... FOR "MOVIE COINCIDENCE OF THE DAY #9 ('THE IRON GIANT'/'WRECK-IT-RALPH'/'THE DARK KNIGHT RISES' EDITION)"

Our continuing series of blog posts in which we take a look at odd movie coincidences – scenes, jokes, dialogue, even specific camera shots shared between two (or more) seemingly unrelated films. Anyone who's sat through a particular scene in a movie and thought, "Gee, haven't I seen someone so this somewhere before?" will know exactly what I’m talking about.

One of the most underrated animated films of the last twenty years, Brad Bird's The Iron Giant (1999) tells the gentle story of a nine-year-old boy who befriends a sentient robot from outer space. It was based on a children's book, The Iron Man, written by Ted Hughes and published in 1968 (then later adapted as a rock musical by The Who's Pete Townshend). The movie was adored by critics but largely (some would say criminally) ignored by audiences, thanks to a half-hearted marketing push by Warner Bros, who apparently couldn't make heads or tails of it. Since then, it's grown in stature not just as a classic of animation but as a classic American film - as much for its rich 50s period setting as its wicked sense of humor, showcased already by Bird during his stint on The Simpsons (1989-1998) and again during The Incredibles (2004) and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011).

... FOR "A TALE OF TWO SPIDER-MAN(S)"

And again I find myself facing a conundrum: How, exactly, do I express my ardor and affection for one of the world's greatest comic book characters within the confines of a single blog post? Answer: I don't. As I've mentioned elsewhere on this site, simply talking about film, writing about it, isn't enough to do it justice. For what are motion pictures if not a purely visual medium? That's especially true of Comic Book Movies, which, like their source material, are meant to be experienced visually. Where's the fun, for example, in describing a scene from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man - in which all the characters show up for Thanksgiving dinner wearing each other's colors - when I can simply show it to you instead?

It may seem hard to believe, but Raimi's original Spider-Man turned 12 years old just this month. Harder still when you realize his entire Spider-Man trilogy lasted only five years, from 2002-2007. Together, they've grossed over $2.4 billion at the box office worldwide. They undoubtedly did their part to shape the current Comic Book Movie climate as we know it. And yet, since the 2012 reboot, some of Raimi's choices have been called into question, in particular his decision to skimp on the grittier, more psychological aspects of the character.

... FOR "MOVIE COINCIDENCE OF THE DAY #2"

In which we take a look at a series of odd movie coincidences - scenes, jokes, dialogue, even specific camera shots shared between two seemingly unrelated films. Anyone who's sat through a particular scene in a movie and thought, "Gee, haven't I seen someone do this somewhere before?" will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Continuing with our horror movie theme (a week after Halloween - so sue me), I offer this comparison between two "classics" of the genre, Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist (1982) and Wes Craven's A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). One is a haunted house movie in which a middle-class American family find themselves under attack from a malevolent spirit. The other is an atypical slasher flick in which a group of all-American teenagers fall victim to a razor-fingered psychopath who kills them in their sleep. Couldn't be more different, right? Yet they share a single scene on common - in which a character is dragged across the walls and ceiling of her bedroom by an unseen demonic force:

... FOR "SUMMER OF THE UNOFFICIAL REMAKE, 2013"

If our current summer movie season had a theme - I know, I know, it's only been a couple of months, yet already one has started to shake itself out - it might be The Summer Of The Unofficial Remake, Whether Its Makers Care To Admit To It Or Not. Of the season's biggest studio releases, at least a dozen of them - Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast And Furious 6, Man Of Steel, Monsters University, World War Z, White House Down, Despicable Me 2, The Lone Ranger, R.I.P.D., RED 2 and The Wolverine - seem cobbled together from the spare parts of previous films. Most, obviously, just happen to be sequels and/or prequels to popular franchises (or, in Star Trek's case, a sequel to the reboot prequel). But that's no excuse for the amount of literal scene-stealing going on now at your local multiplex.

The saying goes, of course, that there's nothing new under the sun. And this is true, to a point (as David Bordwell astutely says here, even box office behemoths like The Godfather, Star Wars and Raiders Of The Lost Ark took previously-established Hollywood genres and made them bigger and better). I've even written about films that take entire plots from other films and try to pass them off as their own - a dispiriting trend in Hollywood, and one that seems to be growing more common by the minute.

