This is a post I made on Facebook exactly one month ago, regarding plans to make a Live-action Pokemon movie. (Just before I left to go on holiday.)
Before I leave the internet for a while here's a long post concerning recent developments in popular culture.
You all be aware of the sudden reemerging of Pokémon in the general zeitgeist (as a result of the vast popularity of the Pokémon GO augmented reality game … and the chaos it’s causing). Some of you may have been aware of the news of a bidding war in Hollywood for the rights for a live-action movie adaptation of said franchise. It’s the latter I want to talk about.
A lot of the talk I have seen online about this has mostly been about who would win this bidding war (with Legendary Films been the bookie’s favourite). But I have seen little of something much more important…. Which storyline are the filmmakers going to choose?
For those unaware, the Pokémon franchise is a vast universe of possibilities (just look at the library of spin-off games alone and the various manga adaptations). But for most of us they are just two narratives -
1. The main game’s narrative, which involves Red (or later protagonists) trying to catch’em all for Professor Oak (or later tree species) for their Pokedex, who has a rival who is usually a bit ahead of him (or her, since Crystal) and (for a while) decides to compete in a league whose entry involves beating eight gym leaders in a region. Along the way he (or she) encounters a criminal organization doing bad and (somehow) defeats them single-handedly. (It’s been adapted before, as the Pokémon Adventures manga and the Pokémon Origins four-episode mini series).
2. The anime’s narrative, which is pretty much the same thing – except that the protagonist is the beloved never-aging, Goku lookalike that is Ash Ketchum and his Pikachu (which could all be just a coma fantasy, according to some fans).
I can imagine that (if this live action movie gets green-lit) there is going to be a lot of debate online in the next few years about which of these narratives the filmmakers are going to choose, who’s going to play Ash/Red, why he/she shouldn’t play that role, who’s directing, why should the lead character be a boy…. Blah blah blah lackedly-smichedy. So before all that really kicks off here are my thoughts about how this possible future film should be approached by whoever gets to make it.
First off it’s worth remembering that it’ll be a few years before we get to see this movie and that means that by the time of its release in cinemas it’ll be the end of the upcoming Gen VII era or the beginning of the next era of the franchise’s history. A while ago I shared a YouTube video here of a detailed fan theory that may prove that Pokémon may be due to a massive reboot after Gen VII. If proved true this film will have to reflect this. So whoever gets to make this film they will have to factor this timing of seismic change.
Because of this it may be a good idea to consider the vastness of the Pokémon universe (and its many possibilities for stories). There is no excuse here for bad storytelling. With that, my big idea about this film will be this – do something completely different. Don’t follow a pre-existing storyline. If you do, you’ll be very constrained (and have fans online complain about every little thing you do). But I know this will be wishful-thinking. Movie studios prefer tried-and-tested formulas (which is why our multiplexes are infested with sequels, prequels and remakes today). However, Nintendo is a big guy (and once took down Universal Studios in court over Donkey Kong in the 1980s), so there is a possibility that Nintendo will force who makes this film to do the “unthinkable” – give the director total free control!
But whatever happens politically inside the studio or how much freedom the director gets or what narrative they choose there is one thing thy have to get right – audience and property approach. This can easily go two ways.
1. The movie is made with great respect to fans and the intellectual property.
2. The property is messed with by the director or studio to make it appeal to a bigger audience just to make a lot of money (and to sell toys).
You all probably all get what I am talking about. But for those who still don’t, let me explain.
They are a lot of examples of the latter, films of big franchises where the studio/director messed with the original material for shocking reasons. But examples of the former are few. Fortunately, the best examples of both can be found in one series of films, which are from my childhood. What happened to this series of films (in hindsight) I can credit for me turning away from the superhero genre entirely. Since then my attitude to superheroes is “been there, done that” – and these films are the reason why. I am talking about the Batman films of the 1990s. The first two (directed by Tim Burton) were great (and, if they appear on TV, I am ok watching again). The director did a good job depicting the darkness that exists in the original stories (and was a huge step away from Adam West). But in the mid-1990s Warner Bros thought that Batman Returns (despite making a good profit) could have made more money. They concluded that the film was too dark for kids to stomach and the villains were too scary to be made into toys. So they got a new director (Joel Schumacher) and the results were two batman films that were more comic and colourful. They succeeded in been kid-friendly (leading to the making of many toys) but the true essence of Batman (as Tim Burton truly captured) was gone. Although they made a profit, the last film (Batman & Robin) is now seen as the worst superhero film ever made.
