The rumors continue to mill regarding a new Jurassic Park movie. Stephen Spielberg has officially announced that it’s happening, and the release of the trilogy on Blu-Ray has gotten people talking about it again, but there seems to be virtually no information available beyond that there will be another movie with “Jurassic Park” in the title, and that it will probably also have a “IV” in the title. The other rumors include that Keira Knightley will be in it, that Sam Neil and/or Jeff Goldblum will be back, and that there might be some nonsense regarding genetically-created human-dinosaur-super-monster-soldiers, or that there will be a dinosaur-caused global epidemic or something.
Let’s be honest here: a fourth Jurassic Park movie is a terrible idea. When was the last time you saw a fourth movie in a series that really worked. Before a fourth movie comes out, you have a trilogy. Once a fourth film is tacked onto an original trilogy, you either have a new trilogy (as in the case of The Phantom Menace) or, far more often, you have the beginning of a franchise landslide.
Consider, for a moment, some of the fourth installments out there. First of all, most of the times that a franchise reaches a fourth installment, it doesn’t stop. It becomes a disaster, careening off the rails. Usually, this fate is reserved for trashy horror franchises such as Halloween 4 (which was the fourth of eight), Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (followed by seven sequels), Saw 4 (which is 4 of 7 and apparently a midquel?), and Nightmare on Elm Street (I didn’t bother looking up how many there were.)
Try googling “marmaduke fart.” No? Does that not interest you? Are you not entertained by what could only be an endless supply of humorous web pages centering around Marmaduke and farts?
If you have decided to type “Marmaduke fart” into a search engine, you probably notice that the blog I Hate Your Favorite Movie is on the first page of your results. If you click on IHYFM, you will then notice that this is actually a rather intelligent blog that has very little to do with Marmaduke or farts. Please, check it out if you don’t understand.
This is what is called the Marmaduke Fart Paradox. Of course, everyone wants their blogs to be read… even if they are being read by people who only visit it once, are disappointed by a lack of the content they were searching for, and don’t come again. And to have a blog that shows up on the first page of a search term? That’s ideal… the catch, of course, being that it’s for dog-centric potty humor.
What Should Bale Do gets a fair amount of our traffic from search engine terms. The good thing is that some of these are clearly from people who are potentially interested in what WSBD has to say: the number one search leading to this site is “bret easton ellis twitter” or “bret easton ellis 24 year old” or something else along those lines. Which is excellent, because there actually is a post on here entirely about Bret Easton Ellis’s Twitter account. The same goes for “batman george bush.” If you end up at What Should Bale Do with such a search, you should find something along the lines of what you’re looking for.
Unfortunately, not all of the search terms that lead here are in the same boat. Here are some of the more interesting searches that lead people to this site:
While another Teminator film should seem like the most inevitable possibility ever, there are a number of issues that seem to be holding it up. Little issues such as bankruptcy, lawsuits, a political scandal of some sort revolving around Mr. Schwarzenegger, and Bale’s shouting incident that occurred during the filming of Terminator Salvation.
Terminator Salvation has not been discussed much here, in part because it’s unfortunately simply not enough of a Bale film. Bale as John Connor mostly plays second fiddle to Sam Worthington as the murderer who got turned into a Terminator by Marla Singer and then lived underground for twenty years and then crawled out after a bomb went off or something, without knowing that he was a Terminator. Seriously, wasn’t that the plot?
The unfortunate reality of the latest Terminator is that it wasn’t enough of a Bale-Out. Not dark enough, not gritty enough, and not Bale enough. It’s hard to exactly reboot the Terminator franchise when the films seem to each be a reboot of the last one, as every time the events of each Terminator movie somehow change both the past and the present of the Terminator universe, from the date of Judgement Day constantly shifting to John Connor always being portrayed by a different actor to John Connor sending a guy back in time to protect his mother and then conceive John Connor, who is chosen to do this mission because John Connor knows that the guy will become his father. Or something.
If you haven’t seen The Dark Knight Rises teaser trailer yet, then here you go:
Basically, it’s an okay teaser trailer that at first seems fan-made. Qui-Gon Jinn is narrating, and we get clips from Batman Begins, not of Batman, but of Bruce Wayne. Then we get Commissioner Gordon on a hospital bed.
Do you read The AV Club? If not, it’s the sister publication to The Onion, self-described as “the web’s smartest take on TV, film, music, and lots more.” Which nicely sums it up, as it lets you know how arrogant the writers of The AV Club are. (Not that I hate the AV Club or anything. I actually read it frequently, as it’s pretty much the only “entertainment news” I can handle.)
Anyway, a recent AV Club article informs us that Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem are both in the new James Bond movie. Their response is “At least we know they’re going with the whole gritty reboot wave everyone has been riding for the last five years.” A typical dismissive, negative response. Which is also completely inaccurate, considering that Casino Royale was itself a gritty reboot. Bond had no gadgets, no Q, and no Moneypenny. He bloodily killed a guy in a bathroom in the opening scene, and got severely tortured while naked (rather than placed in an over-elaborate, easily-escapable trap). Also, the Bond girl died. By drowning. And Bond responded to this by saying “the bitch is dead.” That’s a gritty reboot. Shut up, AV Club.
However, let’s talk about this: Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem in the new Bond movie.
And Javier Bardem:
Okay, so maybe they are going darker and grittier with it. But maybe not – remember that Bardem is also in Vicky Christina Barcelona and Fiennes is in Maid in Manhattan.
You may not have noticed, but Shia LaBeouf (thank god this is written, not spoken, because I still have no idea how to say that name) seems to be challenging Bale’s status as the reboot king. Now, it only takes a cursory knowledge of cinema to know that if you planning on creating a sequel, remake, prequel, reboot, re-imagining, or a different take on a previously adapted novel, then Christian Bale should be your number one choice (see every other post on this blog for proof).
