I realize it's been a long time since I've updated this blog. Personally, I haven't felt very motivated lately to do much of anything, even schoolwork. But now that the semester has ended, I've had time to watch a couple of films in theaters that I've been greatly looking forward to. Namely, "Thor: The Dark World," "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," and "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." I heavily enjoyed all three of these films, all of whom have their own unique strengths and weaknesses.
"Thor: The Dark World" was a great addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a good continuation of both "Thor," "The Avengers" and Phase II. It had more of Asgard, more emotion, a unique if somewhat familiar plot, and some great easter eggs for the wider universe. The appearance of the Collector and mention of the Infinity Stones drove me into a frenzy. Tom Hiddleston was fantastic once again as Loki, and at this point it's clear to me that the emotional anchor of these films is the sibling rivalry between him and Thor.
With that said, I felt that sometimes the darker tone was sacrificed for more comedy, the humans once again felt extraneous, and the main villain, Malekith, was utterly wasted in favor of more screentime for Loki. I understand that he's popular, and enjoyed his presence, but the absence of Malekith undercut his effectiveness as a villain, therefore calling into question exactly why a Thor-Loki alliance was needed.
But enough of Thor. "Catching Fire" was an improvement in every way over its predecessor. Jennifer Lawrence kills it again as Katniss, and this time Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are given greater roles as Peeta and Gale. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Sam Claflin are excellent additions to the cast as Plutarch Heavensbee and Finnick Odair, respectively. The cinematography is better, and in terms of adaptation the film is perfect in replicating the source novel. The action is simply incredible as well, with the new arena a delight with all the obstacles it presents.
As for "The Hobbit," which I saw just last night in IMAX 3D, it was astounding. Improving on "An Unexpected Journey," the film had a darker, more consistent tone and a livelier pace. More happens here than the first film, what with Beorn, the Mirkwood spiders, the elves, Lake Town, Gandalf visiting the Necromancer, and finally Smaug himself. He makes the film by sheer presence alone. Benedict Cumberbatch should be commended for bringing this iconic dragon to life, and presenting him on the biggest scale possible.
Die hard Tolkien fans may wine at the inclusion of new character Tauriel, her relationship with Killi, or the added Smaug battle in the mountain. Personally, I felt they were necessary additions to both make the story more cinematic and to flesh it out from the source, so we care more about the the events that happen in the third film. It also provides better connective tissue to the first trilogy, so at the end of the day we can watch a six-film marathon of LOTR and The Hobbit back to back.
But despite my praise for all these films, there is one thing I found inherent in all of them. Something I've noticed has to do with the recent mindset of Hollywood filmmaking ever since "The Avengers" banked over a billion worldwide last year. "Thor," "Hunger Games" and "The Hobbit" all end on massive cliffhangers. Loki now sits on Odin's throne, Thor unaware. Katniss wakes up to find her home district destroyed, with Peeta captured by the Capitol. Bilbo watches in horror as Smaug descends upon Lake Town, ready to raze it for the dwarves' actions in the mountain. All good cliffhangers, no doubt. Audiences will swarm to see the sequels when they're released. But that's what Hollywood has become. New films are not single, satisfactory experiences anymore. Instead, they exist as placeholders, meant only to build up hype for the sequel.
Now frankly, this is nothing new. "Star Wars," "The Matrix," "Lord of the Rings," "Back to the Future," and "Pirates of the Caribbean" all mastered the art of making placeholder films for the big finale. I've argued before on the pros and cons of trilogies, and franchises in general. But it's important to note that not all big Hollywood films used to come with a sequel hook. Sequels came in after the fact, with original films working just as well as standalones as they do in a larger series.
The examples I've listed above actually do this quite well, as do others like "The Godfather" and each "Dark Knight" film. But nowadays every major film has to be part of a franchise, always getting bigger and bigger to service future films. Since "The Avengers", this has become the paradigm. I've written an entire blog post predicting that this would happen (4). We have gotten into the mindset of the mega-franchise, giant crossovers that focus more on using multiple, interconnected films for world-building instead of continuing a focused story or character arc.
Look at the recent film and TV news that's come out in the last few months, specifically the last few weeks. Disney owns Lucasfilm, both Star Wars and now Indiana Jones. While new Indy films may be a while off, Disney has confirmed "Star Wars Episode VII" is coming in Christmas 2015, the first of a new trilogy of sequel films. In addition, spinoffs released in between the main episodes will expand the universe similar to how the MCU handles the "Avengers" characters. Harry Potter is getting into the spinoff game as well, with a film based on "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" scripted by J.K. Rowling on the horizon.
James Cameron is taking a page out of Peter Jackson's book, and expanding his "Avatar" universe over a trilogy of sequel films meant to be released from 2016-2018. And while the death of Paul Walker has stalled production until April 2015, "Fast and Furious 7" is very much happening, meant to combine stories and characters from all six previous films, including "Tokyo Drift," into one mega movie.
