Review: Blindspot

Show: Blindspot
Network: NBC

Welcome to the new standard in hour-long TV procedural cop dramas: a cop/government agent is forced to reluctantly partner up with a civilian who has a unique talent that helps the cop solve crimes. The Backlist, Numbers, The Mentalist to a lesser extent Sleepy Hollow (being of the same style, but with the supernatural element and less about solving a weekly murder) and now shows like Minority Report all follow this same format. And those are just the ones that I know about. I’m sure there are plenty of others. These are all nothing more than the derivative model of Sherlock Holmes’ character who is a consulting detective. Some of the better shows use this model and put the investigator’s partner in a career field where their skill is beneficial to the case instead of any-old-Joe.

Pros:

The one shining element of this pilot episode was the overall action. The show didn’t feel like it was an hour long because it was packed with things happening. They used practical effects, or at least did a good job masking the digital ones, and the fight scenes were fluid and appeared to be natural reactions instead of choreographed moments.

Another thing this show did well was creating a unique take on the civilian who assists the authorities. She has tattoos all over her body and they all indicate a crime. So, not only do the investigators have to solve the mystery of this woman, but they also have to solve the crime they have uncovered from the clues on her body.

Cons:

This whole concept is flawed—and one that is actually brought up many times in the show The Blacklist. In the real world, investigators seldom rely on civilians due to the dramatic propensity for misinformation. Eyewitnesses often relate contradictory information, even just moments after the events have taken place. That’s because the general public has no training for information retention and recall. That said, Hollywood has taken the steps to ensure these issues are negated by having the “partner” character imbued with certain attributes that move the story forward, or hold it back, depending on the character. In the case of Blindspot, the woman with all of the tattoos has a mysterious background shown in flashbacks where she is training with weapons and agrees to a procedure that will wipe her memory. So the writers have forced a mystery that could have been kept a mystery until much later, but they decided to prime the well by offering up memory flashes that indicate she has an ulterior, and probably counterproductive, motive to the protagonists. Which is really cliché by this day and age.

Is it worth your time?

There is definitely a market for this kind of show, and there are plenty of people who enjoy convoluted mysteries with forced character chemistry. And I am far from being judgmental on those individuals—heaven knows that I have my fair share of guilty pleasures. It’s just that, while writing this short piece, I realized that shows like this exist because of humanity’s hunger for the unknown, for the mystery that is right under their own nose.

Will I keep watching?

I’ll probably give this show another few episodes to gel, but if it is still rife with ambiguousness and forced character drama, then I’m going to drop it. After all, there are shows like Major Crimes and Doctor Who out there that I can watch.

Review: Minority Report

Show: MINORITY REPORT
Network: Fox

This is a quick review of the pilot episode.

I didn’t dislike this show as much as I thought I might. There were several good things about this show, but unfortunately, the cons outweigh all the positives.

Pros:
The premise of this show is based on the film of the same name; and if you haven’t seen the movie, don’t worry—the show does an excellent job of setting up the world the characters live in and how they are a part of it. It’s a great idea, really: a detective trying to solve murders she knows is going to happen but does not know the identity of the victim or the killer. This kind of story delivers on the ticking clock and keeps the story moving towards the climax. So there is no shortage of tension.

Another positive thing in the show are the visual effects. These are top-of-the-line computer graphics for television productions (and are easily as good if not better than the effects in the big-budget film).

Cons:
One of the biggest downfalls of this show is the character dynamic between the two leads, the detective and her precognitive associate who can see the murders taking place before they happen. Now, my problem isn’t with how the characters interact with one another. It’s more with how quickly they fell into a “partnership.” At first the main character doesn’t know of the precognitive’s abilities, but she seems to too-quickly realize what is going on and then, suddenly, there’s this mutual respect and friendship. Honestly, it felt forced and inauthentic. Two years ago, Fox aired a show called Almost Human. It was a buddy-cop show about a maverick detective and his synthetic human partner. They spent most of the season at odds with one another. Their friendship took at least eight episodes and many trust-building exercises. The interaction on Minority Report isn’t really that organic.

