John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2008-02-25 13:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Jumper. Read the Book. Skip the Movie.
JUMPER is a novel by Stephen Gould and a film by Doug Liman and starring Hayden Christensen. The book was a delight, reminding me of the best qualities of a Heinlein juvenile. The film was repellent, reminding me of the worst qualities of modern movies and modern movie-makers.

Repellent. I cannot think of the last time I saw a film where I was so revolted with a protagonist that the film maker was supposed to get me to like.

I have seen films with unsympathetic protagonists before, but they were deliberately made so, either as part of a character arc, where a bum becomes a decent man, or as a gritty look into the grimness of real life, where we are supposed to see the sins of others as a way to reflect on our own sins. But this was not like that. This was a bit of sciffy special-effect action extravaganza, and all that was needed was a main character who was likeable.

In the book, young Daniel Rice discovers he has the ability to teleport when he uses this mysterious ability to escape from his drunken, abusive, child-beating father. In the movie, young Daniel Rice uses the same mysterious ability to abandon his father, who is not a childbeater, not abusive---and Daniel immediately goes and robs a bank. This indicates to me that the father should have taken the rod to him, because it was pretty clear the child was spoiled.

He does not steal enough money to live on, he steals enough money to live in the lap of luxury in a New York apartment overlooking Central Park, wearing fine clothes, and in a palatial suite that looks for all the world like a James Bond villain's hangout.  Spoiled is an excellent word to use here.

In the very next scene, we see our hero at a bar. On the news comes a report of a disaster: a schoolbus is trapped by rising flood waters. The newscaster breathlessly says that no one can reach the victims in time, no one can get to them.

Well, naturally, I thought that this was a set-up for our Jumper, who can go anywhere, to rescue some innocent people with his mysterious gift. But, oh no, the gift is not meant for so noble a purpose. The moment he sees the newscast, Dan the Jumper Rice teleports to England, where is picks up a blond in a bar, and immediately fornicates with her. We don't find out the girl's name and I assume Mr. Jumper does not either. While she is sleeping, he jumps back to America. Does anyone but me think it is a little rude, to say the least, just to squirt your semen into a young lady and depart without a word? No flowers, no hug, no nothing? Maybe I should be happy he did not give the woman a few slaps in the face to show her what he really thought of her. Maybe he was in a hurry to go visit the graves of the children who drowned in the school bus, and point and laugh at the mourners.

The Jumper in the book was not a creep like this. This character was not just an asshole, he was vile.

Let me dwell on the bank robbery for a moment. The voice-over explaining the life of crime asks insolently, "Hey—I was seventeen! What would you do?"

This is the wrong question to ask, if you are trying to win audience sympathy. When I was seventeen, I would have died before I would have stolen a dime.

If you have the ability to teleport, and you cannot think of an honest way to make a living in America, then you deserve to starve. Good grief, beg on the street while teleporting four feet to the left and right, until you have enough money to buy a T-Shirt that says "The Amazing Disappearing Boy!" and I am sure you could get five bucks from a kind old lady or a sailor on leave or something. Jeez. What about a job as a delivery boy? Teleporting Pizza service!

Now, I am older and less idealistic, so I can imagine stealing a loaf of bread to save my starving child. Almost. It would have to be a child I particularly liked, however. And it would have to be bread that was going to be thrown out anyway. On the other hand, I do not think anyone should make a movie out of me stealing bread for my child, lest it glorify or excuse theft.

Now, in this film, young Daniel Rice leaves an IOU behind when he robs his first bank. Okay, that is more sympathetic—but then he never pays the IOU back. He does not steal enough to live on until he can get a job, and earn enough to pay it back. He steals enough to take a bath in the money like Scrooge McDuck. I kid you not: there is a scene where Jumper Boy is rolling around in piles upon piles of cash on his bed.

Now, in the film, he is not shown doing something with this stolen money. He does not invest it or use it to open a business or anything. He just spends it. As best I can tell, he merely steals more whenever he needs more.

In the book, Daniel Rice is chased by some Government Agents whom he handily outwits, but the real antagonist of the book was a Muslim terrorist who kills Rice's mother. Rice decides to use his Jumper power to track down this villain and get revenge. His innate decency does not allow him to simply kill the man as he deserves, but he uses his teleport ability to imprison him in a remote location, and he brings his prisoner food and supplies.

