Angry At Movies: Origins

So I said I'd be blogging more. I haven't. Sorry about that, real life and general laziness have gotten in the way. However, I also said that I had a new idea for something to blog about, and that was true.

Welcome to Angry At Movies, where I talk about all the trends and cliches I hate in modern cinema. These are things I feel have become so ingrained in our cultural storytelling that we don't even notice them anymore, and specifically don't notice how much they suck anymore. What am I talking about? Well, let's get right to the first thing that's been pissing me off, lately. I feel it only fitting that we start from the beginning, so what's making me angry at movies today?

ORIGIN STORIES

We're in an era of summer blockbusters where two things are seriously in vogue. 1) Superhero movies and 2) Reboots of established series. The result is a kind of critical mass of "Origin" movies, retelling the epic beginning of well-known and, more importantly, firmly established characters.

So why is this bad? On paper, it seems only logical to retell the origins of these characters. After all, people might be new to the series. Right? WRONG! AND YOU ARE WRONG FOR THINKING SO!

The primary flaw of origin stories is that they're structured in a way that directly deprives the audience of what they came to see. I'm going to use James Bond as the example here, as the Daniel Craig reboot of the Bond series is one of the worst offenders in this regard. When I go to a James Bond movie, I'm going to see James Bond. I already know who James Bond is. Even if I'd never seen a James Bond movie, I would know who James Bond is. He's a cultural icon. The man is everywhere. When I go to a James Bond movie, I go in with the expectation that I will see a super-suave, super-awesome spy running around exotic locales kicking ass. THAT IS WHAT I BOUGHT A TICKET FOR!

And did I get James Bond when I went to see "Casino Royale?" No. I got "Rookie Bond." I got to see his oh so charming awkward years before he was a hyper-competent MI6 Agent. We got to see exactly how he learned to keep his emotions in check while on assignment, slowly becoming the Bond we all know and love. It's like a delightful coming-of-age story for this thirty-five year old secret agent! Who...Why would anyone think this was a good idea for a movie? A JAMES BOND movie?

To me, I just keep having to ask "why?" Why did we ever need to a James Bond reboot? Was it just too hard for people to catch up with the Brosnan movies? Were people getting so lost in the complex continuity of the previous Bond films that we had to take a step back and start with a fresh slate? And even if it was necessary, even if it was sooooo important that we distance ourselves from "Die Another Day," why an origin? "Dr. No" wasn't an origin. The Bond movies have never told his origin, and why should they? IT'S BORING! Because it isn't Bond! It's the rookie who will become Bond in the future.

Okay, I'll stop harping on Bond, much as it continues to piss me off. You might be asking your monitor "Well, what's the proper way to reboot a series?" The answer, my friends, is Batman. No, not "Batman Begins," I'm talking about Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman" starring Michael Keaton. This was, in many ways, a continuity reboot. It was an effort to bring the darker, edgier Batman of the recent comics into the pop culture, in a time when non-comic fans still associated Batman with the 1960s television serial. So this movie was specifically designed to bring in people new to the franchise. So, is it an origin story?

NO!

Oh the movie tells Batman's origin story...in five minutes. The first few minutes of the movie tell us all we need to know. Rich kid, parents got shot, dresses up in a bat suit and fights crime. BAM! DONE! And within five minutes the Bat himself is on...the...screen! You wanted to see Batman, there's your Batman and he's got the Batmobile and the Batcave and everything all ready to go. There's still an arc to the movie, and plenty of tension. Bruce Wayne meets an attractive reporter and is unsure whether or not he should reveal his secret identity to her, and of course he has to stop the Joker from running around poisoning people. There's a lot going on in the movie, and it's all Batman, with the moments of Not-Batman restricted to the bare minimum at the beginning.

That is how you handle an established character. AUDIENCES AREN'T STUPID! They don't need every detail of a character laid out before them in order to relate to them. They paid to see Batman, they know Batman is coming, so just show them Batman. It's like in a slasher movie where you have to wait half an hour before Freddy Kreuger is even mentioned. There's building tension and then there's just pissing me off! You know why Spider-Man 2 is better than Spider-Man 1? Because it opens with Spider-Man!

I could go on, but this rant would just get more incoherent from here. Bottom line: stop with all the damn origin stories for characters we already know. They're unnecessary, underestimate the audience, and most of all they're boring!

And if you want proof, see if you don't skip the first two paragraphs if you decide to re-read this post.

Game Over

So there's a rumor going around that Game Crazy will soon be shutting its doors. I've gotta say, I believe it. The article in the link paints this as "the little guy" being crushed under the boot of the massive Gamestop corporation, but I see it as part of a larger issue. That issue? DEDICATED GAME STORES SUCK!

Seriously, I don't understand why anyone uses dedicated game stores anymore. Do they just like being hassled for pre-orders and membership cards and extra controllers? That's basically all that separates the game store experience from your average trip to Best Buy. Every person behind the counter is instructed to upsell the hell out of anyone who sets foot in the store, even if they just want to use the restroom. It's not because these places are evil or greedy. If that were the case, Game Crazy would be thriving. The dark secret of game stores is that selling video games alone produces a very, very slim profit margin. I don't know the numbers, but apparently the sale of a new game yield's next to no profit at sale.

At places like Best Buy, video games can be written off as a sort of a loss leader. They've worked out ways to make a profit that don't involve badgering the customer to give them money for nothing. And if you're using Gamestop to buy used games on the cheap, I seriously suggest checking out eBay or Amazon.com. You'll find better deals, a way better selection, and it's really no more of a crap shoot if the disk will work.

I honestly hope we're reaching a point where either dedicated game stores die entirely or they seriously rethink their business model. I'll give a suggestion for free right now. You know what people who buy video games also like? Comic books and tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons. You know what you can sell at ridiculous mark-ups and yet people will still pay for them? Comic books and tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons. Why are there no combined video game and comic book shops? It seems like the best idea ever. But what do I know about business?

(P.S. I intend to start blogging more often now. I have a few ideas for entries, so expect to see them soon!)