A-List: Bad Movie Ideas
By Josh Spiegel
April 15, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Therein lies the bad idea. Though the movie that Death at a Funeral is a remake of isn’t exactly Avatar or Titanic or any number of wildly famous films, it’s also not a never-before-seen relic. Released in the States in 2007, Death at a Funeral is about the farcical goings-on at a British funeral. The Chris Rock lead character was played by Matthew Macfadyen (he of Pride and Prejudice and Frost/Nixon), the James Marsden character was played by Alan Tudyk (he of Firefly, Dollhouse, and being generally awesome), and the Peter Dinklage character was played by Peter freaking Dinklage. The movie was directed by Frank Oz, formerly Yoda, Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, and director of Bowfinger and Little Shop of Horrors. In short, a relatively impressive cast and crew.
So here’s the bad idea: let’s remake a movie that came out with a moderate release three years ago with an all-American cast, predominantly African Americans. Let’s also have it directed by Neil LaBute, who made his name on dour, wordy, and cruel treatises on masculinity in modern America. Let’s make sure the same screenwriter writes the movie (or is at least the solely credited author), and let’s make sure that the movie is almost exactly the same. Just with Chris Rock. There are obvious cash grabs, and there are obvious cash grabs. This is one of those movies, an absolutely pointless exercise. And that, perhaps, is the crux of this week’s list. The ideas here aren’t just bad; they’re pointless. Some of the movies listed have come out. Some are about to. You’re warned. They’re bad ideas; they may be better movies.
I want to clarify, again, before we continue that the movies being listed are so named for the ideas. The movies may be good; the movies may be bad. I’m merely judging concepts here, and since so many movies that come out every week are greenlit through the studio system on concept alone, I think it’s a fair way to judge. All of this is meant to preface the fact that, no, I haven’t seen Alien vs. Predator. I can say that I’m open to the possibility that some of the movies on the list could be good, as they’ve not yet been released, but the ideas are what make me recoil. And the idea of this movie, to some people, might sound awesome. The queen alien from the Alien series fighting the title alien from the Predator series! The latter makes sense, in that the series is identified not by the actors surrounding the baddie, but the baddie itself. But the Alien series works, when it does, because of Sigourney Weaver, not a damn creature.
Also, the problem with the two characters going head-to-head is that the movie’s not just going to be about an alien fighting a predator. That would be awesome. I would genuinely see the movie if there were no pesky humans fiddling around in between the two villains, just waiting to be eaten. There’s no fun to be found if we’re more invested in watching the titular characters massacre a bunch of random humans as opposed to fight each other, and only each other. We could easily lump the Freddy vs. Jason film in here, as well, but at least the movies in the respective series are meant to just be those guys killing random teenagers. I’m not saying that kind of movie would interest me at any time (it wouldn’t, obviously), but at least I would assume the horny teenagers would get axed or sliced. Alien vs. Predator is a different beast, or should have been.
Battleship
I know, I shouldn’t judge this movie yet. There have been plenty of iffy ideas through the pipelines of Hollywood. Before it came out, I would have been first to say that a movie based on the theme park ride known as Pirates of the Caribbean, from Jerry Bruckheimer, was about the dumbest idea I’d ever heard. So, Battleship could be awesome. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with a good-bad scenario. It’s a movie based on the board game Battleship; that’s bad. It’s directed by Peter Berg; that’s good. The main character will apparently be battling aliens; that’s bad. The main character is played by Friday Night Lights’ Taylor Kitsch; that’s good. His co-star is Tom Arnold; that’s bad. And on and on it goes. The point is simple: some things shouldn’t be the source material for movies. What’s more, the logline for the movie has nothing to do with the game.
Now, I haven’t played Battleship in years, so I might have missed the new twists, but are aliens part of it? From my memory, I play opposite a human being, not an alien, and it’s about defeating the ships controlled by the human being, not an alien. Then again, I also don’t imagine that my battleships are helmed by Tom Arnold (also known as everyone’s favorite cinematic McHale from McHale’s Navy). I’ll admit that I can’t fully trash the movie, because any movie that places Tim Riggins from Friday Night Lights as the lead (I’m also looking at you, Pixar’s John Carter of Mars) is a movie that’s worth considering. But he’s on a battleship fighting aliens. Because that’s how you’d fight aliens in the present-day: on a battleship. At the very most, I’m cautiously skeptical. At the very worst, I’m gagging at this idea.
