Hollywood Meltdown?

Predicting the future is like sex; everyone wants to do it, lots of people think they are good at it, but nothing is certain until you can examine it in the past at which point it turns out Nostradamus was weak in the sack. I may have stretched that simile too far, but my point is that predicting the future is a tricky business. It always helps to be well-researched and in a position of expertise talking about what you are predicting.

That is why the recent E3 Q&A with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas was a bit concerning. Here are some of the highlights:

Spielberg: "The big danger is that there's eventually going to be a big meltdown where three or four, maybe even a half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground. That's going to change the paradigm again."

The "again" that Spielberg mentions is likely the late-80s blockbuster crash where films like Waterworld and Michael Camino's Heaven's Gate (which is returning to theatres curiously enough) sent some of the big production houses into bankruptcy and sent Hollywood scrambling for the next new thing. This resulted in careers for people like Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and John Lasseter, and made the 90s an art house response to the 80s blockbuster mania.

Spielberg: "You're at the point right now where a studio would rather invest $250 million in one film for a real shot at the brass ring than make a whole bunch of really interesting, deeply personal projects that may get lost in the shuffle."

Sad but true, the budgets of some of the upcoming films are staggeringly huge. $180 million for Pacific Rim or $225 for Man of Steel. Compare that to the $8 million it cost to make Pulp Fiction or even $63 million for SFX-heavy film The Matrix. And Life of Pi was proof that if you are willing to screw over the SFX artists who make the movie so good, you can cut costs even more, but that is a rant for a different article.

The point Spielberg and Lucas are trying to make is that the bubble will soon burst, just like it did before, but they also cite VOD streaming services like Netflix and specialty programming channels like HBO as being a new factor in the paradigm shift.

When the blockbuster bubble broke in the 80s there were small film studios, emerging artists, and opening foreign markets to build the Hollywood system back up. They were starting to see the beginning of digital filmmaking, but the technology to replace celluloid wouldn't arrive until the next decade. This meant that for film-like entertainment the public still had only one option. This is no longer the case with thousands of specialty channels, multiple streaming services, and endemic piracy. If Hollywood were to stop operating tomorrow there would still be the last season of Breaking Bad, the next HBO biopic movie, and whatever Netflix decides to release next as exclusive content. I'd also point out there are films made in countries all around the world, but getting North American audiences to watch something with subtitles is something only Quentin Tarantino can manage.

These giants of Hollywood, the men who literally invented the summer blockbuster, are predicting doom for the industry where movie theatres will be reduced to expensive special occasions and the dominant cinema screen will be the TV in your living room. It's a sad thought, but they seem to be underestimating the next generation of artists and rebels. A common problem for men their age.

The reason Spielberg and Lucas got to be the titans of industry they are today is because they were both extremely motivated and inventive artists. Spielberg overcame the adversity of shooting with a robotic shark on the ocean to make the first real summer blockbuster. And Lucas overcame decades of stigma towards science fiction to make a Best Picture-nominated classic. There are still people like them around. Young artists who have a vision and stick to it are able to overcome miraculous odds. And as long as some of them still love the 2-hour, 3-act Hollywood-style film, they will continue to make them.

Lucas: "The Lincolns are going to be on television."

What Lucas is referring to are the "passion projects" like Spielberg's Lincoln or his own Red Tails. These are the films that don't necessarily fit the pattern of A-list actors, big effects, and happy endings. Personally, I think they are underestimating what could qualify as a passion project, but both films were mired by distribution difficulties. Lincoln was nearly an HBO miniseries, but Spielberg, the man behind Band of Brothers, shouldn't be so negative about what a miniseries can be. I would argue that Band of Brothers qualifies as one of the greatest WWII movies ever made. It just happens to be 10 hours long. But that doesn't reduce the artistic value and storytelling power; it only redirects it.

Anyone who is a fan of Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, or The Wire will understand that being on a smaller screen does not reduce the potential impact. It changes it, of course. A powerful theatrical experience like The Lord of the Rings is not the same as a powerful television experience like The Wire. But there are markets for both, and people like me who will seek out equal amounts.

As long as people have technology to distract them from going outside (and I pray we always do), there will be a market for narrative content. The access routes will change; for every movie theatre that closes there are new channels, new streaming services, and new video hosts like Vimeo. The content will change too. New forms like the webisode emerge and write new rules for length and cinematography and editing, but old forms will continue to be reworked by the artists who love them. Michel Hazanavicius' silent cinema tribute, The Artist may have been seen by very few people, but it is proof that no artform dies as long as someone still cares about it.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

This is the long-awaited sequel to a blockbuster science fiction franchise that has seen highs and lows over the past few decades. It is probably the best indicator of what JJ Abrams will bring to a Star Wars sequel, and I'd say things are looking very good.

After a thrilling James Bond-like opening mission, Kirk and the Enterprise return to Earth. In London, rogue agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) has bombed a Starfleet archive, and Kirk gets permission from Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to hunt him down.

From the opening scenario involving primitive aliens, cliff diving, and exploding volcanoes, the film keeps a pace going that would give the original series whiplash. William Shatner's crew may have had time for philosophy and contemplation, but with Chris Pine on the bridge the philosophy must be discussed between phaser blasts. Action fans can rejoice at this. Sometimes the speed and clutter of the frame was overwhelming, but JJ has proved to be a more than capable action director with a clear hold on his audience.

