What "The Veronica Mars Movie Project" could mean for your favorite TV show

Earlier today Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell, the creator and star of Veronica Mars, announced that there will be a Veronica Mars movie next year...if the fans helped pay for it. Enter the kickstarter asking for $2 million by April 12. Basically, the deal with Warner Brothers, who owned the right was that if they could get the money to make the movie, WB would pay for distribution and marketing.

As you can see if you go to the campaign, The Veronica Mars Movie Project met its goal, in one day, and still has people making pledges. 

All this has sparked a lot of discussion about what this means for the future of TV movies. Some people have expressed concern that this will become how all future movies are made. Mostly people are just excited about what it means for their favorite cult shows that got canceled. Everyone is throwing around names of shows that could get made into TV movies now, so I thought I'd share my opinion of some of them. 

Firefly: The Movie

One of the most commonly suggested shows to get this treatment, given that the first movie got made on the strength of the series' DVD sales, it isn't that much of a stretch to imagine it would try a kickstarter campaign.  The stars have also expressed interest in coming back and continuing their roles. Unfortunately, it also has a lot of things working against it. The first movie didn't do very well at the box office, so the studio might be wary to make it, even if the fans chip in. Also, given that the show is science fiction and takes place in space, it's going to need a MUCH bigger budget than $2 million, so any realistic amount asked for might just end up being too much to actually get. Also a problem (though a good one), Joss Whedon is pretty busy right now with Avengers and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so even if it does happen, it'd be a while. Besides, like with Buffy and Angel the story has already been continued in comic book form.

Gilmore Girls: The Movie

In honor of Rory Gilmore, a Pro/Con list.

Pros: No real dangling plot threads means they can write a real stand alone movie, Can be done on a low budget since there were never really any massive special effects, Also owned by Warner Brothers the success of VM means they might be more willing than other studios to try, Fans clearly want it to happen.

Cons: Do the creators and actors want to make a movie? While they've expressed interest when asked, they haven't gone out of their way to say it's something they want to do, the way Thomas and Bell have.

Chuck: The Movie

While special effects cost would drive up the price to make this a reality, the fans have shown in the past that they are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Chuck fans went to Subway restaurants (a main sponsor of the show) and bought sandwiches, leaving suggestion box notes to "Save Chuck". It worked, the show was renewed and got five seasons in total. Given the open ended nature of the finale, a movie would be a great way to show just how things finally ended up. Also going for it? Earlier today Zachary Levi, who played the titular Chuck, tweeted that the Veronica Mars news "bolstered [his] faith that [he] can bring you a Chuck Movie". 

Leverage: The Movie

One thing that kept repeating in the back of my mind today while waiting to see Veronica Mars reach $2 million was that $2 million is also what John Rodgers has said is the budget for an episode of Leverage, so I imagine a full on movie would cost more, but not a lot more. The show was only just canceled, but Rodgers says TNT has been letting them shop it around to try and find a new home, so why not let the fans, who stole a People's Choice Award to try and get the show renewed, pay for a movie?

Arrested Development: The Movie

Years after the show was canceled, Netflix got the rights to the show, and has now made a season 4, to be released in May. Ron Howard, the creator has said that the episodes will stand on their own, but also as a lead-in to a movie which, as of this writing, hasn't been ordered by any studio. The hope was that if the soon-to-be-released season 4 was successful enough, a movie deal would come through. And that may still happen. But maybe instead, the movie studio will ask them to do a kickstarter. Luckily, an Arrested Development movie could probably be done on a fairly low budget, and the fans have been very clear in their desire to see it happen. 

Does Being Evil Make You a Good Singer?

I love musicals. Like, a lot. I'm mean, I'm no theater kid, posting Playbills on my walls, but I like to watch them and listen to them. There's something I've noticed a lot of musicals have in common.

The villains get great songs. Anytime a character does something evil they get a great song. Some examples:

Oogie Boogie's Song - Nightmare Before Christmas
Blood in the Water - Legally Blonde
Rogues are We - Holy Musical B@man
Mother Knows Best - Tangled
Brand New Day & Slipping - Dr. Horrible' Sing-Along Blog
Be Prepared - Lion King
Kick it Up a Notch - Starship
What You Feel - Once More With Feeling
Cell Block Tango - Chicago

I'm sure there are more examples out there, but this is what I came up with quickly.