Now enter the antagonist of the film: Mace Windu in a bad wig. Samuel L. Jackson, who has never turned in a bad performance in his life, does a fine job here. He comes on as an investigator for the government trying to track down the thief. Well, naturally, all my sympathies at this point in the film are for him. I naturally assume that cops who work for the government trying to stop thieves are good guys. But, oops, plot twist!, it turns out Mace Windu is a bad guy who stabs people with a big knife for no particular reason. He merely has the magical ability to be able to call upon a world-wide network of secret agents for a secret organization of teleporter-hunters. Now, I was prepared, while gritting my teeth, to accept the notion that rogue CIA agents or something were hunting down Jumpers to use for clandestine "black ops" or something of the sort. No, no, the plot twist was much stupider than that. Mace Windu is a member of an centuries-old highly organized group of illuminati who have been hunting Jumpers for centuries.

Now, that does not seem dumb, does it? I mean, who does not love secret organizations of centuries-old illuminati?

AH! But these illuminati are the Magisterium! They are the Opus Dei! You heard me. The Christians are the bad guys. Their motive for killing teleporters is that "Old God should Have the Power to Be in All Places At Once". Boy, that is so stupid it makes my head ache. Teleporters go from place to place, they are not in all places at once, and God does not teleport.

These guys are not Jews or even Evil Buddhists. They are called Paladins— yes, you heard me. The band of knights in service to Charlemagne who saved Europe from the Muslim hordes of Spain and North Africa are just the people the film makers thought it would be creepy to name their bad guys after. They are the same people (according to one character in the film) who were responsible for the Inquisition.

Whatever, film maker dude. Good thing you did not have the Muslim terrorist in the book as the villain, or that might have offended someone.

Now, at this point, the only thing the film could have done to make me hate the main character even more, would be to have him go look up his old girl friend, who is doing honest work, have him lie to her, and to show him trespassing over and over again when he tries to seduce her by taking her on a trip to Rome. Oh, and copulating with this pretty young girl who deserves better than a lying, thieving, pool of vomit jackass without the benefit of marriage also did not earn any points with me as a member of the paying audience. I could have bought Stephen Gould's book in paperback for the price of admission.

Jumper Boy, having successfully put his girlfriend in danger in order to satisfy his own selfish and thoughtless lusts and appetites, now makes an alliance with a nutcase Jumper. Jumper Boy and Nutcase Jumper decide to team up "like a Marvel Team-Up". You know, now is not the best time in the film to be reminding your long-suffering audience, who liked the book this was based on, and who really wanted to like this film, about other people with teleport powers, like Nigthcrawler of the X-Men, who is a hero, and the best part of the movie he was in. Jeez.

Special effects abound during some of the fight scenes. I wish I had seen this film in Japanese, like an anime, so I did not know what they were saying. I would have enjoyed the special effects scenes.

The two limits on teleportation are that (1) you cannot Jump when someone is tasering you and (2) you cannot teleport a building, or else you die. Jumper Boy does both, and for no apparent reason. This is after a scene where Nutcase Jumper wanted to blow up Mace Windu with a bomb, which struck me as a perfectly valid tactic at that point in the film. Jumper Boy beats up Nutcase, and goes in to where Mace Windu has set a trap for him, and— Huhn? He just waltzes in with no plan, and the Illuminati gizmos and guns and whatnot are simply ignored. Maybe Jumper Boy was protected by the Aura of Plot Contrivance, that turns aside bullets and knives and electric ray guns, and also grants you the ability to do the two things the film wasted our time explaining to us where the only two things Jumpers could not do.

Magic in a story is only magic if there is one thing the magic cannot do. Otherwise the story lacks magic, if you take my meaning.

That one thing, whatever it is, kryptonite, formed the basis of the plot: it is the obstacle the hero must overcome or circumvent. If kryptonite robs Superman of all his power in every scene except the climax scene, it makes no sense and invalids the story.  

A final word: the reason Mace Windu in a Wig gives for killing Jumpers is that teleportation in and of itself is a corruptive ability: everyone who was run away from his problems, the character says, turns into a selfish creep. They go bad. Well, as far as I can tell, that analysis is exactly right.

End of the film: the mother who abandoned Jumper Boy as a baby was also a Member of the Magisterium and/or Opus Dei, so she is a creep also. Jumper Boy does not kill Mace Windu, but drops him off without food or water in the middle of the desert, and leaves him to die. Or maybe Jumper Boy expected Mace to make it back to civilization somehow, in which case, why would he not continue to hunt this boy down?

Girlfriend has her house destroyed in the crossfire, and now she joins Jumper Boy in his life of pointless and endless sightseeing and tourism and, because we all know a shallow, unproductive life is best— what the heck where these movie makers thinking? What were they thinking?  

Everyone in this movie is a creep, and I wanted them all to die, except for Nutcase Jumper, who was funny, and Mace Windu, because, as best I could tell, he was van Helsing, a mortal man fighting a supernatural villain.




(Post a new comment)


[info]randallsquared
2008-02-25 06:30 pm UTC (link)
I had very similar complaints with the film as a whole. It's not at all clearl that the Paladins are supposed to be the bad guys of this film.

I found this very interesting, however:

"When I was seventeen, I would have died before I would have stolen a dime.
[...]
Now, I am older and less idealistic, so I can imagine stealing a loaf of bread to save my starving child."

This is exactly the opposite of the case for virtually everyone I know in real life (of my own age; can't say for my parent's generation). Nearly everyone I know was an amoral wretch in many ways in their middle and late teens, and those people are nearly all upstanding people now (10-20 years on), who would never condone stealing a loaf of bread. I thought that this was actually a fairly normal progression, and the film to assume it, too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randallsquared
2008-02-25 06:33 pm UTC (link)
Terrible editing, that guy does. "not at all clear that the Paladins", I meant, and "progression, and the film seems to assume it as well".

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mikigarrison
2008-02-25 06:59 pm UTC (link)
Myself, I had no desire to see the movie -- precisely because I found the character in the book to be so... perhaps unsympathetic is not the correct word here, maybe just "not admirable"?

Of course, one thing that will forever give a slant to my perspective on the book is that when I first picked it up, the book was still mistakenly being shelved in the middle grades / chapter book section by most of the big chains, rather than with the young adult material. Going into the book, expecting - based on shelf placement and cover copy - that the book would be appropriate for a 4th grader, that was a bit of a shock.

(Reply to this)


[info]jordan179
2008-02-25 07:42 pm UTC (link)
The moment he sees the newscast, Dan the Jumper Rice teleports to England, where is picks up a blond in a bar, and immediately fornicates with her.

Well yes, of course. A lot of kids died in that schoolbus because the "hero" couldn't be bothered to save them: it was now his duty to increase the number of children in the human race to compensate. Perfectly reasonable! ;-)

Does anyone but me think it is a little rude, to say the least, just to squirt your semen into a young lady and depart without a word? No flowers, no hug, no nothing? Maybe I should be happy he did not give the woman a few slaps in the face to show her what he really thought of her.

Actually, you should be -- almost certainly, the reason why the writers included this scene was because they thought that a display of affection to a woman wasn't "cool." The extreme version of this attitude would involve random brutality.

If you have the ability to teleport, and you cannot think of an honest way to make a living in America, then you deserve to starve. Good grief, beg on the street while teleporting four feet to the left and right, until you have enough money to buy a T-Shirt that says "The Amazing Disappearing Boy!" and I am sure you could get five bucks from a kind old lady or a sailor on leave or something. Jeez. What about a job as a delivery boy? Teleporting Pizza service!

Yep. Or courier service in general. Now, I'm sure the movie-makers would consider this evil, but what about the US military and intelligence services? I bet they'd highly value someone who could do that sort of thing ...

His innate decency does not allow him to simply kill the man as he deserves, but he uses his teleport ability to imprison him in a remote location, and he brings his prisoner food and supplies.

This actually sounds crueller to me than simply killing him. And foolishly dangerous, to boot.

Mace Windu is a member of an centuries-old highly organized group of illuminati who have been hunting Jumpers for centuries.

Which would make it kind of weird that nobody else has noticed the Jumpers before.

AH! But these illuminati are the Magisterium! They are the Opus Dei! You heard me. The Christians are the bad guys. Their motive for killing teleporters is that "Old God should Have the Power to Be in All Places At Once". Boy, that is so stupid it makes my head ache. Teleporters go from place to place, they are not in all places at once, and God does not teleport.

They're philosophically-challenged Catholics, I guess ... which is kind of weird, since it's the medieval Catholic Church that worked out that particular piece of philosophy in the first place.

Magic in a story is only magic if there is one thing the magic cannot do. Otherwise the story lacks magic, if you take my meaning.

That one thing, whatever it is, kryptonite, formed the basis of the plot: it is the obstacle the hero must overcome or circumvent. If kryptonite robs Superman of all his power in every scene except the climax scene, it makes no sense and invalids the story.


It's okay if you explain the reason why, in that specific case, the rule doesn't apply. OTOH, from what you're saying, the movie never does this.

Girlfriend has her house destroyed in the crossfire, and now she joins Jumper Boy in his life of pointless and endless sightseeing and tourism and, because we all know a shallow, unproductive life is best— what the heck where these movie makers thinking? What were they thinking?

And so they lived insecurely and randomly ever after, or until the next movie chooses to give him a different Temporary Love Interest. Yeah.

Sounds like a really sucky movie.







(Reply to this)


[info]agilebrit
2008-02-25 08:05 pm UTC (link)
The ads made this movie look really cool. I'll now be avoiding it and hunting down the book instead. What a shame--for the filmmakers, anyway. Hey, look! One more reason to dislike Hayden Christensen!

However, it spawned a very entertaining review from you, sir. *applauds*

(Reply to this) (Thread)

seems typical
[info]deansteinlage
2008-02-26 03:15 pm UTC (link)
Ads try to show the best scenes.
Then you take out a bank loan to go see the film and find out the ad was made from the only good scenes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: seems typical
[info]agilebrit
2008-02-26 06:25 pm UTC (link)
Then how do you explain trailers for movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks" (seriously, guys, a poop-eating joke is not the way to get my butt in a theater seat), or "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins"? Because those made me want to run as far away from those movies as I possibly could.

Also, how sad is it that the fact that there's a pig in "College Road Trip" makes me 10% more likely to see it...which still puts my likelihood of seeing it at about -90%.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: seems typical
[info]deansteinlage
2008-02-26 11:22 pm UTC (link)
"Then how do you explain trailers for movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks" (seriously, guys, a poop-eating joke is not the way to get my butt in a theater seat), or "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins"? "
What if they WERE the good scenes? Yikes!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: seems typical
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-27 01:55 am UTC (link)
Well, sometimes you get the oddities, like Bruce Almighty (which I actually mostly liked, a lot) where the previews showed all the ick scenes, and none of the good ones! I didn't have any desire to see the film till I got three good reviews from friends I trusted.

But yeah, no interest in Alvin and the Chipmunks. Or most of the movies coming out soon, for that matter.

Bonus though: G. Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, HellBoy) is doing a movie of the Hobbit in 2009, and adapting Lovecraft's The Mountains of Madness for 2010. So something to look forward to!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]belriose
2008-02-25 08:21 pm UTC (link)
haha, that was hilarious!

Well, I think I'm going to follow trustfully your implicit advice and spend the 7€ of the ticket buying the book.

(Reply to this)

Senator Jumper
[info]gray_roger
2008-02-25 08:38 pm UTC (link)
"Now, in the film, he is not shown doing something with this stolen money. He does not invest it or use it to open a business or anything. He just spends it. As best I can tell, he merely steals more whenever he needs more."

Ah! He must be a "public servant"!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Senator Jumper
[info]thegameiam
2008-02-25 08:42 pm UTC (link)
Bwaaaa! Awesome.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thegameiam
2008-02-25 08:40 pm UTC (link)
C'mon, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel...

Yikes, that sounds dreadful. I'll save an evening and re-watch Serenity or something.

(Reply to this)

Jumper
[info]m_francis
2008-02-25 09:06 pm UTC (link)
This is really disappointing. I like Steve and I liked Jumper - as well as its sequel, Reflex, in which Daniel is captured by villains who found out about his power and try to use Pavlovian conditioning to break him to their will.* I had refrained from seeing the movie because I wanted to find out how true the movie was to the book. The answer being "not very," I'll stay home. Hollywood will learn its lesson: SF movies don't sell.

(*) Because he's chained to something too big to teleport with. He's limited to light objects, like the clothes he's wearing or a backpack and so on.)

(Reply to this)


[info]oscillon
2008-02-25 09:35 pm UTC (link)
This is one instance where I'm glad I trusted the reviews. I did hear one reviewer talking about how this was supposed to be a three movie arc and that the main character was supposed to be redeemed over the long haul. I have no idea if this is true.

I'm with you though. I'm sick of movies with all rotten people.
Watched "The last Starfighter" with my kids last night. It was so nice to watch a simple, non-cynical, movie with good guys and bad guys.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dirigibletrance
2008-02-25 11:43 pm UTC (link)
Ooh, The Last Starfighter. That's such a classic.

I've heard rumor that they're remaking it, too, ala the Transformers remake. Retro-80s time. I'm excited.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]randomscrub23
2008-02-25 10:01 pm UTC (link)
Such a character seriously could have made the best courier ever. NOTHING could stop him, and it would be delivered almost instantaneously. Talk about safe, fast shipping!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]saintjoi
2008-02-26 12:26 am UTC (link)
Now, that movie, I'd watch. SuperCouriers, Inc! Oooh...Script Frenzy is coming up...I may just try to write that movie. :) You mind if I use the idea?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]randomscrub23
2008-02-26 03:12 am UTC (link)
Go right ahead and knock yourself out; just let us know if it ever goes anywhere!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Super Couriers, Inc
[info]dr_dgo
2008-02-26 06:32 am UTC (link)
For other limitations, you could check out "The Stars my Destination" by A. Bester. I need to read the book to find out some of the "mechanics" of jumping, as there may be other limits. And of course, there are the abuses of the ability to jump, which the movie it seems shows to great effect.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Super Couriers, Inc
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-26 06:44 am UTC (link)
Augh, and yet again, my reading list expands! :) Thanks for the tip, though, I'll look into the book. I doubt my story will go in depths into the mechanics (I'm much more a fantasy writer than hard SF), but I hate making errors that impede the flow of a story. Technobabble to the rescue!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Super Couriers, Inc
[info]dr_dgo
2008-02-26 06:49 am UTC (link)
Sorry about expanding your reading list. Mine never gets shorter no matter how many books I read. The Stars My Destination may not be a stand alone book. My copy is in a collections of classic SF.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Super Couriers, Inc
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-26 04:24 pm UTC (link)
Heh, no problem; like most geeks, I enjoy finding out about new books to read. Through Mr. Wright's blog, I've found Edgar Rice Burroughs AND Michael Flynn, so I'm happy.

*trots off to Amazon to find Stars book*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Super Couriers, Inc
[info]johncwright
2008-02-26 04:57 pm UTC (link)
Also read Alfred Bester's THE DEMOLISHED MAN if you want to see how a criminal gets away with murder in a world of telepaths.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Super Couriers, Inc
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-26 05:15 pm UTC (link)
Oooooh....interesting....Thanks, I will read that one as well!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

The Demolished Man
[info]m_francis
2008-02-26 10:29 pm UTC (link)
The book makes use of typographical acrostics to portray telepathic conversations with overlapping thoughts. Quite clever, if a bit disconcerting at first glance.

And there's something in there that everyone overlooks first time out.

It also has a killer of a closing line.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The Demolished Man
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-27 01:56 am UTC (link)
Sweet!! I love stuff like that, that uses the medium well. That's why I love the Thursday Next books so much.

Amazon told me that the seller shipped the book today, excellent! Can't wait to read it now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Super Couriers, Inc
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-28 06:13 am UTC (link)
Got Demolished Man today and started reading it. I LOVE IT!!! The acrostics conversations are great, though a little tricky to read, and I realized that JM Straczinsky was referencing a lot of this in B5(had never heard of Bester the author, so didn't catch the reference in Bester the PsyCop).

Thanks for the recommendation, it's great!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The Stars My Destination
[info]oscillon
2008-02-26 01:08 pm UTC (link)
I really liked that book. For some reason, a lot of people with better "literary chops" than I, think it's badly written. It makes me wonder what I'm overlooking.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The Stars My Destination
[info]johncwright
2008-02-26 04:59 pm UTC (link)
Whatever it is you are overlooking, I am also overlooking -- My recollection is that the book was a fun read, well paced, and with a likable main character.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: The Stars My Destination
[info]gray_roger
2008-02-26 08:38 pm UTC (link)
One of my all time favorite books. Dazzling ideas on every page, sort of like THE GOLDEN AGE, wonderful little details about the social consequenses of the universal ability to teleport. Driving pace, so fast you don't realize the book is ultimately not very deep (Bester was also writing copy for DC comics). Supposed to be a copy of THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, but plot similarities pretty superficial (I like the COUNT also, very French). Would make a great skiffy movie.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: The Stars My Destination
[info]johncwright
2008-02-27 01:45 am UTC (link)
Boy, imagine if they had taken the budget for JUMPER and make STARS MY DESTINATION into a film.

