Movie Studios are learning the wrong lessons from comic books

The 2015 summer movie season is coming to a sour end. Overall, the industry did okay: not record breaking, but not terrible. Jurassic World, Furious 7, and Avengers: Age of Ultron all released this summer, and all three currently reside in the top 10 grossing films of all time. Hard to complain.

And yet, so dismal is the latest salvo in the superhero genre that it has thrown a wet blanket over the entire situation that is Hollywood summer cinema. That Fantastic Four is a dismal mess is by now well known. So bad is this move that piling on brings no pleasure. Fox and Josh Trank knew what they had, a $100 million dollar ($200 M if you add marketing to the production budget) failure. To no one’s surprise, it failed.

The hopes for Fantastic Four were high, for the studio and Trank. Fox had visions of a new successful franchise. One that would live on to see its own sequels and cross-over into Fox’s other superhero titles, including the X-Men movie universe (the next of which is 2016’s Deadpool). Trank, meanwhile, was looking to build his sci-fi reputation, which he kicked off with the very good Chronicle, by inserting a cool genre film into the world of oversized superhero movies.

But surely, the resulting film and box-office failure of Fantastic Four will alter Fox’s plan. This is the third, and biggest, flop that Fox has made with these characters (2005, Fantastic Four and 2007’s Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer). At some point, Fox has to realize that Marvel’s original comic book superhero team just isn’t a good fit for the big-screen, right?

Wrong.

After Fantastic Four opened to an embarrassing $26 Million dollars in the United States, Fox domestic distribution chief Chris Aronson told the Hollywood Reporter: “We remain committed to these characters and we have a lot to look forward to in our Marvel universe.” Yes. That means that plans for a sequel remain in motion.

So we have not seen the last of the Fantastic Four on the big-screen. Trank’s movie is the fourth live-action adaptation of the characters (Roger Corman produced one in the 1990s that was never released. It’s on Youtube, and tremendously bad) who seem so natural in the comic books and so unfit for the screen.

I wish we could say that Fox, by pursuing yet another FF film that no one is asking for, was making a bad business decision, that throwing good money after bad movies was a sign that they were missing the message. But that’s not the case. Not anymore.

Fox is following a tried-and-true industry model that has worked for the past 50 years. That industry is just not the movies, it’s comics.

The superhero comic book industry has been doing for half a century what the movie business has been doing for about 15 years: committing to characters. Characters are what have sold comic books ever since the inception of the superhero. Readers have favorite writers, of course, or artists. But the model has always remained the same. If a book is failing, fire the creative team and start over. Repeat. Forever if necessary.

This is why Marvel pitted such a vociferous fight against allowing creators ownership of their creations. Marvel must own everything involved in their massive universe. If an individual owned a character, then that character might be lost, and with it any future profits on toys, cross-overs, and adaptations.

Once you have a character, you must commit. It’s what Fox said immediately after the latest iteration of FF bombed. “We’re still committed to these characters.” What you make is not the point; what matters is the names on the poster.

Being a creative person in superhero comic tends to be a never ending battle pitting artists against the business case. That’s not an overstatement. The Untold History of Marvel Comics, by Sean Howe, is essentially a 300 page review of who worked for Marvel, when, and why they left. In most cases artists left because they were fired, or fed up with the company due to a lack of acknowledgement (Marvel owned everything anyone ever created without paying royalties or giving artists’ rights) or a loss of creative control over characters and stories.

The poor treatment of creators in the big two comics publishers-where superheroes have always dominated-is a long documented problem. It starts at the very origin of Marvel Comics in the 1960s, with Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, co-creators of so many of Marvel’s most famous titles (including FF). Lee, the writer and showman, has worked with Marvel ever since. But Kirby, the artist perhaps most responsible for the visual style of superhero comics, left the company in a public break over ownership and artist representation. Kirby would would fight with Marvel for years, in public and in court, to get the ownership of his work. A fight that in his lifetime, he never won.