However, it seems that LaBeuof is trying to fashion himself into the younger, less-awesome Christian Bale. The poor man’s Bale, starring in half-assed LaBoof-Outs in imitation of Bale’s flawless Bale-Outs.
Let’s look at some recent examples:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010)
Oliver Stone? He made World Trade Center, right?
LaBeouf starred in the long-awaited Wall Street sequel… that is, if you can categorize a sequel as long-awaited when it gets the response “Well, I guess they might as well make a sequel to Wall Street, right?” In order to consider how this tepidly-received sequel could be improved, the answer is simple: Patrick Bateman. Seriously. American Psycho was a self-aware satire, in which Bateman murdered people while working at Pierce and Pierce,the same firm that Shermany McCoy worked at in Bonfire of the Vanities. In Money Never Sleeps, they gave a cameo to Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox from the original Wall Street. Also, Oliver Stone gave himself and his mother both cameos. Why not throw Bateman in there as one of Gordan Gekko’s jailmates? In reality, Bale has the integrity not to reprise the role of Bateman for a cheap cameo, as he refused to play Bateman in a cameo in Rules of Attraction, and those films were canonical with one another. What really should have happened is they should have cast Bale in LaBeouf’s role, or refused to make the film at all.
Rear Window. One of the greatest films of all times, in nearly every top-100 list. Also one of the most parodied films of all times, from The Simpsons to That 70s Show to Head Over Heels to Rocko’s Modern Life to CSI to every other TV show that has decided to lazily do a Halloween episode and needed an easy plot line. It had also been previously re-made, in 1998’s Rear “We only made this movie to give Christopher Reeve something to do” Window. But what the LaBoif version brought to the table was… was… well, it sure didn’t have Christian Bale in it. The main thing it did was first establish Shia’s ability to be a poor man’s Bale.
Indiana Jones in The Worst Thing Ever, (2008)
Indiana Jones, aliens, and Shia LaBeef. Just imagine, for a moment, that there had been no aliens and no Even Stevens kid, and that there had been Christian Bale as a neo-Nazi attempting to get revenge for when Indy tricked his dad into drinking out of the false Holy Grail. Yep. That would have been better. Bale could have been a Nazi jewel thief trying to steal religious relics from a museum that Indy was curating, and it would have turned out better.
Get it? If you want to make an unnecessary sequel, remake, reboot, etc., you make a Bale-Out. There was absolutely no reason for 3:10 to Yuma to be re-made. But they did it anyway, and it’s one of the greatest films of the last ten years.
Stay tuned, as there will be upcoming, longer posts regarding how these three LaBeef failures could have been magnificent with Bale in Shia’s place.
In honor of the awards being showered upon Christian Bale–and the awards yet to be showered upon him–it is time to re-invigorate this web-log that has sadly sat neglected for the last year. Mr. Bale has proven within the last year (and it has sadly been a year and a day since I last posted on here) that he is truly, without a doubt, the greatest actor that has ever graced this earth.
You might ask yourself, or your peers, or me, “what makes Christian Bale the greatest actor ever?”
Allow me to explain: He can take any film, film franchise, novel, or true story, and bring with him a passion and talent that will turn it into a completely new work.
See the following examples for films or tales that lacked true prestige before Bale stormed in and turned them into works of genius.
Little Women, 1994
Little Womenhad been adapted for the screen four times before 1994, beginning with back-to-back silent versions in 1917 and 1918. The novel was first published (in two volumes) in 1868 and 1869. Not to mention the numerous stage adaptations, comic books, and fan fiction novellas spawned by the novel. But everyone agrees that nothing compares to the 1994 adaptation. Which is the first time Christian Bale’s name was attached. Of course it’s not a coincidence.
Pocahantas, 1995, and The New World, 2005
In 1995, Bale was cast in a role that could unfortunately barely contain his talent, when he lent his voice to “Thomas” in Disney’s Pocahantas. While his turn as the inexperienced young explorer left audiences tearful and critics begging for more, it was clear that the role was too small for him. Which is the entire reason for the first (and, thus far, only) time that Bale did a Bale-Out of one of his own films, remaking the 90-minute Pocahantas into the 150-minute The New World, in which the character of Thomas was traded for John Rolfe. Both prove that Bale will outshine his cast-mates, regardless of whether they are cartoons or the guy from Phonebooth.
Everyone knows Shaft, whether it’s from the 1971 novel, the Richard Roundtree trilogy, or the Isaac Hayes song. But no one can forget the definitive 2000 version of Shaft, in which Bale proves that everyone should be thankful he is not one of those actors who always gets typecast as the good guy. In Shaft, Bale has a chance to shine as a racist, charismatic murderer (a character type he will portray several times more), proving he can be a villain that you really enjoy watching get gunned down at the end by an old woman. It also entirely fits within the definition of a Bale-Out, as it is not a remake of the original Shaft,but is rather a sequel, as Samuel L. Jackson is playing John Shaft’s nephew, John Shaft. Critics and audiences are still anxiously awaiting the second and third films of the new millenium’s Shaft trilogy.Of course, the other Bale-Outs in Bale’s catalogue are almost too obvious to mention. What would Batman be without Christian Bale? He nailed a role at which Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney all failed. As for Terminator, everyone now knows that the previous films had too much time travel and not enough shouting. In I’m Not There, he showed up Heath Ledger, Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, and that kid with the guitar in history’s greatest Bob Dylan impression contest.Truly, the attention being granted to Bale in 2011 is only the beginning. And I assure you, “What Should Bale Do?” is back, ready to hypothesize about what novel, film, trilogy, or true story Bale has to bring to the screen next.