The Time Machine

Article 1: Films

We're living in the new millenium now. A lot has changed since 1990, and regardless of some cool things like Youtube, downloadable games, and better computers, if you can't help but feel that some things just aren't like they used to be... trust me, you're not alone.

This article is all about franchises. Entertainment franchises which set the highest bar in the 80's and 90's, then rebooted to make us feel like we're taking our little ones to Disneyland. They're thinking about the Dumbo ride and Tea cups, but we all know... you were thinking Space Mountain. 

Before I go into which franchises have continued in rebooting displeasure, let me

first start by specifying what I believe are the two main reasons these game and film makers 

turn to the dark side. First let's cover films. In my next entry I'll talk about games.

-BAD ART DESIGN AND THE FEAR OF TAKING RISKS-

 Corporate success means corporate pressure. Large entertainment companies strive to be innovative and appeal to new generations, while also keeping their previous generations in the loop. Miscalculation and misunderstanding when it comes to franchises can take a win and turn it into an epic fail. Sometimes film and game producers even sacrifice the previous generation for a fresh start, forgetting that without what made the original great, you no longer have a success. Big name just means cash to some.

So let's dive... into the hellish pit of reboot, slow decline and box-office flop!

STAR WARS - Episodes 1 2 and 3

If you pictured the word Star Wars when I mentioned the 80's, chances are you're not too pleased with the new generation of episodes from Lucas. And if you are pleased with them, and you're over the age of 20, then I don't look down on you. If you've managed to escape the pain, then good for you, because ignorance is bliss in this case. For those who saw the true meaning and rise of Star Wars from the late 70's to the 80's, you know damn well that the new films act like a knock off game console. You just feel cheated by them unless you're just collecting and staying well enough away from personal attachment. For some of us, not being attached to Star Wars was like saying "Don't be attached to someone you care about"... regardless of the Jedi way being to train yourself to let go of everything you care to lose (apparently, the new movies are sending us this message so that we do not have to be upset by missing what could have been a true prequel trilogy). So what's the real reason fans care so much about companies being loyal to their originals? Obviously because those originals spoke to us on another level at one point. Often times, fans will love a franchises so much that they themselves begin to understand its properties and reasons, even surpassing the original makers of those films in their knowledge and understanding of its representation, and as the original makers become distracted by other projects, by the time they reboot, the makers can forget all about what those properties and reasons were. By properties I mean attributes, and by reasons I mean what drives the style, characters and world the fans cherish.

In the case of Star Wars, characters had fun relationships to one another, often times arguing as friends sometimes do, with Luke Skywalker beginning his journey like the rest of us, having dreams of greatness but never really knowing what lies ahead. Luke learns the ways of the force and ascends with his rebel friends to conquering the evil dictatorship in the galaxy. To many of us, this feels like the original role playing game, as a kind of truly timeless tale of good versus evil, friendship and failure, ultimately success. Universal truths which will be a part of our lives forever. Star Wars is the generational equivalent of the Wizard of Oz. They have strong sentimental value, and the magic of film is in creating this for audiences. Though, as we're all aware, George Lucas became the very thing he despised in selling out and misunderstanding his own creation. Somehow I get the feeling like one day he'll say to his son 'you were right about me' ... 'you were right' .

So, is change a bad thing? Let's take a look...

-DISNEY- 

Over the past 80 years, famous characters like Mickey Mouse have undergone changes.

Some of these changes were minute, some major. But throughout, Mickey Mouse always looks like Mickey Mouse. How? Because one of Disney's policies is that they must keep to certain 'attributes' which might describe sentimental value, since 85% of their revenue comes from the previous generations. For example, Mickey Mouse was given shoes after his original cartoon had been bare-foot through many episodes, eventually he was given his signature overalls. Then his eyes were changed from the classic pac-slices of black ink, to the open white eyed, black pupil look we see today. When cartoons began to show in color, they sometimes looked odd with the black eyes and brownish or tan skin. Many artists began to take the liberty of doing extra work in painting white eyes and pupils. This didn't change Mickey in a bad way, but was a necessary move. Many changes are a good thing. Take the Simpsons by cartoonist Matt Groening. When the show first appeared, it was only a short featured in another series, with pretty squiggly art. As the show spawned its own series, the art was cleaned up and proportions became more consistent. Homer became less strict and more lazy over the years, and this was a positive change. Adding church clothing to Homer Simpson doesn't make him someone else. However, a signature look to most the Simpson's cast is quite obviously the yellow skin. If the entire show changed to make the characters with normal skin, it would look strange and take some getting used to. However, a new generation might not know the difference if they're raised on it, and therefore would likely find the yellow strange looking. It's all about comparison.

