Transformers and Tentpoles - John Scalzi Dives Once More Into the Mailbag
Hey, you know what? Today looks like a fine day to go through the mailbag and answer some reader questions. It's also a fine day for pie. But let's do this one thing at a time, right?
First question:
It's entirely possible that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will bring in over $400 million at the box office. In the interest of keeping me from killing myself over this fact, please assure me that we're in no danger of it becoming the most successful science fiction film of all time.
Well, if we're talking about domestic box office, in order for the new Transformers flick to become the number one science fiction movie of all time it would have to gross $461 million, which would squeak it past Star Wars (this is assuming that you don't count The Dark Knight as science fiction). I don't think the Transformers are going to manage that, frankly. But even if they did, you could take solace in the fact that when adjusted for inflation, a whole bunch of other science fiction movies have done better than $461 million, including Independence Day, Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, four Star Wars movies and E.T.
Next question:
Why do idiotic films like Transformers and Wolverine get put into thousands of theaters while really excellent science fiction movies like Moon don't show up anywhere?
The short answer is that Transformers and Wolverine are "tentpole" pictures -- i.e., the sort of movies that studios spend millions on in the hope of making millions from -- so naturally they're going to be screened far and wide as well as promoted in a screaming haze of advertising, while Moon -- starring Sam Rockwell as a schmoe on a 3-year moonbase stint -- is sort of the exact opposite: A small movie, made for roughly the cost of Transformer shoot's craft service budget and without the help of a major studio. Moon was never destined to get onto 4,000 screens on opening day.
Now, this avoids the implicit question, which is why studios choose to spend millions and millions on movies based on toys and comic books and not on movies that grownups might not be embarrassed to be seen coming out of in the first place. The answer to that is actually the solution, which is that if you want studios to make those sorts of movies, go out of your way to see them in the theater, rather than just waiting until they wash up on Starz or HBO. It's not that humans are getting stupider, it's that people interested in entertainment that doesn't EXPLODE aren't going into theaters. So, you know. Go.
Next question:
Does Up qualify as science fiction? You have to admit, using balloons to fly a house is a good use of science. And then there's the translating dog collars. Those are pretty science fictional.
I'm going to give you the dog collars, but let's note that the collars don't explain how the dogs also fly airplanes or cook multi-course meals or play poker, so it's a thin science fictional candy shell over a thick creamy center of fantasy. Also, while I applaud Pixar's use of the scientific principles of buoyancy as regards the balloons, I'm going to get nitpicky and say that the mere use of a scientific principle does not science fiction make. I mean, Dorothy's house in the Wizard of Oz was lifted up by that twister in perfect confirmation of physical principles. It doesn't mean her landing in Munchkinland was achieved through the offices of science fiction. I love Up, but I'm pretty comfortable calling it fantasy.
Final question:
Why aren't more movies being made from today's science fiction novels?
I've discussed at length before why you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for your favorite science fiction novel to come to the screen. That said, I'll note from my own experience and from the experience of several author friends of mine that there is at least some interest in today's science fiction authors by filmmakers: A number of them have recently announced their novels have been optioned, including Cory Doctorow's current Hugo nominee, Little Brother (which is on my list of books that should be made into movies). An option doesn't mean a movie is going to get made, but it's an encouraging first sign. So if you're a fan of modern written science fiction, there are some (small) reasons to be hopeful.
There. NOW it's time for pie.
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.
Wow. Why are you guys so down on Transformers? I mean I know its not exactly deep in terms of plot, but I don't think it deserves the animosity it seems to be getting.
Does it really deserve our collectively turned backs just because the original concept was designed to sell toys?
I'm just a Fanboy at heart so maybe my perspective is different, but I find it to be good fun (and yes cool explosions) that recall a beloved time from my youth. Get over it people.
Wow. Why are you guys so down on Transformers? I mean I know its not exactly deep in terms of plot, but I don't think it deserves the animosity it seems to be getting.
Does it really deserve our collectively turned backs just because the original concept was designed to sell toys?
I'm just a Fanboy at heart so maybe my perspective is different, but I find it to be good fun (and yes cool explosions) that recall a beloved time from my youth. Get over it people.
Wow. Why are you guys so down on Transformers? I mean I know its not exactly deep in terms of plot, but I don't think it deserves the animosity it seems to be getting.
Does it really deserve our collectively turned backs just because the original concept was designed to sell toys?
I'm just a Fanboy at heart so maybe my perspective is different, but I find it to be good fun (and yes cool explosions) that recall a beloved time from my youth. Get over it people.
Wow. Why are you guys so down on Transformers? I mean I know its not exactly deep in terms of plot, but I don't think it deserves the animosity it seems to be getting.
Does it really deserve our collectively turned backs just because the original concept was designed to sell toys?
I'm just a Fanboy at heart so maybe my perspective is different, but I find it to be good fun (and yes cool explosions) that recall a beloved time from my youth. Get over it people.
Wow. Why are you guys so down on Transformers? I mean I know its not exactly deep in terms of plot, but I don't think it deserves the animosity it seems to be getting.
Does it really deserve our collectively turned backs just because the original concept was designed to sell toys?
I'm just a Fanboy at heart so maybe my perspective is different, but I find it to be good fun (and yes cool explosions) that recall a beloved time from my youth. Get over it people.
Wow. Why are you guys so down on Transformers? I mean I know its not exactly deep in terms of plot, but I don't think it deserves the animosity it seems to be getting.
Does it really deserve our collectively turned backs just because the original concept was designed to sell toys?
I'm just a Fanboy at heart so maybe my perspective is different, but I find it to be good fun (and yes cool explosions) that recall a beloved time from my youth. Get over it people.
John,
Speaking of books becoming movies (or not), are any of your books under option? I don't think it's completely obsequious to say that your stuff seems terrificly suited to movies or a new series on Sci-fi. And now that you're rubbing elbows with studio people...maybe?
I don't know if UP should be qualified as SF or Fantasy, but I do know I got a definite Ray Bradbury vibe watching the whole thing. It just seemed like it could have been a Ray Bradbury story to me for some reason.
Yeah, but what exactly does Ray Bradbury write? It's not really S.F, and not truly fantasy. He's his own category.
You want to know how bad it is, with regards to an option vs. something you can see on the screen, check out Enders Game, or The Tomb. I read OSC's script for Enders game back in '99, and that's not really gone anywhere in the decade since. And with regards to The Tomb "Historical note: Years ago I sold film rights to THE TOMB to Beacon Films/Touchstone Pictures. The idea has been to title the film "Repairman Jack" and turn our guy into a franchise character. The project has spent 12 years in development hell, chewing up 6 writers who’ve churned out reams of scripts. This section contains a year or so of updates on the Repairman Jack movie project " taken from: http://www.repairmanjack.com/newsblog.htm#rjmovie
While Up is TOTALLY SWEET and does use the _idea_ of buoyancy, it definitely doesn't use the _science_ of buoyancy. I need only point to the episode of MythBusters which figured out how many helium balloons were necessary to lift a small child. The cranky old man in Up would have needed a collection of balloons the size of Pluto to lift his whole house.
At the risk of sounding like a pretentious snob, can I say I'm pretty glad that the chances of some of my favourite SF/fantasy novels becoming movies are roughly zero? I'm re-reading Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos -- great stuff, but how could you, for example, bring the literary device he uses to frame the first book (the pilgrims telling their stories, a la The Canterbury Tales) to the screen without it being a boring, disjointed mess?
Not saying it can't be done -- L.A. Confidential was a fabulous movie, and the script for that took a weed whacker to James Ellroy's trademark tangle of plots and sub-plots, quietly euthanised a small army of supporting characters and still worked. But I'd hardly blame a studio for being reluctant to invest the time, effort and money in doing so.
For the guy who posted six times, the movie did what it was supposed to. That doesn't mean everyone hated it. Look at the numbers.
That said, a lot of movies based on toys really aren't what you would describe as Oscar-caliber films or Hugo-caliber SF. That's not why they're made.
That said, just because they qualify as science fiction is not exactly cause for joy among science fiction fans.
funny
I was recently on a panel (at Wiscon) on "adaptations", and the moderator had prepared a good list of questions. The closing question was, "What adaptation would you like to see?"
I answered, "Since movie sf is decades behind print sf, I'd like to see two or three movies made from sf that the stars of the movies might have read when the stories first came out."
(& UP is more than anything else reminiscent of the unjustly ignored William Pène du Bois, combining The Twenty-One Ballones with Peter Graves.
Damn it, Scalzi, now I want pie!
I saw Moon, loved it, and plan to buy the DVD. I wont go see Transformers. I suppose I'm not in the right generation for it to appeal to me - I was already an adult when Transformers was a Saturday morning cartoon.
That said - nothing about Moon screamed "you must see this in the theatre". No action scenes, no amazing views nor cinematography. On the other hand, if I were interested in Transformers, I would make sure to see it in the theatre. I suspect that only the big screen will do its over sized characters and over the top action justice.
While I'd like to see Hollywood makes movies like Moon, I kinda expect that slower paced, more cerebral scifi will become even more rare on the big screens, be relegated direct to DVD (or download), and be stuck with low budgets.