with crystalline digital sound and all the other back-end bits that Lucas and his minions either invented or championed. So well done, George.
The problem is, in addition to being the most influential person on the back-end of the cinematic experience, Lucas also likes to write and direct. And, well... the best you can say about that is no one is good at everything. On the other hand, it was the writing and directing that allowed him to get to a point where he had influence on filmmaking (and to be fair, the dude has two Best Director and two Best Screenplay Oscar nods), so what do I know. Clearly, I'm conflicted. But in the end, he gave us Pixar, which gave us WALL-E. So it's all good.
The next letter isn't actually a letter, but a comment from my wife after she watched Speed Racer on cable last week:
"Hey, I actually liked that! I thought you said Speed Racer sucked! What's wrong with you?"
I'm not entirely sure I said that Speed Racer was horrible, though I don't think I said it was good, either. I did say that I wasn't entirely surprised it didn't do well, because A) Plotlines that work in badly-dubbed '60s Japanese animation don't necessarily translate to $150 million live action movies and B) Warner Bros. did a botch job in marketing what was essentially a kiddie flick to Matrix audiences.
I found Speed Racer a bit of a mess the first time I watched it, but it's been growing on me with subsequent viewings. This is partly because it makes a bit more sense the second time around, and partly because -- despite a very silly plot and a design scheme that resembles an exploding candy shop -- the Wachowski Brothers are doing some interesting things relating to cinematic grammar. Most notably I'm intrigued with the movie's time-shifting story elements, over-lapping images and other such wackiness that's only available now through the advent of easily manipulable digital filmmaking.
The downside is that the screen is so jam-packed with information all the time that you get visual overload, especially if you don't spend a lot of time, say, playing video games. That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if some of things the Wachowskis play with here get wider use in the future as audiences get used to this sort of information dump.
It's a bit weird to have all that going on with Speed Racer, but hey: Star Wars was kind of goofy, too, and look how influential that's been. And we're back to Lucas again.
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also Creative Consultant for the upcoming Stargate: Universe television series. His column appears every Thursday.
even straight men start questioning themselves
Ah yes, the Ace Rimmer Taramosalata Syndrome.
I think Wolverine will do well just because it's first out of the starting blocks.
I have an unwholesome fondness for the Speed Racer movie. I will grant that it is silly and enormously campy, but it imported that wholesale from the source material. But the visuals and the seamless blending of multiple timeframes really worked for me. I hope they somehow get to make more....
Speed Racer is a movie that audiences probably will never get the chance to warm up to, because it's not exactly calling to them from the shelves, but I think someday critics will re-evaluate. It's a movie that works if you basically relax and let it have its way with you; if you can accept its rules, it's a pretty new and interesting way to use the big screen, and to give you the feeling of watching a cartoon without it actually being one.
Mr. Scalzi. The Wolverine question is not just that women like to see Hugh Jackman (in the case of my girlfriend, it's Liev Schreiber as the draw, but let's table that for a second). As you say, just having Hugh Jackman isn't going to save a movie. But, if women wanted to see _Australia_ to see Hugh Jackman, their boyfriends and husbands didn't want to see it, because it looked overwrought and kind of boring.
However, boyfriends, husbands, single men, etc. are all going to want to see _Wolverine_. And having Hugh Jackman in the movie means that their significant others are going to be more willing to tag along as well. My girlfriend isn't interested in seeing Star Trek the following week, but we're going to Wolverine. And I think that'll make a difference.
Yeah, I only realized Speed Racer was a family film *after* I finished watching it. Somebody in marketing really dropped the ball there.
I still think it was far from perfect, but much more entertaining than the Matrix sequels.
Every time George Lucas has the urge to direct something, Steven Spielberg should just jump out the shadows, Taser him, and steal the idea while Lucas is unconscious.
Then, when Lucas wakes up, congratulate him for doing such a good job producing the show. When Lucas complains he can't remember anything, just mention Carrie Fisher came by and they went out to party. Then give him a few armloads of awards, change his diaper, and pack him off back to Skywalker Ranch.
Hmm, have to say very happy perving a Jackman as Wolverine but he doesn't do it for me in any of his other roles, so the HJEB might turn up for this one.
Also, I really enjoyed Speed Racer in a bizarre and pointless way.
Speaking as a standing member in the HJEB, Hugh Jackman in Australia isn't even in the same galaxy of hawt as Hugh Jackman in Wolverine. And there are a not insignificant number of us HJEBs that wouldn't touch a chick flick with someone else's 10' pole, HJ or no HJ.
The hell with characterization, tender moments and emotional growth. I want a HJ sized shitstorm of wet-haired snarly badassery coming my direction.
Wolverine is going to do great at the box office. Projections are looking between $85 - $100 million for opening weekend which is massive for a movie that is getting universally panned by critics: http://www.newsy.com/videos/wolverine_declawed/ and was pirated by thousands a month ago. Being the first blockbuster of the season helps too.
Stu got it right! In Australia, maybe a couple girls decided to go see it for the delicious Hugh Jackson-ness, but their boyfriends skipped it because the trailers made it seem all sappy and boring (why I skipped it as well... what can I say, I like boy movies!).
In Wolverine, you've got the guys seeing it because it's a familiar character, and the girls seeing it because of the yummy man flesh.
George Lucas was brilliant, and then he took 20 years off. And then he came back, when he should have passed it (and by "it" I mean not only the Star Warsprequels, but also the most recent Indian Jones) to someone else a la Star Trek and JJ Abrams.
Speed Racer was a fun, candy-shop, brilliantly filmed movie and I loved it. Never could understand why it didn't take off. (You're probably right about poor marketing being the cause.)
As for Wolverine, well, I'm getting my husband to see it because it's full of stuff blowing up. But I'm looking forward to seeing Hugh Jackman. Yummmmm.
My fiance is actually much more excited about Star Trek opening next week then she is about seeing Wolverine later today. She says she likes clean shaven men like Kirk. I had to play up the role of the other characters to even get her excited about Wolverine.
I went into Speed Racer expecting a train wreck, but ended up loving it. Though the kid and his monkey just irritated.
Well, my family LOVES the Speed Racer movie. It's fun, it's visually stunning (although it probably suffers a lot on smaller screens, especially non HD 4:3 tvs) and it does some very interesting stuff in developing its own visual language.
I love the elastic time nature of the movie, as well as the manga-esque close-ups and rotate shots of characters as they talk or witness a scene from out of shot. I think that it's a highly underrated movie that deserved better.