A superficial improvement in the sequel is the reduction of lens flares. It doesn't bother me, but many people complain that the first film includes too many. Happy for you then that JJ is such a nice guy because he has bowed to the people's will and given you what you asked for. Giving the audience what they want, however, is exactly what causes trouble in the film. Not a lot of trouble, but enough to make this sequel not quite as good as its predecessor.

Where the first film had a streamlined plot that spiraled around it's time-travel premise, Into Darkness has an element of chaos that is both good and bad. As the plot unfolds and the villain surprises Kirk, the chaos plays to the danger and suspense that comes with such an unpredictable opponent. But in gaining mystery and suspense the film sacrifices tidy storytelling, which shuffles emotional scenes and action scenes in jarring ways. As far as criticisms go that one is pretty weak, but it's the best description I can give for the slight disappointment I felt.

The writers have picked up the alternate-timeline characters where they were left and have followed them forward with the understanding that even on a new timeline, they could encounter elements of the original series. At times, references to the original series get in the way of good storytelling. This is a problem that only Trek fans will have to deal with, however, since the film as science fiction, as action, as adventure, and as a fun ensemble is solid. Even if references to the original do get in the way, they are such good elements that it would have been a shame to lose them just because Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) messed up the timeline.

When sequels like The Dark Knight come along they are met with astonishment because good sequels have been so difficult and rare. Before Nolan returned to Gotham there was only The Godfather Part 2 and The Empire Strikes Back to cited as undeniably great successors. Though I won't place Into Darkness in their league, it is still a fantastic sequel. With JJ doing Star Wars it is unlikely we will see another Star Trek for 3-4 years unless a new director is found, but when the next film comes it will have a lot to live up to in both of its predecessors.

Please avoid spoiling things in your review, thank you very much

WARNING: This review contains complaints about the spoilers (and therefore contains spoilers) that appear in Eli Glasner's review of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. At the time of writing I have not seen the film.

I was on the CBC website, and on the sidebar was Eli Glasner's review of JJ Abrams second Star Trek film. I've had my disagreements with what Mr. Glasner has written before, but different opinions are what make talking about movies so much fun. I think he and I could get along well. However, if he is going to be the film critic for the CBC (a job I would do for free, FYI) then he needs to change his style just a little bit.

CBC's only film critic, Eli Glasner

This was written at the top:

*WARNING: Big and small spoilers ahead*

First line and first mistake. Spoiler reviews are for fan sites, places where the people reading it are more likely to be the ones who have already seen it. The CBC is not that place, and you've just turned away part of your audience. If filmmakers can make trailers without spoiling the plot, a critic can write a review with the same restraint.

For example:

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Bigger set pieces and higher stakes make this the sequel used to measure all other sequels. With the rebels on the defensive from the icy opening, Episode V relentlessly asserts the terrifying power of Darth Vader and the Emperor. 5/5

And I managed to write that without revealing that Darth Vader is Luke's (WORTHLESS PLACE FOR A SPOILER ALERT) father.

I'm comfortable in my knowledge that I didn't spoil anything in that previous sentence, by the way, since it is right up there with the meaning of "Rosebud" for movie surprises that most everyone knows. If it weren't I would have made sure to warn much earlier than the word before, which brings me to my biggest problem with Mr. Glasner's review:

"Trek fans will know him better by his other (SEMI-OBVIOUS SPOILER) name."

Maybe I am idealistic. Maybe I am foolish. But I managed to keep myself in darkness about the possibilities surrounding the new film's villain. There are so many things wrong with Mr. Glasner's word choice here that I felt I had to comment.

1. Putting (SEMI-OBVIOUS SPOILER) in bold capitals draws attention to it. I understand that is usually the point with spoiler alerts, but it is a problem when you consider...

2. Context is everything. I learned the meaning of the word "obfuscate" because it was used in a sentence regarding the concealment of facts. Context taught me a new word, which is what context always does. It is a major part of how we gain vocabulary. Delete the spoiler parenthesis and you get, "Trek fans will know him better by his other name." Oh dear, what could that be? A villain with a famous name in Star Trek history. James T. Kirk is not Batman; he doesn't have a roll call of dozens of famous villains. This is not how you hide facts.

3. Links are words too. Mr. Glasner made the word "name" into a hyperlink to the relevant clip of William Shatner. I didn't need to click on it to get the name, I only needed to roll over and have the web address pop up reveal it for me.

All of my gripes are itty bitty things that most people won't care about. And I will readily admit that the spoiler of the villain's identity was not something I found very shocking since it has been in the rumour mill since 2009. But if Mr. Glasner is going to be the only film critic for the national broadcaster of Canada, then I want him to do a better job.

Film reviews should elicit the same excitement that a movie advertisement can have, urging people to see something good when they may have otherwise skipped it. Or it should dilute the artificial excitement of a well-marketed bad movie so that bad filmmakers stop getting the wrong idea from big opening weekends. This is what Roger Ebert was so wonderful at. He poked holes in the inflated egos of bad movies, and he threw his mighty love of film behind the underdogs that deserve it. And he did this without writing spoiler warnings in bold capitals.