Bizarre Trends in Movies and Their Sequels

(SPOILER ALERTS: I SPOIL ALL THESE FILMS)

Story, characters, setting. So much goes into how we view a movie. And when we enjoy those things it just makes perfect sense that another version of that film will be made using those initial elements. But sometimes other elements are carried from film to film in a franchise and it always seems like an odd choice by the filmmakers.

Children of Divorce Love Dinosaurs (Jurassic Park Films)

"They could've bought me a puppy
instead."

I’ll be honest, if my parents ever got divorced I’m sure going to an island full of dinosaurs would cheer me up. But so would a lot of things. Ice cream for example. Going to Disneyland. See another Jurassic Park movie. But no, the people who live in the world (like the earth not the world like Jurassic World) of the Jurassic park movies seem to all think the best place for a kid after divorce is on dinosaur islands.

"Why don't we just have another kid?"

The first movie it is Hammond’s grandchildren who we learn at the beginning of the movie their mom, Hammond’s daughter, has just gotten in a divorce. In the second movie it is Ian Malcolm’s daughter who he shares custody with his ex. Jurassic Park 3 we have the divorced parents joining together to find their missing son whose stepfather (or mother’s boyfriend, they were kind of unclear on that) took him parasailing. And finally in the recently released Jurassic World we have two kids who have sent to see their cool Aunt who works on Dinosaur Island because their parents are, you guessed it, getting a divorce.

I know the statistic “Half of all marriages end in divorce” but in the Jurassic Park world it seems to be a solid 100%. The closest we get to seeing a happily married couple is a brief scene with Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern’s character from the first film) and her husband and young child in Jurassic Park 3. Other than that everyone is either divorced or a child of divorce. Or some kind of childless paleontologist or hunter who is more interested in animals than in other people.

"I hate you mom and dad!"

Part of me gets it. Dinosaurs are a fascinating subject for children, so it makes sense that a movie featuring dinosaurs would have some kids in it. And like any character you need a reason for those characters to be there. But it seems lazy that it is the same reason every time. And the only film where it makes sense is the third one, because the parents come together by the end to save their child. It’s a touching idea. But every other time it seems a stretch. Especially in Jurassic World. Why can’t the parents just be really cool and bought their kids tickets to see cool Aunt Dino Lady?

Government Can’t Be Trusted (All the Marvel Movies)

Granted, if you turn on Fox News or any conservative leaning media outlet, it seems no one trusts the government anymore. Hell, we have a presidential candidate who is winning because his entire campaign is about people not trusting government. I understand the feeling. But that being said, the Government is revealed to be corrupt or incompetent in almost every Marvel movie.

In Iron Man 3 we learn the Vice President is conspiring with the Mandarin. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier we learn that the head of Shield is actually a member of Hydra. In The Avengers the World Security Council decides to nuke New York City. Plus there are always cops or soldiers who seem to be quick to act without thinking (shooting Quiksilver in the arm in Age of Ultron). It’s even true on far away planets where we meet the guards at the prison in Guardians of the Galaxy who are all corrupt.

Now it is true that if the government was a well oiled machine the various Marvel heroes would not be needed. We would have police and military who are capable of dealing with threats before the intervention of super heroes would have to occur. Stay home Avengers, the Airforce got this. But they don’t need to be the bad guys. Even Nick Fury, who is supposed to be a good guy, manipulates the Avengers into fighting Loki. He smeared blood on Coulson’s trading cards in order to have a prop to encourage the team to fight.

It makes sense that in Captain America: Civil War that when Cap learns the Avengers are going to have to be under the control of the U.N. he is hesitant to sign on. All the Marvel governments are bad.

Batman Never Kills. Except He Does All The Time (Batman Movies)

If you saw Batman V. Superman, you know one of the biggest complaints from that movie is the number of times Batman kills someone in that film. But if you go back and watch all the Batman movies (with the exception of the Adam West Batman) you’d realize, Batman kills people all the time.

"Why am I wearing goggles
over a mask?"

