Some more Iron Man geeking out

[trinityvixen]

I think Jon Favreau is a-dork-able. (Spoilers if you haven't seen the movie.) Loved this:

It's very difficult to keep these franchises from running out of gas after two [movies]. The high point seems to be the second one, judging by history: If you just look at the consensus in the reviews, you see that X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2 are sort of seen by the fans as the sort of high point of both franchises, though I don't necessarily agree with that.

I don't necessarily agree with him (in fact, I agree with the consensus that the second film in both the X-Men and Spider-Man film franchises were the strongest), but I like that he's keeping in mind the attack of the fatal death that is the last film in a trilogy.

Why trilogies? Is it a beginning/middle/end thing? Have we just gotten used to the three-act structure inside of a work that we impose it anything that work would hope to achieve? That's fine when you're not making somethng that is, by its nature, serialized past the three-act thing. Serials live in a perpetual middle with minor climaxes and denouements throughout, but you're not supposed to get to an end. On a TV show or a comic book, you can lather, rinse, repeat the formula until you've got fabulous Pantene hair. (Just look at Stargate. That held on for ten years.)

Movies complicate the pattern. By their very nature, they impact upon us more forcibly, especially if you see it in the theater where the assualt on your senses is enhanced by a screen at least one story high, speakers that could vibrate the Earth itself, and the immersion factor that keeps us (ideally) isolated from the distractions elsewhere. Every movie is its own Best Story Ever, and serializing it takes a lot of work. You need archetypes instead of characters wherever you can get away with it. You need bad guys that are Really Bad People (at least they should be for most of the film). You need a theme that you can return to when all else fails. You need to know that while this time in this film, the girl/family/country/world/planet/universe is in danger, there will always be another time when it will be. Not that that should diminish this time, though. This time? It totally might all go kaput.

That's an impossibly hard thing to get right, and the penchant for sequels that come in threes makes it hard to visualize the risk to the hero(ine) as being something perpetual the way it should be in a proper serial. (Note: not proper sequels of three-act sorts like Lord of the Rings, but serialized, individualized franchises like James Bond, et al.) If we know that there will only be as much trouble as it takes to fill three movies, it's easy for us to get bored.

So announcing that there WILL be sequels to Iron Man but that some of the material that includes the title character might be contained in other movies is a pretty genius marketing (if not assuredly artistic) move to make. Even if Iron Man makes his three pictures, the possibility that he might be in an Avengers movie makes the third film seem less damnably terminal.

Of course, as bad as an Avengers movie might be could really put a nail in a coffin. It's a trade-off for the suspense of audiences not knowing that this outing to see the great red-and-gold one may not be the last.

Comments

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

We have trilogies because if one movie sells really well, these days they know they can get at least mediocre sales out of two more.

We don't have people planning for more than 2 follow-ups because the quality of writing and the rush of the production schedule (and the general concepts if I may be so broad) are generally not strong enough to support more than that. They know the third movie is going to be crap, so they don't plan beyond it. If it still sells really well, then they'll talk about four, if they haven't yet pumped all they can from the franchise. (And, of course, they can always reboot the thing ten years later...)

I view it as purely a marketing decision, nothing to do with storytelling per se.

Actually, while I thought the first Iron Man was great, I am nervous about any follow-up efforts. Why? Because the villains in this movie were so completely organic to what Stark had been doing in his life before his transformative, hero-making experience. It gave him a sense of really logical purpose, and most of all it gave the villains a sense of plausibility and realism that made the movie much better. I have no idea what kind of wrong he could right in a follow-up that would make as much sense or be as reasonable and believable, which makes me worry that the follow-up will be just plain stupid.

Incidentally, I think this is why I've tended to be underwhelmed at the entire superhero genre. It's not a problem with the heroes, since the authors generally do do a pretty good job of giving them limits and failings and weaknesses to offset their superhuman strengths. It's the villains. They never make any sense. They're always these crazy bizarre plots for world domination, when any really smart criminal -- let alone a genius criminal mastermind -- would've just done some subtle bank fraud or something. I think that's why I like the Bond movies so much -- the villains have a specific purpose, even if it is outlandish in its details and danger... I dunno, it just feels less silly somehow.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

As far as movie trilogies go, it's probably all about Star Wars. Enough people are used to the idea of the three-movie deal as a result of its success that it's now a standard. Coupled with gull's business-sided argument above, I don't think ideals of storytelling structure are a factor. We're just creatures of habit and dollars.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

We don't have people planning for more than 2 follow-ups because the quality of writing and the rush of the production schedule (and the general concepts if I may be so broad) are generally not strong enough to support more than that.

With sequel/trilogies, you're also usually looking at something that is premised on action, and there is a definite window of how long one star can keep going through those paces without it straining credulity. Too young, and there's no way they could possibly be, say, Indiana Jones at that age already. Too old, and you get something like the last Lethal Weapon or Die Hard where the action must be less physical and more technological in order to believe the older guy is still doing that.

