This summer alone, we've had the one-two-three punch of Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Man of Steel. I've had time to see these films multiple times and enjoy every single one of them. They were my top three most anticipated films of the year, and in one way or another, they delivered. However, I took a stance very different from the rest of the Internet and said that these films aren't perfect. For all the hype I was giving these three films, they do not wildly meet the high expectations I had set for them. But just because they didn't meet my expectations, doesn't mean they're bad films. I've seen them enough to pick apart their flaws, but also to appreciate everything they get right. And believe me, these three films get a lot right. But for all they get right, all people seem to focus on is what they get wrong.
"Mandarin's a washed up actor! Where are his power rings? Why is Iron Man fighting a fire breathing Guy Pearce?" "Why is Kahn white? He's supposed to be Indian! The last act is a rip-off of Wrath of Kahn!" "Where was Superman that entire movie? The Superman I know doesn't destroy Metropolis or break Zod's neck!" These are just a few of the complaints I hear about the films. While there are flaws in each movie that go beyond these complaints, I don't actually think those complaints are the problem. If you're criticizing a film, criticize it based on how well it tells it's story. What's common about all these complaints is that they're focusing not on the story at hand, but on what the films should be. In other words, all three of these films are getting a bad rap from the purists.
Now as a die-hard Marvel fan, I too was initially pissed at the way "Iron Man 3" handled the Mandarin. But upon repeat viewings, I came to see that what was at first a poorly mishandled parody was in fact a very self-aware reinterpretation of a dated character. This not only made the film more interesting, but gave it a villain smarter and more dangerous than previous Iron Man foes. Killian emerged as the true Mandarin of the film, and once I realized that, it hit me that the MCU's Tony Stark finally found an archenemy worthy of both him and the Mandarin's name.
As for "Star Trek," I also agree that the latter half of the film is too much of an homage to "Wrath of Kahn." But given its status as a parallel universe, wouldn't it make sense that the events of the first film cause things to happen earlier in this new timeline? The action is still good, the characters are great and the story, while a little unoriginal, is still told remarkably well. Besides, they even referenced the original Kahn through old Spock, so if anything this will just encourage newcomers to go back and discover the original "Wrath of Kahn." You have to reinvent the old to get people into what came before.
And as for "Man of Steel," whenever I hear that Superman destroyed Metropolis and broke Zod's neck, I get confused. First off, has anyone even read a Superman comic or watched the "Justice League" cartoon? Superman fights powerful beings all the time, and their battles cause tons of destruction. It's natural. Plus, Superman is still a rookie. He hates the amount of lost life, but in this scenario he needs to focus on Zod, the imminent threat, or else more people will die. And speaking of Zod, Superman's killed him twice before. He killed him with kryptonite in the post-Crisis comics, and killed him in Superman II after depowering him. After witnessing his father die, it would stand to reason that, watching others put in harms way, Supes would do whatever is necessary to save someone. He had no choice but to kill Zod, so he did what needed to be done. It doesn't make him a different character, just adds another layer to him. His anguish after the killing alone shows how he feels about his actions.
Now just because I defend these points doesn't mean the films aren't flawed. "Iron Man 3" suffers a little from overdoing the '80s action-comedy tone, "Star Trek" does play a little too much off nostalgia, and "Man of Steel" does have editing and pacing issues that hamper the effectiveness of both the flashback and action scenes. But they have so many redeeming qualities, not to mention pure entertainment value, that I can put these aspects aside and just enjoy them as films. I've mentioned what worked and what didn't before in my individual reviews of these films, but the reason why these points need to be re-addressed is that purists still can't get over how the films change their iconic mythologies.
We find this more and more in adaptations, sequels and remakes. Batman and Bane both being trained by Ra's Al Ghul. Tom Bombadill being cut out of Lord of the Rings. Spider-Man having even more angst due to abandonment issues brought on by his parents' disappearance. And yet, these aspects made for more entertaining films and more interesting stories. People, especially hard core purist fanboys, seem to forget that part of the filmmaking business is changing elements of the story to make a stronger film. Sometimes, this doesn't always work. I could write a book on how Sony mishandled Venom and Sandman in "Spider-Man 3," or how the X-Men franchise completely disavowed Dark Phoenix and Deadpool. And then of course there are the abominations that are Dr. Doom and Galactus in the "Fantastic Four" movies. Plus, I haven't even touched on Michael Bay's "Transformers" films.
But I don't seem to recall fans complaining when Tony Stark's butler JARVIS was made into an A.I., or Hawkeye and Black Widow being founding Avengers in place of the Pyms. I can't think of anyone who complained when Heath Ledger's Joker had white makeup and a facial scar instead of permawhite skin like the comics or Jack Nicholson. The point is, fanboys are fickle, especially purists. They forget that the film medium is rapidly evolving. Times change, and if these icons want to survive, especially on film, they need to change too. There have been many interpretations of Superman and Mandarin, and just because they're not the Silver Age versions many grew up with, they get picked on. Kahn is an iconic villain in Star Trek lore. It may not be original to go back to that well, but in a parallel timeline, using Kahn to explore post-9/11 politics was a smart move. Isn't the whole point of Star Trek about commentating on our modern society?
If the purists are so upset over the changes made to these characters, then they should go back to the versions they grew up with. Re-watch "Wrath of Kahn." Read some original "Iron Man" stories. Pop the George Reeves Superman show and the first two Chris Reeve films into the VHS. But don't deny fans of the modern age a chance to forge their own memories with new versions of these characters. The very reason they have stood the test of time is because they are willing to change. The movies have finally realized that, and while every adaptational change may not always work, it doesn't always have to be heresy.
In the case of "Iron Man 3," "Star Trek Into Darkness," and "Man of Steel," the changes to the mythology work in the films' favor. As much as I go to these films to see them draw from the past, I also want to see something new. The fact that these three films want to add on to their mythologies instead of just rehashing versions we've already seen shows the filmmakers care about these characters as much as we do. Sometimes, caring about a franchise means knowing when to shake up the formula. It's a dangerous balance, and doesn't always work, but I'd rather see a filmmaker take a chance in bringing something new to the table, even if it fails, than clinging onto one version of a character just to please the purists.
If you really want to please the fans, just stay true to the spirit of the source. In their own way, these films have changed up their mythologies while also staying true to what their stories and characters mean. As long as they do that, then any other change is justified. Change isn't always good. Sometimes, like in the Spider-Man, FF, and X-Men series, it can be detrimental. These changes can betray the characters and themes set forth by the source material. But that doesn't mean change shouldn't happen.
Change can be good. Sometimes it can be great. A lot of times it's even necessary. But one thing change always is is scary. Don't be afraid when an iconic mythos is changed. Instead, try and figure out why it was changed. If you want a series you love to move forward and be loved by others, then change is needed. And if you want to enjoy other adaptations this year, like "Kick-Ass 2," "The Wolverine," "Hunger Games 2," "Ender's Game," "Thor: The Dark World," and "The Hobbit Part 2," then change is absolutely essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment