The game Battleship is a venerable one, dating back to a pad-and-paper release by Milton Bradley in 1931, and even that game may have just been a codification of a game that existed before then. Milton Bradley released Battleship again in 1967, this time as a board game with plastic representation of ships and pegs to track hits and misses. The game was simple enough, hide your ships well enough on your board while still trying to find your opponent’s vessel. Last person to still have an un-sunk ship won. Nice, simple, not even a backstory involved. Just two evenly matched fleets, each with a battleship, aircraft carrier, destroyer, submarine, and patrol boat, trading shots.
In 1984, Hasbro bought out Milton Bradley and maintained it as its own subsidiary. This gave Hasbro access to a large number of popular games, such as Battleship. Hasbro has also been developing live-action movies of various toy lines over the past few years. Naturally, Battleship would be turned into a movie.
The movie Battleship had some problems. It had a $200 million budget, but, unlike Thor, the money wasn’t spent well. Actors were wasted in roles. The script had several eye-rolling errors, including an alien ship with materials “not found on the periodic table of elements”.* The movie plays out as a by-the-numbers action movie, with the lead character being such a screw up that his family still takes care of him in his mid-twenties, a love interest whose father is in charge of the screw up, a sacrificial family member, a rival the screw up has to work with for the greater good. The plot is telegraphed; twists are seen coming.
A judicious editor should have had a go at the script before it reached the filming stage. The first half hour sets up subplots and could have been done better and shorter. There are elements of the game poking in and out of the movie, but the titular battleship (played by the USS Missouri) is a Chekov’s gun and not the main stage. The board game’s grid appears after radar is useless to track the alien vessels; tsunami trackers allow the heroes to detect the aliens’ movements. The shots are even called the same way – “G-4”.
Obviously, an entire movie of grid-calling would get tedious. At the same time, that same grid-calling is the essence of Battleship. Games tend to abstract details; in real naval battles, ships keep moving so that they’re harder to hit, and the movie reflects that. There are several shots of five-ship groupings, and there’s an attempt at getting the game’s ships in, with the aircraft carrier, the battleship, and the destroyer.** The aliens’ shells even look like the pegs from the game.
With all that, though, the movie really can’t do much more with the Battleship title. It would be a far better movie under a different name. Stunt casting didn’t help. Liam Neeson is wasted with what little screen time he has. Rhianna didn’t bring much to her role, though she also didn’t take away from it; an experienced actor could have done more with the role of Raikes, the weapons specialist.*** With the addition of invaders from space, the movie was really Battleship in name only and another, a video game, would’ve fit the plot better.
Worse, there were elements in the plot that had so much more potential. The subplot of Mick****, a double amputee US Army colonel acting as an impromptu resistance against the aliens, could have been its own movie. The idea of using an older warship against an alien invasion because modern electronics are too easily hacked could have been done.***** There were bright spots throughout the movie. The aliens show tactical intelligence, wanting to get communications back up while disrupting infrastructure and military resources. They also don’t just attack in rushes to get killed; at the end of the movie, the aliens still had the higher number of kills.
Overall, the movie Battleship was disappointing. Although it had little to work from, it squandered what it brought together.
Next week, on adapting games to the big screen.
* All metals, even alloys, can be found on periodic table of elements. The table even leaves room for elements not found or created under lab conditions, just based on atomic structure.
** For all we know, there was a submarine, too, but we couldn’t see it under the water.
*** This is a risk whenever bringing in a singer as an actress; see also Kylie Minogue in Street Fighter.
**** Played by Colonel Gregory D. Gadson, who lost both legs above the knee in Iraq and is still on active duty. Sure, not much of a stretch in the role, but he knows the role well.
