VFX Frontiers, Big Budgets and Boxoffice

I'm glum about how Superman Returns is faring at the summer boxoffice. I know that part of the problem is that studios are indulgent parents. They have gobs and gobs of cash to spend, and especially when they're investing in a huge potential franchise, there's no incentive NOT to let their smart, talented, imaginative directors throw more money—and length— into their movies. So Bryan Singer gets to spend $2.3 million on that bullet in the eye sequence. (Which I'm glad is in the movie.) Or he decides that he just doesn't like the way that mini-continent looks when Superman hoists it into outer space. (Here's my report on Singer and VFX supervisor Mark Stetson's fab FX.) Superman Returns reminds me of King Kong. Because Peter Jackson was coming off the amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy, Universal let him do whatever he wanted—and got a three hour movie that barely scraped into profitability, and should have been trimmed.

So too, at two and a half hours, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 has plenty of sumptuous effects. And as a devoted FX student, I will eventually see it. It's just that too many people have told me what a long slog the movie is. I know it's my duty to report how well this movie is opening, breaking the Spider-Man record, etc etc. But it depresses me. The more the studios get positive reinforcement from making pricey but less than well-executed movies like Da Vinci Code and X-Men 3, the more they'll keep feeling justified in doing more of same. Sigh.

Besides Bob Zemeckis's Beowulf, the next FX extravaganza that I am super-excited by is James Cameron's 3-D Avatar, aka Project 880. Sheigh nabbed an interview with Cameron. I can't wait. Word is, ILM's Dennis Muren will be the lead effects supervisor, with Weta FX Master Joe Letteri handling Avatar's character animation. Finally, technology has caught up with the movie that Cameron has long wanted to make.

Comments

[David Poland]

So, please explain what depresses you... besides the success of a movie you didn't see at last week's all-media.

I hate to seem harsh and you know I think the world of you, but...

You like Superman Returns more than the rest of the summer parade... ok... I disagree, but okay... but didn't Singer get all he wanted? And did Superman Returns have any less of a chance to succeed famously than Pirates 2? Is this not still a comic book movie, even more than Singer's X-Men films?

It's an action movie for people who don't like action movies... which is not the public. Good or bad, Da Vinci was aiming far higher than Superman Returns. And Pirates might be aiming lower.

But in a world cynical enough to spend $450 million-plus in pursuit of establishing a Superman franchise in the CG era, your tears seem terribly misplaced. I'll save mine for The Proposition and Time To Leave and B13 and even Munich, which aimed far higher than easy moral choices of Crash or Brokeback Mountain or Good Night, And Good Luck and got led to the box office slaughter by the movie media.

[Anne Thompson]

I was invited to a press screening of Pirates but couldn't make it; there was no "all-media." They kept the list pretty tight. A lot of people on the usual all-media list didn't get invited. Professionally, I will see this. But man am I resisting it—whereas I've happily gone to see Superman Returns twice (once for the 20 minutes of IMAX 3-D).

Well, Superman Returns nabbed a 72 rating on Metacritic and a 75% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes from mostly male critics. Maybe the movie skewed too feminine after all. Is that what everyone is really saying? I grew up on Superman comics—and Superboy, and Supergirl. This one worked for me. My problem is that maybe Singer SHOULDN'T have gotten all he wanted. When in doubt, throw in more effects—which are superb. And expensive. And make the movie half an hour too long. Are you saying that because it's a comic book movie (as opposed to an E-ride) that Superman Returns shouldn't be smart and sharp and well-made? Batman Begins and Spider-Man rose above their genres, and were amply rewarded for doing so.

[Alan Green]

it's hard to argue that singer (or jackson) should not get carte blanche. these guys are hot. but, on the flip side, their work did not return on the investment they way it should have. on that, i agree with you. you say 'king kong' barely made it into the black (i'll take your word) - that's the sense i got. however, i'm betting superman will not get back to zero. between developement, production, and p/a, the 'sr' budget may be as high as $360m+. i doubt very much that its box office net (not gross), plus dvd sales will come close to that.

way back when 'slingblade' was made on a shoestring - $1m i believe. it did quite well and propelled careers along. 'pulp fiction' cost $8m, and look what it did. i don't see why that model can't be followed more. the returns aren't always that great, but the risk isn't that great either.

naturally, an effect-driven piece like 'sr' costs a lot, but $360m+? that's truly a roll of the dice.

hopefully, things will change. i'll be watching the box office returns of 'sr' with interest.

the real problem is the poor movies which do well at the box office - see 'potc: dmc'. this wildcard makes calculations difficult - especially without benefit of hindsight. if you're protected by brand loyalty then go ahead - spend what you want on producing a poor script - you know everyone wants to see anything with 'pirates' in the title. but, this arrogance doesn't protect you all the time. 'sr' may be a case in point.

hollywood likes to do things big. their successes are stupendous, but rare. their failures are equally stupendous but they are becoming too common and embarrassing. the money involved is just too much (and this is largely due to studios giving directors a blank check).

i wouldn't be surprised if 'superman returns' might help change the way things are done. my sense is that the money just isn't there anymore. the 'mega-budget tentpole' model may be adjusted in the years to come.

[David Poland]

Personally, I think the book on Superman Returns, a year from now, will be that Singer & his writers didn't have enough time to pull off their ambitious idea. Trying to do both a reflection and a progression was interesting. They organized those ideas and then wrote action around them. But the ideas, in my opinion, didn't come close to fleshing out. There was no time to get perspective and answer the hard questions.

The movie suggests, but does not match cleanly with the original two films. The romance is circumcized by the ugliness of a man who has impregnated a woman, disappeared for five years and then returned, seeking a full relationship. Because the whole idea is somewhat messy, the conflict of confrontation was out, as well as any real passion. There are many such misfires.

There are four or five really good ideas for a Superman movie inside that movie... but in the fever of pushing into a production that was already building sets, there was no time to narrow the field. So we get the hodgepodge.

And yes, since Singer is not really an action director - X-Men worked because they were character pieces - there is a lot less action and a lot less exciting action than you would expect from a 2 and a half hour Superman movie. Two hours of chatter and 30 minutes of action is not going to excite young men. And Superman always had the built in problem that we all saw the Matrix films and they did the Superman thing. Where is the topper here? Only in the subtle choices, like the elevator sequence or the medical exam (which forgets the brilliant coyness of Superman's "pink panties" sequence, even when he is looking her over in front of her fiance.

Anyway... I am sorry you are sad... but if you go into Pirates looking for what it is - stupid, happy fun - and not an art film, you may not be so sad when you leave.

[jbelkin]

While people are quick to harp on giant overblown movies - the fact is that people will generally go see them even if it's to criticize them. The thing si when they get it right, it's not just theaterical huge and not just DVD huge but everything HUGE from action figures to videogames to books to theme park rides to sequels to ringtones to ipod downloads to straight to home video sequels (while clearly they're not going to do Pirates 2.5 just yet but those comic relief character pirates could do a TV movie ...), etc, etc ... only a giant extravagnanza like King or Pirates can do that.

Sideways, nice - great return at theaterical - good on DVD but that's pretty much it.

And while EVERYONE complains, if consumers didn't make the rest worthwhile - just like videogamers always complain that licensed games are not that great yet they keep buying them or choosing them over something more obscure.

And it's hard to draw the line for the studios - after bringing in $3 BILLION dollars to WB, what exec at Universal can tell Peter Jackson his movie is too long? (LOTR 2 & 3 were also long - like the talking trees moving and talking in real time - alright already but who was gonna tell jackson to move on?)

But it's crazy - Ocean's 12 & MI2 had no plots, not much acting nor make much sense but both make huge amounts of money so who's to say people really want perfect quality?

BTW, I thought Pirates2 was fun - the harping seems excessive - the movie is based on a THEME PARK RIDE - what do you want?

Superman interests me nil. man flying and GCI stopping things. seen it.

[Sergio]

Sorry, but I found Superman Returns just deadly dull, as my friends who have seen it to also agree. I literally dozed off briefly halfway through. The word-of-mouth just hasn't been that good for the film. Granted, there isn't much to the Superman character anyway. He can fly and stop of falling plane from the air, but aside from that what is there? He's just very polite, bland, big loaf of white bread. It takes a special actor, as people are realizing Christopher Reeve was, to bring something special to the part.

Instead that get some charisma challenged male model to play the lead, some anoxeric high school senior to play Lois Lane in what must be the worst casting decision of the year, and poor Kevin Spacey looked totally embarrassed or bored throughout the film. The only thing I still remember about the film is John Williams' theme music from the 1978 Superman film which says a lot about this new version.

Which reminds me, just recently I saw an advance peek at the recently restored Raiders of the Lost Ark which Paramount is releasing to celebrate the film's 25th anniversary (WOW! How times flies) The general agreement among the people I saw it with is that it was so far the best film we're seen this year. I think that's a sad state of affairs when the best film you've seen IS A 25 YEAR OLD MOVIE!

[Sergio]

Let me add my further 2 cents by saying that I not over enthusisatic about POTC:DMC MICKEYMOUSE...sorry I got carried away there for a minute.

It's length (which a lot of people have criticized it for) has nothing to do with it. I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about the running times of Godfathers 1 and 2, Scarface or Heat for example. I found it too relentlessly forced ("C'mon folks, we're having fun damnit!!!") with a very weak meandering script which was more a series of set pieces than a coherent logical story and then of course there's that ending...oh wait that's right, there is NO ending. But at least, unlike Superman, it moved! If you're going to make a big dumb summer blockbuster, the last thing you want is to keep looking at your watch and wondering when you'll get home.

[Alan Green]

what a can of worms.

(i have not seen 'superman returns')

i agree superman is an old fashioned guy and david makes good points regarding how the new super-man may be neo from the matrix series (clearly much more contemporary). Sergio points out that superman in 'sr' appears to be bland white bread - and that's what the word of mouth focuses on. plus - (as david says) 2 hrs of talk and 30 minutes of action does not invite the core audience to rave about the movie or to seek repeat viewings (which is central to the success of an action tentpole).

all of this makes 'sr' look poor in its execution. no argument.

but i really don't believe any of that was anne's original point. i think she was saying that 'sr' and 'potc: dmc' reflect a fiscal and creative failure on the part of the studios involved, and that this, in turn, reflects the emergence of a new contract between the studios and the public in which the studio agrees to make bloated effects-driven movies which the value of ‘story’ is incidental or a non-factor, and the public agrees to see these movies without complaining about the lack of character development or story structure.

so what? if everybody is happy... i don't think it's that simple. the value of 'story' is at stake, and with it the quality of society itself. among screenwriters it's a truism: as 'story' declines, so declines society. if this is true then shallow-shiny efforts like 'dmc' are the culprit - they contribute to the dumbing-down of the movie going public and, arguably, the decline of society itself.

indulge me with this hypothetical: every movie made is written with no regard to story structure. movies that are effects-driven are simply lengthened out to an industry standard 2.5 hours and filled with the standard 200-300 million dollars worth of effects. in return, the public herds themselves to these movies and hand over their cash. in the theater, they laugh when cued, are shocked by the scary parts, and watch with dumb fascination as sparkly other-worldly objects and characters zing to and fro across the screen and engage themselves in whatever mindless activity is needed to maintain a logical progression in the plot. as for story? -- not needed. no meaningful plot, no character development (in the technical sense), no 3-act structure, no classical story values whatsoever. just spooled out super-glossy mindless pretty effects-driven gags.

the box office success 'dmc' hints at the above hypothetical world. once we head in that direction the process feeds upon itself. the studios learn to provide what the public is willing to pay for. the studios will become assembly-line factories which do nothing but turn out glossy product to feed the public's demand. this shiny/pretty product will be void of 'story', but no one will notice.

in this scenario the classically-trained screenwriter is not needed. he/she can be replaced by a writer of 'gags and situations' which support the use of cgi 'story-effects'. being versed in the elements of screenwriting structure would be archaic, even nostalgic. on the flip side, the public would forget what it was they once loved about movies, i.e. 'story'. when aspiring screenwriters (kids in high school) realize this - out goes the need to learn structure. the new screenwriter will be a sub-literate huckster who hawks his thin concepts to the highest bidder. in turn, the public will see this huckster's work and the cycle continues. (soon, with improvements in speech-recognition software, the ability to write will cease to be a prerequisite in the movie-making process).

think that's ridiculous? think i'm conjuring up science fiction? just look at sergio's comment regarding 'raiders of the lost ark'. this is very much an old-fashioned swashbuckling movie. (and it adheres strictly to classical story structure). and, i agree, this will probably be the best movie we see this year - a 25 year old movie.

where will we be in another 25 years?

while 'sr' fails because it did not deliver a modern, action-packed story with a contemporary protagonist, 'dmc' also fails because it does. 'dmc' delivers the goods, but nothing else, no story - and in doing so 'dmc' fails. 'dmc' only delivers on the new contract: give the public the right kind of mindless drivel (in this case almost non-stop frenetic action) and they will buy tickets. only in this respect does 'dmc' succeed. 'sr' did not meet the terms of the contract and the resulting poor box office bears this out. 'sr' makes the mistake of stopping to develop character, 'dmc' does not make that mistake. 'dmc' will make lots of money, 'sr' will not. however, both movies are fiscal and creative failures.

anne. if i am wrong in saying this is what you meant i apologize. if i'm right, i would ask a favor: do a write up in thr. you have the venue and a livelier topic you won't find.