|
Part 3 (of 3) of 'Crossovers, Crossovers Everywhere, And Not A New Idea' a look into the explosion in media crossovers, the reasoning behind them, and what makes some better than others.
What Makes A Crossover Good?
Part 3 (of 3) of Crossovers, Crossovers Everywhere, And Not A New Idea
By Bret Funk
Last time, I explored a mystifying conundrum: why we, the public, continue to spend our hard earned dollars on poorly-made adaptations of our favorite books, comics, and television series. This month, I look at an even more startling subject: the as-yet-unexplained increase in well-made adaptations that has plagued Hollywood in recent years.
The easy answer is that the movie-watching public is not comprised of pushovers, simpletons, and fools. We simply refuse to watch third-rate actors besmirch the good names of our favorite characters in sloppily-scripted productions supervised by hack directors out to make a quick buck. No number of flashy special effects (and sometimes not so flashy ones) will take our minds off the fact that Keaton made a better Batman than Clooney; that Starship Troopers, the movie, bore little resemblance to Starship Troopers, the book; and that Dolph Lundgren apparently had never heard of He-Man before becoming A Master of the Universe.
Unfortunately, and as usual, the simple answer just doesn’t work. If it did, then crossovers would have been well made for decades, perhaps since the dawn of movie making. And if not immediately, then at least by the 70s, when epic crossover flops like The Bible were first released. I mean, honestly, if we can’t count on Christians to maintain the integrity of this great nation’s cross-media entertainment ventures, who can we count on?
But if John Q. Public isn’t responsible for the improvement of crossovers, who is? Certainly not producers. Though the rare philanthropic producer with an eye for detail and the cahones to do a picture right may, in fact, exist, the vast majority are driven by two simple needs: to recoup the money that they – or their investors – spent on the film, and to make a profit, as large a profit as possible. In my humble opinion, they – and the marketing teams they assign to each project – are one of the driving factors behind the poor crossover, pushing out substandard fare with the hope that they can capitalize on the work’s popularity.
Actors? Without a doubt, casting the right person in each role helps make a better movie. After reading a description of Professor Charles Xavier, one might be tempted to add Yul Brynner and Telly Savalas to the list of potential candidates (production year and living status notwithstanding). Both fit the bill, but the former strikes me more as a Sub-Mariner; the latter would have made a great Kingpin. Neither could have captured the essence of Professor X.
But casting the right actor is not enough; it alone cannot make a movie good. Prior to watching Batman Forever, I was convinced that Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones were good choices to play the Riddler and Two Face, respectively (ignoring the fact that Two Face’s character, played by Billy Dee Williams, had already been introduced in the original Batman). Despite the stars’ efforts, the movie fell far short of its potential. If someone had been there to temper Carrey’s performance or inspire Kilmer’s, perhaps I’d feel differently.
Which leads to directors, who many would easily discount. After all, over the years some very big names have worked on crossover projects, often with limited success. Then again, other lesser-known directors have earned some well-deserved fame for their adaptations. Is there a secret to making a good crossover film, or is it simply a game of chance, where the winners get our money and respect, and the losers have to settle for the money?
Directors, just like actors, need to be selected, not based on their past successes, but on their suitability for the role. No one would expect Scorsese to tackle the intricacies of Middle Earth, or even the more familiar playground of Spider-Man (that, at least, takes place in New York!). Similarly, a wise producer would never ask Woody Allen to direct Superman or expect Kubrick to produce an action-packed rendition of… well, of anything. (Though he might have been an ideal choice for the epic sandscapes of Dune). On the other side of the coin, Burton’s dark mind was a perfect choice to direct in Gotham City; coupled to an excellent casting job, he made 1989's Batman a classic in crossover entertainment.
There is, however, one more element crucial to making a successful crossover, one not always considered but even more important than choosing the right player for the part: selecting someone with a personal interest in the franchise. Rumor has it that Sam Raimi – a Spider-Man fan since his youth – practically begged for the chance to direct the movie. It payed off: Spider-Man was another excellent crossover film. And without Peter Jackson’s deep love of The Lord of the Rings, who can say how butchered the final product would have been (though it might have clocked in at under nine hours!).
Directors with a personal stake are more willing to take risks, too, such as casting a virtually unknown actor because he’s right for a role. Hugh Jackman can thank Bryan Singer for his fame; if Singer hadn’t thought him perfect for the role of Wolverine, he’d still be in Australia making films like Paperback Hero.
Finally, adapting a novel or comic book superhero into a two- to three-hour movie (if we’re lucky!) is not an easy feat; some aspects of the story will have to hit the cutting room floor. A director familiar with the story knows which elements are essential, and which can be lifted out without destroying the gestalt. Even more importantly, a committed director will go to bat for the story, facing down producers, writers, and God Himself to protect the integrity of his vision.
After all, if they didn’t, how could they look in the mirror and call themselves fans?
|
