This post covers almost all my interests, from Marvel to
Star Wars to Zelda, and everything in between.
After some introspection, it has recently become apparent to
me that my biggest priority in terms of story/lore/franchise is consistency and continuity.
Obviously, everyone has their priorities in a different order than another
person, and that is probably a large source of contention in relationships - Person B’s actions seem illogical because
they prioritized something that Person A doesn’t deem very important.
The book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt makes the case that when it comes to
morality, there are six foundational pillars and everyone’s is a little
different, but that while conservatives consider all six somewhat evenly,
progressives prioritize two of them to the detriment of the other four, and
this leads to major divisions in things like religion and politics with each
side thinking the other is crazy.
In terms of fandoms, there is probably something similar
going on, except instead of moral issues like fairness and liberty, it’s issues
like profitability, consistency, enjoyment/fun, character development, engaging
story, and artistry, among others. As a fan, I want a good story to be told,
and I want it to be consistent with what has already been established in
previous entries. In the process, I want some character growth and some new
things introduced into the story so it doesn’t get stale. And while I'm at it, some decent world building would be nice.
However, a director is probably thinking about different
things when making the movie. They might be concerned with the artistry behind
how a shot is set up, even if it might contradict the previous movie. Or a
producer might be so concerned with making damn sure that the movie returns a
profit that they insert unnecessary elements and make sweeping changes to the
movie in order to sell toys or include product placement or shorten its length to ensure more screenings per day at theaters. And I can trace a lot
of what “ruined” certain movies to the actions of producers meddling with
things. I hold the belief that if/when left alone, the original author and
director will produce a much more coherent and better product, and that will drive up sales – even moreso
than when a producer makes changes that guarantee a return-on-investment ahead
of time with a lower quality result.
Here are a few examples of producer meddling that drive me
up the wall:
Tom Rothman screwing up the X-Men franchise, specifically X3
and Origins: Wolverine, then even further messing up the Fantastic Four with
that godawful Fant4stic. To add to that, he was the force behind preventing
Deadpool being made. When he left Fox and Deadpool finally got off the ground,
it was a smashing success.
Spider-Man 3 was another case where Avi Arad was forcing the
director to include certain elements (like Venom) in the movie. Sam Raimi didn’t
like the villain, and when forced to put it in the movie, I’m sure it
disheartened Raimi and made him less enthusiastic about the whole affair. Joel
Silver’s insistence that the Wachowski brothers spit out the second and third
Matrix movies in rapid succession prematurely is another.
In the case of the Hobbit movies, it was a combination of inheriting
the project already mostly in development and executive greed that ruined them.
Previously, the Lord of the Rings movies were the pinnacle of consistency – all
three being shot simultaneously with the same crew ensured this. The original
plan for the Hobbit movies was to shoot two movies - the first one having like 2/3 of the stuff
from the book and the second movie with the conclusion of the book plus some other
material from the LotR appendices that would help bridge the gap between the
end of the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship, which was a pretty good plan
in my opinion. But stretching it out into three movies forced the insertion of
ridiculous things like the elf-dwarf love story, the river barrel axe juggling,
and Radagast’s activities.
Consistency is harder to maintain when major players change,
like a director, writer, actor, or composer, especially when there are years between
sequels. The MCU has been fairly good at this, though small things like Thor’s
hair in earlier movies seemed to change wildly, and there were a few key actors
replaced (Rhodey and Banner). And after the director of Iron Man 3 sorta did
his own thing, I think Kevin Feige really got a good handle on how to keep
everyone on the same page. The only thing they don’t do consistently these days is the musical cues. Having one
composer do all 20 movies would be too much to ask, but I think having the same
composer on a series would be better. So for example, if Brian Tyler did all
the Thor movies, Ramin Djawadi did all the Iron Man movies, and Alan Silvestri
did all the Avengers movies, while incorporating the themes from the individual
movies into the team-up movie.
I really loved how John Ottman used John Williams’ themes in
Superman Returns, while adding to and expanding them. When you have a theme
that good, the only reason to not use
it is because the composer is engaging in a musical pissing match of sorts. I
had really hoped to hear Danny Elfman’s Batman music during the Dark Knight
trilogy, but Hans Zimmer and Christopher Nolan decided against it.
With Zelda, Shigeru Miyamoto is concerned mostly with fun
gameplay and good controls (as he should be, since it’s a video game), and the
story/lore is only added on as an afterthought. While it makes for a great
game, it often leaves those of us who love the lore frustrated that the games
seem to contradict each other when it comes to the history of Hyrule, the “rules”
of this world, and the order the games occur in the timeline. I wish I could go
back in time as an adult and approach Miyamoto-san and ask that I work for free
as the “loremaster” for the series, where I wouldn’t even have to make changes
to the games themselves – just some of the in-game text and the wording of the
manuals.
And all of this is not to try and limit the creativity of
those making the products. As long as a reason is given for a change to “the
rules” of the fictional world, there’s always room for growth and change. For
example, in the first two seasons of The Walking Dead, the rule was that you
were safe unless you got bitten or scratched by a walker, at which point you
would succumb to a fever, die, and return as a walker. But it was revealed right
at the end of season two that the CDC guy said everyone was already infected
with whatever virus causes this, so even if one dies of injury or natural
causes, they will come back as a walker. They changed the rules, but there was
a reason behind it and it was explained to the audience.
I realize that had things been made with consistency and
continuity (what I consider to be of utmost importance) being the top priority,
there’s a chance that it wouldn’t make as much money or be less appealing to
the masses. But it’s what I love in a series.
