Cloverpotterlies

A trio of news briefs for you this week…

1) Remember Cloverfield (2008), that monster movie with the shaky, “found footage” filmography that was all the rage for a couple minutes? Then, there were the two quasi-sequels, 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) and The Cloverfield Paradox (2018).

Joe Barton and original Cloverfield movie poster

Many assumed that the disappointing response to that last film spelled the end of the franchise. But, producer J.J. Abrams is endeavoring to keep it alive with yet another sequel. No details have been shared other than that the script is being written by Joe Barton. (Yep, that British chap whom I wrote about a couple weeks ago, since he took over as showrunner for HBO Max’s Batman-themed crime series about the Gotham City Police Department.) Also, it will not be in the “found footage” format.

I wouldn’t mind another Cloverfield movie that involved the giant monster — which, btw, looks surprisingly similar to the pair of MUTOs that Godzilla fought in the 2014 movie, iirc. They could do one set during the same, initial attack seen in Cloverfield. Or, there could be a subsequent appearance, perhaps connected to one or both of the other sequels. Either way, I’m game. The hard part, of course, will be finding some twist to make it not just another giant monster flick.

2) Speaking of HBO Max — I did; check the second paragraph –, Chief Content Officer for HBO and HBO Max, Casey Bloys, just announced plans for a new TV series that should make Potterheads sounds like they’ve been guzzling Gigglewater. It is just in the earliest of early stages, but there have been “‘exploratory conversations’ about a small screen adaptation of JK Rowling’s books and the feature film franchise.”

“There’s nothing in development but I think it’s fair to say across ‘Game of Thrones’, Harry Potter, and DC, these are franchises that WarnerMedia enjoys and it’s a big advantage for us, so there’s always going to be interest in doing something of quality from those properties.”

No word yet, of course, on whether the series would be a straight re-telling of the original stories or something different-yet-connected. Perhaps events that happened in parallel with what was chronicled in the books and movies? Or, could it focus on Jude Law’s younger version of Albus Dumbledore, as has been rumored (and squashed)? That might be interesting. I would be more interested, however, in something that follows either Hogwarts’ founders OR something centered around present-day Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the U.S. counterpart to Hogwarts.

No word, either, on whether or not Rowling has given her approval. If I were her, I’d wait to hear their proposal(s).

alternate True Lies movie poster

3) Another announcement from just a few days ago was made this time by CBS, which already has two new shows airing with movie tie-ins (“Clarice” (The Silence of the Lambs) and “The Equalizer” (The Equalizer movies and original TV series)). The network has ordered a pilot for a TV series adaptation of James Cameron’s True Lies (1994) movie. The script has already been written (by Matt Nix) for the pilot, which will be directed by McG (who has been pushing for this project since 2016).

“[S]hocked to discover that her bland and unremarkable computer consultant husband is a skilled international spy, an unfulfilled suburban housewife is propelled into a life of danger and adventure when she’s recruited to work alongside him to save the world as they try to revitalize their passionless marriage.”

Sounds pretty much like the original action-comedy-thriller film, which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Tom Arnold. I doubt any of those three will return — at least, not in the same roles. There are so many ways this could end up a dud. But, Nix is a decent writer, and McG knows his action flicks. If it makes it to the screen, I’ll probably check it out.

Is This the End of Star Trek Fan Films?

“This is getting ridiculous! I support the fans. Trek belongs to all of us.”  — Justin Lin, Director of Star Trek Beyond

[Note: I had something else planned for this week, but the recent news on this front seemed to beg for commentary. So,…]

Several weeks after Lin made the above statement, JJ Abrams announced that CBS/Paramount had dropped their suit against Axanar Productions, which presumably included permission for the independent studio to move forward with Star Trek: Axanar. Abrams seemed to think so, anyway, saying, “fans would be able to continue working on their project.” I lauded CBS/Paramount (though with slightly cynical reservations) for making the smart move and allowing the fans to non-competitively continue having fun playing in the Star Trek universe.

Well,… seems we may have spoken too soon on that one, since Comic Book Resources reported in mid-June that negotiations were still, slowly moving forward. Technically, “the copyright-infringement action remains pending.” As if that weren’t enough of a concern, a week later CBS/Paramount released their new “Guidelines for Avoiding Objections,” within which “amateur fan filmmakers [can] showcase their passion for Star Trek.” This would presumably affect not just films but series (e.g., “Star Trek Continues”). Though this might sound reasonable, the general response has been… mixed, with some smaller groups being OK with them, but those with larger productions (e.g., Axanar Productions, Farragut Films) being… less than enthusiastic.

