Star Wars: Starkiller Base and Death Star

Star Wars: Force Awakens Repeats Previous Star Wars Plots

 

Starkiller Base and the Death Star

Not again. Hollywood has a penchant for sticking to tried and true formulas. This is exactly why franchises are born, whether that be an expansion of the Harry Potter or Star Wars universes. Building on a loved and cherished movie is extremely profitable given the existence of a loyal fan base. Look at the box office numbers for Star Wars: The Force Awakens and this point is proved immediately.

But the problem arises when a movie’s plot relies on formulas excessively. While the new Star Wars movie is one that I particularly enjoyed, it does tend to rely on an over-familiar narrative direction. I’m referring to Starkiller Base, or Death Star 2.0, or is it 3.0? 

The nefarious First Order in the Force Awakens has constructed a gargantuan solar system destroyer, which in itself is a planet. It ultimately serves as a modified, evolved version of the Empire’s Death Star. The first Death Star was finished after the Clone Wars and was able to destroy a planet with its primary weapon. Then in the movie The Empire Strikes Back, it was demolished by Luke Skywalker. Then there was the reconstruction of the Death Star as Death Star II, but before it was put into action, The Millennium Falcon saw to its end. 

And then this year, with The Force Awakens, we had the Starkiller Base, which was able to not only obliterate a single planet but an entire solar system.  It is simply a bigger and badder Death Star. Starkiller Base represents a significant flaw in the Hollywood blockbuster system, which mirrors the studios’ approach to extending franchise life cycles: sticking with the material that worked. 

My first impression upon seeing Starkiller Base was, “Really? Another Death Star?” I’m a fan of nostalgic movie moments, which The Force Awakens provides in ample doses with throwbacks. But here, with Starkiller Base, I got the impression that the writers hit some form of brick wall and decided to resuscitate the Death Star because they ran out of ideas. A shortcut to getting out of writer’s block. 

This poses some significant problems for the future Star Wars installments. In a trilogy, the natural progression of the story requires the stakes to rise with each passing movie. A prime example is with Lord of the Rings. In Two Towers, you had the battle at Helms Deep. In Return of the King, the battled moved up to Minas Tirith and for the overall fate of Middle Earth in front of the Gates of Mordor. 

With the news Star Wars trilogy, the writer’s opted to go big from the get-go with a superior Death Star from Episode VII itself. They also destroyed it in that very same episode. So what next? Is Episode VIII or IX likely to see an even bigger Death Star, 4.0? I mean, you already had a solar system destroying weapon, so how are the stakes going to be raised even further? 

I conjecture that the story will instead opt to raise the emotional stakes and complexity of the new trilogy. Already, The Force Awakens displayed more nuance when it came to the Light and Dark sides of the force than any of the previous movies. This was done effectively with Kylo Ren, though I felt at times he was another rendition of the pouty Anakin Skywalker. Personal conflict will probably take the spotlight in the upcoming movies as opposed to another mammoth weapon of mass destruction. The way Force Awakens ended, Ren was on his way to Supreme Leader Snoke (Darth Plagueis?) to complete his training, while Rey was also likely to be trained by Luke Skywalker. The two will then face off in the final installment while dealing with the emotional baggage surrounding either, Ren having killed his father and Rey trying to figure out who the hell she is. 

This is where I see the future heading, and I can’t contemplate another Death Star of any kind. If Snoke is indeed Plagueis, though, then there’s some interesting material to cover with his apparent power to be immortal, as the last time I checked, Darth Sidius poisoned Plagueis in his sleep.

Side Note: Another point of plot regurgitation was the eventual Sith Apprentice killing off an entire group of young Padawan. In Revenge of the Sith, that task was handled by Hayden Christensen’s Anakin Skywalker. This time round, the child-killer responsibilities fell to Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren.

The First Order at Starkiller Base

Edgar Wright Exits Ant-Man

Edgar Wright Not Directing Ant-Man Anymore

 

This is one of the most bizarre news pieces to reach my ears. Edgar Wright, who has been attached to Marvel’s Ant-Man movie since 2006, before the first Iron Man movie, has decided to leave the project to someone else. People are already speculating about the reasons behind this, and the best guess happens to be to do with creative differences. 

This is strange given that the execs have probably known the direction Wright was taking the film in for years, despite it morphing and changing along the way, especially with Marvel’s successful Phase 1. The core reason for the split was to do with rewrites. 

So far, I doubt Marvel has had a rotten apple in its lineup, commercially that is. I happen to be an ardent supporter of the DC universe and hope that the upcoming Dawn of Justice movie will turn the tables. Is this latest news of Marvel’s Ant-Man movie a sign of the tide turning? Franchises sometimes extend themselves a bit too far. I think Marvel is reaching that point, and the best example I have for this is the TV show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., which doesn’t stand up to the quality of Marvel’s cinematic lineup, not that it was made to be that way, though. If it tried to be that way, the budget would probably balloon out of control.  

