Dreams Do Come True

A while back I posted a blog about Star Wars Games I Want To See.  The last one I listed was "The Sims: Star Wars Edition".  Well, guess what they announced today?

Huh.  If I'd known they were listening, I would have wished for something bigger.

The Snyder Cut - Why?

Okay, so in 2013, Zack Snyder directed Man of Steel.  It wasn't the best Superman movie ever made, but it was serviceable.  In 2016, Snyder directed Batman Vs Superman.  It was an awful, bloated piece of dullness, and it was almost universally panned.  

In 2017, Snyder directed Justice League.  He had to quit before it was done, due to a personal tragedy, and Joss Whedon was hired to apply the final touches.  It wasn't a great movie, but it was a step up from BvS.  I actually like it, I just wish the villain had been better.

Look, Joss Whedon has his flaws.  I mean, he kind of peaked in the 90s, and a lot of his writing is... detectable.  As in, a character says a line, and you're like, "That sounds like Joss Whedon."  It's not bad, and sometimes it's pretty funny, but it's often obvious that all the characters were written by the same person.  But for the most part, I still like his writing.

In any event, I'd much rather watch a super hero movie directed by Whedon than Snyder.  Whedon actually seems to like comics, while Snyder only likes deconstructing them.  I'm really sick of the "deconstructing" trend.  It's not edgy or new, and frankly it's become just as tired as people think straight comic book movies are.

I'm convinced that Whedon's touches are the only reason Justice League was watchable.  Before he stepped in, Justice League was destined to be another four hour angsty snorefest.  Of course, the movie was too far along for Whedon to completely save, and he didn't want to alter Snyder's vision too much anyway.  So it's still a Snyder movie for the most part, and as such, it got mixed reviews.

I, for one, think it's underrated.  Like "Solo: A Star Wars Story", Justice League paid for the sins of its predecessors.  A lot of the people who hated BvS didn't even bother seeing Justice League, and I don't blame them.  I'm pretty sure a lot of the hate for the movie comes from people who didn't even see it.  But it still could have been better, and it joined the ranks of soon-to-be-forgotten super hero movies like Amazing Spider-Man movies or the Fantastic Four reboot.

And then rumors of the Snyder cut surfaced.  And for once, those rumors turned out to be true, or at the very least a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The new version of the film is on its way, much to the joy of Snyder fans.

Except... there aren't any Snyder fans.  BvS saw to that.  I mean, there's an exception to every rule, but I've yet to hear a lot of people stick up for BvS.  In fact, some of the people who hated on BvS are the same ones who demanded the Snyder cut of JL.

So what's the deal?  Explain this to me like I'm a five year old.  Why are people so interested in seeing a worse version of the same movie?  Who saw Justice League and said, "This would be better if it was twice as long, and featured a ton of slow motion dream sequences."  Might as well name Steppenwolf's mother "Martha" just for the hell of it.

Look, I want the Snyder Cut to be good, and I do plan to see it.  And I'll admit, some of the new footage does make me a little excited.  But I'm just not sure why anybody expects it to be better than the original cut.  We already know what Snyder is capable of.

William Gibson's Alien 3

I'm not claiming precognizance, but my life does contain a fair amount of serendipity.  And by that I mean, sometimes I'll wait months to post a blog, only minutes later to find out more information that would have been useful in that blog.  Like back in 2009 when I posted a blog about the Metroid series, and later that same day learned that another game was in the works.  I'm like a psychic that can only predict the wrong time to write something.

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I posted a blog about sequels, and one of my examples was the Alien series.  Among other things, I mentioned that Alien 3 was not only a bad movie, but it screwed up the canon so that further sequels would be worse off as well.  Shortly after posting that blog, I learned of a new comic book adaptation of Alien 3.  Well, it came out in 2019, but I just now learned of it.

A little history:  To say Alien 3 had a troubled production is an understatement.  Cyberpunk legend William Gibson was originally tasked with writing the script, but his version wasn't quite what the executives wanted.  So it was edited and rewritten, again and again, until it no longer resembled Gibson's version (or anything interesting, really).

Back in college, about six months after Alien 3 hit theaters, I remember an "early Alien 3 script" floating around.  I only read the first few pages, but I believe it was Gibson's version of the script.  I even signed a friend's petition to remake the movie with the original script.

Fast forward to last year, and Dark Horse comics has released "Alien 3: The Unproduced Screenplay", a comic adaptation of that original script.  It stars Bishop, Hicks, and several new characters.  Ripley and Newt are in it, but only enough to establish that they still exist.  You can tell this was written before they thought Sigourney Weaver would be coming back, because Ripley stays unconscious most of the time.

The story establishes that the xenomorphs were created as a weapon, which is sort of alluded to in Alien, but not really confirmed until Prometheus.  But it directly contradicts some of the canon in the theatrical version of Alien 3.  The comic explains that under the right circumstances, any drone can become a queen, which I much prefer to the movie's idea that a queen's characteristics are already evident during gestation.

What didn't sit well with me is that the comic has humans transforming into xenomorphs.  These aren't true xenos, but the result of an infection after some scientists try playing around with xeno genes in the story.  So it doesn't really change the alien canon.  It's a neat bit of body horror a la "The Thing", but the transformations themselves are hard to swallow.  Like how a six foot scientist can just rip their skin off to reveal a seven foot xenomorph, complete with elongated head.

Okay, I'm exaggerating, but it still would have looked better on screen, where they could really show the transformation process.  One problem with comics as a medium is that since you only see still panels, you can miss the actual nuances of movement.  There were several action scenes in the story where I couldn't quite figure out what was supposed to be going on, because the artist had chosen the wrong part of the movement to draw.

I also had a bit of trouble following the story, which takes place across several space stations and ships.  Maybe it's just my aging brain, but I had trouble keeping track of the rival factions and who was in which location.  I also felt there was too much exposition, bogging the story down in places, but again I blame that on the comic format.  A lot of the conversations that took multiple pages would have only taken two minutes of screen time.

Overall I think it's a worthwhile read.  Unfortunately I still can't say I love it, but it's definitely better than what we got in theaters.

Dark Horse has also started working on an adaptation of an early version of the original "Alien" script, back when it was still under the working title "Star Beast".  This script predates the involvement of HR Giger, so the monster is probably totally different.  I haven't read this one yet.  Only one issue (of five) has been released, and I'd rather wait and read it in one sitting.

Bad Sequels or No Sequels?

There is a trend lately where sequels are made that ignore some of the earlier sequels.  The most recent Halloween and Terminator sequels come to mind, but they aren't the only examples.  I kind of respect that - working off the canon that supports the story you want to tell - but 100 years from now it's going to make things confusing.  I can only hope future archivists are extremely well organized.

I've heard some people say that certain movies just shouldn't have sequels.  Some movies are such perfect self-contained stories that sequels can only make the story worse.  Highlander, for instance, ended with Connor being the last immortal, and some of the sequels had to be very contrived to keep the story going.

But you know my feelings on sequels.  You miss all the shots you don't take, so if you think you have a good idea for a sequel, film the sucker.  If people don't like it, they'll just declare it non-canon.  I'd rather live in a world with a thousand Highlander 2's than to live in a world without Aliens.  

Aliens is a good example, because the first two are decent movies, and the rest are... well... of varying quality.  Some people hold this up as an example of a series that didn't need more sequels.  I disagree.  The existence of a bad sequel doesn't mean a good sequel couldn't have been made.

The problem is everyone keeps trying remake the first Alien movie.  The writers just can't get past the concept of an isolated crew being picked off one by one by a monster.  That plot has already been done to perfection.  And the monster isn't nearly as scary now that everyone knows what it looks like.

But in high school, I used to read Aliens comics by Dark Horse, and some of those took the universe in all kinds of interesting directions.  People locating the original xenomorph homeworld.  A grown up Newt dealing with her inner demons.  An egocentric general trying to train xenomorphs for battle.  Learning more about the elephant-like species that transported the eggs to LV-426.  A scientist designing an artificial xenomorph to infiltrate a hive, harvesting "royal jelly" to use as a steroid on humans.  

Sadly, not only did the script writers ignore a wealth of interesting plot ideas, but Alien 3 and Prometheus directly contradicted (and therefore erased) the comics canon.  The comic writers decided to go with the new canon, even going as far to re-release the older comics with Hicks and Newt getting renamed in the dialogue.  Ugh, just accept that it's an alternate canon, people.  I'll admit it, that's one of the few times my "bad sequels don't hurt anything" rule was proven wrong, since it introduced canon that ruined the spin-offs.  

I would love to see a future Alien movie where an aging Ripley talks about the bad dreams she had in hypersleep - crashing on a prison planet, getting cloned, etc.  Picking up about 40 years later, people still don't believe Ripley, Hicks, and Newt, but the trio still managed to live long, happy lives thanks to an undisclosed settlement they received from Weyland-Yutani.  But Newt's now-adult daughter hears rumors about some disappearing colonies (a la Roanoke), and gee, some of the details are awful similar to the crazy stories Grandma Ripley used to tell.  Curiosity leads her... well, literally anywhere as long as it's not just another "seven people on a ship get murdered one by one" story.

But anyway, the screenwriters think there's only one way to write an Alien movie.  Which is funny because the first two Alien movies are as different as night and day.  Aliens took a risk when it turned a horror story into an action movie.  But later sequels refused to take risks, and are all the worse for it.

Terminator is the same way.  I also read Terminator comics in high school.  Some of them took place in the war-torn future, which sounded like a great idea for a movie until Salvation came out and soured the concept.  I still think a good war movie could be made from the franchise, though.  If the writers could just get past the idea that every Terminator movie requires time travel, and approach it as a war movie first and a Terminator movie second, then something really cool might get made.

The bottom line is, the existence of bad sequels doesn't mean a sequel shouldn't have been attempted.  It just means the producers should be more selective about which script they pick.

Divergent and Intentionally One Dimensional Characters

One of the criticisms I've seen of Guardians of the Galaxy is that Drax's literal-mindedness isn't consistent.  For example, when Quill says, "This is our chance to give a shit," Drax's response should be more like what is shown in this HISHE video.

But I don't agree with that.  He isn't magically literal-minded.  He hasn't been enchanted with some sort of anti-slang spell.  He just grew up in a culture that didn't use metaphors.  He's since been living among people with more normal speech patterns, and some of it is creeping in.  His first instinct is still to take everything literally, but he's spent enough time away from his people that his instincts are going to be inconsistent.

That's kind of the problem with intentionally one-dimensional characters, though.  If they truly adhered to their defining character trait at all times, most of them wouldn't survive a week.  A 100% literal version of Drax would have starved to death the first time he saw a stop sign.

It's said that Drax is in prison for 22 counts of murder, which he probably committed while on his quest to avenge his family.  But I'd rather believe he just accidentally broke a few laws based on his misunderstanding of some culture's metaphors.  Maybe he heard an actor say "break a leg", or complied with a valley girl's request to "gag her with a spoon."

One dimensional characters make me think of those "One of us always lies, the other always tells the truth" people they have guarding dungeons.  I mean, what are these people like at home?  How do they even begin to live a normal life, if they can't control their honesty/dishonesty?  Or do they only follow that rule when they're on the clock?

I'm currently reading the Divergent series, which is all about one dimensional characters.  It features an entire society of people who each have one of five personalities.  You're either brave, kind, selfless, honest, or inquisitive, and if you're more than one of those, you're considered a criminal.  

Of course such a society could not work.  In fact, that might be the point of the series - it shows us why such a system couldn't work, by showing us how it breaks down.  But I'm also finding the story a bit inconsistent.  At the choosing ceremony, 16-year-olds are expected to commit to a faction, a decision that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.  

But they're still allowed to choose.  Even though they're given tests that tell them which personality type they have (which should be obvious by that age anyway), they're given the freedom to pick the wrong faction, which will undoubtedly lead to them being factionless.

To me, this is where Divergent fails as a dystopia.  In the totalitarian dystopia the author was going for, the tests should indicate where the kids go, period.  You obviously want this society to work like a machine, so why give them free will?  You might say that giving the kids the illusion of free will makes them less likely to revolt, but they already know they don't have a real choice.  They know their lives will be ruined if they choose the wrong faction, fail, and become factionless.  Just going with the computer assessment would be more efficient.

And it's obvious why the author couldn't do that.  It's a form of the Anthropic Principle. If Tris hadn't been allowed to choose her own faction, the story couldn't happen.  And if she'd been required to retake the computer test until they got a clear result, she would have been executed before she even knew what a Divergent was.

Also, in a true dystopia, the factionless would just be executed.  For one thing, they would be considered a drain on society's resources.  Secondly, they're statistically more likely to be Divergent (who are executed), since they obviously couldn't cut it in their own factions.  And third, they have the most reason to rise up and overthrow the system.

Anyway, I've finished the first book, and I'm a couple of chapters into the second.  I'm taking a break at the moment because my attention is too divided by D&D stuff.  I don't know if I'm going to bother reading the third book, because I've heard bad things about it.  The third movie sure didn't impress me.