The relative merits of flesh, latex and CGI

For those of you who came in late, “TMNT” is an acronym for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the comic book – cartoon – action figure – movie phenomenon spawned in that most awesomely plastic of decades, the 1980s. When the Turtles last blasted across the silver screen, they were foam and latex puppets and costumes worn by little people. In the new film, they are, naturally, CGI creations. Not that anyone ever thought Michelangelo, Donatello, et al were actual flesh and shell beings, but the updated Turtles raise the question: What’s more believable? An actual, if artificial construct… or a computer generated image?

When Merian C. Cooper’s “King Kong” debuted in 1933, Willis O’Brien’s startling effects of the stop-motion ape climbing the Empire State Building stunned audiences. They had simply never seen something so fantastic interacting with the everyday. To look at the film today, the stop motion animal is more quaint than terrifying, with its jerky movement and visible handprints of the manipulating animators on its fur. But for diehard fans, the original remains the quintessential Kong, despite (or, depending on your sensibilities, because of) its technical limitations.

Director John Guillerman’s 1976 remake made headlines by attempting to use an actual full size Kong robot. In the end, the 40-foot, 1.7 million dollar behemoth was stiffer than the 1933 puppet, getting a full minute of screen time. So the filmmakers ended up going with make-up / effects creator Rick Baker in a monkey suit, which looked like, well, an actor in a monkey suit (especially since he didn’t bother to stoop like an ape when he walked).

Then came Peter Jackson’s fully CGI “King Kong” (2005). Ostensibly an ode to the original 1933 film, Jackson’s epic was chock full of giant and/or icky movie monsters and a scarred, dinoflea-ridden, fully realized Kong (played in motion-capture by Andy Serkis). And while the film was visually dazzling, many critics felt that it was TOO much, particularly in the scenes on Skull Island, populated with dozens, nay, hundreds of digital creatures. Jackson seemed to fall victim to Lucasitis: an overwhelming inflammation of too many digital effects, culminating in a lack of focus and often leading to eyestrain or headaches and an overall lack of emotional connection. In the end, Jackson’s “Kong” did okay, but wasn’t as enthralling (nor emotional) as its inspiration.

1980’s second entrant in the “Star Wars” series, “The Empire Strikes Back,” introduced the character of Jedi Master Yoda, brought to life by Muppets alumnus Frank Oz in the form of a highly intricate puppet. Despite sounding like a cross between Sesame Street’s Grover and Kung Fu’s Master Po, Yoda became an instantly beloved part of the Star Wars universe. It was obvious that Yoda was a puppet, but it didn’t matter. Yoda was real because, well, Yoda WAS REAL. When he reaches out and pinches Luke Skywalker’s arm to explain how the force isn’t bound by simple flesh, the interaction actually happens, to the benefit of both actor and audience.

Yoda remained foam and latex through the first Star Wars prequel, 1999’s “The Phantom Menace,” but by 2002’s “Attack of the Clones,” Frank Oz’s participation was cut to mere voice work. Yoda was now a full CGI creation, better able to leap into the air and do (very silly looking) light saber battle with Count Dooku, but he was somehow… less believable. The limitations placed on a puppet seemed to better fit a 900 year-old green dwarf than the airy weightlessness of ones and zeroes. It’s sad to speculate that at some point, George “the Terrible Tinkerer” Lucas could go back and replace the puppet Yoda in all of the films with a CGI creation.

Experimentation with CG people began in films like “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” (1989), “Terminator 2” (1991) and “Fight Club” (1999), but it wasn’t until Ang Lee’s “Hulk” that the humanoid star of a movie was computer generated (no, “Casper” doesn’t count). While the general public had accepted the bodybuilt but still human Lou Ferrigno as Bill Bixby’s angry alter-ego in the “Incredible Hulk” TV show of the 1970s, the comic book basis was in fact a far more imposing creature, a tank-sized beast that couldn’t even find pants at the Big & Tall Shop (especially not in purple). But, despite a gargantuan size, the bigger, badder movie Hulk failed to connect with an audience. A convoluted, overly serious script was primarily to blame, but could the fact that the Hulk wasn’t “real” have had something to do with it?

All of this is not to say that some movie characters shouldn’t be rendered digitally. Take Ben Grimm, aka The Thing from “Fantastic Four.” In the Marvel Comics universe, the Thing and the Hulk are about the same size, and have gone green-toe-to-orange-toe many times. In the movies, Michael Chiklis buried under makeup just isn’t as imposing (nor as tragic) as the character needs to be. Especially considering the character’s lack of human flesh and hair (two of the hardest things to realistically animate), the Thing’s rocky form seems to beg for the CG treatment (after all, both the flamed-on Human Torch and the Silver Surfer are fully CG in the upcoming “Rise of the Silver Surfer” sequel).

The key to accepting CG characters seems to be integration (ain’t it always?). Last year’s “Superman Returns” is in a way a curious example movie effects coming full circle. In the Superman movie serials of the 1940s, when the Man of Steel (played by Kirk Alyn) would take flight, the live action Superman would suddenly be replaced with a crudely animated character. That obvious cartoon has very little in common with the sophisticated CGI Superman used in many flying shots in “Returns.” Still, while audiences knew that computer graphics were being used, it was the combination of those shots with actual physical effects of Brandon Routh on cables and gimbals that made it work. If you don’t know which shots are “fake” and which are “real,” it becomes easier to get lost in the sum total.

But we still have to opine that the most dazzling flying shot in “Superman Returns” didn’t match the thrill of seeing that first majestic flight of Christopher Reeve in 1978’s “Superman.” That movie drew audiences to the theater with promise of making you believe, for the first time, that a man could fly, and it did, with nary a computer involved.

While the claim is that today’s audiences are more “sophisticated” in expecting far more from their special effects, we’d say it’s actually something less meritorious. Today’s audiences are more cynical. We not only expect that modern effects are flawless, we demand it and anything less than 100% believable is decried as being crappy effects, regardless of how much imagination and toil was involved. Maybe modern CG updates of old characters don’t resonate as strongly because the wonder’s gone. The sad fact is, movie magic has become a thing of the past, replaced with cold movie science. Due to the catch-all answer of “with computers,” nobody ever gasps at the fantastic and asks those five words that entranced moviegoers for practically a century: “How did they DO that?”
__________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY POSTED in REWIND on MTV.COM, march 2007

The often super-sucky love lives of superheroes

Relationships are tough. People are complicated puzzle pieces that rarely fit perfectly. Differing interests, beliefs and attitudes can make an entwined life difficult. But imagine the complications if your significant other spent every day in a spandex costume, battling the forces of evil.

In “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” the new romantic comedy - meets - superhero flick, when Matt (Luke Wilson) dumps his needy girlfriend Jenny (Uma Thurman), he discovers her dual identity as the super-powered G-Girl. Hell hath no fury like a superwoman scorned, and G-Girl uses her vast abilities to make Matt’s life a living hell. Sadly, it’s typical. In matters of the heart, most costumed heroes are powerless.

Consider the love life of the Dark Knight. In every Batman movie from the 60s through today, Bruce Wayne has shown that while he may be brilliant at foiling villainy, when it comes to picking girlfriends, he’s an idiot.

If you were embarking on a crimefighting career for which you’ve spent most of your life training and preparing, why on Earth would you complicate things by getting involved with Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger) a snoopy photojournalist who eventually finds her way into the Batcave? That’s just what Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) does in 1989’s “Batman.” The relationship didn’t last, nor did the one with the overreaching psychoanalyst Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman) in “Batman Forever” (1995). In fact, Batman’s SO bad at choosing mates that he’s fallen for the alter ego of one of his enemies, the Catwoman, TWO TIMES in both the campy 1966 TV spin-off, “Batman” and the dreary 1992 “Batman Returns” (and no, fanboys, it’s not mitigated by the fact that he’s had a love / hate relationship with Catwoman in the comics).

Bruce, give it up. You need to stick to the casual arm-candy befitting your assumed billionaire playboy role. Maybe you can date Kate Moss in your next film (and leave Katie Holmes in your past, please).

It’s common wisdom that one of the key tenets for a successful relationship is honesty. And yet most superheroes are reluctant to reveal their dual identities to their significant others. Poor Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) went though hell in “Spider-Man” (2002) and “Spider-Man 2” (2004), never able to explain to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) why he couldn’t be with her, as well as why he’s so unreliable and bruisy. When she finally discovers his secret at the end of “Spider-Man 2,” not only does she forgive all, but she leaves her fiancée at the altar for a shot at love with the friendly neighborhood wall crawler. Still, at the end of “2,” as Spidey swings off through the concrete canyons of New York, there’s a look of uncertainty on MJ’s face... “This isn’t gonna be easy, is it?” she no doubt wonders.

No, MJ, it ain’t. Just ask Betty Ross. It’s understandable why Betty (Jennifer Connelly) would be more than a bit hesitant to get back together with former flame Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) in Ang Lee’s article-deprived “Hulk” (2003). Boyfriends with anger management issues are never a good idea, but think about the consequences if she and Bruce ever REALLY get into a fight! Things are bound to get smashed. Then again, it would make for some interesting make-up sex... But more on that later.

Still, keeping the secret of your double life makes sense, at least at first. Imagine if you were a superhero and you’d started dating someone. Would YOU tell them your biggest secret right away? Aside from wanting to protect them from the vengeance of your enemies, what if it didn’t work out? Suddenly, your ex has information they can hold over your head for the rest of your life. It’s even worse than confessing a foot fetish or that you cry during DVD viewings of “The Facts of Life.”

But there does come a time when a hero should come clean. One secret kept over time can snowball into more and lead to a mess that might be difficult to explain. One need only see “Superman Returns” right now to get a glimpse of the muck that the poor Man of Steel (Brandon Routh) is going through with Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) right now. It’s gonna take five sequels of couples counseling to sort that one out.

Maybe, like movie stars, country musicians and goths, superheroes should stick with their own kind and only date other superheroes. Comic book stories over the years have postulated a Superman / Wonder Woman pairing (although she did have a flirtatious thing with Batman on the Justice League Unlimited cartoon). Then again, considering the fate of Elektra (Jennifer Garner) and Daredevil (Ben Affleck) in the latter’s 2003 film as well as what Phoenix (Famke Janssen) did to Cyclops (James Marsden) in this summer’s “X-Men: The Last Stand,” even abilities far beyond those of mortal men can’t save you from a lover’s super-wrath.

There’s an unwritten subtext to the study of superhero love, one that we’ll just dance around. While most fanboys spend time arguing about who’s faster, Superman or the Flash or if Batman could whup Wolverine, more twisted minds can do some NC17-rated speculation about what a superhero love life would be like. Take the Fantastic Four. What happens if The Human Torch “flames on” in the heat of passion? Most women would envy the Invisible Woman, having a super-elastic boyfriend in Mr. Fantastic. What about Alicia, the Thing’s blind girlfriend? What’s her take on her rocky fella? Okay, we’re done.

In the end, it’s no wonder that most superheroes remain single. After spending all day (or night, as the case may be) dodging atomic destructo-rays and nasty barbs hurled by enemies consumed by a seething desire to see you die in agony, the last thing a caped crusader needs is someone nagging them to take out the garbage.
________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY POSTED in REWIND on MTV.COM, July 2006

Truth, Justice and the Fanatical Way part 1: Vested Interest

Webster defines “fanatic” as “one having obsessive zeal for and irrational attachment to a cause or position.” We’d update that to add “or element of pop culture,” as that breed of fanaticism has grown to religious heights. Some film fanatics are so extreme in their devotion to a movie or genre that it can define them.

The Goth scene is inexorably connected to the horror genre, black T-shirts emblazoned with movie monsters and knife-wielding maniacs as much a wardrobe staple as studded wristbands and black lipstick. The Harry Potter community has grown to such strength that the books and movies have become unprecedented synergistic media events. And Star Wars fanatics are so unwavering in their devotion to the worlds that George Lucas created that they forgive the sins of Episodes I, II and III.

But few movies in any genre are pre-scrutinized more than the comic book adaptation. The core audience, so-called comic book “fanboys” obsess over every detail from casting to costume design to adherence to the source. They often judge a film to be a failure before it’s even made, sometimes based on nothing more than one promotional photo.

On a fanboy scale of 1-10, I’ve slid from a peak of 10 in high school to about a 5.25. I don’t buy many comics anymore, but I still love the artform. When it comes to comic book movies, I understand the definition of the word “adaptation.” Translating something from one medium to another requires alterations. What works on the printed page may not in a live action film.

What matters is that the SPIRIT of the comic is captured. It’s why Bryan Singer’s X-Men movies are great and Tim Burton’s Batman movies are bad; Singer significantly altered the Marvel X-books, but got the essence of the story right. Burton, meanwhile, created a distinctive look for Batman, but utterly failed to grasp the character’s ethos (Batman does NOT kill, especially with guns). So, I’m relieved that it’s Singer and not Burton (as was once planned) who’s in charge of bringing the biggest superhero of all back to the big screen with next month’s Superman Returns.

Because when it comes to Superman, I’m pretty territorial. To me, Supes is more than just a comic book character, even more than my favorite pop culture icon. Superman represents absolute power absolutely UNcorrupted. He represents humility (despite his name and primary colored costume), altruism and, yes, the hidden power of the underdog. Apply whatever Jesus / Freudian metaphor you like. The point is, to me, the Man of Steel MATTERS. So, when he’s done wrong, I can get a bit testy.

I’m not, however, one of those myopic fanboys who considers the only acceptable canon to be the current DC Comics version. I haven’t read Superman regularly in years, but I’d still say I’m as big a Superman fan as anyone. My idea of Superman is part Siegel & Shuster, part Reeve, part Filmation, part O’Neil, Swan & Anderson... That most of those names probably mean nothing to you is irrelevant; You’d know him if you saw him.

Superman means different things to different people, of course, even within the comics community.

Graphic designer Steve Leach is likewise drawn to Superman’s altruism. “I love the idea of someone who is tremendously powerful selflessly using that power to benefit humanity. There's a lesson in there for everyone that's kind of lost in today's political climate: the more powerful you are, the more you should give back to the community.” Steve also finds the immigrant metaphor appealing. “He's like the embodiment of American history. He's literally an immigrant sent to the United States by his parents to make a better life for himself.”

Adam McAllister is the webmaster of Kal-el.org, a website devoted to gathering every tidbit of information on Superman Returns possible. While he hasn’t read Superman comics since childhood, he considers himself a huge fan of movie and TV versions of the character and says he has never been this excited for a film. To Adam, Superman is unique because he’s seminal: “There's something special about being the first... no other comic character has been able to touch him, in any way. He's got the best powers, the best origin story, the best symbolism, it’s just perfect.”

You’d think that, being the manager / buyer of NYC’s Sci-Fi / Comic Megastore, Forbidden Planet, Jeff Ayers would have a business AND personal stake in Superman Returns. But Jeff says superhero movies rarely have a lasting impact on comic book sales, and advance material for the film has left him mostly cold. But Jeff does care what happens to the character, having become enamored of Superman due to the first 1978 Christopher Reeve movie (which he calls “the purest interpretation of a comic ever put to film”). Still, the potential of the character gives him some hope. “(The movie’s) got a leg up an on most, if only because it has one of the most inspiring, noble and venerable characters created in the 20th Century as its focus.”

Somewhat less of a Kal-El acolyte, cartoonist Chris McCulloch (creator of the Cartoon Network Adult Swim series, The Venture Bros.) has a more ironic take on Superman. More of a Marvel Comics fanboy in youth, Chris still has an affection for the character, again due more to Reeve than anything else. Still, Chris appreciates Superman as a “kind of a retro-nostalgia trip... he represents a kind of throwback to a simpler, mid-twentieth century time or something. Nostalgic because he takes me back to my 70s childhood.”

But even someone who’s never cracked a comic book has an idea of who Superman is. He’s one of the most recognizable fictional icons in the World. Parents browsing the action figures at Target who don’t know Dr. Fate from Dr. Strange will buy Superman toys for their kids because, well, he’s Superman.

In a 1988 TIME magazine cover story about Superman’s 50th anniversary, Christopher Reeve said, “I’ve seen that Superman really matters. It’s not Superman the tongue in cheek cartoon character (people are) connecting with; they’re connecting with something very basic: the ability to overcome obstacles, the ability to persevere, the ability to understand difficulty and to turn your back on it.” Who could predict that, ironically, Reeve would later come to embody those traits in real life as well after a horseback riding accident left him paralyzed in 1995.

Still, there’s a stigma attached to being a Superman fan in that Kal-El isn’t COOL. Especially as comics became darker and more nihilistic in the late 80s, the notion of the “overgrown boy scout” became ever more mockable. There’s nothing dark about Superman (aside from the colors of the new movie costume), there’s precious little angst in him. Sadly, nobility and selflessness aren’t considered “cool.” Plus, youth has a knee-jerk tendency to dismiss any part of pop culture that belongs to prior generations. Supes has been fighting the good fight for almost 70 years now. He could be your grandfather.

But for pop classicists like myself who think nobody’s cooler than Frank Sinatra or Cary Grant, Superman fits into that equation. So, yeah... I’ve got a personal stake in how Brandon Routh and Bryan Singer pull off Superman Returns.

It’s certainly not just comic book fans that feel possessive of adapted characters. Anne Rice fanatics fumed over the casting of Tom Cruise as the vampire L’estat in 1994’s Interview with the Vampire. Petitions circulated to stop cinematic reimaginings of beloved old sitcoms The Honeymooners and Bewitched (not a bad idea, actually). Surf on over to www.craignotbond.com for just one of many heated arguments against Daniel Craig’s casting as the latest 007.

But will tears be shed if Craig doesn’t drink shaken martinis? Chris McCulloch feels that fanboys are more obsessive because “most of us started with comics when we were pretty young, so the characters are deply ingrained in our psyches -- they were literally our heroes.” Across the world, Superman fans are bracing themselves for Superman Returns, some foaming at the mouth with anticipation, others more cautiously hopeful, still more expecting the worst (I’m in the cautiously optimistic camp). And for some, the film’s success or failure might even dictate whether it’s a good or a crappy summer.

Yeah, that’s vested interest.

POSTSCRIPT, November 2010:
A few notes: Adam McAllister didn't like SUPERMAN RETURNS and his website was down not long after the movie came out; DC Comics just released the first in a series of graphic novels called EARTH-ONE putting Superman into a new continuity with the wrong-headed purpose being to make him hipper (he looks like some emo db on the cover) and more relatable. I did not buy this item.
____________________________________________________________________
ORIGINALLY POSTED as THE FANBOY DILEMMA PART 1 on MTV.COM, May 2006