In Search of Original Stories

Annie's Log, 5/15/16

Recently I went to go see Captain America: Civil War.

Spoiler Alert: It was awesome.

But I'm not going to talk about it. You should just go see it yourself.

Instead, I'm going to talk about something that I'd noticed a while ago, and was reminded of when I was sitting in the movie theater waiting for incredible/amazing/fantastic superhero antics.

Out of the twelve previews I saw prior to Captain America: Civil War, only two were for original concept movies. That is, not a remake, a sequel, based on a book, a true story, etc. And they were both animated movies (Pets and Kubo and the Two Strings). Go figure.

This year at the Oscars, none of the movies nominated for Best Picture (Brooklyn, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, The Martian, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Room) were original stories. None of them.

Yes, there are amazing screenplays and independent films that come out every year, but they rarely see the light of day. Or, in this case, positive media coverage and praise from the masses.

And that's sad.

To look at things from another standpoint, movies are the most circulated item in the country at public libraries. I work in a public library and check DVDs and Blu-Rays out to patrons all the time. It seems like the most consistently checked-out movies are blockbusters: superhero movies (Avengers, Ant-Man, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, etc.), action flicks (Mad Max: Fury Road, Taken, etc.), dramas (Fifty Shades of Grey, ________). I see this trend first-hand in our "3-day loan" films (that is, the movies that you can only take out for 3 days because they're in such high demand) and "New" displays.

I offhandedly Googled "top blockbusters from 2015" and found this page, which lists the following films as "must-see blockbusters:" Avengers: Age of Ultron, Terminator Genisys, Fast and Furious 7, Jurassic World, Mad Max: Fury Road, Spectre, Fifty Shades of Grey, Ted 2, Mission Impossible 5, Star Wars The Force Awakens.

None of the above "must-see blockbusters" are original stories. They're all part of a series, remakes/reboots, or based on a book.

Side note: I Googled Blockbusters 2016 and this pic came up. Guess what? None of these stories are original.

And yes, familiarity is part of what makes a blockbuster a blockbuster. They get people hyped because they know some background and want to see what happens to the characters that they've seen before. I was one of many who was super pumped for Star Wars Episode VII because I expected Luke and Leia and Han and Chewie to come back. People who read Fifty Shades of Grey (which I am pointedly not going to comment on) wanted to see Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey on the big screen. If you were excited about Ted 2 I guess you wanted to see what antics that weird bear got into.

On yet another note, Disney has gotten into this trend of making live-action reboots. Thus far, the following classic Disney animated films have been made or confirmed as "in production" for live-action reboots: Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Tarzan, The Jungle Book, The Jungle Book 2 (yes, this one has already been confirmed even though the first one only came out, like, a month ago), Pete's Dragon, Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Dumbo, the Sword in the Stone, Mulan, and Winnie the Pooh.

Also included in this list are Alice Through the Looking Glass and Maleficent (as well as, apparently, Maleficent 2), an Aladdin film that will focus on the Genie, a "Prince Charming" focused Cinderella film, a Snow White adaptation that will focus on the original Brothers Grimm character "Rose Red" (Snow White's sister), a Tinker Bell film, a 101 Dalmatians reboot focused on Cruella DeVille, and a Mary Poppins sequel.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that most of these Disney films stand the test of time pretty well and don't need reboots. I can make an exception for films like Maleficent and Cruella which look at the same story from a different perspective. It worked for Wicked and I guess people are trying to make it happen again (though it has to be done well-just look at The Great and Powerful Oz. Actually, don't. Don't look at it. Don't watch it. It wasn't good.)

But for the most part, I, at least, would prefer it if Disney/Pixar focused their resources on creating new stories without compromising or leaning on the story that has already been created.

As I was writing this post, I realized that I was saying that I wanted Disney films to lean less on already-created Disney stories and look more to other fairy tales. I realize that this seems hypocritical because I'm literally complaining about how I think that studios are relying too much on already-established work, but to me, Disney has had success by taking stories, fairy tales, legends, and things that have cultural impact and significance but have never really been explored. They're not established work. These stories have enough room to let the writers expand and create because the source material is so basic, as opposed to basing a story on a fully fleshed-out, published novel like Room or Brooklyn or The Revenant. Just look at the studio that created Paddington-it was great. The idea was there and they adapted it into something amazing because they weren't constrained too terribly much by the source material. Anyway, I continue below:

Frozen, the highest-rated and most-successful animated film EVER, was based on an "untouched" story by Hans Christian Anderson called "The Snow Queen." Walt Disney had apparently been wanting to work on it since the 1940s, but recognized that technology was not at a level that could produce the story he held in his head. When Disney picked it back up in the 21st century, it was "fresh" material that gave the creators a lot of freedom without being limited by the constraints that come in from both outside and inside expectations when you're working on a story that people already know and love.