In the first Batman movie, directed by Tim Burton, we are presented of several instances in which Batman either doesn’t care if someone dies, or just straight up murders someone. First we hear the story about a thug who fell off a roof and died, attributed to Batman (maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t, I think he did). Then there is the instance where he drops Jack into the acid vat (granted it didn’t kill Jack, but it could have). Now having just seen Batman hang a crook over a rooftop it is pretty obvious that he has the strength to lift Jack back up off the railing, but he lets him go. And finally he shoots a grapple to pull the Joker off of the helicopter where he plunges to his death. That is clear cut murder, no arguments.

And in Batman Returns the killing totally continues. Perhaps my favorite example of Batman being a coldhearted murderer is in that film. In the beginning of the movie, Batman is called in to stop a group of evil circus performers. One of them is a fire eater, that he straight up sets ablaze with the jet engine of the batmobile. He doesn’t stun or beat him into submission, he uses a hydraulic lift to turn the batmobile around 180 degrees and then FWOOSH! lights this the guy on fire with a burst of flame from his rocket car. Sure the guy is a fireeater so he might have some mild protection from minor burns, but not for a giant fireball in the face.

"FOR MARTHA!"

It seems like a tradition to basically let the bad guy die in Batman films. Two-Face dies in Batman Forever. Ras’Al Ghul dies in Batman Begins. Two-Faces dies (again) in The Dark Knight (while The Joker lives, perhaps making up for the Tim Burton Batman film).  Bane and Talia both die in Dark Knight Rises. All deaths either caused by Batman or could have been easily prevented by Batman.

And yet with all these dead at his feet, Batman still can say he has “one rule” that he won’t break. He won’t kill. Now maybe he’s not gunning down crooks willy-nilly like The Punisher, but he’s still killing. Even when he’s not killing, some of the injuries he doles out to crooks on the street could cripple people for life. Kind of just as bad if instead of killing someone you turn them into a paraplegic.

The Enterprise keeps bumping into Worf (Star Trek: TNG films)

Space is supposed to be big. Space is so big that most of it is just empty. Yet in the Star Trek films, featuring the cast of The Next Generation, space is not so big that the crew of the Enterprise doesn’t keep bumping into their Klingon friend, Commander Worf.

Okay, if you’re not a huge Trek fan, this complaint may not make sense. After the Next Generation ended, the property continued on in films. And in the first film, the classic Enterprise 1701-D was destroyed. At the same time Star Trek: TNG had spun off another series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. In the fourth season of that series they featured a conflict with the Klingons and Worf, who had previously served on the Enterprise, was now assigned to Deep Space Nine.

"Do you have a little Klingon
in you? Ya want some?"

So we have one character isolated in a far flung part of the Galaxy. Chances are we wouldn’t see him again the next time the crew of the Enterprise went on an adventure. Nope. Worf shows up in First Contact commanding the U.S.S. Defiant (the battleship assigned to protect DS9) in a fight against the Borg who are attacking Earth. Luckily the Enterprise showed up just in time to save the crew of the Defiant who are about to ram into the giant Borg cube. Then there’s a whole story about time travel, but that has nothing to do with the point. My point is lucky that both Worf AND the New Enterprise decided to head to earth to defend it. Okay, this first coincidental meet up can be forgiven. We have two groups crossing paths that in all honesty would cross paths. Protecting Earth is important for Star Trek, all hands would be called in to do it. Makes sense.

Okay, but the next Star Trek movie has absolutely no explanation for why Worf is onboard the Enterprise. The crew is on a diplomatic mission welcoming a new species into The Federation. Worf is not a diplomat. But Picard and company turn a corner on their ship and there he is, WORF. Just hanging out on the Enterprise and they decide to take him along on the mission. No regard to if he has duties on Deep Space Nine, where he is actually assigned to work, the crew of the Enterprise brings along their Klingon friend because, well, because Klingons, I don’t know.

"Here we go again."

Worf also makes an appearance in the final Next Generation movie. This time because he is at a wedding for Riker and Troi, and then hitches a ride to their next wedding on Betazed. Now this I have a bit of a problem with because on Deep Space Nine, Worf got married and NONE of the Next Gen crew were there. So why did Worf have to drop everything and attend not just one but two weddings for people who couldn’t be bothered to attend his? Also why was Worf’s wife not with him? Was Dax not invited to the wedding? Is the crew of the Enterprise some kind of exclusive Members Only Club?  I mean, even Wesley came back for the wedding (it was a deleted scene but he was there).

