Not So Fast There, Power Rangers!

A few weeks ago I reviewed the dreadful new Power Rangers movie, noting that producer Haim Saban and Lionsgate Studios had high hopes for the film. They honestly expected the movie to be a massive hit, and were planning on leveraging it into a lucrative SIX film franchise (!).

In my review I pointed out that the film wasn't exactly burning up the box office, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on Power Rangers 2 - 6.

How frighteningly prescient of me. After a little over a month in theaters, the $100 million dollar film only managed to scrape up a disappointing $85 million here in the states. Ouch! Oddly enough it's done even worse overseas, where it grossed an anemic $54 million, for a worldwide total of $140 million.

Lionsgate was banking on the Chinese market to save the film, but they didn't want anything to do with it either. Power Rangers could only manage an embarrassing $3.3 million in its opening weekend in China! Double ouch! Meanwhile, Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 raked in almost $50 million in its Chinese debut!

Lionsgate's hoping the Japanese market can save the film, especially since it's based on the Super Sentai TV series there. I don't see any way that's gonna happen. Why would the Japanese go see a movie based on a pale imitation of one of their own shows?

So say goodbye to the Power Rangers Cinematic Universe!

If it sounds like I'm gloating here, it's because I am. I resented sitting through every second of this dreary film's bloated 124 minute runtime. Look, I know Power Rangers isn't Shakespeare. But it's a silly proper about superpowered teens who ride around in robotic dinosaurs. How the hell can you make an insane concept like that boring? The last thing a Power Rangers movie should ever be is dull. There's no reason Lionsgate couldn't have made a fun movie like Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2.

Note that Warner Bros. had similar plans for their recent King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword film, as it was designed to be the first of a six film series as well. And just like Power Rangers, it tanked at the box office, dashing all hopes of any follow up films. 

Hey, movie studios, here's an idea for you! Instead of foolishly betting your company's future on a series with no chance in hell of ever becoming a reality, maybe make one movie and see how that goes. If it's a hit, THEN go ahead with plans for a franchise. It's simple common sense, guys.

M-O-O-N, That Spells "Oh For Cryin' Out Loud!"

If you're a regular reader of my blog (as millions are), you'll know I'm a big fan of Stephen King's novel The Stand, and have been following the development of the new movie adaptation quite closely (with a sense of ever-increasing dismay).

In June 2014 it was announced that Josh Boone would direct the new film. Boone previously directed the teens with cancer tearjerker The Fault In Our Stars, which of course makes him the perfect choice to helm a fantasy/horror epic about the end of the world. That was red flag #1.

Boone then announced he was going to somehow distill the 1150 page novel down into one measly three hour movie. That was red flag #2.

As a long-time fan of the book I didn't see any way one film could possibly do the story justice. The 1994 ABC miniseries was six hours long and they still had to drop characters and subplots for time.

It also didn't make sense to me from a monetary standpoint. Hollywood is positively desperate for film franchises these days, and The Stand could easily be turned into three films. Heck, the novel is already divided into three sections for the filmmaker's convenience. Turning it into a movie trilogy seemed like a no-brainer to me. They could even split the last film in two, as is increasingly the fashion these days (I'm lookin' at you, Hunger Games and Insurgent).

Then in November 2014, cooler heads prevailed as Boone announced he'd changed his mind, and The Stand would be three, possibly even four films. Huzzah! Delete one of the red flags. 

He then went on to say that he had no idea what would be in which film, and said he wanted to make "a grounded, credible version of the movie." Uh-oh. There's that word again— "grounded." What the hell does that even mean? I keep hearing writers and directors say it over and over these days, usually about sci-fi and fantasy films. Because of course everyone wants to see a "grounded" and realistic version of Superman or the Fantastic Four. I'm adding two more red flags, for a total of three.

This week Josh Boone's changed his mind about The Stand yet again. It seems he now wants to turn the novel into an eight part Showtime miniseries. Eh... OK, I suppose. Not quite what I expected or wanted, but I suppose it could turn out OK, as Showtime generally does good work. But wait, there's more! The miniseries will lead directly into a theatrical film that will conclude the story.

Jesus Jetskiing Christ! Are you fraking kidding me?

What a bone-headed idea! Why the hell would you start up the story on cable, but then make people leave their homes and drive to the cineplex to see the goddamned ending?

And what about people who see the movie but didn't see the miniseries? Are they going to have a fifteen minute prologue to get the audience up to speed?

I don't understand why it's so hard to get this film onto movie screens. Jesus, if dreck like Mortdecai and Paul Blart 2 can get green lit, why can't something good like The Stand? And what about money? Surely a Showtime miniseries couldn't possibly gross as much as four theatrical films could?

This movie has gone from one film to four and now to a combo TV show/theatrical release. It's patently obvious at this point that Boone is in over his head and doesn't have any idea what the hell he wants to do.

I'm looking forward to next month when Boone announces an animated version of The Stand, or one performed by an all-puppet cast. The Stand: The Musical perhaps?

I'm coming perilously close to giving up on the whole thing and letting this miniseries or movie or whatever the hell it is go watch itself. I'll be home rereading the book again, thanks.

Milking The Franchise

Now this is what I call milking your franchise! Take a look at this new 2 disc DVD set. It features four of the main cast of the original Star Trek appearing in bit parts in episodes of various TV westerns. Other than that it has nothing to do with the Star Trek franchise wqhatsoever. In fact, given that it doesn't actually say Star Trek anywhere on the cover, I doubt it's even released by Paramount. You'd have to be a very, very hard core Trekkie to order this.

I will say that of the four of them, DeForest Kelly looks the most at home there in the old West. I'm not buying Shatner as a cowboy at all. It almost looks as if his face was Photoshopped onto another body. James Doohan was Canadian, so he seems a poor choice to play a Native American. And Leonard Nimoy as an Indian in a bad wig? If there were Ukranian Jewish Indians, then OK.

This may very well be a nice disc set, but it's so blatantly trying to part Trekkies from their money that I feel it's my duty to mock it.