I remember a couple of years ago that a brand new collection of German fairy tales had been discovered. We're talking over 500 new stories from the 1800s written by this guy Xaver von Schonwerth. That's a lot of untapped material. Now, I'm not saying that it's good material-I have no idea. I also don't know if it's appropriate or easily translatable into popular media (though looking at the source material for many popular fairy tales, whether or not it's appropriate really doesn't make a difference on the end product). But it's there, and it's something different. I'd love to see someone take a crack at one of these new stories (Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks or even a studio that's not mostly animated films-I won't judge). Instead, it seems like we'll just get another Hansel and Gretel remake, or another Snow White story (Snow White and the Huntsman, Mirror Mirror, The Huntsman: Winter's War-like, nobody even asked for these).

Now, Moana is the next announced big Disney/Pixar princess movie and it IS an original story, focusing on culture in the South Pacific. It looks like Disney is falling back into what made them famous and popular in the first place, namely, introducing a story that has never been seen before, coupling it with stunning visual, plenty of humor and music, probably some action and something to warm our hearts. I'm hoping.

Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of original stories out there. The problem is that if they don't get praised as "THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR" or "THIS SUMMER'S BIG BLOCKBUSTER HIT" or "THE FAMILY MOVIE OF THE SEASON" or "THE NEXT BIG OSCAR HIT" or whatever, they probably won't do as well as, say, "Fast and Furious 17: Quick and Angry" or "Tom Cruise in Another Action Movie Where He Plays a Male Protagonist Role That Doesn't Really Fit Him."

You just have to look for them, and hope that the creators can get the word out and will get the support they deserve.

And I'd also like to say that movies based on books aren't inherently bad. Far from it. I'd rather a studio come out with a movie based on a book that has a good story than yet another Transformers: Age of Dawn of Darkness in Space or Something. For example, I just finished reading Room by Emma Donoghue and can honestly say I've never read anything like it. I'm excited to finally see the movie, even though I'm sure it won't be as good as the book. That's OK, I wouldn't expect it to be, but as long as it's a faithful adaptation I don't mind.

Quick caveat: I would be so happy if we as a society went through a few years without another teen film franchise set around a Strong Female Protagonist who is Somehow Special and there's Angst and Something Supernatural/Dystopian/Evil that Only She Can Stop but there's also Romance and Hormones and a Difficult Choice between One Guy who Doesn't Fit Her Life/Two Guys who are Both Attractive in Unique Ways and the Female Protagonist is Also Attractive in Her Own Special Way and the World is Against Her/Them or Something Along Those Lines.

They've been done to death, and you can cater to a younger crowd without relying so heavily on romance as a driving factor in your story.

Same goes for movies about a Young Male Protagonist who is Different but Special and a Leader but has a Hard Time with it and has Feelings or Powers he Can't Control, but Manages to Learn with the help of his Friends (one of whom is Smart and one of whom is Funny), and the Fate of the World rests on His Young Shoulders and he's an Orphan whose Mentor will Probably Die and Stuff.

I know that there are only seven stories that are ever actually told and that a Hero's Journey/Monomyth has strict rules, but still.

Seriously. If you want to make books out of YA novels, awesome. Just steer away from Twilight/Hunger Games/Insurgent/Mortal Instruments/The Maze Runner/Percy Jackson/Eragon. 

Can we also steer away from Nicholas Sparks style romance movies for a while? Please? Tragedy, Instant Connection, Intense Feelings, Another Tragedy, End. Boom. Done. Collect your money and start writing the next one.

I think I've said about all that I can say at this point. I do realize that it is entirely unrealistic to hope that the film industry will just all of a sudden shift its focus away from banal blockbusters, Disney remakes, teen flicks, etc.

But I can hope.

End Log.

Why I blame "FRIENDS" for all of my disappointments

Annie's Log, 4/27/16

As a child of the 90s, I, of course, have a special place in my heart for the television show "FRIENDS." I've seen every episode, have every season on DVD, occasionally take Buzzfeed quizzes to see which character I am (and always get Chandler).