That fight has been on repeat ever since. Arists and writers come and go. Some stick longer than others (Chris Claremont on X-Men) but that just makes their departure even more jarring (Chris Claremont on X-Men). They can succeed or fail but they are never necessary. The Marvel Universe is about superheroes. It is not about creators. And now that the Marvel Universe is on the big-screen, the model seems to have followed.

Maybe this is not news. Spider-Man is getting his third reboot in 15 years. Green Lantern will appear again in DC’s movie universe, despite the disaster that was Green Lantern. When X-Men Origins: Wolverine turned out terrible, it took Fox only four years to forget that ever happened and make The Wolverine. And that wasn’t even a reboot. It was just a mostly unrelated Wolverine movie that starred the same character.

Now Fantastic Four has been rebooted after failure, only to produce another failure, only to get a re-commitment from the studio. What can we take from this history other than the lesson that failure doesn’t matter. Not really. Not to the studio. Only characters matter.

Superheroes, comic book adaptations, and genre series are the heart of the movie business. Finding a successful action franchise is a quest that every studio is tasked with, and the fear of missing out on the next big film property paralyzes creativity.

This year, creators have come out of superhero projects and talk like they’ve just left a meat-grinder. Joss Whedon made two Avengers films for Marvel, grossing $1.5 and 1.39 Billion respectively. Two of the most successful films of all time and both were critical successes. They are, for many, the benchmark of the superhero movie industry. When Whedon finished making Avengers: Age of Ultron, he had this to say about the process:

Well, I have been to the other side of the mountain. I gotta say, it’s been dark. It’s been weird. It’s been horrible. About a month and a half ago, I said goodbye to my kids, and I’ve been living in Burbank next to the studio. I feel every day like, I didn’t do enough, I didn’t do enough, I didn’t do enough. I wasn’t ready. Here’s failure. Here’s failure. Here’s compromise. Here’s compromise.

This is what it’s like to make a very good superhero movie, for an experienced director. Is it any wonder that Josh Trank, on his second project, struggled with Fantastic Four?

Trank’s behavior may have been part of the problem. That tweet he sent the night before the movie opened was a stupid move no matter what. But the message that should be taken away from the Fantastic Four debacle is not that Trank is insufferable. It’s that, once again, a superhero comic book adaptation has gone into development, produced a failure, and left another artist flailing.

Add to this that Marvel removed Edgar Wright from Ant-Man, after he spent years on the project, because of supposed creative differences, and it’s clear that the business of movies is ever-more resembling the business of comics. Its characters, not creators, that matter.

If Fox makes Fanstastic Four 2, we can safely say this is now true in Hollywood: making movies that are worth watching is less of a priority than making movies that have the right characters. It means that green-light decisions at Fox are made based on whether the words “fantastic” and “four” will appear in the title of a movie.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

 

 

One Time in Comics: Ben Grimm (the Thing) protects a mother’s right to her child

Yesterday, the world got it’s first look at the Ben Grimm, aka The Thing, for Josh Trank’s upcoming Fantastic Four movie. One thing about The Thing is that he always kind of looks the same. He is a human man who, by the power of a cosmic ray storm, turned to orange rock. What’s interesting about The Thing is not his appearance as much as what’s going on underneath that orange rock skin.

With Grimm, it turns out, there’s a lot going on in there.

The Thing first appeared in Fantastic Four #1, in 1961. He bounced around FF and other books for two decades, before he got his own eponymous book, in 1983. The first run of The Thing was written by John Byrne, whose introspective and poetic narration makes him the perfect writer for a character like Ben Grimm. Byrne’s ability to turn the outward monsters inward with depth and beauty marks his work and makes him one of my all time favorite comics writers (see also Byrne’s time on The Incredible Hulk, Sensational She-Hulk).