-BATMAN-

I was a kid in the 80's and I used to love Batman. I watched the old TV shows, the cartoons, read the comics. Yeah, I was a real nerd. In 1987, Batman was three colors: gray, blue, and yellow. That was the suit, we all knew. I saw some of Batman's darker side in Frank Miller's adaptations, so when I heard that Batman was going to be dressed in all black in a new big budget film, it made instant sense to me. When my dad took me to see the film in 1989, it blew my socks off. It made even more sense to me. The art design was fresh and the vision was epic. Even the Joker was awesome, not to mention the slick, gun-wielding, high tech Batmobile and Batwing. The film's costume designer, Bob Ringwood kept to what we see as Batman with the all black suit, but made necessary changes for making him look an even mixture of mean, tough, attractive and strong. Keaton might not have been the most muscular, but he certainly played the best Batman to date. Kevin Conroy had a superb voice for Batman, Adam West was classic, and Christian Bale played an excellent Bruce Wayne. Credit goes out to the others for their portrayal of the Dark Knight, but in the end, no other Batman has fit the suit and played the part like Keaton. So what's the reason amidst the many Nolan fans today that I go Keaton over Bale? There's not just one reason, there are many. First off, let me say that I'm also a fan of the Nolan Batman. I'm considering the good back story, loyalty to characters, the tone-setting and the genuine emotion of the films. No film will ever be truly perfect, but some come pretty damn close to satisfaction. So I was pretty satisfied with Nolan's films. However, there was one thing throughout these three films which kept bothering me and bothering me... Batman himself.

Christian Bale's portrayal of Batman was a disappointment. Bale's Batman has attributes which defy other attributes which should have been kept. To me, it was like watching a Mickey Mouse cartoon, where Mickey sounded like Homer Simpson, with an extended nose like a weasel. We can call him Mickey, but something just wouldn't feel right. Batman is a multigenerational character, and so he's changed at all throughout the years. I'm referring to changes which no longer describe the standard set of traits which make up the character of Batman. Here are some traits which the caped crusader must have at some point during the film:

-An authorative voice, being masculine and intelligent (e.g. Kevin Conroy and Keaton)

-An authorative stance during conversations, being upright when talking with his cape over his shoulders.

-A cape which reaches only to the back of the calves, made of a thicker substance than normal cloth, and with bat-like rifts at the base.

-A mask's mouth opening wide as the edge of the outer eyeline, and sharp when changing direction toward the base of the jaw. NOT too wide! (not pointing any fingers- Arkham City!)

-A neck that slopes only slightly inward from the base of the ear, so that it doesn't look to fat or too thin.

-Bat ears that come up from the sides the way the 89 movie looks. NOT from the back!

-A copper or yellow belt.

-A dark or black cape, shorts and mask. or fully black outfit.

-A mouth and eyes which seem tough and sharp.

-A good build of muscle. NOT too buff like he's on some kind of steroids, not pointing any fingers-Arkham City!

So let's see which of these attributes Bale's Batman has...

Does Bale have a good Batman voice?

Bale's voice has been parodied throughout the internet more times than I can count. He sounded fine as Bruce, but when he throws on the outfit, he becomes a scraggly old man yelling raspy mumbles which make you wonder if he ate too much cheese and slammed his crotch on a railing before each scene.

-Does Bale have an authorative stance during conversations being upright when talking with his cape over his shoulders?

This is an improvement after the first film. In the first film, Batman being the ninja that he was, is constantly squatting like Spiderman in every scene. First on top of the car in his introduction as Batman, then on the fence talking to Gordon, then when interrogating the crooked cop, which made the most sense, then when encountering Rachel near the subway, then when encountering Ras' Al Ghul's pawns on the rooftops. I kept saying to myself, please stand up, you're not Toad or Spiderman. The Dark Knight got rid of the squatting and took to other bad postures such as a clumsy look when riding the bat pod, I'll get to that one in a moment.

Does Bale have a cape which reaches only to the back of the calves, made of a thicker substance than normal cloth, and with bat-like rifts at the base?

The cape in the Dark Knight trilogy bothered me almost as much as the mask. The cape dragged along the floor, was made of a black velvet cloth which looked like he stole the Superman 4 moon set curtains and draped them down his back. And the rifts were few in between enough to where there was no visibility of this. Which is fine, but to be honest, although a creative idea, I didn't like memory cloth. It was interesting to see how it worked, but to me, Batman's cape is NOT cloth. This isn't superman we're talking about, it's Batman. Batman has a stiffer cape, and I don't mean like cardboard, I mean stiffer as in not velvet. This is clearly not a substance which works for Batman.