As odd as it sounds, the effects are another con. Yeah, I know that I just said they were a good thing. But hear me out on this. Almost Human had an excessive effects budget and only mediocre ratings, so it got the boot (who would have thought that Fox would ever cancel a good show?). I really feel that if Minority Report doesn’t rocket to success, then it will follow the same fate.

Is it worth your time?

This show has potential, it really does. If the show doesn’t try too hard to keep screaming that it exists in the future, then it may balance out. But I honestly think that it will, like Almost Human, spend so much time exploring the possibilities of future tech and how everyday it seems to the characters that it will lose itself in its effects budget.

Will I keep watching?

For a third of fourth episode, this would have been a good story, but it fell short for an introduction to these two characters. I will probably give this another few episodes to find its shape and make a final decision on whether I will keep going or drop.

Why Hollywood Needs to Go Back to Saying "Remake" Instead of "Reboot"

There are innumerable articles and blogs out there addressing the troubles and woes of Hollywood rebooting everything they have ever made, and lately it seems that studios are trying harder than ever to cash in on the nostalgia of the past. I’m not going to rant about why this doesn’t need to be done. Instead, I’m going to focus on the misuse of the term “reboot” and how that directly, or indirectly effects what the studio is trying to do versus what the fans are expecting. More specifically, I’m going to address the new Ghostbusters film currently in production under the direction of Paul Feig for Sony. Please note that I’m not going to bash what I haven’t seen. I will also not whine and lament specific issues unless they directly relate to my topic (something other critics seem to forget to do).

            Sony is one of the most notorious offenders when it comes to trying to take an existing property and do it all over again. Besides Ghostbusters, they are about to embark on a third big-screen iteration of Spider-Man (another bit of source material I hold near and dear). Briefly, studios taking another shot at a movie is nothing new—The Maltese Falcon was released in 1931, and again in 1941 (the latter being the more infamous for starring Humphrey Bogart). Though in last fifteen years, it seems that executives are more focused on trying to continue a franchise that on one involved in the original is willing to be involved with, so they decide to “reboot it.” But I think that this terminology is completely wrong! What they are doing is a remake, not a reboot.

            Think of it this way: if you “reboot” your computer because it isn’t working right, when it comes back on everything should be pretty much the same as it was, right? Same programs, same background, same settings. All you’ve done is restart your experience from the beginning, with the knowledge that it will be the same. Imagine how pissed you’d be if, when the screen came back to life, only the names of the files had stayed the same. I’m talking about new background, settings, and even new images representing your common icons. How frustrating would it be to spend several minutes looking for the familiar internet icon, only to discover that it had been completely replaced by the image of a tree for no defined reason? The same thing is true for movies, and it is the main reason why fans of the original source material are usually so upset when they learn that things are being changed in the “reboot.” The studio isn’t rebooting, they are remaking; but the term “remake” gained such a negative connotation ten years ago, that they had to come up with something new. However it correct it may be.

            Now, getting back to Ghostbusters, it’s time to take a look at why lots of fans are more than a little ticked off.

            For the last 25 years, there have been talks about a third film in the Ghostbusters franchise. Dan Aykroyd always said that he and co-writer and co-star Harold Ramis were working on a script and that they were in talks with the studio. But mostly, it was understood that this was his go-to answer. Then, a few years ago, major headway was being made revolving around a third film with the original cast. All of this stemming from not only the 25^th anniversary of the first film’s release, but also the huge success of the video game (that featured the voices of the original cast). The script was, as always, being polished and Ivan Reitman, who directed the first two films, was onboard to get behind the camera. This news, however, was taken with a grain of salt for the die-hard fans, because they (read: we) had been hearing the same thing for a quarter century. But then the talk kept going, and it seemed the only real hang-up was with Bill Murray reprising his role of Dr. Peter Venkman.

            Then Harold Ramis passed away. Not only was half of  the creative force behind the characters gone, but the fictional brains of the outfit was gone, too (Ramis played the dry-witted Egon Spengler). Then Ivan Reitman left the project. Then many others involved in spearheading the third film left as well. And it the idea should have died right then, and Sony should have been just as happy raking in all the cash from releasing merchandise with the logo on it. Yet, as the studio proved with Spider-Man, they weren’t ready to give up on the already sunk ship. Not when they could spin it and make it a submarine. So the studio announced they were moving forward with the franchise and that they were seeking a new director.

            And now for the real trouble with calling this venture a “reboot” and not a remake.

            Almost as soon as Paul Feig came aboard to direct, it was revealed that he was going to have an all-female cast. The director also went out of his way on social media to put fans’ minds at ease, saying that his was going to be a completely new story with new characters and that it would exist in a world that did not coincide with the world of the first films. He was going to remake everything from the ground up so that there was no link between the two franchises. But that wasn’t exactly the case.

            I won’t speculate on why certain decisions were made over others, but I’ll bet that the studio executives were plenty pushy for him to go in one direction over another so as best to promote brand-recognition. And specifically, you can’t make a Ghostbusters movie without five very important things: 1) the logo 2) proton packs 3) the car 4) ghosts and 5) the song. Sadly, though, since Feig had spent so much time saying that he was going to distance his story from the original films that every time new information is released about this new version, it is unclear exactly how “original” his version is going to be. I believe this could have been avoided if they hadn’t used the term “reboot.” Let me breakdown the five essential items for a Ghostbusters story and then actually “reboot” them, using a correct definition of “reboot.”

            The logo. It is among the most recognizable symbols on earth. A plump specter who looks a little surprised to be trapped behind a red “No” icon. Styled after all of the No Smoking signs that started popping up in New York in the 1980s, the no-ghost logo is brand marketing at its finest. It is simple, saying everything you need to know in a single image. It is also cheap to print on white paper—requiring only red and black ink. It is the strongest and most obvious link to the original. This is also probably one of the biggest issues he studio is pushing on this film so that it connects the brand to the merchandise. In actuality, it is just a lazy copout.

            To fix this problem, all they had to do was spend a little time researching the design phase of the logo and go from there. While not exactly the well-known icon that is known today, there were a few designs that both are similar yet altogether different. One of my favorites was a much more menacing ghost, with his arms raised to frighten, being held back by a X. Still says the same thing, only separates the films. Really, Sony could have done anything and earned a bit more respect than reusing the classic symbol as nothing more than a consumer fishing lure. Again, this whole thing is all about “reboot” versus “remake,” and the inclusion of the logo screams remake!

            The proton packs. They are the single most important tool for the capture and elimination of paranormal entities. Not to mention the first item on many a childhood Christmas list in the mid-1980s. The pack is bulky, unsymmetrical, and just looks like it was welded together in the basement of a mad scientist. It is supposed to look dangerous and complicated. Yet, the new props from the film are, while not direct copies, are close enough to the original that there isn’t anything special about them. Yeah, they’re a little smaller (more comparable to the female form wearing them?), but overall they fit the audiences’ preconceived notion of what a ghost-busting backpack should look like—they fit the design of a “rectangle with some boxes and wires and things, and a big round thing on it.” With the release of the images of this new design, it seems that the production is refusing to challenge the viewers to look at something original and just accept that it works in the same way as the design that came before. In 1984, no one had any idea what these devices did, or how they worked. Then, the characters on screen shot an unstable orange beam forked with blue lightning at a ghost, and the audience was like “Oh, okay. Looks cool,” and I kind of wish there had been more images released of the pre-production phase. There was a missed opportunity to address the proton packs in a way that modernizes them and still keeps the whole wacky, unbelievable science.

