Are Superman's shoulders broad enough to support an entire industry? Warner Bros. certainly hopes so. If you've been following entertainment news lately, you know that two of Hollywood's heaviest hitters, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, recently predicted the implosion of the Hollywood system. The basic gist of what they said was that Hollywood's reliance on big budget "tent pole" films prevents smaller scale, less popcorn-friendly movies from being made. Therefore, if and when these big-budget extravaganzas bomb, Hollywood will implode because it had too much riding on precious few films. Spielberg cited his movie Lincoln as an example of a film that almost became a smaller scale television production. He didn't say it, but one can infer that were it not for the clout of Mr. Spielberg such would have been the fate of Lincoln.
What does this have to do with Man of Steel (aka Superman)? Well...with a budget of over $200 million and a full-scale hype machine behind it, Warner Bros. Studios is banking on Man of Steel to pull in huge box office numbers and re-ignite their superhero franchise. But wait, you might be saying, what about all these other superhero movies that have filled our movie screens lately? Aside from The Dark Knight (aka Batman), recent box office champions in this genre have come from Marvel Studios, which is owned by Disney. Warner Bros. owns DC Comics, which is a whole different stable of superheroes. So...back to my original question...what does the prediction made by Spielberg and Lucas have to do with Man of Steel? The answer is...everything. If Man of Steel becomes a billion dollar box office bonanza, it will spawn two sequels, then launch a Justice League film that will essentially be a DC Comics All-Star movie in the vein of Marvel's Avengers, which grossed more money that the GDP of many countries. After that, Warner Bros. is planning on making films featuring Aquaman, Wonder Woman and God knows who else.
So, are Spielberg and Lucas right? Will Hollywood's reliance on big budge lack-of-originality films prevent smaller, less predictably commercial films from reaching the silver screen? Possibly. But it's interesting to note that the two men who made this prediction are the ones who are responsible for ushering in the age of tent-pole filmmaking (anyone remember Jaws and Star Wars?).
Now what about Man of Steel? It's in the theaters now. Does it live up to the hype and production expense? Will it put Warner Bros. safely back on a path paved with gold? Having just seen the film, I would say "yes" to both these questions. Man of Steel has all the over-the-top action and effects audience expect in a superhero film. But it also has a strong story with plenty of character development. Henry Cavill, who plays the title character, makes a convincing Superman and brings a depth of emotional angst and loneliness to the part. The film's villain, General Zod is played by Michael Shannon, who is an incredibly talented actor with an ability to tap a range of convincing emotions. I was also impressed by the screenwriter's ability to create a complicated story and give us much of the character origin that previous Superman films ignored. So my final assessment is that Man of Steel reaches beyond cliched superhero fare to give us a story that could survive quite well without the big-budget effects that characterize tent-pole films.
Spielberg and Lucas may be warning us against a reliance on epic motion pictures, but if all these films have the depth that Man of Steel possesses, perhaps we might be able to avoid a Hollywood implosion. Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment