Has the Definition of a Summer Movie Changed?

So the summer movie season is coming to a close, but of course there’s still so much left to get through like Bond, Tarantino, Spielberg and that space project from JJ Abrams, but I forget what that one’s called….

Of course this summer movie season no longer defines just summer anymore. Once upon a time it was May to September, but now it appears to be classified as all movie releases between March and November. In short it seems that the summer movie season defines any movie that comes out not in winter. Even then you’ll find people describing movies as big budget summer blockbusters even if they didn’t come out during the summer. All of this leads me to ask one simple question (well actually it’s not that simple). Is a film classified as a summer movie by design now rather than the time of its release?

Mind you, sometimes films are moved back due to competition, or lack thereof. ‘The Force Awakens’ was (like all ‘Star Wars’ films) set for a release around May, but Disney feared a clash with ‘Age of Ultron’ and moved it right back to December. This move put Tom Cruise and his ‘Mission: Impossible’ instalment at risk from reduced income when put against a ‘Star Wars’ film so it was moved back to July. See the problem? Weirdly though ‘MI5’ seems to be more suited to the summer schedule, it’s fast, exciting and action packed. It’s a movie that you can just sit back and absorb, one that was meant to be viewed with friends or family on a cinema screen.

Then of course you have movies that are so obviously going to be a success that there’s not even any point moving them to be in competition with anything, again we saw that this year with ‘Furious 7’. What studio would release their film against that when it came out in April, none. This not only gave them free reign, but two whole months of free reign rather than staying on top for only a number of weeks at best in a tightly packed summer slot.

Maybe it’s less of the summer being contested and more to do with the fact that studios are only really making blockbusters now? Normally they’ll only stop releasing big budget movies when they get to the awards season when its prestige film time. So between summer season and award season you’ll find some romantic comedies and a couple of low budget horror films, very occasionally something experimental like Matthew Vaughn’s ‘Kingsman’ (though after the success of that the chances are high that whatever Vaughn does next, it will be closer to the summer) and perhaps an early blockbuster, but most of the time that’s because the studio has no faith in it like ‘Jupiter Ascending’. Though of course, 2014’s ‘The LEGO Movie’ was an exception to this so you can never be sure.

But in terms of tone a summer movie can be defined as one that is big budget, easily digestible, but preferably one that also provokes a conversation either about how good it is (‘Jaws’) how it can be interpreted (‘Inception’) or how bad it is (Any Michael bay movie that inexplicably still makes money). A summer movie certainly can’t be defined as merely one that is released during the months of May to September. But each year’s movie season could also be defined by the first particular movie that fit the summer formula, this year it was ‘Furious 7’ in April, last year it was ‘The LEGO Movie in March.

So with that settled (not really) can you get more exact over what a definitive summer movie is? As I said earlier ‘Jaws’ is a good example, as is ‘Star Wars’. But there I feel as if those movies have almost transcended the summer movie brand, being remembered more for their quality than the amount of money they made or when they were released. So movies that prioritise their profits according to the summer schedule could include ‘Independence Day’ a fairly simple movie that is best experienced in the cinema, and openly acknowledges that it takes place during the summer, even stating it in the freaking title.

Then you look at the pace of it, it takes place over just three days, and primarily in the day. The whole idea of light can prove oddly defining to whether or not something is a summer movie. The best film of 2008’s summer season was ‘The Dark Knight’ and yet no one seems to regard it as a summer movie today, maybe because of the dark tones and taking place mostly at night we no longer associate it with summer (plus it’s awesome so that works in its favour to transcend the genre).

The best example of this is possibly the two ‘Terminator’ films (because there are only TWO). The first one has dark elements and takes place mostly at night and has a horror vibe to it, not much of a summer film. ‘Terminator 2’ on the other hand is jam packed with chases, action sequences that are primarily in the day and a broader appeal, great summer movie (and great movie in general, in fact both are, when will you learn that makers of every other ‘Terminator’ film?). Did someone say action packed thrill ride that takes place in the day and has broad appeal? I give you ‘Speed’. There’s action, humour romance and it’s a very simple plot (bomb on bus, if bus slows down and then bomb blows up) and it’s all done so well that you can talk about it forever after watching it, like that scene where he jumps onto the bus from the car, or when they’re fighting on top of the train, or that bridge jumping scene, or the airport chase? I need to watch ‘Speed’ again.

So it appears that while there is a less definitive term to describe a summer movie but there’s definitely a way to pinpoint a moment when you find a really great one and as I said at the start, even though summer season of 2015 is over, the greatness is unlikely to stop there.

Does Nostalgia Make a Decent Film Great?

Nostalgia can cover movies in such a varied and interesting way. Certain films will forever be doused in the notion that they are great one way or another, and can fall apart when subjected to an objective viewing. Whatever way you look at it, even the worst film ever made can mean something to someone if they saw it at the right age (except ‘The Last Airbender’ because that is just depressing).

There are many categories of nostalgic movies that don’t hold up today, sometimes through no fault of their own. Even the best film of a certain age can suffer from the film industry moving on without it. Effects wise this can be devastating for a film that at one stage may have looked ground-breaking but now looks dated. Even though I’ve never really liked the film, I saw ‘Armageddon’ the other day, and there’s now no denying that compared to today’s blockbusters it is just a complete mess. Honestly, looking back you have to wonder why we were ever surprised by Michael bay’s descent into loud and obnoxious movies as ‘Armageddon’ was full of his usual tropes such as rapid fire editing, multiple explosions, cringe worthy stereotypes and needless slow motion and it was the highest film of the year, so don’t be surprised that since then he’s tried to achieve success by multiplying all of those. But at the time it was undoubtedly a cinematic experience, so we forget the parts that don’t work as well. But today, looking back objectively, it doesn’t hold up. Then of course you have to take into account the fact that it came out five years after ‘Jurassic Park’ and the only part of that movie that doesn’t hold up is the 1990s computer.

This habit of forgetting certain scenes in certain films has happened on multiple occasions, most of all to ones I enjoyed growing up. ‘Temple of Doom’ contained multiple scenes that I had forgotten and sort of highlighted why the film is considered the lesser of the three Indie films (and there are only THREE). Until I saw it again recently I remembered ripping out hearts and death defying swinging from hundred feet high bridges. But now I notice the kid centred scenes and the decidedly slower pacing in between action. It’s certainly not a bad movie, but it hasn’t aged as well as the others and retrospectively can’t compete with ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ or ‘The Last Crusade’.

Another film that really suffers from this is the sequel to one I mentioned earlier, ‘The Lost World’. Most of what I remember involves that scene walking through the grass, but then watching it again you realise that you forgot about that frantic chase sequence, the convoluted nature of the plot and once again more child oriented scenes. Many kid favoured things struggle to hold up without the help of nostalgia, it’s only in the last twenty years that filmmakers have made a real effort to try and ensure that kid’s films can appeal to every age group on every level. Children’s films from years ago just cannot be taken seriously any more. You look at older ones like ‘Highlander’ and ‘The Wizard’ both of which I enjoyed as a child are now really out of their league when you look at the work that Pixar is doing.

But some of those films can suffer when they create a genre that instantly goes beyond what they accomplished. Sometimes a film is leaves a huge impact on its area of cinema and then is parodied so many times and relived on multiple occasions, in the end the film on its own remains just a good film, but not quite a cultural touchstone that it may have unwittingly become. In short certain films struggle to cope today because they can’t handle the weight of their own success and can’t live up to their own reputation. For me ‘Animal House’ springs to mind with this, it’s still a good comedy but so many people have copied it and so many clichés have become clichés because of that film then you start to see the beats of the film and realise it may not be the ultimate experience. In the meta world of comedy today you half expect ‘Animal House’ to be aware of the clichés it revels in, but at the time they were new and unknown jokes so how can you really blame it for not holding up?

This brings you back to the essential part of the nostalgia issue, if a film leaves such an impression on you it can therefore inspire a thousand imitators that may even do a better job than the original. Is the first one still good just because it was the first to do so, does that make it right to ignore flaws that, if they were in a film today, may be criticised. Look at the campiness of the original ‘Superman’ film. Many credit it with bringing the concept of superheroes on the big screen to life, but look at how many we have now and consider how they hold up against the likes of Marvel. You could do this with every superhero revitalisation through cinema history, the campiness of ‘Superman’, the gothic nature of Burton’s Batman, the stylised fun of Raimi’s Spiderman, in twenty years will the MCU become a nostalgic experience rather than cutting edge modern blockbusters.