***** And has, though it was called a Battlestar instead.
Comic writers have created heroes based on myth and legend since the dawn of the superhero. Wonder Woman is an Amazon, blessed by the Greek gods. Fawcett’s (and, later, DC Comics’) Captain Marvel gained the powers of Greek and Roman gods and legends. Marvel Comics, though, tended to keep their heroes more grounded and human, with all the advantages and disadvantages of being mortal. Some, such as Doctor Strange, worked with forces far beyond the ken of ordinary men. However, even Marvel has dipped into the mythology pool. Instead of using the Greek and Roman myths, Marvel pulled a superhero out of Norse legend, the Mighty Thor.
Thor’s first appearance as a Marvel superhero came in 1962, in Journey into Mystery #83. His appearance in the comic would lead to it being renamed The Mighty Thor. A year after his first appearance, Thor was included in The Avengers as a founding member and mainstay of the team. When Marvel began its Ultimates line to try to prune fifty years of continuity without giving the original lines a hard reset, Thor carried over to the new universe.* In both lines, Thor wielded Mjolnir, a magic warhammer that grants the powers of flight, weather control, and shooting lightning bolts.
Marvel’s movie line, although with some rocky entries, has done well, with Marvel Studios having an excellent track record. The Avengers Initiative, starting with Iron Man, was done entirely within Marvel Studios, even after the Disney buy out. The idea behind the Avengers Initiative was to set up the origins of the major Avengers characters before releasing The Avengers itself. Thor was the third movie, following Iron Man and Iron Man 2, and shows how Thor came to Earth and to the attention of SHIELD. The movie shows, once again, what respecting the original material can do to help a movie succeed. In Thor‘s case, the movie paid attention not only to the comic book character but also to the original myths, pulling from both. Thor has a completely different feel to it compared to Iron Man. Part of the change comes from the director, Kenneth Branagh, best known for his adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays to the silver screen. Thor feels like an epic myth in modern times as Thor must learn what it means to be the king of the gods.
Helping elevate Thor is the quality of the cast. As seen in Iron Man, having the right actor in a role goes a long way to making a movie a success. The same idea comes to play in Thor. With such actors as Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Colm Feore, Stellan Skarsgard, and Tom Hiddleston, and a script by Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, the movie had a sturdy base to build from. With Kenneth Branagh directing, the movie came together wonderfully.
Thor had a budget of about $150 million. The movie shows that it’s not just how much is spent, it’s also on how the money is spent. Special effects in a comic book movie have to look at least as good as those drawn in the comics. The costumes must be as close as possible to what the characters normally wear**. These touches can make or break a movie, and, in Thor, these considerations were met and exceeded.
Next time, sinking an adaptation.
* But not the New Universe.
** Or at least have a shout-out, as seen in X-Men.
As seen many times here at Lost in Translation, classic works of fantasy, including myths and fairy tales, are modern fodder for the Hollywood adaptation engine. Fantasy, whether classic or urban is everywhere – television, silver screen, books, video games. The major influence for many of these is JRR Tolkien. The influence may not be direct; many fantasy video games can trace their roots back to Dungeons & Dragons; but, D&D‘s creators looked at, among other writers, Tolkien for world creating and game design.
The above-mentioned influence came mainly from Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, but before the epic was a children’s story about a hobbit who reluctantly went on an adventure. The Hobbit, or There and Back Again followed Bilbo Baggins as he gets manipulated into joining thirteen dwarves in a quest to recover their homeland. Along the way, Bilbo discovers that he is more than what he appears to be, outwits trolls, and wins a game of riddles, and finds a magical ring. Middle Earth is presented as both being wondrous and dangerous.
After the success of his Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson was signed on to produce an adaptation of The Hobbit. Originally to be done as one movie, the script grew to the point where two, then three movies would have to be made. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was filmed in 3D at 48 frames per second, double the usual frame rate, though standard viewing was also released.
The new Hobbit does its best to stay close to the original story. Some characters from Lord of the Rings make cameos, particularly during the framing sequence.* CGI is evident, but not blatant. Care was taken to make sure each dwarf had an unique appearance. Magic is treated as wondrous and dangerous. The whimsy from The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is kept and is welcome at a time where most fantasies have gone dark and gritty. The story is treated as a personal one for Bilbo instead of the epic that the Lord of the Rings movies were.
