Nobody Wants To See Tron

Despite the marketing juggernaut of Disney, nobody wants to go see Tron Legacy next weekend. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Tron is tracking far below industry hopes and looks to pull in only $35 million its opening weekend. Considering the rumored $300 million dollar budget, Disney cannot be happy about this number especially with sequels and a television series already in development. Such a low box office projection is surprising considering the fervor that seemed to be building since the FX text premiered at Comic Con a couple of years ago. Maybe it’s a case of backlash from all the promotion, maybe it’s a weariness of 3D, or maybe Tron is a property that has limited appeal outside of the devoted fanbase. In any case, it’s likely that Tron Legacy will be a subject of debate for years to come as either an ambitious reboot of a franchise, or an epic financial disaster.

Disney can count on making at least $15 opening weekend from Tron Guy

RIP Dino DeLaurentiis

Uber-producer Dino DeLaurentiis has passed away at the tender age of 91. Included in his extensive and impressive resume are classics like Maximum Overdrive, Orca, and personal favorite Flash Gordon. For anyone unfamiliar with DeLaurentiis’ work, I suggest time-travelling back to the mid-’80s, turning on the television to any channel and you’re virtually guaranteed to find a one of his films playing. Weekend afternoon movies and early cable were made for this kind of stuff. While the DeLaurentiis name has not always been associated with quality, his films were consistently entertaining.

For example:

First, here’s a scene from Maximum Overdrive involving a soda machine, a little league coach, a kid, and a steamroller.

Next is a scene from Flash Gordon involving Aryan beefcake, hairy men in hawk outfits, and Max Von Sydow.

I know, I know, where are the soda machine and steamroller when you really need them?

Finally, I was going to post a clip from Orca, but killer whales are almost as scary as sharks, so here’s another clip from Flash Gordon where Hairy Hawkman answers the age-old question, “Is Flash Gordon dead?”

Tron Night

I was eight years old when the Tron was released and I’ve been a fan ever since. It has always had a dubious reputation, soliciting reactions ranging from “ground breaking and ahead of its time” to “cheesy box-office failure.” As such, the fact that Tron Legacy not only exists, but is one of the most anticipated films of the year makes reminds me of Flynn’s statement from the original: “This isn’t happening, it only thinks it’s happening.” After taking part in Tron Night, I’m happy to say that not only is the footage impressive in terms of spectacle, but there’s actual artistic merit as well. As it stands so far, Tron Legacy consists as a series of right choices in terms of performance and use of 3-D.

Few can argue that Jeff Bridges is a great actor. That Bridges embraces the original Tron and chooses to be a part of the sequel so many years later proves that the Oscar winner still harbors a sense of daring in the roles he plays. Flynn has a strong presence in Legacy even when he’s not on screen and this is a testament to Bridges and the reputation he has with the audience. It’s nice to see Bruce Boxleitner reprise his role as Alan Bradley, although there hasn’t been any indication that the character of Tron will make an appearance. Both Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde do a good job of holding their own against the spectacle. I was most surprised by Hedlund because I’ve never seen him in anything else.

Just as impressive is director Joseph Kosinski’s use of 3-D and composition. What strikes me most is Kosinki’s restraint when it comes to 3-D. In the footage that was shown, there is nothing that comes out at the audience from the screen. Instead, the screen is very much the fourth wall and is respected as such. Equally as impressive is Kosinki’s use of shallow focus in regard to 3-D. Instead of framing every shot with the background in full focus, Kosinski utilizes shallow focus to make the performances and action more intimate and give more emotional gravity to the images on screen. This is a very  mature and cinematic approach for a newcomer.

One of the technological restraints of the original Tron was the fact that the light emanating from the suits could not interact with the environment around the actors because of the post-production process needed to illuminate the suits. This is not the case with Legacy. The light from the suits, as well as lens flares, reflect off of the translucent walls of the game grid creating a real sense of depth when combined with the 3-D. Also, the actors look appropriately “round,” instead of like flat cardboard cutouts that look closer in proximity to the audience than the backgrounds.