So there's a shelf life factor, too. A given actor (and they are almost always actors, not actresses) might have about 15-20 years in which they are the right age to play their character, but mitigating factors cut into that. (Are they busy with other roles? Did they start their serial too late into that 20 year period to get many films out of it?) The shelf life factor is at odds with the audience fatigue. It is in the interests of the studios to get the films shot as quickly as possible (hence the two-year turn around on some of the superhero movies), but they have to time the releases so interest isn't exhausted.

They know the third movie is going to be crap, so they don't plan beyond it. If it still sells really well, then they'll talk about four, if they haven't yet pumped all they can from the franchise. (And, of course, they can always reboot the thing ten years later...)

This is the problem, though. We've gotten so many examples of the third in a series being fairly awful, that we go into it biased to think it sucks. Now, while there is such a thing as low expectations leading to an audience being more easy to please, low expectations still form a negative attitude such that anything that isn't as magnificent as the form could possibly be is room for criticism. Hell, even when people like the third movie or haven't got expectations one way or another, the third never seems to be as successful. (The ONE exception to this seems to be The Return of the King, but honestly? Even still? I don't know anyone who says that's their favorite. And I've heard more criticism of that one than of the other two--no one will say one bad thing about Fellowship, but I hear about the ending to RotK all the time.)

I view it as purely a marketing decision, nothing to do with storytelling per se.

No, that was my point, really. This IS a marketing decision. They know how shit-hard it is to market sequels past the first one (when you can ride high on the first mega-blockbuster). It seems to me that, without stories in place, this is the best they can do to try and anticipate audience apathy towards the sequelitis problem, specifically as regards a third film in a franchise.

And some more (because you're like the only one talking with me about it)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I am nervous about any follow-up efforts. Because the villains in this movie were so completely organic to what Stark had been doing in his life before his transformative, hero-making experience. It gave him a sense of really logical purpose, and most of all it gave the villains a sense of plausibility and realism that made the movie much better.

This has been the problem with many a sequel. Spider-Man comes to mind. They literally invented MORE drama out of nowhere with the third movie regarding Peter's Uncle Ben that served no purpose whatsoever. It was a way to shoe-horn in a character that they wanted for some reason who had no other emotional tie to the hero. (He was sympathetic for being a good father and that was it. You couldn't get closure with him unless he was directly tied to Peter Parker. Or so they would have us believe.)

The villains do need to be an organic growth out of the heroes' lives. This is why Doc Ock made sense in the second Spider-Man movie--he was someone that Peter looked up to, who formed a tentative bond to the hero over love and science, and it went bad. It worked because there was something about the villain that shone a light on parts of the hero.

The only problem I see with the Tony Stark that is in the movies is that he hasn't gotten to have much more going on with him other than his brutal awakening to the misery he hath wrought. There are pieces of characterization that can be expanded--and I think Favreau and the writers did a helluva job sticking them in there so the evidence is ready for next time--but there weren't any big threads immediately evident upon which to build a sequel.

In particular, they took away the greatest possibility for suspense by having Stark announce to the world that he was Iron Man. While I applaud the effort to have him stand apart from the fifty or so heroes who spend their sequels trying to keep or worrying about secrets, it's damned hard to write a character once the secret is out. Marvel found this out with their Civil War miniseries. They outed Spider-Man and maybe they got two-three issues of material just from the reactions to that (J.J.'s was pretty goddamned priceless), but they couldn't figure out what to do from there. (And have since ret-conned or whatever to get it back in the box.)

I think that that's a great question for a sequel to ask: how does a superhero who everyone knows who he is...work? Does he stay an independent contractor? Does the government have to step in? How does he keep the technology for the suit as his exclusive property? Won't international governments have something to say about an armored bully showing up to try and solve thorny problems with splinter groups and terrorists with violence? How does he avoid lawsuits when he damages property? (Okay, billionaire, but if they KNOW that, they're going to sue for "anguish" above and beyond what even he can afford.)

None of that, alas, seems like it would be very interesting to watch. No, my guess is that the alcoholism comes into play. Probably as an extra threat on top of all those other questions--Jesus H, we let a guy who'd be doing time if he was that drunk while in a car drive an unstoppable weapon!?

Re: Bond villains--Bond himself is so over-the-top that the villains are graded to match, so they're easy to accept. Bond is part of a British agency that is so dedicated to stopping violence that all governments jump to help Bond wherever he goes (unless they're with the villains). So, naturally, SPECTRE is a secret cabal of international evil-doers who do much the same thing--they get all the petty criminals to fall in line under them.