            My recommendation would have been to streamline the design by taking all that gangly bulk and shoving it neatly into a stylish and sleek shell. Think of it like a computer. It’s an unassuming box, but when you take the box away, it’s a total mishmash of circuit boards, wires, and alien-looking technology. Or what about a high-end sports car? Imagine what a Lamborghini looks like without the shell. It’s a weird-shaped frame with an obtuse motor hung in the back with some tires. But put what is essentially the body of a spaceship on it and you’ve really got something. For me, the proton packs should be no different. We live in a high-tech world where one of the characters could have easily 3-D printed a nice looking case to house all that sceincey stuff, so that when the casing is removed (to make repairs or whatever), we see inside at all the congested and ugly parts—which might also be a clever visual metaphor for the character who designs them.

            Yet another way to update the proton packs and (if they absolutely must) reference back to the original films, though much more slightly, would be to have these characters use Dan Aykroyd’s original plan where the Ghostbusters sport sleek backpacks that have wires running to wands extending from their wrists. Not only does this give true fans a glimpse of what might have been back in 1984, but truly embraces what Hollywood wants us to think they mean when they say “reboot.”

            The car. Yet another visual icon of the original film, the Ecto-1 is a ghost-white ambulance/hearse from 1959, with bright red tailfins and trimmed in gleaming chrome. Blue emergency lights swirl ethereally as the siren wails its haunting call. It is also one of the better un-sung gags of Ghostbusters in that four live guys are riding around in a vehicle used to transport the dead while on their way to deal with the dead, who may have had their previous ride in that car (do you see the genius of that little joke?). So when production began on Feig’s version, he said that he was exploring all options for the kind of transport his team of paranormal eliminators would be using. Alas, it was recently revealed that the four Ghostbusters would once again canter about in an old hearse—only this one from the 1980s instead of the 1950s—with a bunch of unspecified crap thrown on top that the story won’t relate what it does or why it is there. Again, I think this is a major stumble for this production with so many kinds of vehicles to choose from.

            My idea for the new Ecto-1 would be anything but a hearse. Just from a purely comfort standpoint, they only really seat two, since the back has been designed to hold a coffin. The original Ecto-1 was actually an ambulance, evidenced by the additional seating in the rear compartment and the sliding rack the team utilized to hold their proton packs as they drove. So, if the crew wanted to “update” the idea of the team’s mode of transportation, why not pick one of the 1980s ambulances that had been a converted cargo van? I mean, that way they still get the accompanying lights and siren, as well as storage and extra seating, but they also get the added gloriousness of painting a mural on the side. And honestly, what says “1980s vehicle” more than a van with an epic mural painted on the side? Hey, it worked for Star Trek and Star Wars:

            The ghosts. Actually, I’m giving Feig & Co. free license to do as they please here. The specters in the original films were a nice combo of silly and scary. Part Disney and part Lovecraft. What that did, in effect, was to distance the audience from the realization that these things had once been living people. Reitman took the humanity out of them so they seemed more unearthly and right so. Who wants to sit and ponder the notion that Grandpa’s spirit has just been confined for all eternity to a laser containment grid? It just isn’t fun. As long as the new movie does its best to make the ghosts something we want to see be gotten rid of, they should be fine.

            The song. Oh, the song. The original was written and performed by Ray Parker Jr. and it is a classic. It has been remade so many times over the decades that no one really cares who you’re going to call anymore, just so that won’t have to ask. The brilliance was the catchy question-and-answer. The song literally screamed the name of the movie every five seconds. Again, it’s great marketing. As of now, though, there has been no information regarding the music for the new film, and I doubt that they will have a final decision much before the movie actually premieres. After all, Ray Parker Jr. wrote and recorded Ghostbusters over the course of a weekend, like a month before the film debuted. Though I’d bet dollars to donuts that some version of “Who you gonna call?” will appear somewhere on the title track of the CD (do they even make those anymore?”

