By Aaron 1/11/2008

Yeah, I had to work hard to make that title work. Anyway. The small screen. Do you remember when we enjoyed original content every day? In our own homes? No? You’ve been swamped by reality shows? I understand. With the upcoming The Sarah Connor Chronicles (which I’m really psyched for), and Brett’s piece about Movies to TV adaptations, I got thinking about the more frequent TV to Movies adaptations. What were some of my favorite TV to Movies adaptations? The Fugitive, The Untouchables, The Wrath of Khan, South Park: Bigger Louder & Uncut, Charlie’s Angels, Serenity, Office Space (SNL), Blues Brothers (SNL), Mission: Impossible. What interested me about this “issue” at hand? After sifting through the stuff people had already blogged about, like the predictable “worst film adaptations,” and the converse, the just as predictable “best film adaptations,” and the slightly original, “when should you adapt.” I finally found an article that intrigued me a hell of a lot more, TV shows that should have been films. Then I thought, why should certain TV shows have been movies? I mean, some ideas are born sitcoms (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends, etc), others have a variety show quality (Sex and the City, Sarah Silverman, South Park, etc), and others are basically soaps (Nip/Tuck, Las Vegas, Desperate Housewives, etc). But I think there are four main reasons bigger is better: the story, the quality, the money, and the gimmicks.

The story is far and away the most important criteria of any medium of fiction, TV, Hollywood, the internet, or even (does anyone remember?) books (gasp). For a movie, a story needs to have three acts where progression is well defined. Or, you can make an action movie and teen comedy with no story and just have senseless violence/nudity/both. TV stories though have to have a higher threshold because the story needs to be strong enough and deep enough to be strung along for several 14-22 episode seasons, which is usually around 10-12 hours of story. The characters need to be well thought out, they need to have defined motives for their actions, and the conflict they encounter has to be serious enough to span several episodes. Is the story’s core sustainable? How many times will touching someone and bringing them back to life be dramatic?

The quality issue cuts both ways for why a story should go big instead of small. Size does matter because if a TV show performs at a certain level, from camera work to acting, it belongs on the big screen. That goes for every component of the show, if you’re a director like J.J. Abrams, you should spend your time directing movies instead of “action” TV shows, and if you’re an actor like Hugh Laurie, you should spend your time making movies instead of TV shows (I’m looking for more than Stuart Little here Hugh!) If you’re looking for a quality story, do you expect one from Hollywood or network?

The money is really the other way the quality issue cuts because if you’re spending money on cinematography and lighting, and good FX, and quality actors, then you can’t afford to be consistent with that TV show, you NEED the budget of a movie. How many of your favorite “action” TV shows would have been a hell of a lot better if they could have afforded real FX? Or been able to go the extra step with a finishing move instead of cutting away to preserve a TV14 rating? Money is also the reward for taking quality to Hollywood because if you have a good product, you should maximize what you get out of it. Friday Night Lights is one of the highest quality shows on network TV, but that show is a bankrupt, sinking ship. If you’re an investor, do you want a hot movie property or a hot TV property? Doesn’t seem that hard…

Finally, the gimmicks issue, which is really a subset of the story sustainability question. Is something a character does, that you think is BADASS! really that cool the third time? The fourth time? The fifty-fourth time? How many times can Xena throw that crazy boomerang thing to solve all her problems? How many times you really break out of prison? If you have a good concept, that is gimmicky (Dude! How sweet would it be if…), knuckle down, write a story that goes about an hour longer and fax that thing to sunny L.A. Right??? So what shows would make/would have made better movies? Here are some that I would have loved to see:

Xena
Reach WAY back. Remmeber that crazy show called Xena: Warrior Princess? It helped launch Lucy Lawless’ career. (silence) That was supposed to be a joke! Xena epitomizes pretty much all four of the reasons why the show should have been on the big screen. The story of a Hercules-like woman who wanders the earth is just not durable enough to last six seasons (oops, it did). I mean, this isn’t Kung Fu, it’s Greco-Roman. The quality is, kinda there. I mean, why didn’t Hollywood leap at the chance to unleash a movie about a woman who wears almost no clothes (she fights in a skirt – and rides a horse in that) and kills people at will? The money would have been cha-ching pretty damn easily. If people are falling all over themselves to buy The Scorpion King on DVD and pay to see that in theatres, you better believe Xena would rake it in. AND, with a Hollywood budget the constant appearance of the Gods wouldn’t have looked so shitty/Charmed-esque. And finally, the gimmicks, I mean, how do these people who are chasing you, who know who you are, NOT know about your boomerang dealie? If this had been an R-rated flick you would have had a lot more sex and we would have seen your boomerang take off some heads.