The first issues of The Thing highlight the beginnings of Ben Grimm’s life. Issue 1 has him re-visiting the haunts of his youth. He grew up on the lower-east side of New York, on Yancy Street. He was in the local gang and saw his brother stabbed to death by local rivals. He was a poor Jewish kid, eventually orphaned. Issue 2 tells the story of Ben’s first love, and her turning him away for the sake of her career (that story’s subtext might be about an abortion, actually. A question for another time).

It was John Byrne, then who wrote The Thing #3, which tells of Crystal the Inhuman seeking the help of Ben Grimm in protecting her child from her own husband, Quicksilver. These are the kind of stories that define Ben Grimm. He is a Frankenstein-a monster on the outside (unlike the other members of FF he cannot change his appearance), but on the inside he is a compassionate and tender man.

Here’s how he ends up protecting a mother and daughter’s right to self-determination.

Grimm is at the hospital visiting his girlfriend Alicia when Crystal and her giant teleporting Dog-like friend Lockjaw enter the scene. She is desperate and afraid and knows nowhere else to turn.

Ben is gentle, a stone man made of compassion and kindness for the people he loves, and embraces her, and carries her, and hears her story.

I love this panel. Such strange balance and shape with Lockjaw and Ben. Crystal in the center of two beasts who love her and will do anything to help her recover her child.

She is an inhuman and her husband, Quicksilver is a human mutant. They have had a daughter, Luna, and she is without powers-she is just a human girl. This is unacceptable to Quicksilver, who plans to subject Luna to the mists that provide inhumans with their powers. As the father of Luna, this decision resides solely with Quicksilver. Crystal opposes this. She wants her child to live as she was born rather than be subjected to the unknown effects of the ‘terrain mists.’

She will not risk her child’s life. But her husband does not care .

So Ben travels to the center of the earth’s moon (where the inhumans live) in an attempt to protect Luna from her father. He meets the inhumans, allies of the Fantastic Four but not accepting of Ben’s plan to interfere with their traditions.

Medusa, the only woman among them and Crystal’s sister, is moved by Ben’s attempt to protect Crystal choice. But she can do nothing. “As the father, it’s his choice,” Gorgon tells Ben and Medusa, “not hers.”

Medusa doesn’t stop what’s happening. But her turmoil is clear. Byrne adds that linguistic flourish of his, as Black Bolt touches her “as gentle as soft rain upon her shoulder.” But she leaves, upset. Byrne ends the scene with a powerful statement of tradition in flux. “Something important seems to have died here.”

Eventually, Ben Grimm confronts Quicksilver. The two men discuss the right of the father to determine the fate of his daughter, and do not come to terms.

Crystal returns, determined to save her child from a father unwilling to listen to his wife.

But still Quicksilver refuses to quit.

He claims again that it is his right to determine the fate of his child. That tradition makes it so. Not Crystal, nor Ben Grimm, nor any other human or inhuman as the right to take that tradition from him.

He claims that “anything would be preferable” to a human, powerless, girl. It is right, under “inhuman law” to determine his child’s future.

In the end, it’s Lockjaw, the transporting Dog-like inhuman who saves the day. He reveals that he is what he is because of the terrain mists that Quicksilver wants to subject his daughter to. Looking around the room, Ben Grimm sees a fish-man, a dog-creature, and a number of other inhumans. He sees in Luna a child “who has a chance fer something that’s been taken from” Ben Grimm.

Nobody has the right, Grimm says, to take away Luna’s chance to be a human. He lost his own, and he knows the cost of losing one’s capacity to choose a life for yourself. Tradition be damned.

Ben Grimm, you’re a good man.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four looks like a sci-fi movie about people

I have beat up on the upcoming Fantastic Four movie for the past year, and I’m not alone. This happens mostly because everything coming/leaking out about the film leads us to believe that the film will beproblematic.

But such talk is, really, all just talk. It goes only so far and ends when we start to see actual footage from the film. The property has never successfully been adapted for the the big screen (you might remember-but probably not-the terrible FF that was released in 2005, or its equally terrible sequel: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The failure of that franchise did free up Chris Evans to join Marvel’s team as Captain America, so yeah failure). As for Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four? The truth is that we don’t know much about it.

All we really know about Fantastic Four is a group of very talented folks-Josh Trank’s Chronicle is one of the best superhero movies of the new millennium; add Michael B. Jordan, Miles Teller and Kate Mara, and you really could do worse-have come together to give this sci-fi super-family comic-book one more shot.

We’ve had our fun. But now, we have a trailer and can start to ask ourselves what we should expect from Fantastic Four. So. What should we expect from Fantastic Four upon its release in August? I’ve watched the teaser trailer, released this week, a time or two, and I can say this: I’m not sure. But I think it’s safe to say the trailer gives us more room for optimism than any thing previously officially or unofficially said, announced, leaked, or snarked about Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four.

What do you think? Are you optimistic about this year’s FF?

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Okay, the Superhero genre is boring. So let’s make better superhero movies

A series of recent artciles has looked at the superhero movie genre as a whole and asked the question: why is this genre so mediocre? Matt Zoller Seitz kicked it off with Things Crashing Into Things, or, My Superhero Movie Problem. Tim Wainwright then responded with Hollywood Should Make More, Not Fewer, Superhero Films. Then, came Derek Thompson explaining The Reason Why Hollywood Makes So Many Boring Superhero Movies.

Each of these articles makes fine points. Zoller Seitz hits the genre (and its fans) the hardest, but also with the most accurate shots. Yes, the action scenes are often incomprehensible; acting talent often comes second to looking the part; fans do hold on to “fleeting moments of special-ness” to defend a films that are, as a whole, mediocre.

But the problem with all of these genre assessments is that they are just that: high-level assessments of a genre.

What this level of analysis forgets (though Wainwright hits on the point) is that a large majority of everything is low-quality. Whatever genre you’re considering, it’s probably on average pretty terrible. Because most movies, just like most television and most books, are terrible. Popular appetites and risk-averse business decisions have something to do with this general mediocrity, but not everything. Some of it also comes from the fact that making quality films is really difficult. Levelize the quality of any genre and you’ll find mediocrity at best. How can the averages possibly recover from Green Lantern or Ghost Rider?

Criticizing the genre as a whole is not only an easy target but lacks any prescriptive value. (To be fair to Zoller Seitz, he does give some time to Captain America: Winter Soldier, which he considers “easily the best superhero film produced since Christopher Nolan stopped directing them”). Rather than talk about the genre’s problems, though, I’d like to talk about the movies. Because looking at the actual movies that comprise this genre, gives us a different impression.

Below, then, is a list of every American superhero movie since 2000 (according to Wikipedia). I color-coded it for a general sense of quality based on my personal, but discerning, tastes. The bar here is low: Green equals anything from pretty good to excellent. Yellow is just your average blockbuster, watchable and forgettable. Red is bad bad bad. (White I have not seen).

What surprised me about this exercise is that, while there’s a lot of red in that list, it’s not as much as I expected. And while yes, by the averages, the superhero genre is as bad as any other, eyeing the titles, there are more than a few examples to put together some rules for how to make a good superhero film. And if the goal as film fans is to get better superhero films made, discussing quality films will help us add more green bars in the future.

I like superhero stories and I love movies. I want these films to be better. The superhero film has really low lows (Green Lantern, Spider-man 3), but it also has high highs (Dark Knight, Superman: The Movie). Rather than continuing to diagnose the ills of the genre, here are a few simple rules for producers, writers and directors. Follow these suggestions and you will make better superhero films.

1. Lower the stakes

The ever-rising stakes of the superhero genre has long been a problem. Once we faced threats to a person or a family, even a town, and felt something intimate in the middle of a larger story. Now we are faced with such catastrophic dangers to so many people at such break-neck speeds it has become almost impossible to feel any of the emotional weight involved. The east-coast is in danger, the country is in danger, the world is danger, ever-growing, ever-expanding dooms await us in our theaters. Audiences can’t find our way in a story that is over-sized without something to orient our own emotional investment.

