I didn’t go to ComicCon—and to be perfectly realistic about it, I rather doubt I ever will—but the bright young things at Spout blog did, and their coverage has been exhaustive, to say the least. Kevin Buist’s report on the panel on Terminator Salvation is drolly illuminating. First, Buist notes the negative fan reaction over the choice of bright shiny hack McG to direct the picture. (And while I call McG a bright shiny hack here, I’ve gotta admit I’ve always enjoyed his video for The Offspring’s “Pretty Fly For A White Guy.” His rise into feature directing represents a particularly virulent Hollywood variant on the Peter Principle.) And then serves up a few quotes from McG designed to assuage fears and bolster his legitimacy. The fellow enthuses over Children of Men—“hats off to that picture, I think it’s fantastic,” but adds that “by the same token,” Terminator Salvation “isn’t designed to be an art picture” because it’s for an international audience. He then explains how he could not possibly have gone forward with the film had James Cameron said to him “Fuck you, what are you doing.” Buist notes: “[McG] can really work a crowd, and […] he’s very tuned in to the concerns of the fan.”
Well sure; at least he gives the appearance of being so tuned in. I think one thing that makes a guy like McG valuable in the Hollywood food chain is his ability to string out a good line, albeit one that you’ve heard a million times before. He nails all the expected talking points with seamless facility: FIRST, reference a film that’s garnered some actual cred, and profess your own admiration for it; THEN, back down and insist, “Although of course we’re not doing an art film;” FOLLOW by swearing up and down that you wouldn’t be doing this unless you had the complete approval of the original creator, who you also completely admire and whose vision you would never think of betraying. Rinse and repeat over and over, until you finally foist your pile of crap on the world.
That guy managed to screw up a sure thing like “We Are Marshall”. All that material needed was a light touch. Everything else was handed to them on a plate. Do it right, and you won’t have the greatest movie ever made, but you could have had a new “Hoosiers”. Instead, McG and Co. pissed it down their leg.
I’ve been on vacation so I’m trying to catch up on all the posts I missed–McG is directing yet another Terminator film? I assume the completely irrelevant third Terminator film made buckets of cash overseas, hence the need for another sequel.
I guess there are still moviegoers out there who haven’t learned to cut through the PR nonsense that McG employed at his panel. Hollywood studios hire these hacks so that they can retain control (especially with massive budgets) and produce an easily-digestible summer entertainment. There seem to be fewer filmmaking talents like Christopher Nolan making smart popcorn films these days, sigh.
There’s absolutely no point in making a Terminator film without Cameron at the helm, as Mostow proved back in 2003. Cameron brought genuine soul to The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. A Cameron-less Terminator is like a Coppola-less Godfather, or a Spielberg-less Indiana Jones.
Cameron had a story to tell, the third and fourth are just soulless cash-ins. Cameron’s Avatar is the last great hope of the summer blockbuster, it’ll be fascinating to see a new sci-fi film from Cameron 18 years after his last one.
Jason: I love Nolan, but his handling of action leaves a lot to be desired. His sequences don’t flow like Cameron’s. I prefer his non-acion work like Memento and The Prestige.
>SHRUG My emotional investment begins and ends with “The Terminator”. T2 was basically Cameron remaking his work when he shouldn’t have, pretty CGI or no.
The general attitude of Terminator fans now appears to be “cautious optimism.” I think I’ve pretty much avoided most McG films up until now, but I’m going to judge him by his stupid name. It is pretty stupid.
Glenn,
McG isn’t the problem. Hollywood and the Geeks are the problem.
The Geeks DEMAND more, and when Hollywood obliges, they complain it wasn’t what they wanted. The Geeks don’t know when to leave well enough alone.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a perfect example. The Geeks kept begging for another serving. When Lucas-Spielberg-Ford finally decided to give it to ’em, they pissed and moan because it wasn’t…I don’t know what they wanted. INdy IV is a perfectly fine installment in the Indiana Jones series.
The arrogance of the Geeks is quite astonishing. They actualy think they have some kind of power over Hollywood. Hollywood doesn’t do itself any favors by catering to this select group who will show up on opening day no matter what. They will most certainly turn out for T4. They hear what they want to hear.
McG is actually more intersting filmmaker than his hack stature would suggest. He at very least brings a very personal sensibility, for better or for worse, to his films. I once did an attempt of defending him (together with Kiarostami, no less) in a piece thatr I suspect looks a little dated by now: http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue8/auteur.html
You know, between CA:FT (which got a very considerable zero-star Première review) and SatC:tM, I just think Glenn hates post-feminists.
I love CA:FT, and I think it is a genuine post-modern movie, of which I could write ad, eh, nauseam.
(Also, tru fax fans, I showed Children of Men to my mother a couple of days ago. Her verdict? “Strange, but powerful.”)
Aaron—well, the “geeks” certainly push Hollywood to continue favored franchises, but Hollywood would no sooner let the geeks determine the shape of a finished product than it would give Godard a $50-million budget. McG isn’t “the” problem. He’s “a” problem. For multiple reasons, but right now I’m favoring Bill’s.
Bemo: I just looked at that “CA:FT” review for the first time since I wrote it. Boy, SOMEBODY was in a bad mood, huh? I doubt that I’d much like the film if I saw it again, but I hate to think I’d offer quite so humorless an assessment now.
Ah, the first two “Terminator” films. One thing about Cameron—pace Harlan Ellison, the guy was a genuine sci-fi creator (and hopefully will soon be proven to still be one). No less an authority on sci-fi as Kingsley Amis declared T2 “a flawless masterpiece.” (Although David Foster Wallace, who loves the first “Terminator” film, deplores “2,” believing its overreliance on CGI and such gave birth to ther genre he calls “FX porn.”) What Mostow and McG know about sci-fi probably couldn’t fill a thimble. So there’s that.
Bemo, “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle” was just a plain old bad movie. It took everything that was fun about the first one and started shrieking it in your face.
Me, I’ve got nothing against feminists, or post-feminists, or any kind of feminists unless they hate me for having a penis. But as a film movement they’re awfully stultified. Where are the feminist genre films?
Glenn – Seriously? Kingsley Amis loved “T2”? I happen to really dislike that film, but – and this may not surprise you – I’m a huge Kingsley Amis fan. Still, I’ve never heard that before. Where did you find it?
It’s in Martin Amis’ excellent memoir “Experience,” which is very nearly as much about Kingsley as it is about Martin. Its portrait of Kingsley is superb, and its account of the father/son relationship extremely moving. I’d recommend it even if you’re not a fan of Martin. (I am, still.)
I am too, still, though I haven’t gotten around to “Experience” (or a his last two, actually). Two writers more different than Kingsley and Martin Amis you’re unlikely to find, but both are brilliant.
McG’s movies are garbage, but his pilot for “Chuck” has a lot of energy.
Aaron, the only geeks directly responsible for the lameness that was Indy IV are Lucas, for stuffing aliens into the plot, and Spielberg for allowing a lackluster script, terrible pacing, too much CGI and also the vines … the vines .…