Yet, like many others, FRIENDS is more than just a TV show to me. It was a constant fixture in my formative years, and, as I've come to realize, shaped what I thought my 20s and early 30s would be like.

And that's why I think it's safe to say that FRIENDS is to blame for all of my life's disappointments.

Exhibit A:
Growing up, I expected potential love interests to be a weekly thing. Seriously, none of the characters on FRIENDS can go anywhere without running into someone who would like to go out with them. Coffee shops, banks, coffee shops, their friends' workplaces, coffee shops, you get the idea.

The frequency of dating and relationships on the show is mindbogglingly inaccurate for probably, like, 99% of real people.

Not to mention that every relationship was either incredibly significant or practically nonexistent. No in-between. Either you were with someone for 1 episode (where they were likely just a source for jokes, gags, and snarky comments) and then they faded into obscurity and were never mentioned again (see:

• Chip Matthews
• The Dirty Girl
• The Guy with the Running Shorts
• Duncan (Phoebe's Ice Dancer Husband)
• Aurora
• Elizabeth Hornswoggle
• The Firefighter and Kindergarten Teacher Phoebe Dated at the Same Time
• Angela Delveccio
• Russ
• The list goes on and on)

OR they were around for more than one episode and there was a period of mourning after they were gone (see:

• Richard
• David
• Kathy
• Julie
• Janice (OH. MY. GAWD.)
• Fun Bobby
• Emily
• Pete
• etc.)

And that doesn't even go into the inter-FRIENDS relationships. Which brings me to my next point:

Exhibit A, Part B:
They made it seem so incredibly easy to be FRIENDS with your ex.

Let's be real: in the real world, Ross and Rachel would not have been able to remain FRIENDS after the "We were on a break" incident with the Xerox girl. Honestly, if you watch the scene where they actually "duke it out," so to speak (you know, where Chandler and Monica and Phoebe and Joey are stuck in the back room with only Waxine to keep them from starving while they listen to their FRIENDS' heartbreak?), like, that's not something you can just push to the back of your brain so you can move on with antics and general frivolity with your FRIENDS.

Rachel cries, Ross cries, Rachel tells Ross that if he were in her position, he wouldn't be able to forgive her for sleeping with Mark, Ross tells Rachel that it was her idea to "take a break" in the first place, Rachel tells Ross that she never thought he would hurt her and then everyone watching hurts too.

The fact that Ross and Rachel could have remained FRIENDS after their breakup just doesn't seem plausible, whether or not they were-

Yes, Ross, we know. We heard you the first time.

Exhibit B:
Unemployment doesn't seem so bad when you're watching a group of quirky 20-somethings deal with life and love and all that jazz, but in reality, they would have been WAY more stressed out about cash and work and stuff. Even when they do have "realistic" or "menial" jobs, they're able to live WAY out of their means.

Joey is unemployed for a good portion of the show, and yet he never seems to be worried about it. There's a brief stint where he works at Central Perk, he has a few odd jobs here and there, but he's an out-of-work actor most of the time in the early seasons and it's never much of a big deal. Before he ends up as Dr. Drake Ramoray on "Days of Our Lives," most of his parts are crappy commercials and ads for venereal disease and stuff, and those can't pay all that much.



Rachel can afford to live on a waitress's salary for the first few seasons until she breaks into the fashion industry, but she still goes shopping and pays rent and has a massive wardrobe and money for coffee and scones at Central Perk and stuff.




Phoebe is a masseuse (Massoose? Mussooss?), and she still manages to live in and pay for a two-room apartment by herself for a while.



NOT TO MENTION that these characters are seriously only at work maybe 20% of their time. It's ridiculous. They joke about their bosses hating them and then Joey (who is, at the time, unemployed) makes a comment about how it's probably because they're all hanging out at Central Perk at 11:00am on a Wednesday.

Honestly, based on the amount of time they all spend at that coffee shop, Rachel is probably the one who spends the most time at work because she's a waitress there, and even then she's terrible at her job and spends too much time talking to her friends so she's probably not getting very good tips anyway.