The problem is that the guidelines are, as Axanar producers have called them, “draconian”. Now, if it were me, I could live with things like keeping the production non-commercial (i.e., totally non-profit, from unpaid actors to a ban on selling tickets or production-specific merchandise) and including an official disclaimer. (From what I can tell, fan productions generally adhere to this, anyway.) I can even see disallowing “Star Trek” from the title, while requiring a subtitle that includes “A STAR TREK FAN PRODUCTION”, though that will be a *big* problem for “Star Trek Continues”, et al. I also don’t have a problem with insisting that fan productions be “family friendly and suitable for public presentation,” though banning alcohol & tobacco seems like politically-correct overkill, especially since they have been seen in official Star Trek movies & series. These and other efforts to retain copyrights/trademarks and the good reputation of the “Star Trek” brand are understandable.

The “draconian” requirements, however, include:

“The fan production must be less than 15 minutes for a single self-contained story, or no more than 2 segments, episodes or parts, not to exceed 30 minutes total, with no additional seasons, episodes, parts, sequels or remakes.”

This limits fan productions to one-offs even shorter than a “short film”. Given the greatly restricted time length, fundraising is also limited to a $50,000 maximum per project, including all platform fees.

Plus, there’s this beaut:

“The fan production must be a real “fan” production, i.e., creators, actors and all other participants must be amateurs, cannot be compensated for their services, and cannot be currently or previously employed on any Star Trek series, films, production of DVDs or with any of CBS or Paramount Pictures’ licensees.”

Why forbid professionals from lending their talent and expertise to a fan production, if they are willing to do so for free?! (Is this prohibition legal?) As long as the majority of those involved in the production are amateurs, what is wrong with throwing a couple professionals into the mix once in awhile? Also, if someone was ever an “extra” on an official Star Trek series or movie, would that make them ineligible to ever work on a fan-made project? Would it matter if they were paid or not? What is CBS/Paramount afraid of?

Demands like these seem designed to kill webseries like “Star Trek Continues” and “Star Trek: New Voyages” and fan films like Star Trek: Axanar, and that’s just stupid. These and other fan productions haven’t and won’t eat into the profits of CBS/Paramount, and no one thinks the poorly-done ones have any affiliation with CBS/Paramount. Productions by fans who put so much time & effort into them are labors of love, tributes to a treasured franchise that keep the fans excited and engaged. They are expressions of creativity, hope, and joy. Throwing up roadblocks like the above, especially in light of the relatively loose (though unofficial) guidelines that fans have been allowed to operate under for years, only frustrates and angers otherwise loyal and enthusiastic fans… like me.

The announcement of the new guidelines was couched in terms to make it sound like they will help and encourage Star Trek fans to make their own, amateur productions. Or, as they put it, “show our appreciation by bringing fan films back to their roots.” On the contrary, many efforts that could have been wonderful will now be aborted, and CBS/Paramount only make themselves look like tone-deaf, paranoid, insecure bullies in the process.

Thoughts on *Star Wars: The Force Awakens*

I wasn’t gonna do this.

I wasn’t gonna write/post a review of Star Wars: The Force Awakens until after I’d watched it a second time, which probably wouldn’t be until January sometime. But, I saw it today (12/19), then read a few comments by others, and I couldn’t help myself. So, instead of working on my other blog like I should have, I wrote this. (Well, most of it.)

As usual, I present for your consideration some of my observations, reflections, and critiques, though a little more substantive than the simple bullets that I sometimes do. I won’t disclose any MAJOR revelations, but I do refer either explicitly or implicitly to a few things that happen, so here is your official…

SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT!

Wonderful!

Spectacular!

Awesomeness!

(And that’s just the opening trailers/previews!)

I really like the new characters. All of them. Finn and Rey are interesting and enjoyable as individuals but also work well together and have a nice chemistry — with or without any potential romance. I’m glad the producers decided to go with relative unknowns, John Boyega and Daisy Ridley, to portray them, much as Lucas did for his young protagonists in the originals. I like the way the characters are developing, as they are from very different backgrounds yet both orphaned and both “outsiders”, never imagining themselves involved in something like the Resistance, yet recognizing the importance of the cause. Rey and Finn’s personal journeys are just beginning (sort of), and I’m happy to be along for the ride.

I have to say, though, that their respective lightsaber duels with Kylo Ren were both a bit far-fetched — i.e., that they lasted so long –, I thought, given that neither had any sort of training, whereas Ren clearly did. I suppose we are to attribute some of it to Ren’s having been injured in his side just minutes before. Also, Rey may have had some instinctive Force-driven moves, though that wasn’t exactly clear. Finn, on the other hand, just got lucky (until he didn’t).