I am disappointed by Wright’s departure because his movies are dense with humor, a key component of almost every single Marvel movie thus far. Wright has given audiences laughs consistently with all his movies, and he can handle a butt load of CGI, and a prime case would be Scott Pilgrim v. The World, so he is definitely capable of handling the science fiction elements of the movie. Chances are that the studio will find a suitable replacement for the director, but it still won’t be Edgar Wright, now would it?

2014 Golden Globe Awards Movie Predictions

Golden Globe Predictions 

With only moments to spare before tonight’s most famous movie and television stars stroll the soaking wet red carpet at this years Golden Globes, I have completed my winners list for this years FILM categories.  The following winners are based on my opinions of this year’s nominees and nobody else’s.

Best Foreign Language Film: Blue is the Warmest Color

Best Animated Film: Frozen

Best Screenplay: Her

Best Director: Steve McQueen

Best Supporting Actor- Jennifer Lawrence

Best Supporting Actor- Jared Leto

Best Actress (Comedy) - Amy Adams

Best Actor (Comedy) - Joaquin Phoenix

Best Actress (Drama) - Emma Thompson

Best Actor (Drama) - Chiwetel Ejiofor

Best Motion Picture Comedy or Musical- Inside Llewyn Davis

Best Motion Picture Drama- 12 Years a Slave

Samson the next Bible Movie?

Samson Bible Movie

Is it time for Hollywood to retell the story of Samson?

2014 is going to see quite a number of biblical movies grace the movie theater. First, there’s Darren Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’ starring Russell Crowe, which of course, is about Noah’s Ark. Then, there’s Ridley Scott’s ‘Exodus’ which will see Christian Bale as Moses himself. Hollywood seems to be gaining a liking for The Bible, despite its generally liberal masses. I kept thinking about other potential Bible stories that may be turned into film, and one that popped into my mind was that of Samson. 

According to the Hebrew Bible, Samson was a means by which God could aid the Israelites, who were suppressed by the Philistines at the time. He possessed supernatural, omnipotent strength and in his endeavors, he single handedly annihilated the Philistines, up until his death. He was a Nazirite, set aside for God, and his vows included abstinence from alcohol and shaving and cutting hair among other things. As long as he protected his vows, he would be able to preserve his powers of unimaginable strength.  

Word goes that his path was set by God so as to deliver the Israelites from the Philistines. His falling for a Philistine woman was then, planned by God. This simple act sets in motion a chain of events that results in sheer carnage. When his betrothed Philistine woman is given to another man, he burns the fields of the Philistines. This enrages the Philistines who exact vengeance by killing his betrothed. This in turn, infuriates Samson even further (his loved one was killed, obviously) so he slaughters even more Philistines. The story goes on and on, with Samson taking on an entire army by himself until he is betrayed by Delilah, another woman he falls for. She finds out that if Samson breaks his vow, by say, cutting his hair, he’ll lose his superhuman strength. Delilah, swayed by the coin the Philistines offered, cuts Samson’s hair, thereby allowing the Philistines to capture him. But in his very last hours before he was to be sacrificed, he pulled down the two pillars (his hair grew back somewhat) he was tied to, killing many more Philistines and himself, in the end.

When the story is put out as I have done in the previous paragraph, it seems preposterous. Well, that’s because I’ve left out most of the detail to make the story as concise as possible. I was first introduced to Samson through those Bible cartoons they used to show back in the day. It started off with Jesus, Moses and then eventually the series made its way to Samson. He was more likeable in the cartoon than in the Bible. He had to be in order to make the program viewable for children. Ripping apart a lion with his bare hands (yes, he does this, too) wouldn’t sit well with all those parent’s councils watching over TV shows, waiting to pounce on anything that may seem inappropriate. 

When I first thought about a Samson movie, I saw some real potential for a film. There’s a tremendous amount of tragedy to be seen with the loss of his first betrothed, to his eventual betrayal at the hands of Delilah. Even the fact that he was blinded after his capture, should set hearts to ache at some point. Then there’s all the violence that could end up in the movie. A fight with a lion, and the countless scores of Philistines he so easily obliterates. There’s scope for some really strong rated R material that should appeal to older audiences and teenagers. Add to this his weakness for untrustworthy women who are no doubt appealing in more than one way, and you have the possibility of some raunchy sex scenes, not that we’re trying to besmirch The Bible in anyway. There were 2 notable loves in his life, so there’s room for at least a couple of erotic scenes. 

