Leave 'Hancock' Alone You Rubes!
What a wacky world the blogosphere has become
 |
Hugh Jackman as the always-boring Wolverine |
Jackman's comments led to an MTV headline saying, "Hugh Jackman Looks Towards 'Batman Begins' For 'Wolverine' Inspiration". Norton's comments had Cinematical saying, "Norton seems quite confident that he's going to deliver something possibly comparable to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins in quality and tone."
Guess what this comment from Peter Berg regarding Hancock led to…
The film, he said, remained surprisingly sexual, violent and true in spirit to an original script that was viewed as brilliant but unmakable when its creator, Vincent Ngo, first circulated it more than a decade ago under the title "Tonight, He Comes."
Well, I already told you this line, "Might Hancock be darker than The Dark Knight?" But how about this one: "Hancock is a Darker Blockbuster Than You Might Imagine" and this one "Don't Be Fooled, Hancock is Going to Be Dark"?
Dark? Really? Yeah, dark to a politically correct Disney audience frustrated with the thought that people drink alcohol and smoke in movies. Then we get this:
The filmmakers, for instance, long ago conceded that their hero should not get drunk with a 12-year-old. But their concession was a bargaining chip, aimed at keeping a similar situation with a 17-year-old in the final version, which was still weeks from being locked as Mr. Berg spoke in April. Another touchy area, Mr. Berg said, involved flying, never mind driving, under the influence.
Drinking with a kid? Damn, I just watched The Bicycle Thief for the first time which featured a father drinking with his son whom I believe was nine-years-old in the film. Now we are worried about a 17-year-old drinking in a film? Aren't there a ton of films out there with kids under the age of 21 drinking not to mention plenty of primetime television featuring young-ins getting sloshed? Drunk driving? Turn on "The Simpsons" and I think you get that each episode. This is what we are calling dark and comparing to a movie about a homicidal maniac named The Joker as well as a guy who has had half his face burned up.
Sony's co-chairwoman Amy Pascal said, "It's scary in that it goes farther than we've gone before," which bloggers have grasped onto, but it doesn't really mean anything other than to say this isn't going to be your typical PC comedy. She boils it down much better when she says, "Will Smith playing a superhero in a movie that's funny and has tons of action, that's not so hard."
 |
"Everyone wants to be like me." |
Going from an R rating to a PG-13 rating is hardly anything new, unless you are Steven Spielberg you aren't really going to get away with anything. The latest example I can think of was Made of Honor, a film that received an R-rating its first time around. I didn't hear any Dark Knight comparisons on that one, and to top it off The Dark Knight isn't even rated R.
I love a good R-rating as much as the next guy, and I don't like it when filmmakers change their movie to fit inside a rating. I wish films were made, rated and presented as they were originally envisioned. Filmmaking (most of the time) is an art form and with the onslaught of "unrated" DVDs and "director's cuts" we have slowly lost the art portion and it has strictly become a money making business for all involved. It's sad.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame blogs for any of this. People that start a blog are out there giving their opinion just as I do on RopeofSilicon. I can challenge their opinions with my own, but I won't say their opinions are wrong, because it's not my place. They are entitled to their opinions and without them I wouldn't have even been able to write this article.
I can say I think they are off base about Hancock. Jeff Wells says he doesn't "like the vibe coming off this film," which I don't really understand since the vibe tells me a drunk superhero flies around New York saving folks while raising hell along the way. What's not to like? Considering how people laugh at dick jokes and people falling down all the time I would think this would be box-office candy and I truly think it is.
The last seven films Will Smith has starred in (not counting his cameo in Jersey Girl) have made over $100 million with I Am Legend making $256 million domestically and a whopping $584 million worldwide! To think Hancock, which not only features Will "The Golden Boy" Smith will make at least $250 million (if not $300) is ridiculous, not to mention this is also a superhero movie (comic book movie fans will come around), a film featuring a funny drunk (Judd Apatow fans are in line already) and also stars Charlize Theron (hot chick alert, online image thieves are all over this one). Who isn't going to see this movie?
Of course, I haven't seen it yet. I only watched one trailer and was sold before seeing that considering Jason Bateman is in it, Peter Berg directed it and Michael Mann produced it. I will admit that when Smith tosses that whale into the ocean I was instantly sold. Oh, and the Swedish trailer is supposed to be as rude as the trailers will get… SHOW ME THE DARKNESS! All I see is the fun.
Oh, and by the way, the results are in, Hillary took Indiana, but I'll be damned if Mayor Rudy Clay didn't take a beating from the traditionally soft Wolf Blitzer… It almost got dark, like Batman Begins dark!
Showing 3 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
My problem with ratings is the fact that the MPAA is so off the wall with some of their ratings, its ridiculous. Look at the massive body count of Live Free or Die Hard, PG-13, but if another virtually harmless movie shows a pair of tits or says fuck a few times, its slapped with an R, or, in the case of The Village, a single sound effect had to be removed to maintain the PG-13. Its absurd.
/end rant
You hit it on the head when you said that movie makers are letting art take second place to revenue. The same can be said of many bloggers. They've forgotten the reasons why they started blogging.
In theory most blogs are started because somebody has ideas and opinions that they'd like to share, and/or they want to scratch some journalistic itch. Sometimes they are able to turn their hobby into an actual occupation, and some of those are able to keep doing it for their original reasons and get paid. However, far too many (not you Brad, yet :) ) have given themselves over to their advertisers by doing everything possible to get page views. It's hard to differentiate between those types and regular old attention whores.
Over the past year, I've had to take at least half a dozen blogs off of my reading list because they became obsessed with getting attention for money or ego. They start by latching on to popular subjects. Finding something popular to bash and doing so until it's no longer recognizable as a horse any more. Or, they talk glowingly about something else. Then they link to others who have the same opinions and they all can gather around in some sort of virtual circle jerk and soak up the Google Juice. The problem is that it's sort of like some sort of drug. Writing like that, they can't sustain any sort of regular readership. So they have to always be looking for their next hit. Always be looking for the next inflammatory wave to ride and get their page view fix for the week. Like a druggie, they eventually have to burn out.
Keep up the good work. Real news and real opinions, that's what's going to hold people for the long run.
There are so many reasons to cheer for this one. First off, it's an original idea. Secondly it's taking a known quantity (superheroes) and spinning it in a different direction.
It doesn't even need to be dark for me to love it, simply subversive would be enough. Plus Mann, Berg, Smith, Bateman. These are names that I respect. They all have delivered quality on a regular basis. So I'm definitely looking forward to this little project – though I wish it was an R one. R means that they don't have to pull punches.
As far as the blogosphere… there's a ton of bad movie sites out there. Nuff said.