We’re not sure what happened to people’s brain’s in the last five years, but recently, the concept of being “faithful to the material” somehow became a synonymous for the indisputable quality of a project.
It started around the time that Robert Rodriguez and Zack Snyder did almost exact reenactments of Frank Miller graphic novels, “Sin City,” and “300.” Both those films worked relatively well for what they were (though Snyder maybe dialed up the homo-eroticness a bit too much), but shortly thereafter, the conventional wisdom was essentially: xerox the comic-book and put it onscreen. Visually, it’s a great idea and it’s fantastic that “Sin City”-like innovations have finally brought special-effects up to speed with comic book imagination. But it’s not always the best for story and it can’t be the only way, can it?
A recent review of Snyder’s “Watchmen” from Latino Review, basically furthers the idea suggesting that the movie is pretty much great because it doesn’t differ from the comic-book at all aside from that pesky, non-squid ending (which we think was a smart element to eject – “Sin City” enthusiasts should note, Carla Guigno is once again naked).
This is just a weird pre-ambling, wild rant that is tied to what McG said this weekend at New York Comic Con (yes, him again, change the channel if you don’t like it) which were essentially two things 1) we’re being ever-so faithful to what James Cameron started and b) what is even more worrisome – we’re pulling the curtain back to reveal the history. We hate prequels and origin stories (a whole rant is coming on that soon), they typically rob the stories of the mystique and their allure. A back story of a sci-fi film like this should generally act like the middle eight of a song – hinted at once and never reappearing, always leaving you wanting more. Instead McG essentially says, the back story is going to be our verses and choruses.
“The whole idea of this was to take the source material very seriously, and we wanted to get all our ducks in a row before we moved forward because there’s no doubt that the idea of a 4th Terminator film just seemed a little ridiculous. I mean, do we really need it? Jim Cameron would always talk about ‘I’ve finished that story after two pictures’ and I agree with him,” the “Charlies Angels” director told the NYCC crowds.
But he felt there was one more story left to tell and he explained his intentions firsthand to Cameron who wanted to know his take on the material.
“[I said to him,] The reason why this story is worth telling is because this is a look at the future war and it’s a look that’s more expansive than anything you ever gave the fans in the early pictures, just those little glimpses got us all excited. and the only way I could justify furthering the story would be if we made a film that was post Judgement day, that could be interesting. And he nodded his head and as many of you know he said, ‘Look man, I can’t condone your making this movie and I’m not going to shit all over this movie, but I hope it’s a good movie.’ “
Fair enough, but explaining further the director goes on to say the film “answers all the questions” Terminator fans have had all along.
“This is the story of how Skynet came to power. We’re all familiar with Judgement Day here and 2029 here which is where the T800 Schwarzenegger model went travels back in time. The thrust of this film is the space between and how did Skynet get to that place of proficiency, what machines did they go through, how did they get that realistic T800 to go beyond the T600 – which they stipulate so clearly, ‘easy to spot, big, rubber skin,’ this that and the other so this film. So this film answers all those questions, and I heard in the Watchmen panel discussing the little bits and pieces that honor the source material and [likewise] in this picture you’ll see the becoming of Kyle Reese, you’ll see the becoming of the machines and most particularly, you’ll see how John Connor becomes the leader of the resistance.”
But again, we always wonder, is answering everything and leaving no mystery a good thing?
Again, stop thinking reductively and assuming that we’re simply hating on McG or “Terminator Salvation.” We would be more than pleased if the film turned out to be the quality of say, “The Dark Knight,” however, we’re always dubious of origin stories and nothing said so far inspires a lot of confidence to be completely honest.
How many fantastic movies have there been from films that directly opposed the source material or veered off in another direction in the third act or in the conclusion because it just didn’t make sense. They’re called adaptations for a specific reason because they’re not the same mediums. What works in a novel or graphic novel – pulpy streetwise voice over for example — might not always work in a movie. Things that were said on the page that ripped your heart out, might just not work heard aloud and sometimes could even seem incredibly corny. All we’re saying is — much like “Watchmen” illustrator Dave Gibbons recently said about dark and gritty comics — there needs to be more than just one way.