Getting it wrong... good ideas gone bad

[Meatboy]

Great ideas that were poorly done ... and how it should have been!

Often times I'll catch a trailer, read the back cover of a book or see an add for an upcoming TV show and think to myself "Wow. That looks pretty cool. I want to see, read, watch that." But then after having invested the time to do so come away feeling very "meh". And usually the experience will leave me thinking that although the premise had merit the presentation, actors, writing, train wreck of a plot etc. really wrecked it but it could have been awesome if only they had done something differently.

So now I want to start a discussion where we can bring up things we thought sucked or were at least underwhelming and how they could have been changed to be the awesomeness we wanted them to be.

Disclaimer: This is a thread about opinions on things the various posters DID NOT LIKE. I really don't want it to be a debate on the merits of a particular show,movie,book. I know that most series have fans who will defend what they love and have invested personal and emotional time in. But for the sake of this thread lets just all agree right now that the posters didn't like something and how they feel they should have been made.

On a lighter note I do invite debate on details of how things could have been better done.

 

[Meatboy]

OK, so here is one that started this whole idea for me and I am sure that people are going to jump on me and say "NO it was awesome!!!!111!1" but just bear with me.

I feel that Starwars ep 1-3 were not good, and anytime I see them they seem to get worse. But I want to love them I am a big fan of the originals and of starwars games especially KOTOR and the jedi knight/darkforces series. So I want the story of Darth Vader's rise, or fall depending on your view point, to have been amazing. So let's talk about what I think could have been done to make them the movies they deserved to be.

How it should have been...

1. A better backdrop/setting
The original 3 films were set against the war between the Empire and the Rebellion. In this setting of civil strife the heroes really have a chance to shine and it sets up nicely all the reasons why they need to do heroic things. Although they get into a more interesting war between the Republic/separatists later at the beginning of Ep 1 there is a relatively stable galactic republic, which is kind of boring and leads to plot devices like, the taxation of intergalactic trade routes...

Instead lets take a page out of ancient Rome and set the republic up as a failed decadent regime where senators unfairly usurp the taxes of the people to live debauched lives of luxury. All the while allowing crime syndicates and petty warlords terrorize the Outer Rim. The Jedis are then spread thin trying to maintain peace and order and just generally holding the crumbling republic together.

There! now we have a place where heroes can be heroes and someone like Anikan Skywalker and Palpatine can leverage heavy handed tactics (like building massive armies) to create the oppressive Empire all in the name of safety and stability.

2. Theme
For me the original trilogy had a very strong central theme of "Self sacrifice brings redemption" and those movies are rife with examples of that. Like Han not paying off his debt to Jabba the Hut, and so continuing to be a hunted man, but coming back to aid Luke in destroying the Deathstar. All the way to the final scenes where Luke refuses to fight back and in doing so rekindles the kindness and love in his father's heart who goes on to save the day and becomes a hero, again.

Now I felt that ep1-3 really lacked anything to tie them together but I think it could have been a theme of "Arrogance and Pride ultimately bring defeat". With this in mind we make Anakin powerful, they talk about it the movies A LOT, but never really see him being a force to be reckoned with. Also we make the Jedis arrogant. Not all of them but enough so that we really get a feeling of a Holier than Thou from them. With this arrogance they feel they can change their fate and "control" the one who will bring balance to the force.

With a powerful Anakin being somewhat opposed/controlled by a Jedi council who thinks the can do no wrong we now have a basis for why Anakin would turn against them. Not as a spur of the moment thing but as a long pent up ill will leading him to darkness.

3. A real protagonist
Again with mention to the original trilogy in which Luke Skywalker was the undisputed protagonist, with most everything in the movies revolving around his actions and decisions. In the new trilogy it tries to much to recreate the group dynamic that Luke, Han and Liea had with Ani, Obiwan and Padme but never really gives us a sense of a strong protagonist.

I surmise that Anakin should have been the protagonist throughout the films and the focus should have been more on him and his relationships with Obiwan and Padme. This would have made us care more about the characters and could have helped Anakin be seen more as a tragic figure.

There are more ways I think these films could and should have been better but these are just my ideas of how they should have been.

I can't be alone in these experiences so please share!

 

[Umbran]

I would agree with you that Episodes 1-3 were underwhelming. I don't think major changes in setting or theme were required to fix that. Merely having adequate writing and acting would have been sufficient, even if the plot and setting remained unchanged.

I think with a decent writer, and someone with some emotional range portraying Anakin, you'd have a series where you could start with Anakin the seeming protagonist, but have that role shift to Obi-Wan over the course of the films.

As for something that could have been great, but wasn't: the D&D movie comes to mind...

 

[Pbartender]

I would agree with you that Episodes 1-3 were underwhelming. I don't think major changes in setting or theme were required to fix that.

Simply cutting out every seen in which Anakin and Padme are alone together goes a long way to fixing those movies. Try it some time with the DVDs... Just hit the "skip ahead" button whenever they're the only two actors on screen.