Which is what the best superhero films do: orient audiences with low-stake, high-payoff stories. The Crow, from 1994, is a favorite superhero film of mine, and it takes great pains to invest its audience in the revenge plot. A man is killed, then his wife is brutally raped, beaten, and murdered. The man comes back from the grave for revenge up on the gang that destroyed his future. The Crow is a very dark, and very violent story; one keeping quite intimate in its story and limited in the stakes. It was also a huge hit and critical darling, and left a lasting legacy on the genre. For good reason. Not every movie has to risk the end of the world.

*Editor’s note: Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of The Crow‘s release. The film is famous in part for the death of Brandon Lee during production. It also introduced Alex Proyas’ visionary eye to American audiences, and features a wonderful performance by Ernie Hudson. It remains excellent. For fun, here’s Siskel and Ebert’s review, from 20 years ago.

2. Care more about your characters than your fight scenes

Ang Lee’s Hulk is a superior film to Louis Leterrier’s The Incredible Hulk. Likewise, Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns is much better than Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel. The only thing I remember about Man of Steel is how little fun it was, and how many action scenes it contained. I remember almost nothing about The Incredible Hulk.

Such is not the case with their predecessors. Both Hulk and Superman Returns are jumbled, over-long messes that fit awkwardly in the genre, disappointed the superfans, and made little impact on the films that came after them. And both were marvelous imperfect film experiences that I can recall with clarity. This is because they were, first and foremost, character-driven films about people in extreme circumstances trying to acclimate to complex identities. This is the bread and butter of the superhero genre, and every time Marvel and DC release another stock plot and punch-up film full of missed opportunities, I think of these two gems.

Today, Hulk and Superman Returns are considered failures in the genre and inferior to the re-booted companions that followed them. But this is simply mis-remembering reality. Hulk and The Incredible Hulk performed almost identically, both at the box-office and with critics. And while Superman Returns grossed 90 million less in the US than Man of Steel, it was a much bigger critical success, and still grossed over $390 million worldwide. If those are our metrics, then Hulk and Superman Returns are helping the genre curve.

Given that Marvel shows no signs of slowing, and DC is racing to catch up, both would do well to slow down and revisit their under-appreciated, character-oriented, recently-forgotten films.

3. Cast actors based on talent, not body shape or type

Genre expectations provide casting expectations for superhero cinema. Busty and muscle-bound rule the day. But the look or casting-type of an actor when he or she is cast in a superhero movie is irrelevant. Even more meaningless than look is the reaction of fans and the internet. The only thing that matters is the capacity of a performer take a role that audiences are familiar with (if not the character specifically, the expectations of that character in this genre) and make that character into something new.

The demonstrative example of this principle is Christopher Nolan’s decision to cast Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight (a decision met with a familiar ire from fans). Ledger was, at first thought, a strange choice for the role, one that few predicted would be so memorable. What we knew, though, was that Heath Ledger could act. He had the skill set to take up a wide-range of roles, and the discipline to make even the most generic characters special. The Joker was not the first time we had seen Ledger build something strange and memorable out of something so familiar.

Ledger’s Oscar winning performance as the Joker defines the legacy of The Dark Knight, and is perhaps the lodestone that holds together a genre masterpiece. The delight Ledger must have taken in turning the Joker into not just a villain but an anarchic philosopher should be relished by all.

3. Tell us a story we haven’t seen on-screen

Did you know that The Matrix Trilogy ends with a peace agreement? It’s true. The machines and the humans, at war for however many long years, finally come to terms with each other, and agree to join forces, defeat a mutual threat, and stop their own war. One of the most famous superhero stories of recent years ends by two sides agreeing to cease hostilities.