... FOR "MONDO MOVIE MADNESS" (OR, "THE MODERN-DAY MOVIE POSTER AS ART")

If you've never been acquainted with the Mondo Gallery in Austin, TX, then you'd do well to acquaint yourself. An offshoot of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema chain (est. 1997), the Gallery enlists world-class artists to re-create posters for movies old and new - and then sells them (if you can nab 'em) online, at $35 to $100 a pop. (Posters are created as one-offs and sell out fast, via Facebook and Twitter feeds; buyers often re- sell their purchases on eBay, but at three times the original cost.)

Styles range from comic book designs to collages. And each and every one is a knockout - clever re- imaginings of popular (and not-so popular) films, unburdened by studio mandates or movie star egos. For brevity's sake, I've decided to share some of my favorites below, but really, if you consider yourself a serious film buff, or at least have a moment to spare, then it's worth perusing their extensive back catalogue at www.mondoarchive.com. Click on each poster below to make bigger:

... FOR "TRAILER ROUNDUP, DECEMBER 2012"

There's been a strange confluence of movie trailer releases over the past week, as if studios are already vying to one-up each other for Most Anticipated Film of 2013. I honestly can't remember the last time so many big-budget previews came out around the same time; has it now become like the Oscars, where you're forced to submit your entries before the new year rolls around in order to qualify? (FYI, you can expect most of these to debut in theaters along with The Hobbit today.)

That's not to say the movies themselves look like a waste; if anything, they're equally enticing in their own way, depending on your preference for genres. Thanks to The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises last summer, audiences are primed, I think, to accept nothing less than perfection from their next potential Hollywood blockbuster. And these latest don't look to disappoint.

... FOR "FRANCHISE FACE-OFFS (PART 14 - 'BATMAN' EDITION)"

He is the antithesis of Superman in almost every way: dark, brooding, prone to violence (all in the name of justice), and powered only by his sheer determination and will. He is a detective, a scientist, a master strategist and multiple martial arts expert. And his rogues' gallery - the Joker, the Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face, Scarecrow, The Penguin, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze - is unprecedented among comic book heroes. Yet despite his accomplishments, despite all his formidable skills, Batman's greatest battle has always been with Hollywood itself.

Bruce Wayne and his menacing alter ego were created, in fact, as a blatant attempt to cash in on Superman's success. The brainchild of 24-year- old artist Bob Kane (with an uncredited assist from writer Bill Finger), "The Bat-Man" made his first appearance in Detective Comics #27 during May of 1939, and was an immediate hit. (National Publications - soon to be known as DC Comics - now had two popular comic book characters under their belt, having also published the monthly adventures of the Man of Steel.) A self-titled series debuted in April 1940, followed by a 15-part film serial starring Lewis Wilson in 1943, followed by a second 15-chapter serial in 1949, starring Robert Lowery as Batman and Johnny Duncan as Robin.

Batman's popularity soared during the late 1960s, when Twentieth Century Fox's high-camp Batman television series premiered in January 1966. It was a tongue-in-cheek parody of superhero tropes, produced by William Dozier and starring Adam West and Burt Ward (plus a bevy of 60's stars as "guest" villains), and it's this incarnation - for better or worse - that defined the character for the next twenty years. No longer a lone, mysterious creature of the night, Bob Kane's creation had now been reduced to a figure of fun, dancing the Batusi and POW! BOFF! and ZWAP!-ing his way through Gotham City while a bright-eyed, green-bootied Boy Wonder spouted catchphrases by his side. This reputation had ingrained itself so much into the public consciousness that Hollywood producers were literally dumbstruck at the idea of bringing Batman back to the screen.

... FOR "ABANDONED PROJECTS ('BATMAN: FULL CIRCLE' EDITION)"

A break from tradition here at FTTW (as if this was ever a traditional blog to begin with)...

About three years ago to the day, I'd written the introduction to a book I fully intended to finish, about Warner Bros' 1989-1997 Batman franchise and its gradual fallout with the moviegoing public. But like so many things in life, the idea sort of fell by the wayside - another unfortunate victim of my brain trying too hard to tackle too many projects at once. I'd forgotten about it until recently, as I was putting the finishing touches on our latest Franchise Face-Off, so to preface that upcoming post, I thought I'd share the introduction here, so you can fully appreciate the depths of my deepest, darkest obsessions. Think of this as a precursor to the FF-Os as you know and love them today:

__________

BATMAN: FULL CIRCLE

INTRODUCTION

I can't exactly tell you where my obsession with the Batman got its start, or how, but I'm pretty sure it started sometime inside the womb. I say this because I can't honestly recall a time when the character did not play an integral part in my life – when images of his comic book escapades didn't flood my brain on a daily basis, even to the point where I hear the faint flapping of bat wings as I drift off to sleep. (Yes, this happens.)

... FOR "SUMMER OF THE SUPERHERO, 2012"

Now that 2012's summer movie season has ended (Lionsgate's Expendables 2, starring Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme and virtually every other 'roided 80's action star you can think of, opened to $28.6 million last weekend, and is arguably the last big-budget "event" movie until October), it's important that we look back and remember what worked, what didn't, and what lessons studio executives had better take to heart as they gear up for Summer '13. There were overachievers (Marvel's The Avengers, $617 million U.S.) and underachievers (Battleship, $65 million), breakout hits (Ted, $213 million) and outright disasters (Rock Of Ages, $38 million); there was also, bless its heart, a 47th Ice Age adventure (Continental Drift, with $150 million stateside, plus another $644 million worldwide). All of these, plus more, warrant a discussion on the modern revitalization of the Hollywood blockbuster...

... FOR "CG ATROCITIES (AND THOSE WHO COMMIT THEM)"

Confession: I don't care much for CGI. At least not in the way most filmmakers tend to use it these days, which is too much and too often. Like any cinema tool – music, art direction, cinematography, editing, costume design, even A-list actors – special effects should always be used as a means to support a story, not as the focus of it. And it's a shame how so many people have apparently lost sight of that.

Granted, it's a tricky mix to get just right. While some directors seem to get it (Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, even pre-Avatar James Cameron spring to mind), others have simply lost the ability to rely on anything else (cough-George Lucas-cough). We've come a long way since the days of Jurassic Park and Terminator 2, when CGI still had the power to shock and surprise us - to make the fantastical seem fathomable. Now that anything and everything can be accomplished via CGI, from exploding planets to spaceships to kitchen utensils to tabletops, my question is: Should it?

... FOR "SORRY SUPERHEROES"

I don't usually bother writing about these things, but sometimes an idea is just so patently ridiculous it's hard to pass up.

Case in point: A couple of comic book properties have been getting some major press over the past month, looking to grace our TV screens as a live- action drama and an animated kids' show (respectively) in the near future, and if this is indeed a sign of our times, I want out. It's one thing to turn a comic book into a viable franchise; it's another thing entirely to treat that same property with the respect it deserves, and then to pass that along to audiences. Do it right, and you get The Dark Knight. Do it badly and you get, well, Batman & Robin.

... FOR "HOLLYWOOD'S BIGGEST NIGHT - PART 2" (aka "OSCAR 2011") - UPDATED!

UPDATE: Checking around for Oscar results on the Internet this morning, it's great to see that Inception won so many technical awards last night, especially the award for Best Cinematography. Wally Pfister's been working with Christopher Nolan for a good long while now (since Memento), and he outdoes himself each time out.

If you have any thoughts on the telecast last night, please comment below - what you liked, disliked, what you think I missed out on, etc. (Because if there's one thing I love, it's living vicariously through others.) Oh, and the winners have been marked with a star for good behavior below.

Well, it's Oscar time again, folks - everybody's favorite night of the year. And on Sunday, February 27th, we'll all gather again, to see our favorite celebrities stroll down that red carpet, take their seats in Los Angeles' world-famous Kodak Theater, and enjoy an evening's worth of scintillating entertainment as they anxiously await those five magic words: "And the Oscar goes to..." It's almost too much to soak in. The glitz! The glamour! The pure intoxication of it all!

End of sarcasm. You already know how I feel about this, so there's no point in griping about it all over again. Instead (if you care), I thought I'd offer a few choice thoughts on the nominations this year. As always, feel free to voice your own opinion in the comments below.

... FOR "REMAKES YOU NEVER KNEW WERE REMAKES"

A few weeks back, while surfing through our NetFlix account on the Wii, I happened across Waterworld in the Sci-Fi Recommendations section. It'd been a while since I'd seen it, and my memories of it aren't at all venomous, so I thought, "Yeah, I'll add that to the Instant Queue." I mean, why not, right? I'm paying my $8.99 a month. Might as well get my money's worth. And I know you're thinking: "Waterworld. Isn't that the Kevin Costner fish movie that came out, like, twenty years ago? Don't you have better things to do?" Well, yes and yes – but the truth is, you never really know what mood will strike you in your spare time.