Viewing disconnected scenes doesn’t give the context needed to know if the film works as a whole. However, the pedigree is there. Disney has the money to do this right and with access to the Pixar “brain trust,” there’s no reason why the story should not work. Overall, the jury is still out until December 17th, but considering what we’ve seen so far, this could be an enduring Legacy.

The Future of Entertainment

This week I went to Universal Studios in Hollywood with my son for a field trip and I came to an interesting revelation. The future of entertainment is 4-D attractions.

Listen up, James Cameron, because you’ve been one-upped. This is the real game changer.

Three dimensional depth only scratches the surface of the fully-immersive experience. In order to truly be a participant in the action you need to have WATER SHOT IN YOUR FACE. I’m not kidding. Virtually every attraction at Universal Studios finds a way to shoot water in your face, whether it be Donkey sneezing on you in Shrek 4-D, scarab beetles tearing away your flesh in the Studio Tour, or being flung from place to place as part of some existentialist nightmare on the Simpsons Ride, every experience involves, nay REQUIRES, water to be shot in your face.

 

Here’s my impression of every attraction pitch meeting:

Ride Engineer: We want to give each of our visitors a TRULY immersive experience that they cannot get anywhere else.

Executive: Does it involve shooting water in their face?

Ride Engineer: Absolutely.

Executive: Perfect. (*puts on sunglasses*)

 

What makes this so innovative* is that you are most likely wearing 3-D glasses when the water is being shot in your face, so the water collects on the lenses and the 3-D becomes distorted into some kind of 6-D experience that makes it THAT MUCH BETTER! It’s like a X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes looking at the center of the universe while the Beatles and Pink Floyd play in the background. It’s that impressive.

So next time you’re sitting in a darkened theater wearing 3-D glasses that you’re paid way too much for, be sure to have a squirt bottle filled with recycled H20 so that you can immerse yourself and those around you in the experience.

 

*annoying

Hoverboards

Back to the Future turns 25 this year. Hard to believe it’s been that long. I was 10 years old in 1985 and gave a presentation to my fifth grade class where I declared BTTF as my favorite movie and Michael J. Fox as my favorite actor. The one-two-punch of Alex P. Keaton and Marty McFly was too much coolness to be denied. Although my affection for the film and the actor have waned over time, one aspect of the Back to the Future trilogy still holds interest for me: Hoverboards. I remember a friend telling me that they were real and Mattel would be selling them soon. I was stoked (back off, it was the ’80s). I couldn’t wait. Maybe Nike would make the automatic fitting shoes also! But everything changed when I watched a “behind the scenes” special on BTTF2 on TV and saw the unspeakable: THERE WERE WIRES ATTACHED TO THE HOVERBOARD. It still hurts to this day.

Because the internet is a fountain of awesome, I’m happy to say that, technically speaking, Hoverboards do exist. Kind of. There’s a company called Future Horizons inc. that sells Hoverboards, but they’re not like the ones in BTTF. This Hoverboard is built with a lawnmower engine and can lift a 200 lb. person approximately 1 inch off the ground. I know what you’re thinking: How am I supposed to out-hoverboard Biff Tannen and his gang outside the clocktower in future Hill Valley? You can’t. And like the real Hoverboard, this one doesn’t work on water either. And it will set you back $9,000.

The second option, built by French artist Nils Guadagnin, looks like the traditional Hoverboard and uses electromagnetism and a stabilization system to float above the ground. However, you can’t stand on it. I know, it’s like a building a Flux Capacitor that DOESN’T make time travel possible. But it’s a step in the right direction.

According to the BTTF mythology, we’re only five years away from a working Hoverboard. Unfortunately, it looks like the human ingenuity present in Hill Valley far exceeds the ingenuity of the real world. But don’t lose hope. Write your senator, write your locate representative, and make your voice heard. Let them know that we don’t want to put another man on the moon, we want to put a man on a Hoverboard. Honestly, which is more cost effective and useful in the real world, colonizing the moon or building a working Hoverboard? Not only will it lower our reliance on foreign oil, lower our toxic emissions, and make us more green, it will also make us look AWESOME.

Face it, if we don’t create a working Hoverboard in the next five years, then the terrorists win.

