Movie mythology and its importance
May. 12th, 2006 04:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richFound an interesting article, while surfing around, on the mythology behind specific popular entertainment venues ("Lost" "X-Files" "Mission: Impossible") and thought it might be relevant to a "Pirates of the Caribbean" discussion.
By Gregg Kilday
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Was it the couch-jumping? The marketing? Some flaw in the movie itself? Ever since Paramount Pictures' "Mission: Impossible III" opened Friday to what most observers judged a disappointing three-day domestic gross of $47.7 million, the hunt has been on to explain the shortfall.
One theory holds that as the third film in a series, "M:I-3" is simply experiencing franchise burnout. But the reality, as far as that notion goes, might be more complicated. Thanks to television and the Internet, the way core fans engage with their favorite entertainment is changing in a way that might have simply left "M:I-3" behind the curve.
Blame it on "The X-Files." That ground-breaking TV series -- with its ever-more convoluted story lines about alien invaders and government cover-ups -- popularized the notion of creating a "mythology," a growing catalog of hints, clues and underlying relationships, that enriches a tale. It also feeds the enthusiasm of its core fan base, flattered to be asked to tease out the mysteries, often on Internet chat boards, even if the mysteries are rarely ever satisfactorily explained.
While the phenomenon has thrived on TV -- ABC's "Lost" is the reigning example -- it also has shown up in the movies. George Lucas' "Star Wars" is, in many ways, the grand-daddy of the ever-expanding mythology. In between films, Lucas kept his franchise alive by developing it in books, games and cartoon series, so that when the series' second trilogy was released, fans were panting with anticipation. This month, 20th Century Fox's "X-Men: The Last Stand" will attempt to build on the success of the first two "X-Men" movies by adding new characters and further exploring the relationships between the returning mutants.
From the start though, the "Mission" series rejected mythology. The first movie killed off the character of Jim Phelps, the one link to the 1960s TV series. On the big screen, the franchise chose to bet primarily on its star Tom Cruise, surrounded by spectacular explosions.
Part of the appeal of the old TV series was that it established a team of covert operatives -- Martin Landau's master of disguise, Barbara Bain's femme fatale, Greg Morris' tech expert and Peter Lupus' strong man. Then each week, it combined their expertise in different combinations in jigsaw puzzle plots. On the big screen, though, each of the films essentially has erased all memory of its predecessor -- only Ving Rhames has teamed with Cruise in all three movies. In effect, each of the movies has been a stand-alone entertainment.
Certainly, stand-alone movies without an evolving mythology can still turn into blockbusters. The James Bond series is the prime example, even if in recent years, it has coasted on moviegoers' nostalgia as Bond re-enacts familiar rituals. But stand-alones, lacking a dedicated fan base eager for new details, can face bigger hurdles.
"M:I-3" director J.J. Abrams compensates for the series' lack of its own mythology by borrowing elements of his TV series, most especially "Alias," where emotional bonds are constantly tested in the midst of flashy spy capers and table-turning third-act betrayals are to be expected. There are in-references to delight his fans: A cameo appearance by actor Greg Grunberg, who has appeared in all of Abrams' series; a star turn by Keri Russell, star of Abrams' "Felicity;" passing references to Oceanic Airlines and the Hanso Foundation, which figure in "Lost."
Some critics have knocked Abrams' dependence on the "Alias" tropes. But -- though there is no way to prove it -- because "M:I-3" lacks a mythology of its own, without its shout-outs to "Alias" fans, "M:I-3" might have encountered even more resistance than it did.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter (May 12, 2006)
It was interesting to read this while keeping POTC in mind. The only specific backing "mythology" for the first movie is the ride, which pre-dates the movie by about 30 years. I've been on the ride; it's not that great shakes, as storytelling goes. It's a loose collection of pirate cliches thrown together in animatronic scenery for a slow boat ride. Yay.
Now of course, piracy on the high seas has a long and rich history and mythology to draw from. But what I found interesting in the movie was the *lack* of cliches. I saw only one peg-leg, and that was in very brief passing; I don't remember eyepatches or hooks for hands (though maybe I just missed them?) or "Yarrr!" except from Barbossa a couple of times. Hell, I don't even remember gold hoop earrings (the only ones I do recall were Elizabeth's at the beginning fort scene).
So the question becomes: Does POTC have a bigger fan base than M:I because it has a longer backing mythology? I don't think so - after all, spies and their myths have been around forever, too. Does it have a bigger base because of better acting or more compelling stories? I don't know - I haven't seen the M:I movies, though I used to watch the TV series, and while Tom Cruise would probably be on my celeb shit-list if I had one, the fact is that he is an entertaining actor when he wants to be.
What do you all think? (Feel free to pimp this in your own journal if you like, since I don't think my shake alone is enough to bring all the commenters to the yard.)
By Gregg Kilday
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Was it the couch-jumping? The marketing? Some flaw in the movie itself? Ever since Paramount Pictures' "Mission: Impossible III" opened Friday to what most observers judged a disappointing three-day domestic gross of $47.7 million, the hunt has been on to explain the shortfall.
One theory holds that as the third film in a series, "M:I-3" is simply experiencing franchise burnout. But the reality, as far as that notion goes, might be more complicated. Thanks to television and the Internet, the way core fans engage with their favorite entertainment is changing in a way that might have simply left "M:I-3" behind the curve.
Blame it on "The X-Files." That ground-breaking TV series -- with its ever-more convoluted story lines about alien invaders and government cover-ups -- popularized the notion of creating a "mythology," a growing catalog of hints, clues and underlying relationships, that enriches a tale. It also feeds the enthusiasm of its core fan base, flattered to be asked to tease out the mysteries, often on Internet chat boards, even if the mysteries are rarely ever satisfactorily explained.
While the phenomenon has thrived on TV -- ABC's "Lost" is the reigning example -- it also has shown up in the movies. George Lucas' "Star Wars" is, in many ways, the grand-daddy of the ever-expanding mythology. In between films, Lucas kept his franchise alive by developing it in books, games and cartoon series, so that when the series' second trilogy was released, fans were panting with anticipation. This month, 20th Century Fox's "X-Men: The Last Stand" will attempt to build on the success of the first two "X-Men" movies by adding new characters and further exploring the relationships between the returning mutants.
From the start though, the "Mission" series rejected mythology. The first movie killed off the character of Jim Phelps, the one link to the 1960s TV series. On the big screen, the franchise chose to bet primarily on its star Tom Cruise, surrounded by spectacular explosions.
Part of the appeal of the old TV series was that it established a team of covert operatives -- Martin Landau's master of disguise, Barbara Bain's femme fatale, Greg Morris' tech expert and Peter Lupus' strong man. Then each week, it combined their expertise in different combinations in jigsaw puzzle plots. On the big screen, though, each of the films essentially has erased all memory of its predecessor -- only Ving Rhames has teamed with Cruise in all three movies. In effect, each of the movies has been a stand-alone entertainment.
Certainly, stand-alone movies without an evolving mythology can still turn into blockbusters. The James Bond series is the prime example, even if in recent years, it has coasted on moviegoers' nostalgia as Bond re-enacts familiar rituals. But stand-alones, lacking a dedicated fan base eager for new details, can face bigger hurdles.
"M:I-3" director J.J. Abrams compensates for the series' lack of its own mythology by borrowing elements of his TV series, most especially "Alias," where emotional bonds are constantly tested in the midst of flashy spy capers and table-turning third-act betrayals are to be expected. There are in-references to delight his fans: A cameo appearance by actor Greg Grunberg, who has appeared in all of Abrams' series; a star turn by Keri Russell, star of Abrams' "Felicity;" passing references to Oceanic Airlines and the Hanso Foundation, which figure in "Lost."
Some critics have knocked Abrams' dependence on the "Alias" tropes. But -- though there is no way to prove it -- because "M:I-3" lacks a mythology of its own, without its shout-outs to "Alias" fans, "M:I-3" might have encountered even more resistance than it did.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter (May 12, 2006)
It was interesting to read this while keeping POTC in mind. The only specific backing "mythology" for the first movie is the ride, which pre-dates the movie by about 30 years. I've been on the ride; it's not that great shakes, as storytelling goes. It's a loose collection of pirate cliches thrown together in animatronic scenery for a slow boat ride. Yay.
Now of course, piracy on the high seas has a long and rich history and mythology to draw from. But what I found interesting in the movie was the *lack* of cliches. I saw only one peg-leg, and that was in very brief passing; I don't remember eyepatches or hooks for hands (though maybe I just missed them?) or "Yarrr!" except from Barbossa a couple of times. Hell, I don't even remember gold hoop earrings (the only ones I do recall were Elizabeth's at the beginning fort scene).
So the question becomes: Does POTC have a bigger fan base than M:I because it has a longer backing mythology? I don't think so - after all, spies and their myths have been around forever, too. Does it have a bigger base because of better acting or more compelling stories? I don't know - I haven't seen the M:I movies, though I used to watch the TV series, and while Tom Cruise would probably be on my celeb shit-list if I had one, the fact is that he is an entertaining actor when he wants to be.
What do you all think? (Feel free to pimp this in your own journal if you like, since I don't think my shake alone is enough to bring all the commenters to the yard.)
