Great Expectations

Hi again folks....
Sometimes I marvel at Hollywood's inability (or rather the studio execs who control what is run in the theaters inability) to see what is usually obvious to the rest of us.While they pull a lot of bone-headed moves, what I'm talking about in this case is that audiences come into a theater to see a film, they have certain expectations about that film and whats in it. this is especially true when it comes to remakes or film versions of classic characters and tv shows. Perhaps the reason for that blind spot they seem to have is the difference between what they think we want vs. what we say we want vs. what we actually want. Common sense says that when something gets adapted into a big movie, we want it bigger better and showier..... but do we really want it that way?

Let me give you a case in point: the 1998 American Godzilla, starring Matthew Broderick. The day the movie came out, I was standing in line in Taco Bell, who had a promotional tie-in with the film. Standing in front of me were 2 factory workers on their lunch break, who were looking at the big cardboard standee of the movie's monster, which had been kept under wraps until the films release day. One of the guys turned to the other and said "It's a cool looking lizard, but it's not Godzilla." I thought he had hit the nail right on the head, and sure enough, the movie bombed. I'm sure the filmmakers thought that we didn't want the hokey "man in a big rubber dinosaur suit" effects, and in that they were correct, but they completely re-designed the beast itself, and in so doing they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Whats really amazing about this example is that although they totally redesigned his body, they kept his roar pretty much the same.. which proves they were at least in part, aware of this principal and even followed it to an extent.... just not where it really counted!

I'll give you another, more basic example of what i am talking about (and this is something I use whenever i design a mask or a new Halloween product). I'm going to type a word, and when you read it, a picture is going to form in your head. The word is "Frankenstein". Ok reading that, a picture appeared in your head, and i would bet real money that I know what it looks like.... and what it doesn't look like. It doesn't look like the makeup that Robert DeNiro wore in "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" (another bomb... seeing a pattern yet?). No, what it looks like is the makeup created by jack Pierce that was first worn by Boris Karloff as the Monster in the 30's and eventually worn by Fred Gwynne as Herman Munster in the 60's. To you, and me, and to 99% of the people on the planet, that is what the Frankenstein Monster looks like, and is supposed to look like.

Now here comes an example thats a little more nebulous, but no less true. This time the word is "the devil". OK, again a picture formed in your head, but this picture is a little less concrete than the previous image, however there are still several things I can say about it with a fair amount of certainty. The image is your head is red, and has horns. The shape of the horns and shade of red might vary from person to person, but they're there. Other attributes that are probably there are a goatee beard, slicked back black hair, and a certain facial structure. If your image is full body, it has a spade tipped tail, hooves and maybe even bat-wings.

AsI said, I try to use this idea whenever I design and sculpt a new Halloween mask, because the more the mask looks like what the potential customer has in mind about the character, the more likely they are to buy that mask. All this holds true for movies too, and its amazing to me that, up until fairly recently, this theory seems to have been beyond those who produce some of the most expensive films ever made, especially since many of those guys are trained in predicting what the public will enjoy and tailoring their product to exploit it.

(now i certainly understand the filmmakers desire to put their own stamp on a film or character, and trying to make us see that character in a new way, and thats fine, up to an extent, but we joke about someone's arrogance saying they're "trying to re-write Shakespeare", and bucking the publics expectations about these characters is essentially dong the same thing. I also understand there are sometimes legal reasons that an image cant be used, but the image doesn't have to be copied precisely, as the film "The Monster Squad" proves.)

Fortunately, things seem to be turning around, although not entirely. One of the reasons the "Spider-Man" films, and even more so the "Harry Potter" film series, are so successful is that they give the audience exactly what they want and expect out of film versions of those stories. Spider-Man intentionally looks almost exactly as he has been drawn for 40 years, and swings around NYC and strikes poses that are straight out of the comics. (the trailer for the 3rd film shows a brief glimpse of the monster "Venom" which is a remarkable example of this") I had read the first Harry Potter book before seeing the film, and I was floored by how closely the film followed the novel in both plot and in the appearance of the characters and settings. (While both of these films back up my basic premise, and are fine examples of how a film can be a success if they fulfill the publics expectations, the reason they do so is less calculated than what I am talking about.) Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films do exactly the same thing; Ive heard a great many fans say that it was like the characters and scenery of Middle Earth came right out of their own heads and onto the screen.

On the other hand, there has been talk about a remake of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon". Ive seen some of the sketches, and alas, they look nothing like the Gill-Man we know and love. Everyone that mentions this thinks its a terrible error. Do we want him more realistic? Yes, of course... but we also want him recognizably the same Creature we have had in our heads for over 50 years. I am sure J.J. Abrams is also walking a tightrope with the new Star Trek film, where he is having to balance what the audience expects against the fact that most of the props and designs from the 1960's Trek would look terrible on a big screen in 2007.

What brings this to mind, and the reason it's relevant to this blog about the Halloween, is (coincidentally enough) the remake of John Carpenter's landmark movie "Halloween", which was written and directed by Rob Zombie. When I heard that the trailer was being shown online, I realized that the only Micheal Myers products being displayed at the Halloween Trade Show in February were from the original version, not the remake, and I became very concerned that I might have been left in the lurch if the design of Myer's trademark mask was different had been changed. I pitured myself having to track down whoever had licensed the new mask and place what would be a very large and fairly late order for tham in order to have them for this season. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when i ran the trailer, and discovered that when the new film comes out in August, Micheal will still be wearing his old Captain Kirk mask, just as he has for the past 30 years.

While theres a lot of Rob Zombie's work that I don't care for, thats simply a matter of taste, and I think he's a very intelligent man, and a marketing genius. He realized that we, the public, develop certain baseline expectations for our favorite characters and stories, and that filmmakers ignore those expectations at their own peril (whatever the reasons for doing so might be). I still don't get why many many movie makers, maybe the majority of them, cant grasp this. He also realized an even more basic principal that was adopted by the teams that made the Harry Potter and Spider-Man films... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Oh well... next time out im going to have some exciting promotions and a contest to tell you about! Till the take it easy gang....

Ray
Mr. Halloween Man & The Halloween Bros.