That brings me on to the most dangerous part of this argument, to one specific blockbuster in general. Coming from someone who loves this film more than anything, it pains me to consider a question like this, but if I could look at the first ‘Star Wars’ film in an objective light, how good would it actually be? In the sequels we delved far deeper into character complexity, but the first one is quite basic and archetypal. But then again there is a reason that it became the highest grossing film of all time and won six Oscars, so does it deserve to be held above an objective viewing. Do certain films earn the right to separate themselves from rational criticism of film and exist on a pedestal of emotion in which your own personal connection with it will always overrule genuine criticism?

It’s definitely not a bad thing that nostalgia can keep a film alive and keep it fresh in the minds of millions. It means that whatever it looks like now, the film must have had something to draw you in and make you remember it originally and identify with it at the time. The only difference is that people tend not to remember the negative aspects of a film, when you gets some distance from it the majority fades from memory in favour of what makes it great for you and however bad a film is on reviewing, it should always be commendable for building a perfect perception within you.   

Are Video Game Movies a Lost Cause?

With ‘Pixels’ doing fairly disastrously with critics (for my full review follow this link, http://criticalfilmsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/pixels.html) I can’t help but wonder, why was the movie so bad? It should have been great, shouldn’t it? When you think about it, movies that try to incorporate video games into their central story, whether they be based on them or just borrowing elements from them, they always seem to fail. So are they a lost cause?

First I have to ask the question, is there such a thing as a good video game movie? Even the ones that you can find enjoyable rely more on your love of the game than your love of the film itself. Look at ‘Mortal Kombat’, as well as being the most enjoyably 90s movie ever made, it also takes a handful of liberties with its source material. In any other circumstance this movie would be ridiculed, but because it holds that connection to the video game anyone who loves that film tolerates these imperfections. There’s also that theme music to add to it, because it’s awesome.

Putting that aside you have decent ones like ‘Silent Hill’ but they deviate even more from the source material, putting two video games into one story. ‘Tomb Raider’ is decent as well, but only really as a film that tries to find a connection to playing the video game. You can’t really hold one movie high and say ‘That is the best video game movie ever made’.

The reason is simply because, the best video game movie hasn’t been made yet. There is not definitive choice for the best one, either you have one that sticks too closely to the source material and can’t appeal to the mass audience to work as a movie on its own, or it does away with the source material and merely uses the title to attract audiences.

A description like that brings you onto some of the worst video game movies. Not only are they likely to aggravate fans of the game because they were linked to the game only in story, but they also disappoint fans of movies in general as they simply are not good. Uwe Boll is a director that has done this so many times, making movies that are terrible adaptations and terrible films. ‘House of the Dead’, ‘In the Name of the King’ and ‘Alone in the Dark’ are all, really, really bad films. None of them really capture any elements of the video games they are based on beyond the title.

One of the worst crimes against a classic game has to be the movie adaptation of ‘Super Mario Bros’. When you watch this film you find it hard to believe that anyone involved had ever played or heard anything about the game. We all know the basic outline of the game right? An Italian plumber runs along and jumps on mushrooms to squash them on his way to rescue a captured princess. The film rants on about alternate dimensions, dinosaurs and is set in New York for some reason. It’s pretty easy to guess what happened, some failed script for a kids movie was shelved and then when the production company got the rights to make a ‘Super Mario Bros’ movie, they saved time writing a script by wiping the dust off of this one and went straight into production.

Just imagine for a second, what the cinema industry would be like today if ‘Super Mario Bros’ had been a great film. The science fiction action craze of the 90s could have been video game oriented instead, or one could compare such a possibility to the superhero renaissance we have today. But of course that hasn’t happened, and instead Nintendo abandoned any hope of future game adaptations.

Another opportunity came from the Disney film ‘Prince of Persia: Sands of Time’. It’s certainly the closest a video game film has gotten to being a genuine contender in terms of budget and casting (including Jake Gyllenhaal and Ben Kingsley). It was highly important as if it was a success for Disney they would have proven that this format and concept works, and that they can do more of them. So ‘Prince of Persia’ had to be good, and while it was visually and aesthetically impressive and far from a terrible action movie, it was mediocre at best

So the question remains, does it even make sense to make video game movies anymore? Maybe, but it all comes down to who is making them, and the manner in which they do it. For a start you can never hope to make a movie that will live up to the audience’s expectation from playing upwards of 50 hours of gaming, and every gamer will have built up their own perception, opinions and views of the characters and story. So you’ll have to make a movie that serves as a spinoff to the main game itself, sort of like how the ‘Akira’ movie is merely a small part of the massive comic book saga it is based upon.