By the way I'm not saying that the heroes get bad songs, just that the villain's songs tend to stand out.

Movie Recommendations 2

So I was thinking about movies I like, and after I decided to write about these, I realized how well they worked together. Both are based on memoirs that take place in the 60's era (roughly, there's some extra time on both sides of that).

The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio

I didn't expect to like this movie. My mom told me about it. She said it was about a housewife who won slogan and jingle contests to help keep her family afloat. I thought it sounded dull. Then I watched it and it became one of my favorite movies ever. This movie is funny and smart. The family relationships come across strongly. The fourth wall is broken in a creative and consistent manner since, reasonably, the filmmakers expected that audiences might need a little background on how contesting works, and other such details. My only real critique is that while the main character and her husband have 10 children, the daughter Terry (Tuffs) is given more material, and more scenes of bonding than the others. Of course, the only reason the book was written is that the real Terry Ryan wrote a book about her childhood and her mother's contesting, so it's not actually surprising. Additionally, it doesn't overwhelm the movie. There are plenty of other wonderful moments between Evelyn and her other children, just a few more with Terry. I think this is a really fun movie, and if you can walk away and not have that sandwich jingle stuck in your head, you're a stronger person than I am.

Riding in Cars with Boys

I don't remember why I first checked this movie out from the library, but I'm glad I did. It tells the story of a girl named Beverly, who in the 1960s gets pregnant as a teenage and marries the father. This story is juxtaposed with on older Beverly, traveling with her adult son to visit her (now) ex-husband, to get him sign a release so that she can publish her memoir, "Riding in Cars with Boys". It's funny, it's sweet and I just recommend it wholeheartedly.

The Bechdel Test and Me

Recently I started looking into something I'd heard about only slightly called the Bechdel Test. In order to pass the test there are three criteria that must be met.

1. There must be at least two female characters
2. Who speak to each other
3. About something other than a man/men.

This test is applied to movies and TV shows to look at how women are presented. Mainly, the goal of the test is to try and shed some light on how infrequently women exist in movies independent of their relationships to men. Think about your favorite movies. How many of them pass this test?

This test is interesting for a lot of reasons. It's very revealing when looking at the percentage of movies that pass, but when the actual movies themselves are examined, passing the test doesn't always mean the movie is female friendly, or contains a strong female role model. Similarly, not passing the test doesn't mean the movie is antiwoman. After all, according to the Bechdel Test Movie List Paranormal Activity 3 passed the test while the final Harry Potter movie does not.

After all, a thing to note is that the test doesn't care if the women talk about stereotypically "girly" things like shoes or make-up, so long as they aren't talking about men. As a result plenty of movies that don't provide positive female role models or positive messages about women pass. Meanwhile an action movie where the strong female leads discuss defeating the evil male bad guy, would fail.

It's also interesting  because of how strict the definition of men is. The test doesn't care if the women are discussing a romantic lead, an ailing father, or a mortal enemy, if the person about whom they are speaking is male, the movie fails. My problem with this is when the topic of conversation is about a public figure. If the women are discussing the recent actions of the male president and how they feel about it, I'd view that as a pass, because they are discussing politics, however according to the test, it is a fail because they are talking about a man. Luckily from what I've seen, while my president example would fail, a discussion about congress would pass, because it is an organization, even if it is an organization mostly made of men. A more concerning part of the test is that women who discuss their daughters pass, but women who discuss their sons don't. While this makes sense when characters are talking about adult children, if characters say "Nathan rolled over today. Did Bobby" "Why yes, Bobby did." instead of Lucy and Emily, I feel this should be a pass.

The test is further complicated with the added requirement that the female characters be named. The purpose of this restriction was to avoid movies in which two background characters that have nothing to do with the story are the only reason it passes (ie. Police Woman 1: Boy it's hot today. Police Women 2: Sure is. Say what's that? Police Woman 1: Why it's a meteor. And it's heading right towards us!). Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of named. Do the characters have to be addressed by name during the movie, or is it sufficient for them to be named in the credits? There is no clear indication, which leads to interesting fights in forums about the test.

I think the Bechdel test is a useful indication about how women are presented in film and other media, but it cannot be used alone. Context is not a part of this test, and context must be provided to fully understand what is going on in the world of media in regards to women.