The Sorting Hat: Master Manipulator of Magic

Recently the Wizarding World of Harry Potter opened up at Universal Studios Hollywood which is just up the road from me. As such I regularly see people dressed in their Hogwarts house of choice coming from or going to a day of Butter Beer and magical merriment. And of course this inspires me to think about my own Hogwarts house placement (Slytherin!) and that of my friends and family. But when I look at the books it becomes fairly obvious that not everyone who was sorted into a particular house seemed like they actually belonged there. Which leads me to believe there might be a more sinister motive behind the assigning of a house.  And since the only one with the power to assign a Hogwarts house is The Sorting Hat, that hat must be behind it.

First of all, it is obvious that the hat is capable of sentient thought that goes beyond simply assigning students where to live. It can compose poetry, be reasoned with, and give advice to the student. Each of the founding members of Hogwarts bestowed intelligence upon this piece of clothing. Which makes it far more than just a hat that tells students where they’ll be living for the next seven years. This is something that has witnessed the entirety of Hogwarts’ history. Every student has worn it on its head. Every headmaster has had it sitting on a shelf in their office. And despite the one ceremony at the beginning of every school year, it is left primarily alone with its thoughts. Something capable of thought is capable of planning. And that means it is capable of having an agenda. What that agenda might be is anyone’s guess, but it is clearly present.

Just look at one of the main characters in the books, Hermione Granger. She is a devoted student. Loves reading, loves learning, loves school. Heck, one of the major plot points of the third book is her trying to fit in such a massive class schedule. Now while she is all the things listed above, there is one thing she should not be; A Gryffindor. Hermione is the very essence of what a Ravenclaw is supposed to be. Ravenclaws are bookworms. They love to learn. They are Hermione. So why is Hermione not a Ravenclaw? Because the hat placed her in Gryffindor. And good thing it did. There are many times where Harry and Ron would have been completely stuck were it not for Hermione. She was obviously put in Gryffindor on purpose. The Hat made that happen.

Same with Neville Longbottom. Neville is a quiet and slightly weird kid who is fascinated by plants. He probably would have done much better in Hufflepuff than a tough aggressive house like Gryffindor. Granted the character of Neville ended up thriving as a Gryffindor, everything about him when we first meet the character says Hufflepuff. But the hat put him in Gryffindor. It saw something in him to make that choice. Possibly that Neville would be instrumental in the future defeat of Lord Voldemort, and would need to be close to Harry. Like a master chess player, the Hat was positioning people to be at the right place at the right time.

But just because the outcome was positive does not mean the Sorting Hat is always making choices with a positive outcome. Take Peter Petigrew. This former Grffindor ends up being the right hand man to Lord Voldemort himself. His betrayal led to the death of Harry’s parents. Judging by everything we’ve seen of the character, he should have been in Slytherin. Slytherin is where all the “evil wizards” are supposed to go. Granted the labeling of Slytherins as evil is a bit simplistic, but they are conniving. They scheme. They plot. Certainly a Slytherin would come up with the idea to be a family pet in a Wizarding family. Just like what Peter Petigrew did. But the hat put him in Gryffindor. Perhaps the Hat had the foresight to know that one day Peter would be instrumental in the creation of the Wizard that could defeat Voldemort. Therefore the Hat placed young Peter right next to James Potter, knowing one day that boy would betray his best friend.

These are just the obviously examples that anyone who reads the books can see in action. Who knows what sort of strings this hat was pulling behind the scenes.  Whispering words of influence to the students and Headmasters it encounters. But why? What benefit does a piece of felt derive from manipulating so many? Why would a piece of clothing whose only concern is assigning student housing care about the world at large? Because what happens to the world at large does affect it.

"I am Keyser Soze."

The Sorting Hat is meant to assign students to their houses. But if you look at the world that Voldemort is trying to make, there would no longer be a separate Hogwarts houses. In a world where Voldemort rules there would be Slytherin and that’s it. Everyone would fall under his regime. There would no longer be a need for a Sorting Hat. Self Interest. That is the motivation behind the Sorting Hat’s planning manipulating everyone like chess pieces. So that it can continue to exist. There is an afterlife for witches and wizards, but what happens to an enchanted piece of cloth it is destroyed? The Sorting Hat can think, and must obviously have contemplated its own existence at some point.  After such contemplations, would the Hat have come to the conclusion that it must preserve its own existence at any cost?

The Best Robin

When I am not writing, and usually when I should be writing, I am can often be found fooling around on Twitter. For something that can only be 140 characters you sure can waste a lot of time on it. One such wasteful time period I saw someone I follow arguing which Robin would win in a fight between all the Robins. Which leads one to wonder, which is the best of all the Robins?

Now just to be clear I am only going to be judging among the main 4 Robins. No Stephanie Browns (who has been retconned away as a Robin) and no Carrie Kellys (who was only a Robin in The Dark Knight Returns). Also no Joseph Gordon Levitts (who is only a Robin due to a joke at the end of Dark Knight Rises). None of these characters had a long enough career as a Robin to really be considered. I am judging the 4 sons of the Bat. Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, and Damian Wayne.

The interesting thing about comparing all the Robins is that you’re really comparing different aspects of Batman. As I pointed out in a previous entry (see here) the different choices for Robin are all in someway younger versions of Bruce Wayne. While the physical resemblance is obvious, it is an emotional resemblance that the Robins share as well. Dick is Batman’s athletic and gymnastic prowess. Jason is his weapon and fighting skills. Tim is Batman’s technological genius. And Damian is Batman’s ruthlessness. They are all a piece of Batman.

Dick Grayson was the first Robin. He gets a special place in Batman lore solely for being the first. In many ways, that first Robin became the prototype for all super hero sidekicks, not just the Robins. So beloved was Dick Grayson as Robin that he was allowed to grow and mature and become a hero of his own, Nightwing. Also he was the leader of his own group of heroes, the Teen Titans. He even took on the mantle of Batman on several occasions when Bruce was unable to. In many ways, he is the heir to the Bat.

Jason Todd as the second Robin was a much sadder story. Already abandoned as a street kid, Batman took him in when he tried to steel the tires off the Batmobile. Sadly Jason Todd became a fan least favorite, DC Comics set up a hotline to determine if the character would die in a particular story (which overwhelming the vote was that he should). For many years Jason Todd was in that category of “Cannot Resurrect,” a category reserved just for Bruce Wayne’s parents and Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben. It was only after a brief tease in the Batman Storyline HUSH and the also amazing Under the Hood that Jason Todd was brought back as The Red Hood.

Tim Drake is Bruce Wayne’s brilliance. His origin was discovering Batman’s real identity through deduction and reasoning. More than just a sidekick, Tim has acted as a technical genius, helping Batman with computer problems and gadgets. As a Robin he was the most competent to be a hero as just Robin. Not having to be part of a team or a watered down Batman like Dick. And not getting himself recklessly killed like Jason. Tim made Robin a hero in his own right.

Damian is in many ways the opposite of a Robin. The character of Robin has always been described as a grounding agent for Batman. Someone to keep him from going too far over the edge. But Damian, having been raised by the League of Shadows, is if anything far more over the edge than Batman is. Damian had to learn how not to kill. In many ways, Damian is the embodiment of a remind of the restraint that Batman has to employ when dealing with his enemies.

In the end, the best Robin is really all of them. They are all funhouse mirror reflections of Batman. While Robin, in all his incarnations, has proven to be a hero in his own right, it will always be the relationship to Batman that will define the character. Without Batman we inevitably see the character of Robin morph into someone else. Dick Grayson without Batman became Nightwing. Jason Todd became the Red Hood. Tim Drake became Red Robin. Damian will one day become Batman. It is only when these Robins are teamed up with Batman that they remain the character of Robin.