There's only one episode that really comments on each FRIEND'S socioeconomic status, and it's the one where they all go out to an expensive dinner and arguing ensues because Joey, Phoebe, and Rachel can't afford the restaurant, and then half of the group goes to see Hootie and the Blowfish for Ross's birthday while the other half is bitter. There's a little arguing, lots of sarcastic comments, and then it's over when the end credits roll. Simple as that, it's not an issue any more.

Like, I dunno man. That whole thing I just said about how they live their lives-it just isn't realistic, and if that's how you think the world works, you're in for a BIG surprise when you start living on your own.

Exhibit B, part B:
Speaking of money and the early 90s...

RENT.

I know that there are, like, little throwaway lines that explain how Monica ended up with the apartment (it was her grandmother's and something something rent is cheap, don't worry about it too much), but, like, that's a nice apartment. It's massive. It has a balcony. And apparently rent is cheap enough that a waitress/ambiguous fashion worker and an occasionally-unemployed chef/caterer can afford it.

I already mentioned Phoebe's apartment, which has a skylight in it.

And then there's Chandler and Joey's place, right across the hall from the Purple Palace where the girls reside for a large portion of the show (barring that one brief period where the guys won the apartment in a bet and then moved in, which is totally legal and plausible, right?). Monica's place is infinitely better than the guys'. It's why everyone always wants to hang out there. But how come these two apartments aren't standard for the building?

These two apartments are right across the hall from each other and they're both 2 bedroom suites, but Monica's place is, like, 50% bigger with a GIANT kitchen and spacious living area and a balcony and stuff. Like, Chandler and Joey got gipped.

Why aren't they the same size and layout and stuff? Like, what?

We've seen one other apartment in the building that I can think of off the top of my head, and that was Mr. Heckles' apartment. He dies in the second season and leaves all of his things to the "Noisy girls who live upstairs," so we get to see his squalid, hoarder-like living conditions while they clean things out.

There weren't any good pictures of Heckles' place online, so I found two that kind of show what it looked like, if you look in the background:

Now, this place kind of looks like Chandler and Joey's apartment. It has the same grey paint job and looks to be about the right size. But there's one giant window in Heckles' place instead of the two we see in Joey and Chandler's. We see one random room off to the side as soon as you open the door-maybe it's a bathroom, maybe it's the room where Mr. Heckles did his heckling, who knows. All I do know is that it's certainly not there in either Chandler/Joey's place OR Rachel/Monica's place. I also don't think I saw a kitchen in Heckles' place, which means either 1. He didn't have one, or 2. More likely, it was off in another portion of the space that we didn't see. Either way, it proves that his apartment was laid out differently than at least Chandler and Joey's.

You could argue that Heckle's apartment is just a one-bedroom as opposed to Chandler and Joey's two-bedroom, but that doesn't explain the discrepancy between Monica's place and everywhere else in the building.

Exhibit B, Part C:
Speaking of money, how can they all afford to have such nice, fashionable clothes all the time? They never repeat an outfit, so they must have an infinitely-rotating wardrobe, which, even for Rachel, is a bit of a stretch.

I realize that this one is extra nit-picky, but still.



Exhibit C:
SO MUCH STUFF happens to the FRIENDS on FRIENDS. Besides dates and hijinks and new jobs and old jobs, like, there's a LOT of stuff that happens that most people wouldn't just be able to get over in the next episode or two. Over the course of the show:

• Ross gets divorced 3 times
• Phoebe's apartment almost burns down
• Rachel nearly dies trying to take down Christmas lights for Monica
• Joey gets locked in an entertainment center for several hours while he and Chandler get robbed
• Phoebe finds her birth mother
• Phoebe has her brother's triplets and gives them up
• Monica cut off part of Chandler's pinky toe one time
• Monica and Chandler find out they can't have kids
• Ross got left at the altar
• Monica's childhood memories were all ruined, but it's cool because she got her dad's Porsche

Now, there are some things that clearly left marks, but they mostly happened before the show started and are only brought up for jokes and stuff:

• Monica still has issues about being fat
• Chandler's parents' divorce emotionally scarred him and led to his long-standing hatred of Thanksgiving
• Phoebe mugged Ross when he was little and apparently he never got over it
• Rachel still isn't over the death of her childhood dog, Chichi

I dunno. The balance of "important life events that the FRIENDS remember" and "also important life events that the FRIENDS don't remember even though they would dramatically affect any normal person" is a little skewed.

Not to mention...

Exhibit C, Part B:

According to FRIENDS, having kids doesn't change your life at all.

