OH, last night was it - the live showing of "The Sound of Music" starring Carrie Underwood and a few other famous names, almost all of which I've never heard of. But, as many of my well-informed friends have heard of them, I'm going to call them famous. It should be noted that this was a live airing of the BROADWAY version, not the HOLLYWOOD version. What?? You didn't know that it was a stage play before the film version starring Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer???? If you didn't and you are over the age of 17, you have failed/been failed by your education.
Now, there are several camps that people have been ideologically divided into on this:
Camp 1: The HOW DARE YOU EVER DO ANYTHING AGAINST JULIE ANDREWS Camp. Now, I'm not going to dis the GREAT (and she IS great) Ms. Andrews. I think she's awesome, personally, and her performance in the film was just marvy. But let's be a little real: there are high schools that do this production every year, and they are not doing anything "against" Ms. Andrews. They are aspiring to something greater than what they were....that's all.
Camp 2: BUT IT SUCKS BECAUSE IT WASN'T THE FILM AND WASN'T AS BELIEVABLE. You - shut up. Now. It's called "willful suspension of disbelief." We KNOW the entire country of Austria isn't on stage. The Alps are still where they were, in Europe. If you can't have a little imagination, you should really never be allowed to look at a television or movie screen again.
Camp 3: IT WAS THE MOST AWESOME THING EVER!!!! Thank you for letting us understand your complete lack of experience.
Camp 4: EVERYTHING NOT THE BROADWAY PRODUCTION SUCKS!!! You are an elitist snob. Your attitude wouldn't bother me if Rogers and Hammerstein didn't re-write the show for the movies, but they did, and THEY liked it better. You didn't write either rendition, so you don't get a vote. You can have your preferences, but please, don't trod on anyone else's.
Camp 5: YOU CAN'T RE-MAKE A CLASSIC!!! You....actually have a point, but there are limits. You can re-make a classic, and while it will never be the same performance, it can have equally good things in it. You don't have to like it. For example, there have been at least three renditions of "Miracle on 34th Street" done - and I'm sure there are others that I just don't care to research. I'm partial to the original, and prefer it in black and white - but that doesn't make the colorized version, or the last version that was in theatres, bad. It just makes them a little different. Please, pick your fave and enjoy it.
BUT, you camp 5-ers - you have a point on re-making that which was close to perfection in the first place. Why do over what was done so well?? So, I have created the Fat Kid Laws of Entertainment!!!!
FAT KID LAWS OF ENTERTAINMENT:
1) Other people's pain is hilarious. Why? Because it's not you, but you will gladly watch someone else get knocked in the groin, the head, etc. Humans are kinda sick that way. But, it sells, and we're always happy to watch that slow-motion sequence at the end of Die Hard where Hans (Alan Rickman) falls to his death.
2) Video Games should remain where they are. I know - this one's going to tick a lot of people off, but at this point, video games have progressed to the point where they are really more like films themselves - it's no longer a viable thing to make a game into a movie. That ship has sailed. Time to stop that.
3) Films should be made to tell stories, not fill timeslots. If you can't fill 120 minutes (that's two hours) of FILM time (not including previews, etc) then it doesn't belong in a theatre. 90 minutes = a two hour time slot on TV with commercials. Exceptions exist here for kids' movies and documentaries, but in general, if it's not 120 minutes (and even here, there's some leeway for "close enough") it shouldn't be made into a feature movie. You simply can't tell a good story in less time. And seriously - we pay enough for tickets, popcorn, etc - we should get 2 hours of film time, minimum. Oh, and if you CAN'T fill up a 2-hour timeframe...then it's probably not a good story for film, anyway.
4) The re-make. No film shall be re-made until everyone who had a lead role in the previous version is dead. Yeah, I'm looking at you, makers of the latest "Footloose." Not cool. I believe that when you constantly re-make stuff like this, we lose more than we create. Yes, the original "Footloose" was a veritable treasure-trove of 80s awesomeness. Now - OK - there's some of that stuff we SHOULD be forgetting on purpose, but there are also a lot of things that we should remember, too. Film is a part of our historical social record. They can't learn about the 80s, it's good parts and its bad parts, if they don't encounter the 80s. Now, go ahead and steal the plots (James Cameron stole "Dances With Wolves" for "Avatar" and it mostly worked) but NO REMAKING UNTIL THE LEADS HAVE PERISHED.
5) Superhero movies. I like these, I really do, and there are some really kick-ass stories that go along with these characters. There are also a LOT of challenges. Superhero films almost always fall victim to the time-allotment rule already addressed. More minutes of film to truly get into the psyche of the hero will solve a good portion of the problems most off these movies encounter. And, let's face it - a lot of the villains are rather cardboard - they always were. The biggest thing about superhero movies: don't skip the story. Take your time to tell it properly. Spend the money. You might not get it all back immediately, but you will produce better film, not just some pocket-lining film.
6) Books into movies. There's a general rule to follow here. I think it's something like 150 pages = 1 hour of film time - or something like that. It might even be steeper than that, like 200 pages or something. whatever it is....STICK to it. It might take 5 pages to describe a thing on paper and an instant in visual time - but let's face it, the panoramic views of cameras/ different angles that can be shot, the looks on the faces of the main character and the opposite of the scene, etc...it's not a problem. If you can't get a book into a two-hour movie, again, there's something wrong. Vice versa, if you have to break up a book into several movies, there might also be something wrong. There are always exceptions to the rule, again, but as a general rule, this stands. And for all the haters out there, yes, I'm looking at Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" on this one (Even though I thoroughly enjoy his stuff - including The Hobbit" - I would probably rather have seen one 4.5 hour film than three different films.)
7) "Based on a true story." No. Just tell us the story, stop taking "dramatic license" I know, it's not half as fun, but please, if it was only one play on a football field, don't make a whole season out of it, ok?
8) "This was a great play." Then please...leave it as such. It works as a play because a play has a unique audience, being live. A film audience can't interact with the film in the same way a theatre audience interacts with a play...the energy back and forth just isn't there. Just because it's a great play doesn't mean it will make a great film - and not everything needs to be made into a film.
9) "That was a great movie!" I'm looking at Disney and Dreamworks here. You make some fascinating films, you really do. But seriously?? It doesn't need to be made into a musical. Or a stage play. Or anything else. it's JUST a movie. Often, based on a fairy tale. Don't do this. Please. It's just wrong. You don't own these stories. Let them go.
10) "Reality TV" No. Stop. It was a horrible idea. Seriously - it's The Hunger Games, and you're not on Katniss's side. You're the Empire...and not the good parts of it.
Thanks for reading,
The Fat Kid