The R-Rated Super Hero

As someone who has long been a champion of “Comics Are Not Just For Kids” it warms my heart to see a film like Deadpool, an R-Rated super hero if there ever was one, being so successful. Both critically and financially. With such a deluge of super hero movies coming at us every year (about six on average at this point) it was inevitable that more would eventually be aimed at adults than at children. But what are the benefits or detriments of having R-Rated super heroes? Are they going to be the next evolution of the genre or are they going to be the final nail in the coffin?

History would not show a theme of increased super hero R-rated flicks being likely. While a few of these types of films have come out, they have mostly failed at the box office. Or at the very least been lukewarm received by their intended audiences. The most notable of which being the film adaptation of Watchmen, a comic book that many had declared unfilmable prior to the age of Super Hero films. Of course this was before Spider-Man broke box office records and The Avengers became one of the highest grossing film franchises of all time. Then the idea of “unfilmable” no longer applied to any property with super heroes in it.

But ironically we only have the super hero genre because of an R-Rated super hero film. While many people give the credit to Spider-Man and the X-Men for starting the super hero film obsession, it was 1998’s Blade that really started the super hero movie trend. This obscure character who existed in the Marvel Universe as a vampire hunter may not bare much resemblance to Captain America or Iron Man, but he has fought alongside both those characters in the four color pages. And while it often gets classified as Horror, make no mistake, Blade is completely a super hero. Take away the blood and gore and the movie Blade follows the Super Hero blue print to a letter. Super powered individual seeking vengeance with a wise mentor who sacrifices himself so that the individual can finally beat the threat to the city/country/world.

While the popularity of super heroes is a cheerful thought for me (I hate to say this, but I liked comic books before it was cool) there is a major problem with R-Rated super heroes. Kids. One of the big reasons why the super hero genre is such a money maker is the popularity it has with kids. Be on the look out the next time you’re in a toy store or around Halloween, and just count all the super hero merchandise. Most kids aren’t even aware these characters existed in a medium prior to the films. Like the old saying goes “It’s Show BUSINESS.” What gets money is what gets made.

So why even bother with R-Rated super heroes. Surely Hollywood can make due with making family friendly super heroes. But the truth is not all super heroes are family friendly. The key to a good adaptation is being true to the core of the character and some characters (like our good ole friend Deadpool) just can’t be done for the kiddies. Characters like The Punisher, Spawn, Judge Dredd, these characters have buckets of blood and foul language dripping on every page and their three dimensional counterparts cannot be playing patty cake on the big screen. For it to truly be a faithful adaptation, there needs to be just as much if not more offensive material on the screen as there is in the pages of comic book fans, eighteen and older.

And make no mistake, those older and mature comic book fans are there. While the kids are flocking to the theatres, it has been the older comic book fans who have been keeping the medium afloat. Without that initial fanbase there would be no Iron Man, Hellboy, or any of the other comic book films that have driven this genre to its current popularity. The comic book companies long ago realized that they were dealing with a more mature audience and transitioned their storylines accordingly. Vertigo, an imprint of DC comics, was set up as an entire printing line of comics with less super heroes and more dark adult content. Marvel followed suit years later with a line called MAX, featuring primarily The Punisher. Because of the success of this version of the character, people will always associate The Punisher with a darker and more violent tone than his contemporaries.

These darker associations can sometimes be hard for some people not familiar with comic books to understand. For a comic book fan like myself, I associate a character like Batman with Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. For someone not a comic book reader, they associate Batman with Michael Keaton or even Adam West, a slightly more tongue in cheek interpretation of the character. The Dark Knight Returns Batman showed a caped crusader not cracking jokes but breaking bones. So influential was the Dark Knight Returns that the upcoming Batman V. Superman film is borrowing heavily from it for its legendary smackdown between DC’s biggest icons. So dark is The Dark Knight Returns that there is consideration of releasing a rated R version of Batman V. Superman when it comes out on Blu-Ray.

End of the day, movie ratings shouldn’t really matter. A story that deserves to be told should be told no matter what elements it contains. And when you start worrying about whether the final product will be R or PG 13 (or substitute the film ratings relative to your country of origin) then you miss out on an important part of storytelling. Characters have a life of their own and if your character is a foul mouthed, hyper sexualized, ultraviolent madman then you need to write that story and not bow to the pressures of a ratings board.