Marmaduke
If you read the Trailer Hitch column, you may well know my bilious thoughts of this film, coming out in June (I’m not going to tell you when in June, because I just can’t imagine anyone wanting to see this movie, and I’m not going to help). Based on the comic strip by Brad Anderson (and in case you were wondering, the strip started in 1954 and the man is still making it today) about a wacky Great Dane who gets into crazy mix-ups, this film stars Owen Wilson as the title dog, George Lopez as his feline friend, Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas as Marmaduke’s love interest, Kiefer Sutherland as a doggie antagonist, and, according to the trailer, a dance scene. A dance scene with tons of computer-generated dogs. I would tell you what song they dance to, but I’m still trying to stop the bleeding from my eyes and ears to check.
I’ll not spend too much time on why this movie looks terrible, so much as how dumb and bad an idea it is. Yes, the comic strip has been around for over 50 years (which still kind of blows my mind), but are there a lot of kids clamoring for a Marmaduke movie? They got two Garfield movies, and even those two weren’t exactly firestarters at the box office, in the same way that Alvin and the Chipmunks was (not a comic strip, but similar marketing and weirdly, surprisingly successful). I know that I was a kid, I know that I saw and liked plenty of crappy movies (for some reason, the movie that always comes up to mind is Dennis the Menace), but I don’t know that I desperately needed CGI characters. Marmaduke is just not a character that needs a movie, or even demands one. I just hope I’m proven right in June.
Monopoly
That this movie is even possible (and it may just end up being that for the time being) is scary. That Ridley Scott is attached to direct is far, far worse. You know who Ridley Scott is. He’s the guy who directed Gladiator, Alien, Blade Runner, American Gangster, Black Hawk Down, and Thelma and Louise. He’s an Academy Award nominee. And he is, in some form, attached to direct a movie based on Monopoly. My best, serious guess is that the movie will be something close to Wall Street, and that’ll be if the movie gets off the ground. Scott’s also attached to a prequel to Alien. Some people just don’t learn. However, with regards to Monopoly, the issue is that some people (read: the entirety of Hollywood, apparently) love board games more than anyone else does.
Now, I’m no board-game hater (if there is such a thing); I like board games fine. I like playing them. And I rarely - no, sorry, I never think to myself, “Ah, if only this game was a movie with characters and a story, as opposed to a game on a board with pieces!” I appreciate that great movies (or, at the very least, entertaining movies) can come from the smallest of ideas, the smallest of concepts, but the idea of making a movie out of any board game, let alone this one, is just baffling to me. Why would anyone want to watch a movie that’s meant to be associated with Monopoly? Would such a movie be any good? What if the movie has only a tenuous connection to Monopoly, and is forced to throw in random references, like a main character wanting to move to Park Place? Gag me, and do it now. Sir Ridley, run away.
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Oh, I cannot wait for this movie. I just can’t. I can’t wait to not see it. Yes, I’m willing to admit that the movie, based on its trailer, could look a whole lot worse. But so many of the elements seem profoundly haunting. It’s a movie, from Jerry Bruckheimer and the director of National Treasure. It’s a movie based on the poem and segment from Fantasia, and it’s live-action. Oh, wait, I’ve got even better news: the sorcerer is played by Nicolas Cage. I think I may throw up. Now, thankfully, the movie is coming out on July 16th, so I’ll have something to avoid, because that’s the same day that Inception, also known as one of the few movies I cannot wait to see this summer, is coming out. I’m sure there will be a big box-office battle between the films, and I’m wholeheartedly behind Inception.
Inception may end up being a bad movie (though I doubt it, and would be painfully disappointed if that’s the case), but it’s about something. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is only about making money. Inception is also about making money, but not solely. Warner Bros. is trying to make a movie that might be about something; Disney is, in this case, not. It’s hard to ignore Bruckheimer’s track record, but a live-action movie based on a short animated segment from a classic film, one of the most identifiable scenes in all of cinema. This is about as close as you get to blasphemy, and the fact that Cage is in the movie just compounds it. Yes, he’s still got the ability to act (or at least, I think he does), but him in a movie from Bruckheimer shows all the signs of another check. I may be one of the few, but I won’t be dropping any money into his coffers for this one.