Kylo Ren is not as big or menacing a villain as Darth Vader was. But, is he “not as scary as he <should> be”? I don’t think so. Ren may be nearly as powerful as Vader was when we saw him — i.e., very, but still a level or three below that of his master. But, Ren is more emotionally volatile and not yet a “Sith Lord”. In fact, I think he is a lot like Vader probably was in between episodes III and IV, and I suspect we will see him grow even more powerful as the trilogy progresses. It wasn’t clear to me the extent of Ren’s injuries, but I wouldn’t be surprised if (like Vader and Luke) he ends up getting some bionic/mechanical replacements or enhancements. As an aside, I will say that I kind of like the simple voice-effect used for when Ren wears his mask.

Poe Dameron is a very likable (semi-)rogue, and I truly hope we get to see and discover more about him in the rest of the trilogy and/or the anthology films. Same goes for the rest of his squadron. (Great to see Greg Grunberg in the mix!) Some parts of the fighter battles were reminiscent of those from the original trilogy — intentionally so, I’d wager — but different enough to not feel like rip-offs. More generally, there were indeed parallels and homages to the previous films, from character backgrounds to dialogue to plot-points. Too many? Maybe. But, I have to admit, I didn’t mind them. As my friend J.W. said in his own review:

“It is like Disney was giving us one big Wookie hug, reassuring viewers that yes, this is Star Wars, and it is back.”

Other fantastic new characters, like Captain Phasma, Maz Kanata, Lor San Tekka, and (of course) Supreme Leader Snoke, are all begging for more screen time. (Not so much General Hux, whom I found boring.) In case you don’t recognize Tekka’s name, that was the character at the beginning of the film played by the legendary Max von Sydow. It really is a shame that he didn’t have a longer-lasting role. (He would have made an awesome Jedi or Sith Master!) I am sure we will see more of them (except for Tekka, probably) in the upcoming films. Oh, I can’t forget the little droid, BB-8 — part R2-D2, part puppy dog. Love him/her/it!

Speaking of R2, it was great to see “him” and C-3PO, but it is a shame they weren’t in more scenes. I suppose it isn’t “their story” anymore, so it makes sense that they not be around as much. Still, I hope they show up in episodes VIII and IX. Of course, it was GREAT seeing Han, Chewie, Leia, Luke, and even the Millennium Falcon! Their presence really helps with the continuity aspect, and they play important roles, not just brief, torch-handing appearances. (Well, Luke was just barely there, but he is sure to be central to the next film or two.) Just like old times… almost. (Or, should I say “old-timers”?) Also, I didn’t expect them, but it was nice to see Nien Nunb and Admiral Ackbar, too.

As far as the acting goes, I thought the performances ranged from good to terrific. To my memory, nothing and no one stands out as a dud. (Except maybe Stormtrooper FN-6713 — his marching was a tad off. :p )

I honestly don’t remember any of the soundtrack beyond the Main Theme. On the one hand, this could be a good thing, in that it complemented the action and drama so well that it didn’t distract. On the other hand, I love(d) the soundtrack from the original trilogy, and it really helped define the mood and tone of the films. Was my failure to notice it in this one because it was simply forgettable? Or, maybe it was too similar to the original stuff to make its own mark (in my mind, at least)? OR, was I just too engrossed in the film — trying to follow the plot, the dialogue, the jokes, notice all the cool stuff, appreciate the acting, make sense of all the action and other developments — that the soundtrack simply escaped notice? There is a LOT to absorb, after all.

Hmmm. I guess I’ll have to track some of it down online….

Unlike with the infamous prequels, I didn’t feel like every environment was green-screened. I’m sure a lot of it was, but there were “real” places (e.g., Iceland, Ireland, U.A.E.), too. Beyond that, I thought the Visual & Special F/X were on the money. (From what I understand, Abrams decided to go “old school” in some areas, even including stop-motion animation for the chess pieces on the Falcon.) A subsequent viewing may reveal some shots that could be improved, but for now, I’m gonna say they did a great job all around.

Same goes for the plot. Sure, there are at least a couple plot holes and plenty of opportunities for speculation and questioning of the writers’/director’s choices. But, there is no such thing as a perfectly executed film. I chose to focus on the overall entertainment value and nostalgia quotient. To that end, while I am no longer a kid watching Star Wars for the first (or second or fifth or umpteenth) time and getting carried away with the space fantasy epic, from the initial screen scroll I genuinely felt like I was back in the world(s) of that first trilogy that so enchanted and transported me in my youth. So, I have to conclude that…

The magic is back!

On balance, I found Star Wars: The Force Awakens to be a greatly entertaining film and a worthy & satisfying continuation of the Star Wars saga. Disney, Abrams, et al., ya done good! Now, keep it up!

Update on Star Trek 3

“All in all, it’s kind of a mess, but things do appear to be moving forward.”  — Brent McKnight, CinemaBlend

I’m totally cheating on this.

