"Guardians of the Galaxy" VS. "Star Wars: Episode VII"

Two different movie franchises. One monolithic conglomerate.

Marvel and LucasFilm are now owned by Disney. While the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) has been rolling along the last several years, churning out story after story and learning from creative mistakes, the Star Wars series has laid dormant with the aftertaste of the prequel trilogy and the failed 3D release. That being stated, much has been learned from the success of Marvel, and is being applied to the next installment of the Skywalker saga.

But, with so much content being pushed so close together by Disney, will one project over shadow the other?

Two subsidiaries in competition for the same audience - Marvel and LucasFilm. Two movies similar in genre - Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars: Episode VII.  In my opinion, it's Lucas Film at the disadvantage. It's Star Wars with everything to prove. It's Guardians of the Galaxy that will capture the torch.

Well, in my mind anyways...

For one reason and one reason only I, personally, compare and contrast these two films: The Mos Eisley Cantina. Allow me to elaborate a bit.

That F***ed up bar

Guardians of the Galaxy is set beyond the familiar reaches of the MCU, deep into space, on worlds where creatures beyond imagination exist. It's a frontier that Earth bound men have yet to conquer. A wild west almost. Bounty hunters, galactic police, thieves and bootleggers run amok. Sound like a place you know of?

I've put these two films together in my mind not only because they share so much, but because one is directly inspired by the other. Star Lord, kidnapped at a very young age and raised by aliens, was a product of the Return of the Jedi and E.T. generation. If anything, real life Earth would be boring and uncomfortable to him. But, as an adult on planets beyond our own, he's at home. This is the stuff he imagined. Han Solo was his idol, creatures like Chewbacca didn't freak him out and The Mos Eisley Cantina would be his favorite hang out. It's commentary on and the ultimate expression of kids who grew up on The Goonies, and the worlds they wanted to live in. Guardians - 1, Episode VII - 0.

In a way, it might be the most personal film for director James Gunn, who is himself part of that generation. Kinda like how J.J. Abrams' most personal film Super 8 is inspired by and a fond nostalgic trip into Spielberg's catalog.

Unfamiliar territory

This year has been filled with more sequels, remakes, reboots and adaptations than I care to think about. While I'm sure there is math to support claims of over saturation and lackluster audience response, I've actually felt this in theaters. The Amazing Spiderman 2, while surprising and enjoyable, was barely half full at the screening I went to, and is showing disappointing financial returns.

Now, I'm sure Episode VII will make a bundle by default, but the fact remains: it's a property we all know about. Only super comic book fans are really aware of Guardians. How will people react when they see Rocket Raccoon talk smack or a space adventure with Wars or Trek printed on the poster? Honestly, it could go the way of cult favorites like Dune, or it could be a smash hit oddity. It's a toss up. Episode VII is riding that wave of being a "guaranteed slam dunk", while uncertainty surrounds Guardians.

When the prequels were rolled out, they made plenty of dough, but didn't reach the heights of something like Marvel's The Avengers. Why? A) Bad word of mouth fought hand and fist with the recognizable brand name and B) It was something everyone had seen already. If there is one thing going for Episode 7, it is the uncertainty of where the story goes. At the same time, it is the high expectations associated with this that could spoil the success. With Guardians, among the general moviegoing public, it's not a recognizable brand and isn't a story we've seen before. Where the uncertainty harms Star Wars, it helps Guardians. 

I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and will always be one. But, this is a series that has a huge wall to climb over. The MCU has provided some of the most wonderfully entertaining and absolutely joyous fantasy stories I've seen in a while, and Guardians looks to put it all over the edge. Either way, Disney wins both of my tickets, but which one will be a classic in my heart?

My score: 2 - .5 in the favor of Guardians of the Galaxy.

Feel free to comment below, contact me on twitter @neauxreelidea and visit/share/support my page on Patreon.

Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

I like to think that, when compared to other critics, I'm pretty easy to please. Silly plot holes, odd dialogue, unfinished effects, etc. can be forgiven, as long as I leave the theater thinking and excited. I'm not asking for much; treat me like a mature human being, and I'll treat your movie with respect. A simple request that can be easily met, I believe.

Sometimes one moment - just one - can nearly ruin an experience for me. The movie as a whole might be superb, but this one sequence can stick in my mind and tarnish the good feeling I was having. It's like having a pounding headache with no pain reliever in sight. It. Just. Hurts.

Can such a headache be excused in time?

After watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm certain that such a bad feeling can be soothed. Left alone, I rather enjoyed most of what I saw. Kirk and his team get caught up in a manhunt for a former member of Star Fleet turned terrorist, only to uncover a plot to start a war. What unfolds is not exactly the "chess game" that was suggested in the marketing, but a conflict that finds them defending the very core of the franchise. When assigned to a kill mission, the crew of the Enterprise mostly object. Scotty even quits, stating that Star Fleet is not supposed to be militaristic. It's clear that Mr. Scott would not agree with simply assassinating Osama bin Laden. We're better than that, he might say.

A "war time" Admiral creates a highly weaponized ship, meant specifically for a battle with Klingons, with the help of the agent turned terrorist. Comparisons to Donald Rumsfeld / Dick Cheney and the War on Terror are obvious, but in this story (unlike in the real world), the violence monger is actually going against the grain of the society he lives in - trying to force a peace minded world to go along with his one man war. Through this, Kirk and Spock confront their own violent tendencies, and thankfully learn to make the right decisions despite their emotions. In our world, they would probably be reprimanded for going against official orders. But, Star Trek shows us a future interested in the betterment of life. A possible future, I would hope. This is a  classic Trek tale, without being too traditional.

Many have been worried that this new Star Trek would just be about shooting lasers and not the discovery of new worlds and ideas. Into Darkness features action, yes, but what it does is pit a crew that wants to do exploration (traditional Trekkies) against a crew that just wants to fight (Hollywood). The series doesn't "boldly go" yet, but they do "engage" that topic. And, in the end, they will "make it so".

So, what's the problem?

Well, I can't really get into it without spoiling the movie. What I will say is that, at the climax, we get something that I really didn't expect: a near verbatim recreation of a famous scene from a previous Star Trek movie. I actually threw my hands in the air out of frustration and embarrassment. How could they do this? Who thought that was a good idea? It's lazy fan service and a non creative reference, I thought. Such a shame. Into Darkness was going great, being a fun, well told, sci space adventure. What problems the first movie had regarding that Trek feel, this one fixed. It even confirmed for me that J.J. Abrams was a very good choice for Star Wars Episode 7.

WHY DID THEY INCLUDE THAT ONE SCENE!?

I once suffered a week long headache, that was eventually cured with a medication I didn't even know I had all along. This week, my headache was short, and medicated rather easily. A twitter conversation helped me understand that A) Star Trek has always referenced itself, in one way or another B) The scene made sense in context, and was actually integral to the movie and C) One perceived hiccup shouldn't damper an overall fun event.

Remember how in From Paris with Love, John Travolta made a horrible reference to Pulp Fiction by mentioning the Royale w/ Cheese? Or when in Be Cool, Travolta danced with Uma Thurman? These are the scenes that cause major migraines. These are the call backs that make me mad. When you've made a genuinely good movie, and decided to do a twist on a famous moment from the same franchise in that movie, that's acceptable. Especially for Star Trek.

WHY DID I GET WORKED UP OVER ONE SCENE!?

Indeed, time heals all wounds, sometimes faster than expected. And that only one wound was described ought to be a compliment by itself. J.J. Abrams may not have been a Star Trek fan growing up, but he finally understands that old Trek feel. That is the medication to any one scene that might ail you. Request met, I say.

3/5 - 4/5 *s, depending on how I'm feeling at a given time.   

Review: "Oblivion"

I have great affection for David Lynch’s Dune. It’s a movie that barely explains itself, but keeps throwing stuff at you anyways. Sure, The Original Star Wars Trilogy didn’t feel the need to spell everything out either, but it would at least establish and ground things to make the audience comfortable. Dune, on the other hand, expects you to have done some reading beforehand. Despite that problem, I really dig the flick. It’s a classic sci fi adventure with a weirdo modern (at the time) edge. It has a real “you just had to be there to understand” feel to it, and, knowing that I can never go back and “understand”, makes me love it even more.

The latest Tom Cruise movie Oblivion works well as a classic sci fi adventure, but without the special “you had to be there” feel. Actually, it’s really up to you if you want to go at all.

By no means is Oblivion bad; it’s a sleek looking and slickly told tale, constructed in a satisfying and easy to digest manner. At no time did I feel confused or out of place. It’s the kind of movie that makes you slurp an icee with glee and look forward to playing with your Wii when you get home (in fact, the ship Tom uses looks to be controlled by a Wii remote).

I just can’t say that it’s memorable. Is a cult following for this movie possible? Eh.

Tom Cruise plays yet another character named Jack, a technician assigned to maintaining the drones that protect mining machines on what is left of Earth. He must do this while fighting off the occasional Scav, the last of the aliens that invaded the planet years prior. Nearing the end of his mission, an old ship crash lands, revealing a woman Jack knows from his dreams. This leads him to a discovery that will determine the fate of humanity.

After the screening, I remarked to a friend that the story felt like the first in a franchise series, meant perhaps for a trilogy or something. Being a single film just feels off, as there are just lots of interesting things happening that deserve to be explored further. It really should’ve been an hour longer at least (seriously), giving us more to chew on. Morgan Freeman ends up expositing everything in a two minute sequence, clarifying for me that the producers just want you to shovel popcorn in your face while Tom Cruise shoots his gun.

To be fair, that isn’t too bad of a thing, as it actually works here. The visuals are top notch, Tom Cruise is at his most Tom Cruise and the action is fun. As a sci fi movie, it could’ve gone into philosophical territory regarding free will and blissful ignorance vs. knowing the truth, but opts instead for being adventurous on a superficial level. Disappointing, but hey - it works.

Dune, for all of its perceived faults, aimed for being something more than just space drama. It didn’t quite hit the mark, but the ambition was there. Oblivion is more than happy just sticking to what has worked before. It’s like the film equivalent of that guy who spends most of his life just chillin’, playing music and not making waves. Bless his heart, but please don’t follow in his footsteps.

3/5 *s

Review: "Cleanflix"

There is a great website with a great community of video editors called FanEdit.org. They encourage the re-imagining, re-organizing and re-editing of popular movies and TV shows - like, for example, a Grindhouse style version of "Star Wars".

To avoid any legal troubles, the site makes it clear that edits using sources not legally obtained will not be allowed. Of course, they mean torrents and bootlegs, but even software that rips video off of DVD's can be attacked. If I pay $20 for a Julia Roberts film, I should be able to remove her from it, right?

We own it, so why can't we change it?

Hollywood and major music labels are so far behind the times. As proof, all you have to do is watch "Cleanflix". In this documentary, we witness the rise and fall of video stores in Utah (and a few other states) that offered rentals for movies that have been edited for family viewing. If you wanted to see "Titanic" minus Kate Winslets' nude body, they had a copy.

I remember reading about Ted Turner wanting to colorize "King Kong", and I'm very familiar with George Lucas constantly changing "Star Wars" while holding back the theatrical versions. There is a difference between those actions and the ones in "Cleanflix". It's called demand. People actually wanted slightly censored versions of popular movies, and they were willing to pay money for them. They weren't owners of those properties like Turner and Lucas, meaning that the original films with their original intent would remain intact for other people to view.

The customers just wanted another option, is all. It's interesting how this battle could be boiled down to self censoring repressive customers vs. oppressive rights holders and artists. Which side does one take, huh? The store owners just wanted to sell a product. No ideological agenda necessary for them, just the joy of providing a service and giving people movies (even if watered down). The legal challenges from California and the religious beliefs of the local community would take such a toll on this niche market that chain stores would close and owners would struggle and crumble under the pressure of it all. That such drama could come from video rentals is amazing.

Now, most stores have been replaced by kiosks and on demand services. It's funny watching someone outside of a grocery, trying to rent a movie while blocking out the glare from the sun to see the screen. Digital downloads are more my thing, but some come encoded to avoid "piracy". What if I wanted to make an amusing youtube clip? To those that break on through and make re-purposed videos, I salute you.

4/5 *s