This is the situation the proposed Pokémon film could face. This is a project that can easily become another Batman & Robin style cultural disaster. Can it be prevented? I think it can. They are two recent examples of great franchise films made in the past few years, which people can learn from - The Lego Movie and The Muppets.
It’s hard to believe today, but from 1992-2004 Lego was in decline, reporting financial losses from 1998. But this trend ended after a shake-up in 2004-5 and became the strong toy brand it is now. The Lego Movie can be seen as a triumphant return from grace for Lego, with a story that explores the toy’s core concept – you can build anything you want (and no Mr Business can force you to do otherwise). The proposed Pokémon movie could do something similar – a protagonist that explores the world to catch creatures to battle others. But that isn’t the true core concept. The catching and battling are just game mechanics that have been used multiple times before. The real core theme of Pokémon is something more thought-provoking – our relationship with nature. Think about it. Companionship, domestication, work animals, breeding centres, genetic manipulation, poaching, conservation, pollution, extinction, fossils, the debate of animal intelligence, etc. They are all there in the games and anime. It’s a lot there to inspire the filmmakers.
I choose the The Muppets movie from 2011 as another example because it did its franchise justice… and helped revive The Muppets fortunes. Before 2011 The Muppets were in a chain of TV movies and specials. There previous feature film was made in 1999. So The Muppets weren’t exactly “hot” for a while. Then came Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller – two 80s kids who had made a splash in comedy in the 2000s. They pitched the idea and wrote the script. With James Bobin as director (another 80s kid who had made a splash in comedy in the 2000s) the resulting movie was an incredible pan-generational comedy reminiscent of the original Muppet movies. That movie (and the sequel) revived The Muppets in our culture (they got a TV series again). Pokémon can follow this example by hiring filmmakers and writers with a comedic bent who were kids in the 90s (and ben a fan of the franchise helps too). If they do the resulting film could be a film that’ll appeal not only to kids and fans, but everyone who likes comedy and has a vague knowledge of Pokémon.
And on that last note, it’s worth noting that jokes can work on two levels. They are jokes that pretty much everyone gets (such as Jigglypuff’s squibbing on everyone’s face after hearing her sing) and they are jokes that only a few targeted people find funny, such as uber fans who know absolutely everything about Pokémon (such as Hot Skitty on Wailord Action (DON’T LOOK THIS UP!! For the sake of saving you from picturing a horrific sight when you find out what this meme is (especially if you are a regular viewer of IQ).)). Futurama is full of many examples of the latter type of joke (many of its writers have degrees in mathematics, so they are a lot of math jokes in the show that’ll tickle the funny bone of people who know math).
With The Lego Movie and the The Muppets as good examples to follow (if the filmmakers choose to follow their example) the resulting film will be very good. From I can work out from my own research about creator Satoshi Tajari, I think he’ll want this film to be like that – an adventure story (with a healthy dose of jokes for the fans) that explores our relationship with nature for a pan-generational audience.
So that’s what I think the film in general should be. But what about specifics? What would I like to see exactly in this proposed film? Epic battles? A plot that involving legendries? N? Something to please the various “shippers” in the fan-fiction forums? No. To be honest, I don’t care. As long as they do something interesting with it, I don’t care if the protagonist (Ash, Red, or whoever (a female, perhaps?)) kisses Misty, Leaf, Serena or whoever in this future film. They might even cross dimensions to our world if they wanted too (like Emmitt did in The Lego Movie).
I know that some of you will have thought of a list of things yourself, but the idea of a list of “things to put in this movie” sounds restrictive. It reeks of “focus group.” I honestly don’t like the test marketing of movies before they are released. That is responsible for many films in the past few decades changing their ending (Fatal Attraction and Deep Blue Sea are two examples I can think of right now). Their input may “improve” a film, but do they or do they change it to conform with the audience’s expectations? Should a director have the right to challenge the notion of the “Hollywood happy ending?” I think so, and so does Terry Gillian (Look up the making of Brazil). What I’m saying is I don’t want a “box ticking” plot - a plot that loosely allows the featuring of various things viewers want to see.
I think that’s everything I want to say. Wait! One last thing. If I was pushed to think of one thing I want this film to have in it, it’ll be this – if the film features a professor character (Oak or any other tree) that character should be played by a great improve comedian – as a tribute to Robin Williams. I heard that if a live-action film was going to be made Tajari wanted Robin to play Professor Oak. I know, finding someone who’ll do justice to fill his flubber-soled clown shoes will be hard, but if they manage to find someone who can do that, it’ll make my day … if this film gets made that this.