            What I’ve tried to express in the above isn’t what I find wrong with forthcoming Ghostbusters, but instead that this is a remake. Paul Feig is telling his version of the story we all already know. If it was a reboot, then it would be four guys named Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston, battling the supernatural forces of Zuul, minion of Gozer. What Gus Van Sant did with Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho in 1998 was a “reboot.” And maybe that’s the problem in Hollywood, more than just them running out of ideas.

            It seems like every director who is given an existing project to work on has to tell their version of the character. I’m going to pick on superheroes for a minute because they seem to be the most obvious offender to me. Just think about how many times you’ve seen Bruce Wayne’s parents die. I know for me, it has been more than ten. So much so that I’ve become desensitized to it and the importance for the character loses its meaning. The same thing is true for the origin of Superman, and Spider-Man is no different. Every time a new director shoots a movie about these characters, we have to suffer through the boring inevitability of their tragic and up-coming loss. These characters are more than 50 years old and they have had hundreds of thousands of adventures, yet we as the audience get to see the same story told again and again and again. Even when they try to tell a new story, like in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns, we have to spend several minutes in a completely unnecessary flashback about a young Clark learning to control his powers (which was used in this particular film as nothing more than a metaphor for a young teenage boy coming to terms with his self-realized homosexuality). And this is the problem that I think Feig is going to run into with his “version” of Ghostbusters. He’s trying to tell the story that everyone knows, but changing it up enough to seem updated and original for the times.

            “Rebooting” a franchise does not actually breathe new life into an entity that already has a steady and devout fanbase. It angers them. This film specifically has caused heated debates about gender roles and sexual oppression, and it wasn’t supposed to. The original Ghostbusters was not a platform for political expression. I mean, the biggest metaphor in the whole thing is the giant marshmallow man representing how we are being crushed to death by consumerism—and that is one overt metaphor!

            For me, the problem lies in my inability to come up with an idea for a solution on how to fix the endless rebooting and refreshing and reimagining. There will always be generic plots that will be told and retold, but have we really reached the nexus of human creativity in artistic cinema? I remember when movies with multiple sequels (Friday the 13^th; A Nightmare on Elm Street; Jaws) were laughed at and endlessly parodied—and most of them were horror films. But now, Hollywood has proven that they aren’t really interested in making a movie that does not have franchise potential. But, to be honest, when I look at my DVD rack, I see a lot of things with sequels. The Back to the Future series, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Rambo, The Terminator, Superman, Toy Story, Die Hard. I can’t help but realize that this isn’t a new problem. The new problem is that these movies that already told their stories, and then continued those stories, are now having their stories retold. To put it simply, every successful film is a contender to have a part two made, continuing the story—or just telling a new story with the same characters. Robert Zemeckis never actually intended to do a sequel to Back to the Future. The original ending had the time machine fly at the camera and then cut to black. It wasn’t until the film did so well that they put “To Be Continued. . .” before the credits on the home video release.

            But I digress, and I said I wouldn’t.

            As fans of popular franchises, or just fans of original cinema altogether, the only way to actually get executives to stop remaking our favorite films is to actually stop going to see the remakes. If you are against the remake of Ghostbusters, then don’t go see it. But that won’t happen. Because as fans, we’re curious.

            My suggestion is that we stop calling things a “reboot.” It just sounds dumb. I mean, why for the love of God, does Spider-Man need a second reboot? We should instead be fighting more for a change in terminology when it comes to what they are really doing. And yes, the Spider-Man movies are basically the closest thing to cinematic reboots that I can think of besides Psycho. I think more directors should follow in J.J. Abrams’ footsteps and take a story that everybody knows and literally turn it around so that it is something new and explosively fresh, like what he did with Star Trek.

            Short of boycotting remakes/reboots we don’t want or like, there isn’t anything that can be done to stop them. Getting online and arguing about it doesn’t help. It only makes those involved defensive and angry.

            Let’s all just sit back and relax and enjoy the show. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It is only just more prevalent because the films many of us grew up on are now having their turn.