Tags
Andrew Stanton, Animatronics, Budget, CGI, Disney, Empire Strikes Back, Forced Perspective, Go Motion, John Carter, Makeup FX, Phil Tippett, Poltergeist, Puppetry, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi, Richard Roeper, Roger Ebert, Star Wars, Stop Motion
In all the talk centering on the moderate performance of John Carter (in some instances labeling it the ‘biggest bomb of all time’ or ‘Ishtar on Mars’ – film critics love hyperbole), I have yet to read anyone talking about what, to me, is the real problem. John Carter is simply the end result of what has been building up in Hollywood for years; the rampant irresponsibility of money spent (at least $250 million in production costs), and an almost complete rejection of the cost-saving techniques available for real ingenuity in filmmaking craft.
Any story can be told, at any price. It really can. It frustrates me to hear filmmakers say, ‘it can’t be told at this time’ or ‘the technology doesn’t exist to properly tell that story yet’. They love their broad generalizations, and while no one could argue that bargain basement, indie God, Roger Corman produced any visionary masterpieces in his hay day (‘Battle Beyond the Stars’ cost $2 million in its day – $5.8 million today), we should look back in awe at what he did produce; in scope, ingenuity and profitability, and wish to God that today there was even an ounce of that type of creativity at work.
‘Star Wars’ (along with ‘Jaws’) created the present day blockbuster model that is currently wrecking havoc with filmmakers flailing desperately to try and recreate its success model. They won’t do it. They won’t. You know why? Because they don’t have any concept of what can be done when you have nothing to lose and no money to spend. ‘Star Wars’ was made for $11 million in 1977. Even in the most bullish terms today that translates into $40 million in present day value. When was the last time anyone attempted a story as vast, imaginative and adventurous as that on a tag of $40 million? I’m at a loss, I can’t think of any.
Reason being? The execs (I won’t blame just them) and the filmmakers are hung up on a way of doing things that involves all CGI all the time. CGI is a great technique, no doubt, but it requires thousands of artists and technicians (just look at the 8-10 minute scrolls at the end of movies today). There is an inexhaustible wealth of film technique and illusion used throughout history that can assist a filmmaker in presenting their tale. Forced perspective, split-screen photography, wire work, blue/green screen, model work, puppetry, slow-motion photography, animatronics, fx makeup, character suit work, stop/go-motion photography, and these are just the ones left since we can no longer induce chemical effects processes (one of the many heart-breaking losses of no longer being able to shoot and develop on film).
Is there anything in John Carter that hasn’t been done better in the original Star Wars series? With more impact and on an awesomely lower budget? The white ape fight? Look at the Rancor monster from ‘Return of the Jedi’ ($32.5 million cost in its day – $75 million today), there’s no comparison. The space ship battles? Look again at the opening battle for Jabba’s palace in ‘Return’, or even better the snow walker battle from ‘Empire’ ($18 million cost in its day – $50 million today).
What about Phil Tippett’s go-motion photography? Take a look at Robocop from 1987 ($13 million budget in its day – $26 million today) and tell me that the mechnical creations there are any less (if not more) effective than the tens of millions spent on computer work for space ship mechanics today. Ghostly optical effects, look no further than ‘Poltergeist’ from 1982 ($10.7 million in its day – $24.5 million today) or Raiders of the Lost Ark ($18 million budget in its day – $47 million today). Water tank effects, puppetry and ink dyes, who would ever think to shoot things like that in this day and age?
It’s a sense of history. That’s all it is. Money is, more often than not, the death of creativity. If you give a filmmaker an endless stream of credit, they will never make a final decision. Never. If you thrust limitations upon them, then that’s where you’ll truly see what they’re made of. And P.S., if anyone (including myself) wants to complain and point fingers at the reason it costs so much to go to a movie nowadays, this is where you start. Even adjusted for today’s prices, “Gone With The Wind” would cost $165 million, and that’s a 4-hour film!
I remember back when Ebert & Roeper were reviewing the abomination known as ‘Van Helsing’, Ebert had given the movie a positive review which made Roeper go slightly ballistic. Roeper brought up the shoddy, cartoonish effects and Ebert replied, ‘that’s just the state of the art’. Then it occurred to me. ‘State of the Art’ is not a phrase describing the best the industry has to offer, it simply describes the state that art is in.
The state of the art today is not a good state to be in. It’s a financially irresponsible state, an unimaginative state, and a state that will ultimately bankrupt the industry, creatively if not monetarily.