With Casino Royale (you've seen? no? I can't remember), they took Bond down a notch and tried to make him just a resourceful person who worked for a well-connected but not theoretically implausible government force (with all the red tape involved therewith). The villain, Le Chiffre, had the theatrical presence of an old-school baddie (he wept blood!) but his motives were mundane, believable, or at least recognizable on a human (not super villain) scale. Still, very organic. I like that, good catch :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

But what about when the habit leads to self-defeat? That's my point. We've become so accustomed to the trilogy structure that we can't be satisfied with two pictures any more. We can't be surprised by how the third picture ends because we know that that's the end. Mixing it up--make six movies! make only two!--is the only way to keep any suspense up about the characters we've come to enjoy.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

Studios have no motivation to "keep up suspense" about characters beyond the returns they will produce. All of these third installments have made serious cash on the same level as the first, so there is no defeat for them. Their goal is ROI and not powerful storytelling. Yay, large-scale capitalism! This is why modern big-studio film in general is not as rewarding as older or independent film.

Narnia could push itself out to a full seven films, and I'd kinda want to see the craziness that would come from the last two (maybe last three) even though I don't care at all about the first ones.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I would think that, in a town full of auteurs who do actually think the work they do is important that at least ONE of them would stumble into a position of authority such that they could make the need for interesting and new stuff! relevant to the bottom line. I guess not, huh?

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how many auteurs there are in Hollywood anymore; that era ended in the late seventies. It's been more and more of a business since. Auteurs are also not the type to want to run production companies (they'd rather direct) and don't usually attach themselves to superheroes. Maybe if we could get David Kronenberg involved...

If anything were to change all of this it would have to be a new generation with lower production costs escaping from the orbit of large studios en-masse, which just might happen yet.

Even better would be skipping film and going straight to television al la Preacher pairing with HBO (I really hope that this will be good). Comics are meant to be serials, right? There's more time to build and always the question of another season.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Comics are meant to be serials.

Honestly? I want the British TV system to take over. I want people to get excited about limited projects and miniseries all over again. We need to recognize how insanely profitable and surprising the short series can be. That's not to say all British shows don't go on forever and ever like American counterparts, just that they're more supportive of limited run shows. It does mean you can't milk the money for forever, but I would think if you knew time was pressing and there'd only ever be this one chance at the show, it would be more suspenseful and addictive, not mention easier to re-run. (Then again, the rules about syndication are probably going to be a bitch if that was how it all went.)

I dunno, just talking out my ass, probably. No surprise there.

[cbreakr.livejournal.com]

I think the more widespread subscription to cable (partly due to its being coupled with high-speed internet) is driving television to be a better medium for many stories than film. The problem right now is ROI for TV vs film, but with the film industry doing nothing to boost its profits other than pressing theatres to charge more for tickets and the growing use of Netflix and bittorrent (regardless of the throttling ISPs want to try), we might be due for a sea change in the next five years or so as the entertainment industry as a whole tries to reorganize. If it works out this way, we'll probably have better quality films from big studios to compete with smaller ones (and ticket prices) and more non-reality TV not running on networks, all of them competing with internet-based entertainment for our attention.

Here's hoping for a cheap entertainment golden age... or at least something better than what we have now.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

Interesting! Any thoughts on how the Bourne trilogy fits into this. I haven't sat down and done a marathon rewatch yet, but I'm looking forward to it, since I found all three of the movies very entertaining, and I felt like it might work well as one nine hour story.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I don't think that The Bourne Ultimatum compared nearly as well to the series as the other two even though it was decently done, well acted, and had dynamite action. I felt that David Stratharn's character was sort of shoe-horned in; that they retread the same ground as the first and second movies (how much was Bourne's choice versus being coerced and groomed into the program, etc.); and that the great chemistry of trust and sympathy that Bourne built up with Landey, especially in the last scene of Supremacy was ruined by making the information she gave him be in code due to the plotting of Ultimatum.

I would rather have preferred an examination of David Bourne going home again. We've seen that he can't run (Identity) and he can't hide (Supremacy) forever. The only where else to go was to go home, face the demons on the home soil. Ultimatum tried to do that, but they never connected with the life that Bourne left behind as David Webb. David Webb, apparently, never had a life. It's hard to appreciate the sacrifice he made to become Bourne if he didn't have anything else going for him. It just means that, minus the super-powered karate, he was already an antisocial loner. That is so...depressing.

There was something that just felt off, heartless, even, in The Bourne Ultimatum. It was probably the lack of Marie's character. Having Bourne grieve for her throughout Supremacy made sense, but he got his revenge for her murder by taking down Abbott and the Russian oil tyrant. Going after Treadstone, which was already disbanded didn't seem a necessary step in Bourne's re-integration into full humanity. His need to expose Treadstone made sense, but they didn't go about it in the best way. It just felt off, that's all I can really say.