However, some characters and scenes were added. A meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel that helps relate where The Hobbit stands relative to Lord of the Rings was never in the novel, with both Saruman and Galadriel being imports to the movie. Similarly, the framing device at the start of the film is set at the beginning of Fellowship of the Rings. The additions are understandable; tying the movie into the previous LotR trilogy enhances continuity, and having a movie without a woman in it is unthinkable to studios today.
Fans were already muttering about the novel being turned into a trilogy. Breaking the story into three parts, however, is one of the best ways to ensure that very little gets cut; the only other option is to turn the novel into a television mini-series. Television, though, doesn’t get the budget needed to do all the special effects or get the cast.
Ultimately, this is the best live-action adaptation possible with current technologies and will be enough for the casual fan and the fan drawn in by the Lord of the Rings movies, but will still leave hardcore fans of the original story cold.
Next time, continuing the Avengers Adaptation.
* It appears that Jackson is assuming that people have seen /Lord of the Rings/ but haven’t read The Hobbit.
Happy New Year!
I trust the holidays were well for everyone. I, for one, managed to get out to enjoy a bit of research for Lost in Translation* and took in the sights**. This year, 2013, is going to be filled with adaptations and remakes. Here are some of the coming adaptations.
A Good Day to Die Hard
Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, the hard-luck New York cop who somehow manages to find himself in the middle of a bad situation. A Good Day to Die Hard is the fifth of the series, with the original /Die Hard/ having been based on Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorpe. Die Hard itself changed action movies, allowing the main character to get battered, bruised, and beaten. The previous movie in the series, Live Free or Die Hard, received mixed reactions, most of the problems in it came from the studio wanting a PG-13 rating, cutting the gore and the language (including McClane’s catchphrase).
The Smurfs 2
The lovable three-apple high blue creatures with a limited vocabulary are returning to the big screen. The original adaptation did well enough, thanks to having Neil Patrick Harris and to appealing to a wide audience. This will be the middle movie of a Smurf trilogy.
Despicable Me 2
Although billed as a sequel, Despicable Me 2 is a spin-off from the original movie. The focus switches to the minions, who gained the affection of audiences.
Oz, The Great and Powerful
From Disney, Oz, The Great and Powerful is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, telling the story of the Oz himself and how he got to be the Wizard. The trailer appears to be following the movie continuity of Oz, not Baum’s books. However, more people are more familar with the movie starring Judy Garland (or The Wiz, with Diana Ross and Michael Jackson) than the books. Disney’s recent record on adapatations is excellent, though***.
Beautiful Creatures
The first non-sequel, non-prequel on the list, Beautiful Creatures is based on the young adult novel by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl. If the movie does well, the rest of the Caster Chronicles should follow.
Hansel and Gretel, Witch Hunters
Fairy tales seem to be Hollywood’s go-to source lately. With TV series like Grimm and Once Upon a Time and movies such as Red Riding Hood and Snow White and the Huntsman, darker takes on the tales are popular.****
Evil Dead
With Sam Raimi producing, the remake of the B-movie classic The Evil Dead should draw attention from fans of the original. Raimi is taking what he has learned since filming The Evil Dead and applying it to the remake.
The Takeaway
Originality in Hollywood is still at a low point. However, adaptations have long been a part of the movie scene; the much beloved The Wizard of Oz was released in 1939. People wanting originality may have to look elsewhere, such as books and television, or deeper, at how an adaptation is handled and look for nuance.
Next time, what do I have in my columnses?
* I went to a movie.
** I checked out the posters for upcoming releases.
*** Thor, Captain America, Avengers. The exception is John Carter, which is more of a marketing failure than anything else.
**** Though, darker is relative here. Many popular fairy tales have been cleaned up and made more palatable for children and their parents over the centuries since their first appearance.
