Now I am a fan of popular media product 'Guardians of the Galaxy', but I do have a problem with it. And that problem largely stems from how it exists as a 'popular media product'- which is to say, it's popularity and ensuing influence. You see, Guardians of the Galaxy proved to be the perfect crystallisation of the quirk dynamic team action movie which was first thought to have been nailed by Joss Whedon's retroactively largely dependent 'Avengers'. Whereas that previous film very much retains it's plaudits for successfully bringing a slew of various film characters together in one of the most cohesive crossover movies of all time- it was Gunn's Gaurdians that conjured a whole cast of characters out of nothing and made them funny, endearing and lovable within the space of a single film. And hence, made a lot of renown for himself and money for his studio.
So much money, actually. Gaurdians of the Galaxy starred actual nobodies in the grand scene of fictional character influence and it made household names out of the characters and their stars. Dave Bautisa was rocketed onto the scene by that movie, Chris Pratt was roundly ejected from the niche position of 'comedy show actor' into a generally accessible action-movie everyman and Bradley Cooper- well, he was already Bradley Cooper, he wasn't really gonna get a brand new big break playing as a CGI racoon, now was he? Same with Vin Diesel. Not so sure about Zoe. Look, the point is that Gaurdians managed to nail a very rare status in pop culture of not just generating money, but launching careers to greater heights. And with that level of success comes that dreaded phrase. 'Influence'.
The influence to cleave hearts from the chest of men, there is nothing more terrifying. You see, success will ever be the beacon in the desert that the thirsty rush through, whether it be fleeting or not. You'll get those desperate to drink from that well, those who expect their cut of it, those who flourish under it. And those who are influenced to copy it. Because after all, it worked for them. Why not for me? Isn't that just always the way? Why can't I have all that success! And to be fair- I suppose the logic is sound from a unconfident writers perspective. If these are the sorts of characters who appear to resonate with audiences then why wouldn't you try and copy that just a little bit? Don't you want to have resonate characters in your team-based property too?
The problem is that it's really hard to write an ensemble cast movie, and even harder to writer quirky and personality rich banter without it coming off as... desperate and contrived. And I think those are the two adjectives that ring most true in these sorts of movies. 'Desperate and contrived'. When you need to get the sarcastic asshole who is rude to everyone- but then because you don't really understand the archetype so you forget to add the layer of self-destructive pathetic-ness which makes such a character pitiful and not just unlikeable- well then you've just made an annoying character. But if you're so desperate for success and to be liked that you'll copy what you don't understand- then I guess that's something you're not going to recognise until it's on the screen and an uninvested party tells it to your face, huh?
The Borderlands movie was a product developed by an out-of-touch studio head shooting on behalf of an out-of-touch developer who's input was apparently so insubstantial to detail the spirit of Borderlands that the writers threw up their hands and went "screw it- let's do Guardians!" Afterall, it's Sci-fi set in space with an ensemble cast, right? What's the worst that could happen? Well they made Lilith: Gamora and Claptrap: Rocket and Tina... boring. But when all you're shooting for are effigies of more rounded and developed characters, you miss the nuance of the source material and, curiously in this case, forget how to develop characters. Apart from Lillith, I guess. She develops, albeit rough and inelegantly. (Although to be fair, that is actually depressingly accurate to the game's Lillith in trajectory.) The result- the movie has no soul.
Concord actually fairs a little better in this regard. That game more borrows the style of Guardians rather than just steals the character archetypes. They try to touch on that dynamic of the plucky underdogs capable of so much more, only if we're following the Overwatch model of storytelling I suppose they never will get on to 'something greater', because everyone will be too busy scrapping with each other. I don't think there's anything actually wrong with the characters themselves, it's more the concept that seems inauthentic, because we can plainly see how the moment of what Guardian's achieved is being aped by Concord. But if the game were to find a surprise audience and prosper, I could see something decent coming from this set-up. Afterall, the Guardians formula doesn't need to be exclusive- if some new direction can be taken with it I don't see a problem with that- wasn't that what Peacemaker did? (Ironically also a Gunn property.) Heck, the formula itself is an adaptation of your typical buddy duo set-up anyway.
The style of comedy for these sorts of properties are typically what suffers the most, as undoubtedly stories that ape Guardians will try to touch on Gunn's somewhat unique vaguely absurdist style of humour. Gunn is a very singular talent with the way he handles irony, absurdity and the childishness of the human spirit. There's a bit more going on with his work than the standard of sarcastic subversion ushered in by Whedon and his Avengers. Be that as it may pretenders approach it as though that branch of comedy is easily mimicked, even as mimicry itself beguiles the spirit of humour almost inherently in most cases. The result- such products feel tired, oversaturated and unimpressive. Concord lacks charm, Borderlands lacks wit, and the Borderlands movie lacks everything on god's green earth.
At the end of the day what makes a game or breaks it is, in my opinion, the heart beating through the product. That's what makes a scrappy indie game so very endearing and every Ubisoft game a barely memorable wisp. I don't think heart is something that can be sketched over and replicated wholesale elsewhere, but inspiration isn't itself the same sort of thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with quirky group dynamic games- I think Overwatch would have had a lot more cultural staying power if the team knew how to play into that side of it's lore, in fact. But you always know those who get it and are saying something similar versus those who don't and are simply following the trend with tracing paper and a stencil.
No comments:
Post a Comment