A lot of the talk I have seen online about this has mostly been about who would win this bidding war (with Legendary Films been the bookie’s favourite). But I have seen little of something much more important…. Which storyline are the filmmakers going to choose?
For those unaware, the Pokémon franchise is a vast universe of possibilities (just look at the library of spin-off games alone and the various manga adaptations). But for most of us they are just two narratives -
1. The main game’s narrative, which involves Red (or later protagonists) trying to catch’em all for Professor Oak (or later tree species) for their Pokedex, who has a rival who is usually a bit ahead of him (or her, since Crystal) and (for a while) decides to compete in a league whose entry involves beating eight gym leaders in a region. Along the way he (or she) encounters a criminal organization doing bad and (somehow) defeats them single-handedly. (It’s been adapted before, as the Pokémon Adventures manga and the Pokémon Origins four-episode mini series).
2. The anime’s narrative, which is pretty much the same thing – except that the protagonist is the beloved never-aging, Goku lookalike that is Ash Ketchum and his Pikachu (which could all be just a coma fantasy, according to some fans).
I can imagine that (if this live action movie gets green-lit) there is going to be a lot of debate online in the next few years about which of these narratives the filmmakers are going to choose, who’s going to play Ash/Red, why he/she shouldn’t play that role, who’s directing, why should the lead character be a boy…. Blah blah blah lackedly-smichedy. So before all that really kicks off here are my thoughts about how this possible future film should be approached by whoever gets to make it.
First off it’s worth remembering that it’ll be a few years before we get to see this movie and that means that by the time of its release in cinemas it’ll be the end of the upcoming Gen VII era or the beginning of the next era of the franchise’s history. A while ago I shared a YouTube video here of a detailed fan theory that may prove that Pokémon may be due to a massive reboot after Gen VII. If proved true this film will have to reflect this. So whoever gets to make this film they will have to factor this timing of seismic change.
Because of this it may be a good idea to consider the vastness of the Pokémon universe (and its many possibilities for stories). There is no excuse here for bad storytelling. With that, my big idea about this film will be this – do something completely different. Don’t follow a pre-existing storyline. If you do, you’ll be very constrained (and have fans online complain about every little thing you do). But I know this will be wishful-thinking. Movie studios prefer tried-and-tested formulas (which is why our multiplexes are infested with sequels, prequels and remakes today). However, Nintendo is a big guy (and once took down Universal Studios in court over Donkey Kong in the 1980s), so there is a possibility that Nintendo will force who makes this film to do the “unthinkable” – give the director total free control!
But whatever happens politically inside the studio or how much freedom the director gets or what narrative they choose there is one thing thy have to get right – audience and property approach. This can easily go two ways.
1. The movie is made with great respect to fans and the intellectual property.
2. The property is messed with by the director or studio to make it appeal to a bigger audience just to make a lot of money (and to sell toys).
You all probably all get what I am talking about. But for those who still don’t, let me explain.
They are a lot of examples of the latter, films of big franchises where the studio/director messed with the original material for shocking reasons. But examples of the former are few. Fortunately, the best examples of both can be found in one series of films, which are from my childhood. What happened to this series of films (in hindsight) I can credit for me turning away from the superhero genre entirely. Since then my attitude to superheroes is “been there, done that” – and these films are the reason why. I am talking about the Batman films of the 1990s. The first two (directed by Tim Burton) were great (and, if they appear on TV, I am ok watching again). The director did a good job depicting the darkness that exists in the original stories (and was a huge step away from Adam West). But in the mid-1990s Warner Bros thought that Batman Returns (despite making a good profit) could have made more money. They concluded that the film was too dark for kids to stomach and the villains were too scary to be made into toys. So they got a new director (Joel Schumacher) and the results were two batman films that were more comic and colourful. They succeeded in been kid-friendly (leading to the making of many toys) but the true essence of Batman (as Tim Burton truly captured) was gone. Although they made a profit, the last film (Batman & Robin) is now seen as the worst superhero film ever made.
This is the situation the proposed Pokémon film could face. This is a project that can easily become another Batman & Robin style cultural disaster. Can it be prevented? I think it can. They are two recent examples of great franchise films made in the past few years, which people can learn from - The Lego Movie and The Muppets.