Does Bale's mask have a mouth opening as wide as the edge of the outer eyeline, and sharp when changing direction toward the base of the jaw, flush with the nose line?

Surprisingly, it did exactly all of these things wrong, so let's skip a step and just talk about the mask in general. It's okay to guide the mask design in a new direction, but change too much or don't design with good attributes and you've got some retarded looking features. Here are some side by side photos to help you compare a plausible or memorable design with the ones from the recent films.

The images on the left are a crude and somewhat blurry correction, but still get the point across. The images on the right are as they actually are in the films.

So did Bale's Batman do anything correctly? Well, yes actually. First of all, the costume did have a copper or yellow belt which looked very nice. Second, Bale is a good casting choice (aside from his grungy voice and frequently open mouth which can probably be blamed on the closed nostrils from the bad costume design). Bale also had the right muscle build in training for the films with the right eyes and mouth for the part. Unfortunately, instead of having lighting hitting the eyes, and dim lighting on the suit, many scenes showed Batman looking eyeless or standing in a really bright room. Overall the films were very good, but did not keep closely to attributes important to making fans excited about 'Batman'. His magnetic gas powered grapple gun was awesome in the movies, however he was without the Batmobile and only a black tank. I felt that it was fine for the tumbler to be in the first film, the pod to be in the second, and the 'Bat' to be in the third, but if I were directing, when he fell apart and took months to find himself, rising as Batman in the climax of the third film, I would have taken that opportunity to turn him into a Batman we all know, with a less raspy voice, a new suit and a new vehicle- the Batmobile. Not the 89 suit and batmobile, but what we can clearly see are the right suit and definitely a Batmobile which looks like a newer Batmobile with familiar attributes. Now that would have been bad ass. Especially if he had driven out of the Bat cave to go take on Bane and his thugs. 

-SUPERMAN-

The Man of Steel- my favorite super hero as a child. I was a huge fan of the Richard Donner films (the second is his film too) and the original Max Fleischer cartoons were the best. Superman is really a franchise that has survived the ages, regardless of being handed of to Joe Schmo to do with it what ever he pleases, not pointing any fingers *Cough!*BryanSinger*Cough*Smallville*Cough. Superman must wear a red cape, and if it's an authorative or longer cape, it must have an 'S' on the back to identify his symbolism. The 'S' on the cape also reminds us that Superman is the first, and not just another cape draped hero. Superman must also be strong willed, responsible, yet show his more human nature as Clark, making him relatable. The cape, S and boots need to be red. The shorts can go, even though it will take some getting used to. I suppose I can deal with that.

Superman Returns was true to Superman in some ways, but in other ways was a punch to the stomach.Yeah, a hero flick can actually do that. Is it because fans are the most particular? Well, I'm not asking for the entire chronological order of the Justice League events or the Robin to Nightwing to Batman torch passing either. It all goes back to what we describe as 'sentimental attributes'. Superman Returns based itself on Donner's classics with Reeve, but confused new generation innovation with bad design, fearing that Superman shouldn't wear colorful spandex on today's big screen because "that's too dorky". Bryan Singer felt the same way about X-men; if they were too colorful it would not work on the big screen in a realistic scenario. So to get around this problem, the costume designer for Superman Returns took the suit and gave it a more modern color scheme (avoiding bright colors) then gave the material a less spandex look and more of a 'solid' look. They minimalized certain traits and removed other traits altogether. Some of these attributes include making the chest \S/ smaller, removing the yellow 'S' from the cape, reducing the brightness and saturation in the red. The 'red' was tinted toward desaturated marron-brown-purple. Routh is seen in the film with dark brown hair instead of totally black. Any hardcore Superman fan can see what should have been done here. First of all, just because you don't want brightly colored spandex, doesn't mean you need to desaturate colors. For example, Superman wears patriotic red. That's true red. If you dull that to a purple brown maroon, it's not superman anymore. If you don't want bright neon red, then what's the solution? The solution would be to decrease the brightness, but keep the saturation, thus you have a slightly darker red, but still a saturated red. The reason I know this saturated red works, is because the promotional poster here shows him with saturated red, and black hair. When I first saw this poster, I was somewhat satisfied. The problem is, this is not how he was in the film.

Below is how he actually was in the film.

Join me in the next entry, where we talk about the games industry, some of the bad art direction and some registry controlled attempts to prevent piracy.