But we haven't even looked at what "The Avengers" is doing to every other comic book franchise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is still expanding. "Thor 2" revealed the Infinity Gauntlet as the end game, and we know Ultron, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, and the Guardians of the Galaxy are all coming in the near future. Not only that, but more crossovers await with the new TV properties. "Agents of SHIELD", honestly a mixed bag in terms of content, nevertheless has great synergy with the films, what with the mystery of Coulson's resurrection, the return of Extremis, and an episode packed with Asgardian mythology. And more TV tie-ins to the films will come, now that we know of Netflix's deal with Disney to bring Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, and the Defenders to life through individual miniseries.
But then there's the other, non-Disney Marvel properties. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is crossing over the old and new casts, building its own mega movie using all the previous X films. And now Bryan Singer has confirmed the follow-up as "X-Men: Apocalypse", based on the biggest X-Men villain of all time. Apocalypse could be Fox's Thanos, through which an even bigger crossover event can be planned using a rebooted Fantastic Four, an X-Force film, a Deadpool solo film, and more Wolverine movies, as rumored. Fox wants its own Marvel Cinematic Universe, as does Sony.
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" trailer confirmed Rhino, Electro and Green Goblin, as well as teasing Doctor Octopus, The Vulture, and the Sinister Six. And then Sony confirmed not only a Sinister Six spinoff film, but a Venom movie as well. With a third and fourth "Spider-Man" movie also in the cards, it's clear that Sony wants its own shared universe to compete with Disney's. If I may make a prediction, I see the second and third films setting up the symbiote and Sinister Six, which then get their own films to develop, before Venom and Spidey team up to take the Six down in the fourth film. Other characters like Carnage and Black Cat can easily be added to the mix, for an even wider universe.
And then of course there's DC. Marvel has three cinematic universes developing, but DC only has one. Luckily, "Man of Steel" has a sequel with both Batman and Wonder Woman in it, played by Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot, respectively. Rumors of a Flash cameo keep spinning, and since Flash was already introduced in the "Arrow" TV show, it wouldn't surprise me if DC just put both "Arrow" and its upcoming "Flash" spinoff into the film continuity to get to "Justice League" faster. They clearly want the "Avengers Effect" to happen to them. Even if they don't combine the TV and film worlds, both already have multiple superheroes existing, so the team-up concept is still in effect.
While the superheroes are all experiencing "Avengers" envy, older properties that have already used the crossover gimmick are reusing it to greater effect, now that they know it's popular once again. Case in point, "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who." Multiple captains and Doctors have teamed up before, and now the reboots are doing it too. Leonard Nimoy's Spock was used to bridge the new films to the old canon, just like how William Shatner's Kirk bridged the old show to the Next Generation in the seventh film. And while we've had five Doctors team up before, this year's 50th Anniversary Special had David Tennant, Matt Smith and John Hurt team up, before stock footage united all 13 incarnations of the Doctor to unite the old show with the new.
Of course this brings up an interesting point. "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who" began as television shows. TV has always had better success with both world-building and character development. Spinoffs are commonplace, in everything from "Torchwood" to "Angel" to the upcoming "Walking Dead" and "Breaking Bad" spinoffs. Television, by its very nature, is serialized, but since there are so many episodes, there's more time to both expand the world and develop the characters within it. But films don't have that opportunity. They're expensive to make, run two to three hours at a time, and take years to release. Some cinematic worlds are ripe for expansion, as I've explained in my trilogy/franchise articles (1, 2, 3). "Star Wars," "Harry Potter," "The Marvel Cinematic Universe," and "Lord of the Rings" are excellent examples of multi-film franchises that can tell intimate character pieces in the context of larger worlds. But the problem is that not every franchise deserves this type of rigorous expansion, even if it seems like it might.
Critics are already claiming that the future of quality entertainment lies in television instead of film. Peter Jackson is already getting flak for expanding "The Hobbit" into three movies, with the first film getting the brunt of the criticism. The second film, while better, still suffers from "middle chapter in a trilogy" syndrome, in a story that some argue shouldn't have been a trilogy. Jackson has used the extra time to expand the world and characters, to the delight of diehard fans, but still people complain of unnecessary length. "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" expanded their final books into multiple parts, and now "The Hunger Games" is set to do it with "Mockingjay," all for the sake of creating a larger franchise.
World-building, if done right like the Disney-Marvel model, can effectively create a fully realized world that engages fans and non-fans alike, with characters anyone can cheer for. But too much expansion makes the crossover aspect a gimmick, replacing story and character with empty spectacle. Another article I made spoke of how the films released in 2015 and beyond may oversaturate the market with mega blockbusters, alienating people with the Hollywood obsession for sequels and crossovers (5). This obsession has, in a way, been around in both the TV and film mediums for years, but never to the extent we're seeing now.
Sequels became trilogies, trilogies franchises, and franchises shared universes, with spinoffs increasingly more prominent. If done correctly, all these announced projects could be successes. They could herald huge box office returns, while delighting audiences with unique characters interacting for a better sense of continuity. But the minute people start questioning why all these extra sequels and spinoffs are needed, the entire model is doomed. Hollywood, in its current form, will fall, just as many have predicted. But if this succeeds, it will herald an interesting change. The success of this model will see Hollywood return to its serialistic roots, once so popular in the early days of cinema.
Below are the links to my previous articles, numbered for quick reference in the text above.
(1) http://bahntrants.blogspot.com/2012/12/consider-trilogy-part-i-three-movie.html
.