When the movie came out in the summer of 1995, it just about sunk under the weight of its troubled production history. Its budget soared to $175 million – until Titanic, the most expensive motion picture ever made – because of costly delays during filming. Infighting among cast and crew plagued the shoot, most notably between Costner and director Kevin Reynolds, whose friendship had already been strained while filming their last venture, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves. The screenplay was being rewritten on a daily basis, with script-polisher Joss Whedon (Buffy The Vampire Slayer) describing his time on set as "seven weeks of hell." With that kind of publicity, the movie was either destined to become one of the biggest flops in Hollywood history, or a massive hit peaked by audience curiosity. Actually, it turned out to be neither – Waterworld grossed over $264 million worldwide, barely enough to recoup its production and advertising budgets.

... FOR "THE BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE" - PART 5

Genre:

DRAMA


Defined:

Happiness. Heartache. Man's eternal struggle to achieve one and distance himself from the other. The Dramatic film is Hollywood's favorite genre, with six out of ten Best Picture wins at the Academy Awards this past decade (Crash, The Departed, The Hurt Locker, Million Dollar Baby and Slumdog Millionaire; other winners included an Action epic, a Biopic, a Musical, and a Fantasy film, respectively). Dramas provide stars ample opportunity to show off their acting skills, and a chance to impress their peers. They also give filmmakers the chance to probe the great mysteries of the human heart. Like all great films, though, the Dramas that matter most are the ones that surprise you with their depth and emotional impact.


The Top Five:

5. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Typo'd title aside (it's a deliberate riff on a Z-grade Dirty Dozen rip-off from the 70s), Quentin Tarantino's latest love letter to movies features some of his most literate work to date. It's still a mishmash of genres – this time it's World War II revenge fantasy meets Nazi spy thriller with a dose of French New Wave. I include it here based on the intensity of Tarantino's extended dialogue sequences, which build and build to the point of anxiety; an opening prologue at a farmhouse and, later, a rendezvous at an underground bar are like master classes in screenwriting, with adversaries playing verbal games of cat and mouse to discover each others' secrets. The movie itself is almost gleefully anachronistic – a David Bowie ballad plays at one point, and Tarantino even re-writes the outcome of the war so that Hitler meets his end at the hand of Jewish mercenaries. Not exactly what I'd call an accurate depiction of history. Just a director at his exhilarating, visceral best.

... FOR "MOVIE DIALOGUE AND 'THE RULE OF THREES'"

Something occurred to me the other day as I sat watching The Princess And The Frog with the kids for the twentieth time. (Good movie, that one. It's always nice when kids latch onto something that doesn't make me want to jab a chopstick in both ears.) Original thought doesn't occur to me all that often, to be perfectly honest, so I thought I'd better get it out there.

You're familiar with "The Rule Of Threes," yes? It's a general rule of thumb based on the assumption that people always remember things better in threes (click here for a more in-depth definition). In screenwriting, the most important use of this rule is the three-act structure, which goes something like this:

   Act One: Main character gets into trouble;

   Act Two: Main character tries to get out of

     trouble, but the more he tries, the deeper he

     gets;

   Act Three: Main character gets out of trouble.

... FOR "THE BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE" - PART 3

Genre:

COMIC BOOK

Defined:

Whap! Biff! Pow! Any film that's been adapted from a comic book, comic strip or graphic novel qualifies as a Comic Book movie. While genre films had been popular before (Superman in 1978, Tim Burton's Batman in 1989), it wasn't until the Noughties that they gained any real momentum, when the success of Fox's ensemble X-Men (2000) had studios clamoring for their next blockbuster franchise. Titles ranged from the well-known (Spider-Man, Hulk) to the barely-heard-of (The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Would it surprise you to learn that not all Comic Book movies are about superheroes? Subgenres also include Comedies, Period Dramas, even Science-Fiction. And they're not just for kids anymore.


The Top Five:

5. Sin City (Robert Rodriguez / Frank Miller, 2005)

A unique, one-of-a-kind experience (though admittedly not to everyone's taste), taken almost shot-for-shot from Frank Miller's seminal graphic novel series. The cast acted out scenes, on minimal sets, with backgrounds added digitally during post-production to match Miller's panels. Then the images were converted to stark blacks and whites, with colorized objects dotted throughout the film. The result is one of the most visually striking movies I've ever seen. Director Robert Rodriguez seems liberated by the process; as usual, he shot and edited the movie himself, but here, unlike the gee-whiz, Hey-guys-I'm-making-a-movie mentality of his Mariachi and Spy Kids trilogies, he's got such firm control over his environments that the effect is breathtaking. And while I don't think there's really much to it beyond its visual style, as an exercise in literal book-to-screen translation, it's to kill for.