The Gaurdians of the Galaxy problem

 

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.

>Gasp< Borderlands isn't good?

 

I'm going to be honest- the small window of time within which Borderlands was a respectable franchise disappeared long ago. Borderlands 1 is actually a fun concept wrapped around a game that is passingly humours. A few good jokes and a lot of loud obnoxious attempts at humour that might get you on a first time around but the second- Earl made me want to tear my eyes out, I swear. They got better as the DLC came out. The Armoury of General Knox is genuinely hilarious. Borderlands 2 was obviously the height of the franchise in the eyes of the audience- polished, funny, replayable, perfect. Tales from the Borderlands? Best writing the franchise ever saw. But, of course, that wasn't really the last we heard of Borderlands, now was it?

Then we've got Borderlands 3, the long awaited sequel that... I mean the gameplay was good. Their attempt to follow up Handsome Jack might be the single most mis-casted voice actress I've ever heard in a video game. (Sometimes I can hear the concept artist crying about how badly they translated all of their incredibly strong design concepts into actual life.) The game didn't really appeal when it came to characters and story- but at least they brought actual unique weapons back. (Thanks for dunking those Pre-Sequel.) Then New Tales from the Borderlands dribbled out such a pathetic successor to the original it's actually stunning to think it borrows their name. I am astounded. And Tiny Tina's Wonderland caused such a horrendous stink show around the community, only for Pitchford to come out and declare it the companies biggest success without the slightest hint of irony.

What I'm trying to say is that the writing has been very much on the wall for the Borderlands franchise. Not only is the quality of what Borderlands provides outside of it's raw gameplay decaying, but the creepy little weirdo who runs the show is growing so unaffably isolated from the community he serves I'll bet he's taken to not even referring to his 'fans' as sentient beings anymore. He screams delusional self importance complex. So what happens when you have a studio adaptation of a video game franchise that is so embattled that even the original creators have no clue how to put out contents fans are happy with? What do you do when there's no Nintendo knocking on your shoulder telling you exactly what you can and cannot put in your adaptation?

The Borderlands movie was handed over to Eli Roth, a man never known to be interested in the video game world, (maybe he is privately, but we don't know about it) written by Craig Maizan who was so ashamed that he decided to be credited by the pseudonym 'Joe Crombie'- red flags thy name was Borderlands. It felt like the kind of movie that only ever saw the light of day because of other video game adaptations that actually ended up doing well. Look at 'The Last of Us' for comparison and you might see the opportunity for an Oscar in one of these productions, Fallout sealed the deal. Then scan the industry and see who's desperately hopping on one foot begging for a big movie studio to come in and swoop him away and you'll get the disaster of a lifetime.

From the very first moment I heard this movie was even conceived of I knew it would be a bad idea. And that was before I was even into the Borderlands games genuinely. I'd played them but I didn't get it yet. And still I knew it would be bad. Only to have Randy himself solidify those doubts in that legendarily off-base diatribe wherein he filmed an unhinged jaunt about the Borderlands set practically sniffing the scenery for all of his boyhood wonder at a fairly mundane movie set. Then those concerns were exploded into the stratosphere with the trailer that just so happened to demonstrate an ill-fitting cast reading a bad script amidst colourful, but sparse, environments.

And yet by some miracle it seems that I was wrong. People aren't just saying that the film is bad- they're reporting it is apocalyptically bad- to an almost unreal degree. The writing is tired, the characters are sucked of their personalities and key defining traits (For one it seems the team have literally never seen a single second of Tannis and how she acts.) It actually is starting to make me feel a little jealous over here. I figured I'd already watched and supported the year's biggest stinker with Madame Web but now... now I'm wondering whether or not it's worth it going to endure the next biggest Warcrime that Hollywood has cooked up.

When it comes to asking the serious question of 'what in the heck went wrong'- I'd like to posit a theory. I believe that Randy Pitchford has been such an embarrassingly childish detriment to all art and life around him- as he has proven to be for most of his professional career- (and perhaps even his life before that- but I can only assume, we'd have to interview his family for confirmation) that his inputs where what set this movie up to fail. Casting legendary actors who in no way fit the roles, but would just happen to be idols to someone around the age of Pitchford? Yeah, I'm betting this was his boyish fantasies brought to screen. Of course I'd be foolish to accuse him of jeopardising the whole thing. The writer, director and- from what people are saying- some of the cast: dropped the ball too.

At least we have a silver lining to all of this. That being Strauss Zelnick, the Take-Two CEO, letting us all know that the film will not be a prelude to a coming deluge of video-game-to-movie projects. Unless it's 'really superb', they won't be funding any more trite like this. But then again, Strauss does seem to think that Borderlands is a worthy franchise so who knows- maybe we're get a 'Lemmings' movie next. But if there's one thing I am absolutely certain of, it's this. Randy Pitchford will, at some point, come out and try to gaslight reality itself by claiming the movie was 'really great' and an overall 'success' for them. Mark. My. Damn. Words.

Regrettably, the Borderlands movie is real

 

Some part of me just filed away the Borderlands movie into 'cancelled' territory without a lick of evidence to back up that assumption. I just subconsciously breathed a sigh of relief that such a bizarre and seemingly doomed concept was never going to seriously make it to film and went about my day a free-er feeling man. And a fool of a man. (Fool of a Took!) Because the game obviously hadn't been canned in the days since Randy Pitchford invaded the set with a handcam and giddy schoolboy's temperament. That wasn't even really part of the marketing cycle, just Randy being a wierdo, so I can't even be upset we've had to wait this long to hear anything and feel vindicated in my writing it off. I just straight gaslighted myself and the unpleasant grimace of realising that impending asteroid I thought we dodged is actually still headed in a collision course has been plastered across my face since watching the trailer.