Tragedy, love, lust, violence. These components should make for an interesting screenplay. But the story of Samson has some inherent flaws. Firstly, when I was watching that cartoon years ago, I couldn’t help but compare Samson to Hercules. He is a one man army. He took down most of the Philistines by himself. Portraying this onscreen should be extremely difficult. In fact, it won’t be highly feasible to have an individual do all those deeds by himself. Unless it’s an animated feature like those cartoons were. Of course, we could pair him up with a band of misfits and such to make the scenario more plausible, but then the film would turn into the Hercules movies set to be released this year, with Kellan Lutz and The Rock playing the Greek hero in separate movies, both planning on providing a more realistic take on the Greek hero. Hence, a realistic take makes it difficult to differentiate Samson from the Hercules movies to be released soon. Then there’s the matter of the hair. The bottom line is that if you cut Samson’s hair, he loses his powers. To most, this is ludicrous and trivial. Imagine a seen where the villain, Delilah, in this case, creeps up on Samson after some shenanigans in bed, and cuts his locks off to weaken him. It’s almost impossible to see that deed done in a serious manner on screen, without creating a laugh or two. 

I thought that Samson would thus be an unfilmable idea, primarily due to the hair, but it turns out that I was wrong. There’s a 1949 movie ‘Samson and Delilah’ which won 2 Oscars and a 1996 TV movie with Elizabeth Hurley in it. There were also some films in the 1960s made in Italy, with titles such as ‘Samson vs. The Pirates’. I’m guessing that it falls into the category of a mash up film of sorts, the kind you see with monsters, like Godzilla vs. King Kong. Must be quite entertaining. Anyway, it seems that Hollywood was working on Samson long before I thought about it. While the movies that are currently available on the Biblical character may not be suited to the tastes of the present generation, it may only be a matter of time before someone harvests an idea that translates the idea into a palatable film for the present day. If Noah’s Ark can make a Hollywood premiere, why can’t Samson’s glorious locks?

'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' Plot Problems

'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' Plot Problems 

Is a 10 year time jump vital for the story?

 

According to ComicBookMovie.com, the plot of ‘Dawn of the Planet of Apes’ is described as such:

A growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar is threatened by a band of human survivors of the devastating virus unleashed a decade earlier. They reach a fragile peace, but it proves short-lived, as both sides are brought to the brink of a war that will determine who will emerge as Earth's dominant species. 

After watching the trailer for the movie, I can truly say that I’m extremely anxious to watch this movie. Tonally, this film is definitely darker than its predecessor, a trend familiar for most Hollywood sequels nowadays. 

Essentially, a virus has almost eradicated the human species off the face of this earth. The film is set 10 years after ‘Rise of the Planet of Apes’, so the virus has done its work effectively, since whatever left of human civilization shown in the trailer, appears to have set back people by a century or two. And if Gary Oldman’s voice in the trailer is to be believed, humans fighting amongst each other would have also aided this regressive transition for the human race. 

The last movie had Caesar and his fellow primates residing in The Red Oak Forest, seeking sanctuary among its towering trees. To move from that to a state of anarchy and lawlessness is a big, profound and perplexing jump. It is a massive, if not revolutionary change to have humanity at the mercy of primates. This brings the question as to whether this upcoming installment should focus on the ten years that have passed, or whether it should pick up after humans have been brought to their knees.

Of course, most would say that the spread of the virus via airline routes as depicted by the final scene, should be sufficient to clarify this situation.  Had a movie been developed on the 10 years since, it would simply be another ‘Contagion’ or other virus movie. 

But what the trailer illuminated was that humans were now at the mercy of Caesar and the other primates. Isn’t it worth knowing how we got there? The virus and the genetically enhanced primates should be part of the answer but not the entire response. After all, Caesar didn’t possess an army of millions at his command to have mankind under his foot. The trailer also reveals that his hairy friends still reside among the trees, instead of sheltering in apartments and hotel suites. Maybe this is a sign that there’s much more to come from this franchise, and more left for the apes to do in upcoming installments. This franchise is truly alive and well with the reboot, and a ten year fast forward from the last installment may be crucial, to spare the film from turning into another generic virus-spread movie. 

In fact, a fast forward may be necessary as detailing the path that led humans to that sorry state may be too ludicrous to put on screen.  Of course, I understand that the film is dealing with intellectually superior apes, which in itself is an otherworldly phenomenon, but having primates messing around with things like nuclear weapons and such may be preposterous (just an example), for now at least given that the previous film didn’t elaborate extensively on how smart these creatures are, since it was merely an introduction.

While I would have loved to understand how things got so horrible within 10 years in the ‘Planet of the Apes’ universe in lurid detail, it ultimately may be unnecessary and distractive, as everything could be pinned down to the spread of a virus that affects human beings, and not the apes. And besides, Caesar and his friends don’t seem to have done much during that time since they seem to have been holed up in a forest, rather than proceeding with executing some megalomaniacal plan. That decade which was skipped may, as a result, be ignored, as the most interesting and compelling story may still be waiting to be told.