Let’s Not Do The Time Warp Again

Deadline is reporting that Glee creator Ryan Murphy is in talks with Fox about directing a remake of the cult classic “Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

Seriously, stop it.

Now, I have no real love in my heart for the original. It’s kind of tedious and makes you feel like you’re not cool enough to be watching it if you’re not decked out in a pair of fishnets. However, there are some fun moments, the songs are catchy, and it never pretends to be anything other than what it is.

The reason this needs to stop is that this is a blatant attempt on Fox’s part to make some money based on name recognition and nostalgia. Honestly, does anyone think that a remake is going to be as good or better than the original? I imagine that it will have to be rated PG-13 to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The question is: Do we really want or need a Rocky Horror Picture Show for the Twilight generation?

This is money that Fox could spend on the next RHPS or on any number of other projects that deserve the light of day that they will never see. In fact, if they had never taken the initial risk on the original RHPS, then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

RIP Simon MacCorkindale

 

Simon MacCorkindale has passed away at the age of 58. MacCorkindale is probably best known in the U.S. for his role in the short-lived series Manimal, in which his character had the ability to shape shift into any animal to help fight crime. Kind of like Janya from Superfriends if she were a british gentleman with no brother and no monkey sidekick. That sentence alone should explain why the series only lasted for three months.

MacCorkindale will always hold a special place for me for his performance as Philip Fitzroyce in Jaws 3-D. Fitzroyce is easily the toughest victim Jaws ever devoured (unlike Quint, who screams like a girl) because even after being gloriously chewed upon for several minutes (I know, sharks don’t chew. I didn’t make this movie), Fitzroyce’s corpse still manages to remain in the shark’s mouth, grenade in hand, so that Dennis Quaid can pull the pin and **SPOILER ALERT** blow up the shark. **END SPOILERS**

 

I could post a scene from Jaws 3-D, but sharks are scary, so here’s a clip from Manimal:

 

 

And another clip from Manimal in French:

 

Lost Classic – Flesh Eating Film Reels

I was in third grade when my family first got cable television and I vividly remember seeing this short because it TERRIFIED me.  Thanks to AICN, this classic has been found on YouTube. What I find most surprising is that although the special effects look dated and the older me doesn’t find it frightening, this short stills stands up. The premise is clever and well executed. I noticed the name “Ben Burtt Jr.” listed in the credits and did some cursory research to see if it’s the same legendary Ben Burtt of Star Wars fame and I’m pretty sure it is, but I can’t be certain.

RIP Stephen J. Cannell

Last Thursday, Stephen J. Cannell went to that great award-filled, wood-panelled office in the sky. As the producer of television shows such as The Greatest American Hero, Hunter, Riptide, The A-Team, and 21 Jumpstreet, Cannell almost single-handedly kept me entertained throughout my early life and provided plenty of warm and fuzzy popular culture memories.

Of course Cannell’s most memorable piece of work is the promo that ran at the end of each show:

I’m sure heaven had an old IBM Selectric typewriter waiting for him.

Avatar 2 is Going Down

Dailymail.co.uk reports that James Cameron plans to shoot footage for use in Avatar 2, which will explore Pandora’s oceans, by travelling seven miles underwater in a submarine. So there are greenscreens on the bottom of the ocean?

This is part of what I don’t understand about Avatar. Cameron spent roughly a kajillion dollars and 1.21 gigawatts of presumably non-renewable energy on Avatar by building a virtual forest in a computer instead of shooting in a forest and using CG on the details. Now, he’s going to go seven miles underwater for footage that probably looks a lot like the bottom of the ocean in shallower depths, only darker. Which leads me to believe that James Cameron makes creative choices about his films that require significant effort and money without being essential to the story simply because he can. Essentially, he likes technique, and is “meh” about story. For example: EVERYTHING IN AVATAR.

I’m not saying Cameron is a bad filmmaker. Films like The Abyss, Terminator 2, and even Titanic are impressive on a visual level without sacrificing the creative nuance of storytelling, something that seems to be lacking in his current efforts. Instead, I’m asking is too much for one of our most accomplished modern filmmakers to impress us as much with the story he’s telling as he is with the way he’s telling it?