More so, you need it to be adapted by someone who both loves and respects the source material. Other forms of storytelling such as books and comics are treated with great respect and the makers do their best only to deviate from the source material when they feel it is necessary. Video games aren’t seen in the same light and therefore no serious writer will take one on willingly. We may have to wait one more generation for a great video game movie, when a writer who grew up playing the game and therefore is willing and ready to honour it steps up to the task.  

Are there any Original Ideas in Film Today?

When you look at many of the biggest blockbusters out today, you can’t help but notice that most are either a sequel, or based on an existing property, or a remake or drawn from a comic or book. All of this leads to the vital question of where the originality of film went. Just this year there are so many films that we are drawn to because they’re a sequel or based on a book or comic that we loved. You may remember classic original ideas like ‘Star Wars’ ‘Back to the Future’ and ‘E.T’. Is this the end of original writing as we know it, will anything ever truly surprise us again?

It is very likely at some point you have gone on some sort of rant against remaking a particular film like ‘Robocop’ or ‘Total Recall’. But there’s an instant connection with these remakes and even if you only see it so you can hate on it, you saw it, therefore you’ve contributed to the success and therefore helped studio executives find the answer to ‘Should we just remake every old film as a quick way to earn money?’

Looking past remakes of course you find that there are so many films that originate from existing forms of media. The biggest blockbusters right now are undeniably superhero films derived from classic comic books. You can criticise this all you like and find ways to poke holes in the framework of these concepts but then again, given the huge budget that most of these films are generating, it’s safe to assume that a majority of people who saw ‘Avengers Assemble’ didn’t actually read the comics or watch the TV shows. Sure, they’ve certainly heard of the characters but probably know very little about their true character traits and emotions. So from their perspective, isn’t that practically an original idea anyway.

Then look at ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’. Put aside the popularity of that film and come clean, did you actually have any idea who those characters were before the film, at all, even in name? I’ll admit I didn’t (because everybody’s an expert on something once it’s popular, and everyone was interested in it before everyone else was). How could you get any closer to an original story that managed to attract audiences?

Of course, one could point out that ‘Guardians’ used the Marvel brand to draw in audiences, but then how is that really any different from using the name of a director, actor or writer to raise awareness of their latest film. After the success of ‘Jaws’ and ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ Steven Spielberg’s name was put onto every project he was involved in.

Also, if a film is part of a franchise then anyone that saw the a previous film will be interested in this one, virtually guaranteeing a profit similar to the first film. There are exceptions to this, but generally it seems to work. It’s much more of a risk to put out an original idea that has nothing going for it, to understand what this is really about audiences will have to see it, and in our current state of movie making we’re not really as sure about uncertainty.

But this current state of reinterpretation is definitely not a new phenomenon. Some of the biggest blockbusters of the past were, contrary to what you may think, based on existing forms of media. ‘The Godfather’ was once just a book, as was ‘Jaws’, so not every classic is original, it’s just that some are so good they eclipse what they were based on. Even today there are a number of original concepts amid the adaptations such as ‘Inception’, ‘Looper’ or ‘Inside Out’.

You also need to remember that though there are many sequels now, they all started off as original ideas at some point. Can you really blame their creators for wanting to take their original idea (that was proven to be successful) and taking it further creatively? As well as that you can look at ‘Star Wars 7’ set thirty years after the last instalment, meaning that by now the writers are virtually starting from scratch in terms of story, with just some familiar characters and environments to base their work on.

 Then of course you have the fact that if the writers are familiar with the source material and passionate about it then they will try their best to do it justice and the result is a better chance of getting a genuinely worthwhile cinematic experience. Sometimes this doesn’t work but then you look at the excellent quality of Marvel, ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Lego Movie’, instead of producing lazy adaptations just to attract people to the rest of their medium, the creators want to create the best movie they can.