It’s hard to believe today, but from 1992-2004 Lego was in decline, reporting financial losses from 1998. But this trend ended after a shake-up in 2004-5 and became the strong toy brand it is now. The Lego Movie can be seen as a triumphant return from grace for Lego, with a story that explores the toy’s core concept – you can build anything you want (and no Mr Business can force you to do otherwise). The proposed Pokémon movie could do something similar – a protagonist that explores the world to catch creatures to battle others. But that isn’t the true core concept. The catching and battling are just game mechanics that have been used multiple times before. The real core theme of Pokémon is something more thought-provoking – our relationship with nature. Think about it. Companionship, domestication, work animals, breeding centres, genetic manipulation, poaching, conservation, pollution, extinction, fossils, the debate of animal intelligence, etc. They are all there in the games and anime. It’s a lot there to inspire the filmmakers.
I choose the The Muppets movie from 2011 as another example because it did its franchise justice… and helped revive The Muppets fortunes. Before 2011 The Muppets were in a chain of TV movies and specials. There previous feature film was made in 1999. So The Muppets weren’t exactly “hot” for a while. Then came Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller – two 80s kids who had made a splash in comedy in the 2000s. They pitched the idea and wrote the script. With James Bobin as director (another 80s kid who had made a splash in comedy in the 2000s) the resulting movie was an incredible pan-generational comedy reminiscent of the original Muppet movies. That movie (and the sequel) revived The Muppets in our culture (they got a TV series again). Pokémon can follow this example by hiring filmmakers and writers with a comedic bent who were kids in the 90s (and ben a fan of the franchise helps too). If they do the resulting film could be a film that’ll appeal not only to kids and fans, but everyone who likes comedy and has a vague knowledge of Pokémon.
And on that last note, it’s worth noting that jokes can work on two levels. They are jokes that pretty much everyone gets (such as Jigglypuff’s squibbing on everyone’s face after hearing her sing) and they are jokes that only a few targeted people find funny, such as uber fans who know absolutely everything about Pokémon (such as Hot Skitty on Wailord Action (DON’T LOOK THIS UP!! For the sake of saving you from picturing a horrific sight when you find out what this meme is (especially if you are a regular viewer of IQ).)). Futurama is full of many examples of the latter type of joke (many of its writers have degrees in mathematics, so they are a lot of math jokes in the show that’ll tickle the funny bone of people who know math).
With The Lego Movie and the The Muppets as good examples to follow (if the filmmakers choose to follow their example) the resulting film will be very good. From I can work out from my own research about creator Satoshi Tajari, I think he’ll want this film to be like that – an adventure story (with a healthy dose of jokes for the fans) that explores our relationship with nature for a pan-generational audience.
So that’s what I think the film in general should be. But what about specifics? What would I like to see exactly in this proposed film? Epic battles? A plot that involving legendries? N? Something to please the various “shippers” in the fan-fiction forums? No. To be honest, I don’t care. As long as they do something interesting with it, I don’t care if the protagonist (Ash, Red, or whoever (a female, perhaps?)) kisses Misty, Leaf, Serena or whoever in this future film. They might even cross dimensions to our world if they wanted too (like Emmitt did in The Lego Movie).
I know that some of you will have thought of a list of things yourself, but the idea of a list of “things to put in this movie” sounds restrictive. It reeks of “focus group.” I honestly don’t like the test marketing of movies before they are released. That is responsible for many films in the past few decades changing their ending (Fatal Attraction and Deep Blue Sea are two examples I can think of right now). Their input may “improve” a film, but do they or do they change it to conform with the audience’s expectations? Should a director have the right to challenge the notion of the “Hollywood happy ending?” I think so, and so does Terry Gillian (Look up the making of Brazil). What I’m saying is I don’t want a “box ticking” plot - a plot that loosely allows the featuring of various things viewers want to see.
I think that’s everything I want to say. Wait! One last thing. If I was pushed to think of one thing I want this film to have in it, it’ll be this – if the film features a professor character (Oak or any other tree) that character should be played by a great improve comedian – as a tribute to Robin Williams. I heard that if a live-action film was going to be made Tajari wanted Robin to play Professor Oak. I know, finding someone who’ll do justice to fill his flubber-soled clown shoes will be hard, but if they manage to find someone who can do that, it’ll make my day … if this film gets made that this.
That is all from me for a while. If you want to comment, don’t expect a response from me as I’ll by away from the internet for a while. Good bye internet. I’ll be back soon to see the continuing carnage you have made.
UPDATE
Since I posted this Legendary Entertainment won the rights make the movie and we found out that the movie will follow the plot of the Great Detective Pikachu game and will be written by Nicole Perlman and Alex Hirsch. This promises to be a good movie alright. Please not screw it up. Read my words.