I just read “Star Trek 3: What We Know So Far” by Brent McKnight at CinemaBlend and thought some of you might be interested. But, rather than a) give a brief comment on McKnight’s article or b) quote the beginning of McKnight’s article, then link to it, I decided to go a different route. Over at CinemaBlend, the article is broken into seven parts/pages, each with lots of ads (both video and static). I hate when they do that! So, feel free to go over there, if only to read McKnight’s fine article. But, if you want to stay on one page, with half as much text and little-to-no ads, I’ve got ya covered. (I just hope McKnight/CinemaBlend don’t sue me.)

I suppose the first thing to confirm about the third installment in the franchise reboot is that it is still scheduled for a July 8, 2016, release. That mid-summer date coincides roughly with fandom’s celebration of the 50th anniversary of the original “Star Trek” series, which debuted on September 8, 1966. The next item of note is that the apparent title — registered with the MPAA, though not yet confirmed by Paramount — is the somewhat vague Star Trek Beyond. As McKnight notes, it’s bland but safe, and it could apply to a number of plots/themes.

Originally, the man shepherding the rebooted film series, J.J. Abrams, was scheduled to continue his directing responsibilities in the third installment. His sometime collaborator (and co-writer on the last two Trek movies with Alex Kurtzman), Roberto Orci, was tasked to co-write the new film, this time with relative newbies Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne. Then, Abrams left to work on the latest Star Wars sequel (while retaining a Trek producer credit), and Orci was given the director’s chair. But, Paramount higher-ups had concerns about the screenplay Orci et al. came up with. They thought it was “too Star Trek-y” and decided to throw it out. Producer Bryan Burk soon asked Simon Pegg (aka “Scotty”), along with Doug Jung (Confidence, “Dark Blue”), to write a new screenplay from scratch.

Naturally, fans didn’t like the “too Star Trek-y” comment. What does this mean? Most fans of the original series (and movies) are already concerned about the non-Trek-y feel & style of the last two movies. Does this comment by Paramount mean they will completely disregard those elements that made the franchise so unique and popular in the first place? According to Pegg, Paramount is (as usual) concerned with increasing the film/franchise’s accessibility for non-Trekkies, which they think/hope will translate to the huge success they see other adaptations of niche properties (e.g., Marvel’s Avengers) enjoying.

“As Pegg put it, the idea is to make a western or a heist film, but one full of Star Trek characters, to attract viewers that might otherwise be put off by the franchise name…. [The new emphasis on sweeping action and high adventure] isn’t going anywhere, but you also have to consider that The Original Series was once called Wagon Train to the Stars and envisioned as a space western. So this approach may not be as different as people initially think.”

On a positive note, Pegg didn’t accept the assignment lightly and seems to recognize the great responsibility he has to Trek fans and to what has gone before. Also, rumor has it that the Enterprise and crew will get a bit farther from Earth this time, beginning their famous five-year mission to “explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations….”, as longtime fans like myself have been hoping for.

Meanwhile, Orci also left as director. (He is still one of the producers, though.) Justin Lin, best known for the high-octane The Fast and the Furious franchise, was then brought in as replacement. This may have been a great move. We all know Lin can do action/adventure; the question will be how well his style translates over to science fiction, and Star Trek in particular.

All seven key castmembers (Pine, Quinto, Urban, Saldana, Pegg, Cho, Yelchin) are returning to their respective roles. Some of these “new cast” have been more accepted (e.g., Urban and Quinto) by fans than others, but overall they have a pretty good chemistry, and it’s probably best that none of the main characters are recast, at this point. According to McKnight, a few supporting actors have been rumored or attached to the film, but it’s the villains everyone wants to know about, and “there are a couple of potential doozies lined up.”

It is unknown whether or not the Klingons (aka “Blingons”, due to their piercings) will still be the primary antagonists. Popular British actor Idris Elba (“Luther”, Thor) has reportedly signed on for a villainous role, possibly as the main foe. Pegg insists Elba won’t be a Klingon, but that could be another head-fake (a la Cumberbatch/Khan). Whatever Elba plays will be fantastic, I’m sure. Sofia Boutella (Kingsman: The Secret Service) will play a substantial, possibly lead, role. She is presumed to be an antagonist, if not actually “bad” — most likely either McCoy’s ex-wife or a Starfleet adversary for Kirk, but “President of the Federation” is another possibility. Any of these could be a lot of fun, especially if Pegg & Jung’s writing is up to par!

That’s the wrap-up! Let’s just keep our fingers and toes crossed that, despite all the shake-ups and concerns, Star Trek 3 turns out to be a thoughtful, fun, and action-packed yarn that satisfies new and old fans alike, honors the 50-year legacy, and makes lots of money!