Pushing Daisies
This is one of my favorite new shows, but Bob has written (several times) about the sustainability of these story archs. I mean, the guy touches people, they come alive. The novelty WILL wear off (it hasn’t yet). Then there’s the major romance in the show also being an annoying novelty. Sure, Ned can’t touch Chuck, no problem. Wait a second. The physical mechanics are a big deal. Wait. Yeah, no sex. Wow. That sucks. If this had been a movie, wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am two hours we run through the backstory in about ten minutes tops, resurrect the long lost love , build some tension in the first ten fifteen minutes, mix in the cold-case style crime investigation, first act’s done, you have a romantic comedy with a murder mystery and pie in the background. Now that is worth ten-dollar admission.

Dark Angel
This was one of my favorite old shows, strongly helped by two things: I didn’t watch any other shows, and this show had Jessica Alba. The first season was pretty good because it was produced by Hollywood’s best, James Cameron. When he left, so did the show. This show epitomizes why you need the budget of a Hollywood studio and a director who pushes the bounds of a PG13 or R rating instead of that weak TV bullshit. I mean, you have a genetically modified soldier, who is perfect, and is played by Jessica Alba. You do the math, you have ridiculous violence and lots of great sex scenes. If this had been a movie, wow. We’re talking Cameron’s Terminator meets Aliens. Do I have to say that’s worth ten dollars, or is everyone already dreaming about what could have been?

Ed
This was not one of my favorite shows, but it was amusing for what it was. Justin Long chalked this one up, putzed around for awhile, lent his voice to a Chipmunk, and went to the bank. It’s hard to really identify exactly which of the four criteria best applies to Ed. Quite simply, this show got REAL boring. I mean, the concept was amusing enough to keep you smiling past the clichés (wife sleeping with postman, moving home for high school sweetheart…). What Ed needed, to really tell it’s story was to accept it’s limits and realized it didn’t have a hell of a lot to offer after two hours. If this had been a movie it would have been a painful romantic comedy but Carol would have been played by someone like Reese Witherspoon and it might have been worth it.

Prison Break
I will admit I have never seen this show. Wait, not admit, I will boast that I have never seen this show. Look, I bet a bunch of you love it, but come on. How many times can you break out of prison? Sure, other stuff happens. I get that. But call the show something else. I mean, every season they either break in or break out of prison. Besides, what genius breaks into prison? This show is like Ed, in that it needed to realize it was better suited for two hours. If this had been a movie it would have had Kurt Russell attached and he would have had an eye-patch, and…it would have kicked ass.

Love Monkey
Another show that Cavanaugh (Ed) was in that had a good concept but never really got off the ground. The show at least knew it didn’t have a story they could stretch, but instead of using it up like Ed did, it threw in useless crap early in the show. This show, from the sets, to the language, seemed more like Keeping the Faith (except with music, not God) than it did Just Shoot Me. But instead, it took it’s awful title, and tried to make a ratings run. Sigh. If this had been a movie it would have been one of those chick flicks you didn’t mind taking your girlfriend to, because it would have had a sweet soundtrack and a cool dude everyman (like you of course) playing the male lead.

24

Now, I will say that I’ve only seen the last season, which I assume was the worst of the six. BUT, come on. How times can we see isolated days in Jack’s life? I mean, who the hell has days that are so intense they take three weeks to tell the story? And has those six times! Yeah yeah he’s Jack F’in Bauer, but come on, be honest with yourself. On the other side, you KNOW you want to see Jack kill some terrorists in an R movie and then have him go back to his house and bang the hell out of some actress twenty years his junior who Hollywood decided to make his wife. And screw the kids, Jack’s making babies, not caring for em’. If this had been a movie Elisha Cuthbert would have been Jack’s wife, and been in the whole damn thing. Stop drooling.

Journeyman is another new show I like, but it has that same sort of sustainability question as Daisies does. I mean, I know they can’t reveal how he time travels, but I mean, are we ever going to find out? Will the show be canceled before we know? And how many times does he have to go back and save a random-ass person? How does he still hold onto his job? Who knows? Anyways, the show would also have been a hell of a lot better on the big screen – we’re talking the whole FX breakdown, going farther back where Hollywood pockets can fund better sets…the potential for the movie(s) would be limitless, while NBC is sure as hell not greenlighting a trip to the wild west. If this had been a movie Moon Bloodgood’s character would have been naked. Several times. Hmm. Note to self, I do keep just saying "more sex." Maybe that has some deeper Freudian implications...

Deadwood
Speaking of Freud. I'll wait. Okay? Got it? Anyway, good westerns are hard to come by, and this show seemed like it could have been a real good western with action, story, and that sort of historical-Forest Gump touch. Sure, the show does it alright, but it would have been condensed and focused with better action if it had been on the big screen. HBO is damn good, but it’s still TV. Wait. It’s HBO, not TV. Is that even their slogan still? Bad joke. Anyways. I needed something to fill the tenth spot and a vehicle that would have been steered by Timothy Olyphant, set in the west, based on history sounds like something I want to see. If this had been a movie, no one would have seen it, because it’s a western.

So my question for you all is, with the writers' strike, will people with stories/concepts look to Hollywood instead of network? Providing they have a workable story/script, will they want the security of, once it’s greenlit it’s going going gone instead of the iffy, strike-shortened run most new shows had to suffer this year?

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.