Before we ever sit our butts in a dark theater, we know the general rules of the superhero film, what the stories are about, what the beats are for characters and emotions, and how the plot will unfold. That Spider-man and Spider-man 2 are essentially the same movie should not surprise anyone: both are made from the same pieces of the superhero genre. Which means we are also, always, waiting for those rules to be broken.

This is the point of genre. In breaking the rules of genre, familiar stories become strange, moving, touching, anything under the sun. When you embark on a superhero story and find yourself surprised, it’s a rare pleasure.

The Matrix, despite the well-known problems in the sequels, breaks from expectations (superheroes win through defeat, not negotiations) in a way that also allows genre conventions to be upheld (a climactic battle between the superhero and the supervillain). The Wachowskis, throughout the Matrix Trilogy, manage to put together a cleverly crafted genre-busting story placed among familiar genre conventions and story tropes (the Jesus lays down his life stuff is a little thick) doesn’t take away from the fact that The Matrix has a really unusual, perhaps radical, conclusion.

4. Show us something we haven’t seen on-screen

This same principal of surprise works in the visual and technical side of the superhero genre. But it unfortunately is generally misinterpreted. Directors and their financiers are spending more and more money and time on CGI fights and explosions and spectacles, making more realistic (and difficult to understand) action scenes, rather than bucking the boring circus routine in exchange for showing us something that is actually new.

The spectacle inherent in the superhero film is one of the genres greatest assets. You know what to expect and the big-money Marvel and DC movies usually provide a good rendition of what you expect. I can’t deny that Marvel has mastered both the large space-machine battles and the up-close fist fights. But that just means that when you do see something new, it sends an electric charge up your spine. Perhaps because it happens so rarely. Some of the most exciting examples of visual surprise come from the small superhero movies lying outside the major adaptation universes.

What I remember most about watching Josh Trank’s Chronicle is the excited feeling that comes with visual surprise. Not in the fight scenes or the climax, but in the small moments. Kids discovering their super-powers with strange, simple technical tricks cues in viewers to a careful director working hard to make these moments count. When the three friends in Chronicle gather to throw a ball at one another, such a simple little scene, it struck me: I’ve never actually seen something like this. One of the best audience reactions possible in the superhero genre.

5. Remember that your movie exists in the world

At the end of the day, this is the most important rule. Great films know that they live in our world, and creators think about the fact. Captain America lives in a fictional world called the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a film that lives in our world, and that has actual real world consequences. So make something that matters, on purpose.

This doesn’t mean that every superhero film should be politically resonant or address contemporary concerns, nor that our stories be restricted by outside influences. But it does mean taking our world seriously. It means making choices on the production side that add value on the creative side. Thinking about the body count in the collateral damage of alien invasions, for example, is a sign that you recognize the real world exists.

Or, more importantly, representing our world in your movie shows a recognition of our world. Diversity, in itself, adds value. As a general rule, a film should not have more robot/alien/creature speaking roles than it does female speaking roles, even in the superhero genre. Ensuring that films meets this goal is not being politically correct, or kowtowing to pressure. It’s making a better film.

It’s not lost on me that the above examples come from male actors and writers and directors. The highlights of the superhero genre need to diversify. Working in genre allows a freedom to tell familiar stories with great surprises. So surprise us. We know it’s possible. Casting Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm was a pleasant surprise in that it broke from the expected genre norms. A Wonder Woman movie or Black Widow movie would be another. We’re 10 years past the disastrous Elektra and Catwoman films, and it’s time for another female anchor. Preferably written and directed by a woman. That would be special. In the list of superhero films since 2000 above, there is only 1 film directed by a woman (The Punisher: War Zone, by Lexi Alexander).

The most restrictive, and boring, expectation of the superhero film genre is that the same stories are told by the same story-tellers. That’s an actual problem in our world, and it sets unnecessary creative limits on the fictional worlds inhabited by our superhero movies. Genre is not a pass to ignore the wider-world we live in. Understand that, and we’ll start to see better superhero movies.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook