Mythology
Re-Makes
By Martin Felipe
June 24, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Take Land of the Lost. I'm only slightly ashamed to admit that I devoured this thing as a kid. As most kids do, I loved the idea of playing amongst the dinosaurs. As I got a few years older, the concept of multi-dimensions seemed captivating. The pylons as portals between worlds and times seem to hold so many possibilities. I started thinking about the ancient ruins and what stories lay within those walls. The Pakuni are like some missing link species, and, like all kids, the lumbering Sleestak terrified me.
Well, in preparation for the new movie, I rewatched a few episodes of the Krofft production on hulu.com. I knew going in that it wouldn't be what I remembered. I figured it would be dated, the special effects wouldn't hold up, and that it would seem more trippy than fascinating. I was unprepared for how awful it really is. It's beyond dated, it's borderline incompetent. I'm talking Ed Wood level cinema. All of the usual culprits are present - poor stop motion/blue screen effects, Styrofoam, set pieces, rubber monster suits - but what struck me the most was the shrill acting and the tell-don't-show dialogue. Just an utter debacle.
Yet, I maintain the core is solid. There's potential for a killer adventure tale. A family marooned in a dimensional way station, a landing pad between worlds and between times. How do they get home? What do they encounter? What does it all mean? So fun, so many possibilities. If only someone would take it seriously.
Well, Brad Silberling and Will Ferrell don't take it seriously. I'm not talking about the comedy - I actually do find Ferrell funny. I'm talking about the camp. I make the comparison above to Ed Wood. Silberling takes the approach of recreating the cheese factor of the show. Problem is, camp isn't what makes the show special or enduring, it's the fascinating world. If anything, the camp taints what could be an otherwise fascinating tale. Imagine how good the movie could have been if, rather than cheesing it up, Silberling had taken more of a Jurassic-Park-between-realities approach. You could still have had Ferrell to provide a quip here or there to break the tension, but treat the world as a real threat. Have real dangers and ground it more. If Silberling doesn't take it seriously, how are we viewers supposed to?
Then there's Transformers. We all know the overall concept, so I won't bore you with the details. The cartoon from the '80s is no great shakes. It got lots of criticism in its day for being just a half hour advertisement for the Transformers toys. I think there's some truth to that, but Hasbro (or whoever produced the show) could have avoided some of the criticism by putting a little elbow grease into the thing.
The concept is killer. Two warring alien robot races battle each other on Earth...and they can turn into things. - cars, planes, trucks, a big gun, dinosaurs, big bugs, and so on. The stuff of a young boy's dreams. Yet, the show is the same nonsense over and over. Decepticons fight Autobots, Decepticons lose, Megatron claims to have lost the battle, but will win the war. Next. And the animation is of the infamous corner-cutting variety. You know, where Optimus Prime passes the same building over and over, and where all the characters stand perfectly still as they talk, with an occasional eye blink.
Then, for some reason, Michael Bay got to make the recent movies. I'm not going to go into one of those anti-Bay diatribes that populate the Internet - we've heard them all before - but I will say that he makes a different mistake than Hasbro. If the cartoon is too static, the movies are too kinetic. I have no idea what's going on in them.
I was disheartened when I discovered the Spielberg was only producing them. A director like him, or a Cameron, a Jackson, a Zemekis, would have been a much better choice. We're talking anyone who could have brought the visuals of Bay, but also some character development upon which to hang them. I can't tell one Autobot from another in Bay's Transformers, and as a result, there are no stakes. I just see a bunch of awesome looking robots smashing up cities. I go wow, but I don't care. Dammit, Michael, I'm so frustrated. You have such a great concept, yet you bring no more depth to the table than a toy company does, just better animation.
If you want to see a remake of an awful old show done right, you're gonna have to take a look at Battlestar Galactica. I want to like the original, I really do, but look, let's face facts. It sucks. I tried, I really did. I rewatched some of it to prepare myself for the new show. It just drags. I dig the concept - an inter-galactic, post-apocalyptic search for a safe haven called Earth, with their enemies hot on their heels. The show has such a fascinating concept, but such languorous execution.
Then, along come Ronald D. Moore and David Eick. They take the basic idea, but drop the late '70s camp. They do what Silberling doesn't and take it seriously. Gone are the sci-fi costumes, the singing aliens, the robot dogs. The cylon centurions are now sleek and dangerous, not lumbering. The effects are cutting edge. The verite style gives the show an edge of realism. It eliminates the space opera cheese. The technology is reminiscent of our own, with none of that Trek style techno-babble.
They also do what Bay can't by creating complex, compelling characters. Flawed and often unlikable, these people test their own personal ethics and moralities in the face of an unimaginable survival situation. They frequently make grave mistakes and don't always learn a valuable lesson. As the pressure grows, some find themselves, others degenerate, none escape unscathed. It's a drama with a sci-fi setting, not the other way around.
Make no mistake, though. The cool geek stuff's still there. Moore and Eick expand upon Glenn A. Larson's basic mythology. They introduce cylons who look human, the concept of resurrection, and the monotheism vs. polytheism conflict. They create a back-story for the 13 colonies of Kobol. They give us awesome space battles and cool ongoing mysteries. Yet, characters - and actors, for that matter - whom we love to follow, back up all of this mythology. And they don't treat the fantasy of the situation as a big joke between themselves and the viewers. Everything they do has stakes. And we care about them.
I don't mean to sound extreme about this, but I really do get upset about failures like Land of the Lost and Transformers. The reason the original properties remain enduring despite the fact that they suck, is that there is potential there. The concepts are strong. If you think of Larson's Galactica as the rough draft, Moore and Eick just fix the problems and reinforce the strengths. Silberling and Bay, however, seem to misunderstand the appeal of their own respective rough drafts. I still have great affection for Land of the Lost and Transformers in my heart and I know that they can be done right. It just hasn't happened yet.