Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > hotfun_1966 > Adventures in Life |
(Not So) Finest Hours for screenwriters
|
(Not So) Finest Hours for screenwriters One has to hand it to Hollywood. They attempt to rewrite history for real life events, even parts of history that did not come into play for the event. Case 1: Apollo 13 (1995). Those of us who were alive in April 1970 and know that the one Aquarius (lunar excursion module) engine burn was 14 seconds cringed when this burn was expanded to 39 seconds, and also that the Earth horizon targeting used in that burn was devised by Jim Lovell for Apollo 8 back in December 1968, not at the time of Apollo 13's crisis 16 months later. Case 2: The Finest Hours (2016). Yes, this movie opened this past weekend, and I have heard the unabridged audio of the great book by Michael J. Tougias and Casey Sherman upon which the film is based. If you saw the film without knowing the whole back story, you would believe Bernie Webber met his wife-to-be Miriam in November 1951, agreed to marry her on April 16, 1952 (about two months after the rescue I'm about to mention), that she raised hell with his Coast Guard CO when he was sent out commanding motor lifeboat CG36500 to rescue crew from the stern section of the ill-fated T2 oil tanker SS Pendleton, and that she was present to lead the car light turn on to guide the lifeboat back to shore. Reality is not quite so "dramatic", sorry Disney. Bernie and Miriam actually met in January 1950, and they got married on July 16 of that year (married by Bernie's priest father), so they were already married about a year and a half at the time of the Pendleton rescue. On February 18, 1952, Miriam was sick at home with the flu, and could not have gotten out and stuck in the snow and led the light turn on, let alone have the energy to confront his CO; the same flu outbreak that prevented his CG buddy Mel Gouthro from participating in the rescue. When they say "based on a true story", at least keep the history straight. Also, there is a lack of originality over the past 40 years... Other than what the Lucas, Marvel and Pixar divisions have done (all great film franchises they bought), Disney is desperate. How many live action remakes and sequels of their classic animated flicks have been made? Cinderella, Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty), 101 Dalmatians (and 102 as well), Alice Through The Looking Glass, and there's even a live action version of The Jungle Book heading to theaters soon. They are even talking a Mary Poppins sequel. Which one gets remade next, Bedknobs and Broomsticks or The Aristocats?  (July 2016 update: Would you believe Pete's Dragon, one of Disney's worst combined live action/animated originals from the 70s? ) (March 2017 update: Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid live action remakes come out this spring, and Mary Poppins Returns is currently filming.  )Other studios have done remakes in recent years, too, and cheapened the originals as a result, like Jessica Simpson shaking her Daisy Dukes in a very bad Dukes of Hazzard film. Then there are the franchise "reboots", like Star Trek and X-Men and Fantastic 4 and even Spider-Man! The mentality is that those formulas are proven, and almost guaranteed to bring in mega-box office bucks. However, a bad script has the potential to limit returns. Star Trek's original cast survived bad odd number movies with well received even movies, but Next Generation only got four mediocre-at-best films (their fifth was canned by Paramount because of "franchise fatigue") before the reboot the past few years. And messing with your universe too much (as JJ Abrams did with Trek) leaves too much confusion, and that detracts too much from your story. |
Become a member to create a blog
