Special f/x flix = hard-core porn
The widespread disappointment over The Matrix: Reloaded reminded me of David Foster Wallace's essay F/X Porn. It argues that Hollywood special effects blockbusters are no different from hard-core porn, each special effects-heavy scene being the equivalent of the porn scenes while all the other stuff is just filler. He also posits a law he calls the Inverse Cost and Quality Law:
More was at work in the downfall of The Matrix: Reloaded (TMR), however. Wallace's law rests on the premise that a huge studio will only commit hundreds of millions of dollars to a movie if it's guaranteed to succeeed. Thus the movie "must thus adhere to certain reliable formulae that have been shown by precedent to maximally ensure a runaway hit." Some of TMR fits this idea--the elaborate fight sequences, the love story. But based on what I've read about the very private Wachowski brothers, I don't think they'd acquiesce to studio pressure to alter their story. The plot of the TMR also seems fairly non-commercial, as convoluted and philosophical as it is (though respected critics such as Stanley Kauffman refer to the Matrix movies as "aggrandized juvenilia" and "adolescent fodder"). Frankly, Warner Brothers approved the construction an entire stretch of freeway just to shoot the car chase scene, creating huge budget overruns. Sure sounds like the Wachowski brothers had carte blanche.
And what of the Lord of the Rings trilogy? It was undoubtedly Peter Jackson's largest budget to date, by a long stretch. Despite being known primarily to movie buffs, Jackson received approval to spend $300 million to shoot all three movies in one year. That was a huge risk for New Line considering that if the first movie was a bust, they'd be on the hook for the other two. Yet all I've read indicates Jackson had significant creative control, and the first two movies have been wonderful, IMO. Perhaps they don't have the charm of earlier low-budget Jackson flicks like Dead Alive or Forgotten Silver or Meet the Feebles, but they're not low quality, to use the jargon of Wallace's law. Jackson obviously adapted the story from source material, and the popularity of that source novel reduced the risk to the studio to some degree, but in LOTR: TTT Jackson and his wife made several large plot adjustments, and overall IMO they created a story that's much more emotionally charged than the book.
But Wallace's law generally holds true. Studios are notoriously conservative which is why we're seeing so much interest in franchises (new chapters are in the works for all of the following: Harry Potter, LOTR, Matrix, Spiderman, X-Men, James Bond, Terminator, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Alien, Blade, XXX) and sequels (e.g. MIB II, Meet the Fockers, Legally Blond 2: Red, White, and Blond, Shanghai Knights). The hope is that familiarity with characters and plotlines minimizes marketing costs by bringing in a built-in audience. So read the darn essay. It's dead on about the merits of Terminator versus T2. If nothing, Wallace is a funny writer and astute commentator on pop culture. [1] Until you do, I'm going to pass on The Matrix: Reloaded and reload The Matrix instead.
[1] If adding footnotes to blog entries were simpler, I'd use them as frequently as Wallace does. Instead I resort to way too many parentheticals. My mind just can't think linearly for more than one or two thoughts at a time. I want a muffin.
The larger a movie's budget is, the shittier that movie is going to be.
More was at work in the downfall of The Matrix: Reloaded (TMR), however. Wallace's law rests on the premise that a huge studio will only commit hundreds of millions of dollars to a movie if it's guaranteed to succeeed. Thus the movie "must thus adhere to certain reliable formulae that have been shown by precedent to maximally ensure a runaway hit." Some of TMR fits this idea--the elaborate fight sequences, the love story. But based on what I've read about the very private Wachowski brothers, I don't think they'd acquiesce to studio pressure to alter their story. The plot of the TMR also seems fairly non-commercial, as convoluted and philosophical as it is (though respected critics such as Stanley Kauffman refer to the Matrix movies as "aggrandized juvenilia" and "adolescent fodder"). Frankly, Warner Brothers approved the construction an entire stretch of freeway just to shoot the car chase scene, creating huge budget overruns. Sure sounds like the Wachowski brothers had carte blanche.
And what of the Lord of the Rings trilogy? It was undoubtedly Peter Jackson's largest budget to date, by a long stretch. Despite being known primarily to movie buffs, Jackson received approval to spend $300 million to shoot all three movies in one year. That was a huge risk for New Line considering that if the first movie was a bust, they'd be on the hook for the other two. Yet all I've read indicates Jackson had significant creative control, and the first two movies have been wonderful, IMO. Perhaps they don't have the charm of earlier low-budget Jackson flicks like Dead Alive or Forgotten Silver or Meet the Feebles, but they're not low quality, to use the jargon of Wallace's law. Jackson obviously adapted the story from source material, and the popularity of that source novel reduced the risk to the studio to some degree, but in LOTR: TTT Jackson and his wife made several large plot adjustments, and overall IMO they created a story that's much more emotionally charged than the book.
But Wallace's law generally holds true. Studios are notoriously conservative which is why we're seeing so much interest in franchises (new chapters are in the works for all of the following: Harry Potter, LOTR, Matrix, Spiderman, X-Men, James Bond, Terminator, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Alien, Blade, XXX) and sequels (e.g. MIB II, Meet the Fockers, Legally Blond 2: Red, White, and Blond, Shanghai Knights). The hope is that familiarity with characters and plotlines minimizes marketing costs by bringing in a built-in audience. So read the darn essay. It's dead on about the merits of Terminator versus T2. If nothing, Wallace is a funny writer and astute commentator on pop culture. [1] Until you do, I'm going to pass on The Matrix: Reloaded and reload The Matrix instead.
[1] If adding footnotes to blog entries were simpler, I'd use them as frequently as Wallace does. Instead I resort to way too many parentheticals. My mind just can't think linearly for more than one or two thoughts at a time. I want a muffin.