Outlander
is another of the several movies that the late-night crowd at my house absorbed this past weekend. Somewhat to our surprise, the film was generally enjoyable and a cut above most of the B movies we try.
The cast was part of what made the flick decent. James Caviezel, though never particularly emotive or believably effective, managed to carry off the role well enough that only a few times did we go, "Really? That guy did that?" Sophia Myles did her best to look sexy, fearsome, and feminist, as the wandering script demanded. John Hurt played the grizzled new king with an appropriate level of scene chewing. And so on.
Like so many other movies, however, Outlander suffered from a script that simply couldn't be bothered with internal story logic. From the backstory to the climax, whenever the movie felt the slightest urge to swerve off the logic highway, it went off-road.
I've come to find this phenomenon a bit puzzling. I know what writers will work for. I have a pretty good sense of the budget of these films; most of the data is online. It just wouldn't cost much to invest in a writer (or writers) who could both construct an interesting and exciting plot and deliver a story that didn't force you to turn off all higher cognitive functions before settling into your seat. I also don't believe movie people are stupid or incompetent; they have to be good at what they do, or at least as good as most people in most fields are.
My guess is that the collaborative nature of filmmaking coupled with the need for a lot of things to go BOOM leads to an abandonment of story logic in favor of those more important (to the producers) factors. If that's the case, I think the answer is not to settle but instead to hire better writers--and then to listen to them.
Again, Will Smith, if you're reading this and wondering about collaborating with me, have your people call my people, and we'll do lunch. On you.
Posts
10 comments:
Lunch on Will Smith...
Now THAT would be interesting. *grin*
I meant that he would be paying for the meal. I suspect you meant something rather different.
We've talked about this before, but I feel compelled to comment again on what a poor Jon I think Will Smith would make. Take any action movie he's ever done. Every character is --- Will Smith. His persona overwhelms the roles. Wouldn't Jon be better portrayed by an actor who has enough range and depth to display the scope of emotions that Jon feels, but struggles to contain, from uncontrollable rage to aching tenderness? This requires an actor with subtlety and, dare I say, talent? So you're looking for a box office draw. He would have to beef up considerably but what about Johnny Depp? Or what about Jon Hamm, whose really on a hot streak right now as the star of Mad Men and with some recent delightful guest appearances on 30 Rock? (Not to mention he's completely smokin'.) If you just want a hot black actor, pick Terrence Howard. Then again, no one would believe any of your female characters would resist him with his fine-ass self. I think you should have enough faith in what your book would do for the actor's career (maybe a breakout star whose box office status would skyrocket with the escalating success of each Jon & Lobo movie!), rather than relying one one who would, frankly, make a pretty sub-par Jon. Jon deserves better!
Reading those two sentences, as you wrote them, in any way other than the one which you intended would be wrong. So, I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself. *grin*
You make good points, and Depp would indeed be brilliant (but too small). Jackman would be good.
The thing is, though, that Will Smith delivers box-office bonanzas, and that has to be a consideration.
Ticia, you just did.
I agree with you about Will Smith. He would be phenomenal. He is handsome, funny and emotive. Yes, a lot of his characters are similiar, but that is why we like Will Smith. I don't want him to be a bad ass villian, I didn't like him in Hancock when he was mean and cranky. I LOVED him in Independence Day. I want a hero. Jon is a hero and Will would be incredible. And, I agree with Ticia, I would have lunch with or on him any day.
He's money, no doubt.
Hugh Jackman might make a good Jon, but when I'm reading I tend to visualize Jon as looking a little more like Gerard Butler. If I were casting the movie that's probably who I would look at.
Butler is older looking than Jon, who appears to 28, but he is a good choice.
Post a Comment