 

[fba827]

the obvious disclaimer that this is all personal opinion. it's possible that no one else agrees with me which is fine. just sharing since the OP asked for opinions. you'll notice a common theme in my responses is that movies with a weak story/writing/characters, i value that over special effects, etc.

avatar the last airbender - i think it ended up focusing too much on trying to be gimmick-y (aka 3d and to some extended trying to rely on visual special effects to carry it, but it lost lots of the character and subtle story that made the cartoon so great

x3 - suffered from too many characters and lack of well written story. many of them were added just for the sake of adding them even though they didn't really add much to the story itself other than the obligatory scene that was no doubt written in just to justify their presence. I also really hate it when xmen movies/shows/etc give so much focus on wolverine above and beyond all other xmen because he bores me, but i realize he appeals to the target audience so i won't say more about my annoyance with the raging cajun.

indiana jones and the crystal skulls. just no. and shame on the them. that's all i'll say about that.

transformers 2. loss of focus on story and relied on special effects. when all the previews and interviews leading up to it had all the actors talking about "this is much more explosive than the first one" and no one really mentioning story development, i could kind of see where it was going already...

most sequels that are made for the sake of being made but end up stretching the story beyond what made the original/previous one good. (aka Weekend at Bernies 2 - really? it had to happen again? Lion King 2, Little Mermaid 2, etc - i would have enjoyed these movies as separate movies. But as sequels they needed to take original characters out of the previously seen satisfying conclusions and then put them in action again and then give them a new conclusion. but the second conclusion is far less satisfying than the first.)

Star Trek Insurrection, Generations, and Nemesis. Some just had a weak story that couldn't carry a whole movie (seeming instead like a tv episode script that was extended). Others just didn't have good scenes for some cast that was marginalized - essentially, it had too much cast it needed to focus on, thus failing to focus on a few of them

i'm sure there is more if I thought about it longer but i'll stop there

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Heroes. Last episode of season 1 was woefully underwhelming. The writers were scrambling to FINALLY bring all the characters together and the result was events being artificially rushed and forced. They also did not have enough time or funds to film the big knock-down/drag-out climax that the whole show had been brilliantly building to all season and so all the fantastic character building and plotting dropped with a thud. If they'd have PLANNED for the season ender appropriately both in the writing and production at least that first season would have been nearly flawless.

Second season their tagline of "Save the Cheerleader, save the world" had been used up and they never replaced it with anything. They decided to just turn the show into a soap opera with supers. All the characters were again physically seperated (and it was a large cast) and no season-arc plotting given that would bring them together. Three of the characters presented significant plotting difficulties with their powers - Hiro with his time-travel would logically be able to fix everything and needed to have some functional limitation on it established; Peter needed to have a similar limitation instituted upon his power-absorbtion power if the character was to "return from the dead". Also, if Sylar was to be brought back as the ongoing villain then he needed to present an appropriate threat which the other characters would need to cooperate to counter, instead it was as if the writers were fighting from week to week over whether he should be villain or hero and so was uninteresting and unfunctional as EITHER.

That combined with an ENDLESS parade of new characters with new powers who served only to act as Red Shirts, two of the new characters they DID retain were widely disliked by the audience (the bleeding-eye wonder twins), one character was repeatedly reconceptualized from a Jeckyl/Hyde personality eventually ending up as a frost/water thing, and the character of Nathan was unbelievably the only US Senator who not only spent no time in Washington D.C., but no time in his home state and indeed never acted at ALL as if he were an actual elected polititician.

One good idea for each season story-arc and a couple of writers who could stay out of the way of letting their otherwise terrific ensemble cast of characters go forth and do interesting and dynamic things - that's all the show ever needed. It could have and should have continued to rival Lost as the best show on TV for years and instead they just ran it deeper into the ground season after season.

 

[fba827]

Heroes.

Yeah -- All up to the season 1 finale was good. It had several various issues in one form or another after that.

I _REALLY_ wish they stuck with the original intention. Where each chapter would focus on new heroes and new stories; offering self discovery at the start of each chapter, as well as fresh character (and not using old characters for the sake of using them when their story was clearly over).

 

[Pbartender]

Lion King 2, Little Mermaid 2, etc - i would have enjoyed these movies as separate movies. But as sequels they needed to take original characters out of the previously seen satisfying conclusions and then put them in action again and then give them a new conclusion. but the second conclusion is far less satisfying than the first.

Allow to expound upon this just a bit...

Direct to DVD movies, which are almost universally sequels, are a good idea gone bad.

Let's be honest, if you don't think your feature length sequel of an award-winning movie theater blockbuster is good enough to show in those very same theaters, why make it to begin with?

 

[Meatboy]

are we talking beyond the obvious "we made a whack of cash once with this baby!" line of reasoning?

 

[Pbartender]

are we talking beyond the obvious "we made a whack of cash once with this baby!" line of reasoning?

Right... I can fully understand the "We made a truck load of money, let's make another truck load of money" vibe.

What I can't quite understand is "Let's slaughter our cash cow by making a half-assed movie that we fully acknowledge as not even good enough to put into the theaters".

If they really wanted to make another whack of cash, as you so eloquently put it, why not make a GOOD sequel... Or for that matter, why not skip the sequel and just make another GOOD original movie.

Pixar seems to be one of the very few movie companies that actually grasps that concept.