It started with seeing the poster for the movie doing the rounds online getting a straight flashbang about the aesthetic the movie is going for. So it's official- no post processing whatsoever- what we see it what we get. Which is kind of a bummer if I'm being honest. Without a doubt one of the most memorable aspects of the Borderlands franchise is it's visual identity hinged on the heavy-line cell shaded dynamic, perhaps one of the two only examples wherein such a processing trick has been sought-out not just to mimic an 80's pulp comic aesthetic. I did wonder for a while how such a technique would work running in an ostensibly live action movie, but judging from that poster look of the cast posing like a crew of high budget cosplayers- they're playing it straight with this one.

I'm not personally sure whether or not this alone has deprived the project of something, or if that would have just been a crutch in lieu of a popping visual eye if they had kept in the cell-shaded approach. Because either way, the movie does not seem to capture the same primary starkness of Borderlands, in matching tone and environment. Upon realising that the trailer had released at the same time as the poster, I subjected myself to the full thing to see if the team had made it work without and... I'm not blown away. I'm not entirely repulsed either- but sometimes being caught between the middle of two extremes is the worse way to feel. I mean it's great for the movie makers, who can use this as a chance to either blow me away or let me down horrendously- but I feel absolutely no innate confidence that makes me trust in the project. 

Borderlands over the past few years has been undergoing something of an identity crisis as the games lost that spark of wittiness that populated the franchises' most celebrated age. That perception of Borderlands as 'the funny shooter' game doesn't seem to have survived through Borderlands 3's life cycle of products as fans have been treated to the core game itself- which often mistook 'annoying' for 'quirky' and 'sex reference' for 'wit'- Tiny Tina's Wonderlands which felt undersupplied with content for many out there and is often overlook consequentially, and 'New Tales from the Borderlands' which inherited the legacy of Telltale's funniest game and perhaps Borderland's as a whole's funniest outing, and missed the mark completely. They missed out on the character writing, the emotional heart of the themes, the knowledge of what makes a joke and situation funny and just the general layout of what would be an interesting and engaging narrative. It feels like a lame sitcom about crazy weed-fuelled lunatics written by a team that have never touched a bong in their lives. The 'hello fellow losers' energy is wild.

All this has left a certain vibe off the Borderlands franchise, the stale waft of faded glories clogging up the franchise like salary men who still show up at their fraternity house warming parties expecting not to get tackled to the dirt by campus security. (Was that appropriately American enough of an analogy for you?) And to be completely honest with you- I don't actually detect an abhorrent amount of that on this trailer. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a rough facsimile of what the games represent, and the 'humour' hasn't even coaxed so much as a wry smile out of me from the trailer highlights, but I wouldn't call it terrible- which is a shock and a half to me!

Oh, and please don't misconstrue my lack of disregard as positivity- I am certain this movie is going to suck. It presents absolutely nothing interesting in a world defined by interesting characters doing interesting things. If Borderlands was just about shooting and blowing things up all day, the games would not have lasted as long as they have, Borderlands is about the way you shoot things up- the crazy creatures you're fighting, the creative guns your shooting, the flashy powers you're popping- of which this trailer bizarrely displayed none. I mean, we didn't even get to Roland drop a turret, let alone see Lilith use any of those Siren powers she's supposed to have! Speaking of- I didn't happen to see any of Lilith's siren tattoo's... are we... are we not doing a reimagination? Or have they reimagined the game so much as to reconstruct what Siren's even are? Lilith is already a bit of a boring character, she'll be especially dull without her defining powers.

And aside from that, there are the little things that don't quite line-up tonally. For one, I think the trailer is being narrated by Patricia Tanis, but it's hard to tell considering their choice of actress of Lilith, Cate Blanchet, sounds a lot like Jamie Lee Curtis in her delivery. But assuming it is Tanis, there's very little character in the lines she's been fed. Tanis from the games is a once promising scientist driven past her breaking point to a state of airy apathy after being exposed to the rigors of Pandora and it's unhinged residents. The narration sounded just like an older woman reading a trailer script- it was uninspired. And another little thing- their 'funny' line of "We have something they don't, baby girl- major issues." Irks me in a couple ways. Firstly- you're on Pandora- a planet defined by a population of 100% psycho lunatics. Everyone has issues in that scenario, the line is incorrect. Secondly, and I know this is being mean, her delivery of 'Baby girl' is so damned weak. I know it's unfair comparing the acting prowess of an actual actor like Ashley Burch with a... wait, no this girl is an actor too... would it kill her to try and act like Tina? Just a bit?

I know there are going to be people who love this film when it launches. It has that campy vibe which will resonate with the kind of fans of Borderlands who still find the tired joke format and delivery of 'loud guy is loud', 'corrupt guy is corrupt' etc- funny. But personally, I smell a movie that is going to be totally lacking in value behind it's referential content. Deprive this movie of it's Borderlands connection and it'd be called another boring shooting movie with a few cool design decisions but an ultimately uninspired delivery. And yes, that was me pre-reviewing the film before it's even made it to cinemas- and we'll get to see how well that sentiment ages when it drops! (I'm pretty foresightful on these kinds of 'adaptation' films. I think I've got a decent shot!)