Ross had a son who only appeared in, like, 5% of the episodes over the course of the series. Author's note: OK, real talk, I threw in 5% as a placeholder value while I was writing this and planned on coming back later with the real number. Turns out, out of the 213 episodes of FRIENDS that were filmed with Ben as an existing character (he was born on episode 23 of season 1, so out of 236 possible episodes, he could only really appear in 213), Ben only appears in 11. That's BARELY 5% PERCENT. And, as we've already established, he's been around since the first season. Which only strengthens my point, actually. Even if we assume that a lot of Ross's time "off-screen" is spent with Ben, that's still not a whole lot of time to be spending with your only child, Ross. Like, if you were half as dedicated to your son as you were to chasing Rachel everyone would probably be better off.

Speaking of Ross "Not the World's Best Dad" Geller, when he and Rachel have their daughter Emma, it's pretty much the same thing. She's there sometimes, sometimes she's not, when she is there, it's pretty much only for a joke or to further a subplot. Author's note: Turns out, Emma was only in 6 episodes total (according to IMDB-I guess they only counted the ones where they have a live baby and not a doll or something?). There are 42 episodes between "The One Where Rachel Gives Birth, Part 2" and the series finale. That means that Emma appeared in 14% of episodes in which it was even possible for her to show up. That's not very much, considering she's Rachel's only child and supposedly LIVES with Rachel and all that. Having kids certainly didn't change much for the FRIENDS.

The only people on the show who do end up changing things when they have kids are Mr. and Mrs. Bing. They actually plan to move out of the city to raise their child/ren. They buy a house. They prepare. They have a Joey room set aside. But I'm willing to bet that if the show continued on from season 10, we would see a similar trend in the parenting styles of Monica and Chandler, namely that if the kids weren't on-screen, they would basically be nonexistent.

And then there was Phoebe having Frank Jr.'s babies. But Phoebe was weird before so a bizarre, life-changing event like that probably wouldn't throw her for a loop. Maybe. See the next section.





Exhibit D:
They're weirdly close with each other, not with their families. It's taken writing this blog post to figure out just how unusual this group of people is. None of them is really close with their biological family (except for Ross and Monica, who are siblings).

You could try to argue that Phoebe doesn't really count because she has very little actual family, and her twin sister is a terrible person, but then there's her birth mother. Phoebe lost her mom years ago and then discovered that her biological mother is alive and well and wants to know her. And yet Phoebe spends almost no time with this woman. Maybe it's just me, but if I had just discovered that I had a parent all of a sudden, and one who actually knew my late mother, I would probably pick doing stuff and bonding and getting to know that parent over casual tomfoolery with my friends.

Not to mention Phoebe's brother, Frank Jr., and sister-in-law, Mrs. Knight Alice, for whom Phoebe carried and gave birth to three children. I feel like Phoebe would also want to be in the lives of those people, considering her twin sister is such a crappy person.

Then there's Joey. For someone who is supposedly from such a close family with, like, a thousand kids (where he's the only boy), you would think that they'd want him around more. Especially if his mother is Italian. She would want to feed her only son as often as possible, and she would get her way.


And Ross (which means, by extension, Monica)-his parents adore him. They think he's God's gift to the world. They worship him. Despite his multiple divorces. Wouldn't you think that they'd want him around more? Maybe with his son and/or daughter?

Chandler has his own issues going on as far as family goes, but we do see that Nora Tyler Bing loves her son very much, so wouldn't she want to see him? Hang out? Make him uncomfortable? Same with Chandler's dad. They care about him and he's their only child-so why do we only see them, like, twice each in the whole series?

Honestly, Rachel is the only main character whose familial ties are loose enough to justify seeing them so infrequently throughout the series. And that's kinda sad.

In Closing:
FRIENDS was misleading to impressionable young people everywhere. It is not an accurate portrayal of life. You don't randomly become besties with your neighbors. You don't jump in and out of the friend zone and relationships without lasting effects. You can't afford a nice NYC apartment while being employed in a menial job.

Maybe some people do some of these things some of the time, but not like the FRIENDS do.

And yet, when I was younger, I was expecting my young-adult life to emulate that of FRIENDS. I saw myself with a group of people who were quick-witted and charming, and we would go on zany adventures together, traversing life and love and everything in between, where most things would be wrapped up without lasting effects.

And it was all a lie.

End Log.