I’m not saying that we should accept a lack of unoriginality, I love stories that I have no idea over where they’re going to go or end up without anything from the past that connects me to it. Original ideas will always be important and will always be present, the only difference is that they just don’t get as much attention right now. But don’t fear, eventually we will ask for something original, we will want to be surprised with something new and then Hollywood will be forced to find new ideas. But right now, I’m not bored of adaptations, so until I am, I’ll just keep watching and be thankful that they’re as good as they are. 

Why 'Back to the Future' is the Perfect Screenplay

For a while now, I have maintained that if I were to choose one screenplay, as an example to measure what a perfect script is. I would single this one out, above all others as the perfect and best screenplay of all time. As you probably already guessed based on the title of this article for me it is ‘Back to the Future’.

I think an explanation is required, when you look at the script of ‘Back to the Future’, ignoring the acting and special effects and direction (not that they’re not equally as good, but focus primarily on the writing) everything comes together, every detail every piece of information, everything is there for a reason. A film can do a lot of damage by including needless scenes that are uninteresting, with ‘Back to the Future’ everything matters and has a purpose. Every scene finds a way to advance to narrative further, without the audience even knowing it half the time.

But before we go any deeper, let’s rewind. Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale were creative partners for many years, but had headlined a number of unsuccessful projects such as ‘Used Cars’, ‘I Wanna Hold Your Hand’ and ‘1941’. Then they came up with some sort of time travel concept and sent an early draft to Steven Spielberg who was deeply interested. But they decided to let the idea lie for a while as, if it was another failure, Zemeckis and Gale feared that they would struggle to find work without Spielberg’s support. When Zemeckis was hired to direct ‘Romancing the Stone’ he found success and everyone was asking what his next project would be, it was of course ‘Back to the Future’. Spielberg offered support as producer and the three of them set about crafting the film.

One of the best things a screenplay can do is attract a viewer with a universal and general appeal. It’s not just time travel, it’s something better in ‘Back to the Future’, it’s meeting your parents as youngsters. That was inspired by Gale finding an old yearbook of his parents and wondering what it would be like to personally know him, haven’t we all? Hasn’t everyone wondered what they would honestly think if they met their parents when they were the same age as them? Would they like them, dislike them and can you still think of them in the same way, as though many think about it, I doubt anyone can really imagine their parents and youngsters.

A sceptical person might point out that it was very coincidental that Marty McFly travelled back to the exact date at which his parents were his age. But remember it was also that night that his mother mentioned it in conversation, recalling how she met George McFly and his really weird laugh. So there’s just one example of a tiny piece of information in the script fitting perfectly into the vast expanse of space that is the plot synopsis.

That same sceptical person might also point out that it is extremely unlikely that a disruption in the space time continuum would choose to erase a picture of Marty and his siblings one gradually, it’s one amazing plot device. It acts as a constant reminder of the stakes and what hangs on the decisions that are being made right in front of us.

The humour and intelligence of the script is peppered throughout as one joke can sometimes come into play later and make a scenario even funnier. Marty opens the film by destroying a guitar and amplifier, and then does the same thing at the end of the film during his Johnny B Good number. Then there’s the whole first act in 1985, that could have been a wasted segment before the action but instead we establish so many key plot elements like the clock tower, the lightning strike, Marty’s girlfriend, the state of the McFly household, the stranglehold that Biff has over George and it all builds up to that final twist without ever shoving it in your face.

Ever think about how that title is just a perfect joke in itself? It’s a complete contradiction that would never make sense unless applied to that circumstance when suddenly it’s the only phrase you could use (you know, just in case you are sent back in time and need to go back to the future). The head of Universal Pictures at the time wanted the title to be changed to ‘Space Man from Pluto’ as he said the working title made no sense (because ‘Space Man from Pluto’ is completely logical). Thankfully Hollywood heavyweight Spielberg put his foot down and the matter was dropped.

The self-contained jokes like that are one of the many things that makes the screenplay great. They range from kind of obvious to ridiculously subtle such as the Twin Pines Mall becoming the Lone Pine Mall by the end of the movie due to Marty destroying Old Man Peabody’s evergreen breeding programme. Then there’s the ending, one of the few in film history that leaves the door wide open for sequels yet acts as one of the best forms of closure imaginable.

Those are just a few ramblings on ‘Back to the Future’ what are your thoughts, do you agree with anything here, or disagree, or do you think this is just reading into it far too much? Leave a comment below and you can find me on Twitter with @JoshuaPrice97, thanks and bye.