Based on or Inspired by?

I don't always react well to movie adaptations (coughharrypottercough). However, I love what I'll call "alternate stories", things like modern day retellings, stories from minor characters points of view, things like that. Obviously, there are going to be differences, sometimes dramatic ones but I don't mind them as much in these cases.

I think the main difference is whether I go in expecting it to be dramatically different, or if I go in expecting it to be faithful.

For example, when I watch Once Upon a Time on TV, I expect the fairy tales to be different from what I know. In fact, I'd be disappointed if they didn't change the story. As long as there are familiar elements though, I'm happy. This is because (as I define it) Once Upon a Time is inspired by fairy tales. The Harry Potter movies on the other hand are based on the Harry Potter books and therefore should have a greater level of fidelity.

To be clear, I understand that when some thing is based on another work, changes will occur between mediums. These things I don't mind. As long as the information is given to the audience, the exact method may change.

 For example, if The Hunger Games had been completely faithful to the book (and on the most part it was actually), most of the movie would be voice over, as the book is narrated by Katniss. While voice overs can be done effectively, the movie would be less interesting if most of it was Katniss walking and explaining something. However, there was still vital information that needed to be told to the audience. As an example, in the book Katniss explains what tracker jackers are when she encounters them. In the movie, Ceasar Flickman and Claudius Templesmith who are acting as commentators for the viewers at home, explain them as part of the commentary. This is a change that makes sense within the context of the medium, but still keeps the story the same.

I also don't really have a problem with movies condensing events, or removing characters that don't have much to do with the story. Examples of this would be Bill and Fleur's wedding happening on Harry's birthday in the movie, even though it's not the same day in the book. In Hunger Games, the character of Madge is removed and the story is only slightly affected.

What annoys me in adapations that at based on, rather than inspired by, is when important subplots are removed, especially when the filmmakers add in sequences that make no difference to the story in their stead (I'm looking at you Harry/Hermione dance scene but no mention of Tonks being pregnant except for a mention of son in the next movie!).

By the way, I've been focusing on book/movie adaptations, but I know there are other adaptions. I remember seeing Little Shop of Horrors get turned into a musical. That was weird. Also, movies get video game adaptations, though I views those as inspired by, rather than based on.

I just wanted to touch on this, mainly to work through my own hypocrisy of complaining about changes in some adaptations, but loving things like Grimm, Once Upon a Time, Sherlock and others. Also, I hope this makes up for yesterday's lame post.

Movie Recommendations

There are a lot of movies that I like, so I thought I'd spotlight a few that aren't as well known.

If you've every wondered what a boy and his dog movie would be like if the dog was a zombie, this is the answer. Fido is Timmy Robinson's family's zombie, and Timmy's best friend. When the collar that keeps him docile malfunctions, he eats Timmy's neighbor (but she's mean so it's not so bad). Timmy has to try to hide what happened to he can keep his best friend.

The whole movie takes place in a 1950's-ish universe, full of bright colors and picket fences. And a chain link fence to keep the uncollared zombies out of course. Other aspects of this world include children having a class in marksmanship where they are taught "In the brain and not the chest. Head shots are the very best." People who don't wish to become zombies pay to have funerals with a separate coffin for the head.

Overall this is a very funny movie. It is rated R but it shouldn't be. The reason given for the rating is that it contains "zombie related violence" but honestly, it's not that bad.

Now, I realize that based on the title this doesn't exactly seem like a happy movie, but I swear, it's a romantic comedy with a happy ending. It starts with the main character, Zia committing suicide. It is established that everyone who kills themselves goes to a world that's just a little bit worse. The colors are dimmer, there are no stars, and no one can smile. He makes friends with Eugene, a former musician, and upon learning that his ex-girlfriend, Desiree has also killed herself, the two set out on a road trip, picking up hitchhiker Mikal, who claims to be there by accident and seeks the People in Charge, so she can be sent back. Along the way they encounter broken headlights, anti-theft signs, some miracles and a dog. Seriously, check out this movie. The humor is a little darker than most romantic comedies, but that really is what it is at heart.

This movie is also rated R, mostly for language, though the opening scene is a little distressing. Last time I checked it was available for free on hulu, though you probably have to be signed in so they know you are of an appropriate age to watch the movie.