Now, Gully Foyle is supposed to be, at the beginning, not very admirable, so that I would not have minded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Jumpers
[info]dr_dgo
2008-02-26 06:38 am UTC (link)
The reason that most Science Fiction movies fail is that they are targeted to the wrong audience. They are trying to appeal the hip and with it liberal folk. Most science fiction literature is about morality and the consequences of doing the right or wrong thing. Most skifi movies are about special effects and doing whatever appeals the the juvenile instincts of the writer/director/etc.
Serenity was a decent movie 'cause Whedon knows how to write and tell a moral story. His astronomy sucks, but then since when did anyone one in Hollywood take any meaningful science classes?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Jumpers
[info]sun_stealer
2008-02-27 02:43 am UTC (link)
Speaking of which, I am reminded of a satire of skiffy movies done in a sf setting is this <http://www.orionsarm.com/historical/glarion.html>

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Jumpers
[info]sun_stealer
2008-02-27 02:45 am UTC (link)
Oops, sorry for not asking before linking, but I think you'll all find this article relevant, if not hilarious.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zophiel666
2008-02-26 02:04 pm UTC (link)
I also agree that Nightcrawler is TEH AWESOME!!!1!!one!!

I've had a schoolgirl crush on Kurt for years. I think it's the pointy ears. And, of course, the *BAMF!* ^___^

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Bamf!
[info]johncwright
2008-02-26 05:00 pm UTC (link)
Nightcrawler rocks the Casbah! I have been a fan of Kurt ever since Giant-Sized X-Men #1.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Amazing that hollywood survives
[info]memphis_aggie
2008-02-26 04:14 pm UTC (link)
So little respect for the plot and the audience produces another dumbed down movie. How do they survive so many multi million dollar failures?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Amazing that hollywood survives
[info]m_francis
2008-02-26 10:39 pm UTC (link)
How do they survive so many multi million dollar failures?

They blame the source material.

Charly was a pretty good adaptation of "Flowers for Algernon," mainly because Cliff Robertson loved the story and controlled the production.

He had done it on TV, back in the days when TV broadcast live plays adapted from award-winning stories. Shows were sponsored back then; meaning the entire show was paid for by a single sponsor. (Nowadays, the networks or stations sell ad time within shows. Technically, the advertisers are no longer "sponsors." But I digress.)

The Sponsor read the script. The Network read the script. They call Robertson.

Hey, Charly loses his intelligence at the end.

Yes, he does.

Audiences won't like a sad ending like that. We could lose viewers. Tell ya what. The way the last scene plays out, Charly is paging with despair through the smart books he used to understand. How's about right at the very end, it all comes back to him. All his smarts. His eyes light up. It was only a temporary loss!

That would ruin the entire point of the story.

But the audience will like it better. Remember who's paying for this.

So Robertson did as ordered. But it was live TV, and he was a skilled actor. He stretched the time in the closing scene until he saw the light on the broadcast camera go out. They were off the air. Then he let his eyes go wide and paged through the books happily, his intelligence returning. But it never went out over the air.

The Network and the Sponsor suspected they had been tricked.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Amazing that hollywood survives
[info]saintjoi
2008-02-27 02:00 am UTC (link)
They do the same thing with A Little Princess, one of my favorite books. EVERY SINGLE TIME they make a movie of it, they make her dad miraculously alive at the end! Every single time!! And he always has amnesia! Sheesh. Amnesia should be banned as a plot device. It never works (ok, maybe in Memento. Maybe.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Amazing that hollywood survives
[info]m_francis
2008-02-27 02:09 am UTC (link)
And he always has amnesia! Sheesh. Amnesia should be banned as a plot device. It never works (ok, maybe in Memento. Maybe.)

There was another time it worked; but I have forgotten.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bilocation
[info]memphis_aggie
2008-02-27 05:28 pm UTC (link)
I know this is somewhat off topic, but has anyone written a book with bilocation as a theme?

(Reply to this)


[info]missjeanevil
2008-03-01 12:35 am UTC (link)
The only movie I've seen recently that had a superpowered thief as the main character was "Next" - but his "jerkitude" was tempered by his relationship with his father. And even though it looked like the main character hopped into bed with the girl quickly, he had been waiting for her for a long time.

As I recall, it flopped at the box office, but my boyfriend and I liked it. That was based on a Phillip K. Dick short story, I believe, but I don't remember ever reading it.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…