My Kingdom for a History-Literary Franchise ...
Filed under: Action, Fandom, Remakes and Sequels, Fan Rant
I have a confession to make -- I saw The Last of the Mohicans in its entirety for the first time this past weekend. Shocking, isn't it? I'm not sure how this happened except that I was just young enough when it came out in theaters to find historical films boring, never managed to catch it on television as a teen, and sneered at it while in college history classes. I even did a massive paper on the myth of the American west that James Fenimore Cooper took up a lot of space in, but I still managed to avoid every version of the movie because it was finals week. (Believe me, if I had known then that I'd be writing for Cinematical instead of earning a history doctorate, I'd have given up a night of research for a night with Daniel Day Lewis.)
It's a sign of the times that I'm working and writing in that I got to the end, and immediately wished they had made a sequel. Not just because of all the open-shirtedness (yes, that's a word) but because it could have explored a vanishing world, and really dug into the character of Hawkeye. There are other books, after all, and Mohicans is a loose enough adaptation that they could have cherry-picked and expanded another Leatherstocking tale or two. They still could. Some part of me would like to see The Prairie with an old, grim Nathaniel in his final days ... but maybe it's just best everyone imagine him happily civilized with Cora.
But we never get history-based sequels. I'm still crushed that they've never brought back Captain Jack Aubrey. The Aubrey-Maturin series is fantastic, and the Peter Weir film is one of my all-time favorites. I'd happily give up a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean installment for another Master and Commander ... and only partially because Aubrey doesn't spawn a million imitators in eyeliner.
It's a sign of the times that I'm working and writing in that I got to the end, and immediately wished they had made a sequel. Not just because of all the open-shirtedness (yes, that's a word) but because it could have explored a vanishing world, and really dug into the character of Hawkeye. There are other books, after all, and Mohicans is a loose enough adaptation that they could have cherry-picked and expanded another Leatherstocking tale or two. They still could. Some part of me would like to see The Prairie with an old, grim Nathaniel in his final days ... but maybe it's just best everyone imagine him happily civilized with Cora.
But we never get history-based sequels. I'm still crushed that they've never brought back Captain Jack Aubrey. The Aubrey-Maturin series is fantastic, and the Peter Weir film is one of my all-time favorites. I'd happily give up a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean installment for another Master and Commander ... and only partially because Aubrey doesn't spawn a million imitators in eyeliner.
Of course, the reality is that you can barely convince Hollywood to make one historical film, let alone two or three of a series. Studios are convinced there's no market for this kind of thing. I think they're wrong. Look at how crazy people have gone for The Tudors, Rome, John Adams, and Deadwood. Gladiator and Braveheart did well. People long for this kind of thing, and they gobble up whatever HBO or Masterpiece Theater can throw at them. Look at how the UK trusts its audience -- they've made Sharpe, Horatio Hornblower (If I remember right, Hornblower was a bigger success here than over there), and Pride and Prejudice into national obsessions. I don't see a very good reason why we couldn't do (and afford) the same.
People love a good story whether the heroes are packing automatics or flintlocks, and as long as it's made and sold right it'll be a success. If you can convince mainstream audiences to obsess over boy wizards, hobbits, and dreadlocked pirates, the Napoleonic War won't be too much of a stretch.
So start franchising the puffy shirts already, Hollywood. You'll have prequels and sequels galore, and can leave the reboots and remakes alone for awhile.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-01-2009 @ 8:07PM
Alana said...
I find myself aghast that you've only just watched Last of the Mohicans. Honestly, I'm appalled.
I'm 29, and honest to God, it's one of my favorite films of all time. I mean, no movie where people get their hearts cut out and are scalped can be construed as a "chick flick." It's just not possible.
I'm glad you got around to seeing it. It's truly a masterpiece.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 9:05PM
paul said...
It's a perfect hybrid of Chick Flick and Guy Flick. Guys want to be him and Gals want to be with him. Madeleine Stowe looks like she was getting a little wobbly in the knees herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poxnVl2bBPQ
A Michael Mann movie, by the way.
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 4:43PM
lonny said...
I watched and enjoyed both Horatio Hornblower and Master and Commander. Would love to see a second film.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 10:10PM
Jay said...
I'm sorry you missed that one, if only for the music! Oh man, I must've listened to that soundtrack hundreds of times growing up (I was 12).
C'mon Blu-Ray version!
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 6:10AM
Al Shut said...
Aren't we supposed to get another Elizabeth movie at some point in the future or have I been dreaming things again?
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 7:31AM
Lisa said...
Crazy, I just saw "Last of the Mohicans" for the first time last weekend as well. Pressure was on as it was expiring from Netflix Watch Instantly at the end of May
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 8:54AM
There at filming said...
So Last of the Mohicans was filmed all around where I grew up (Lake James, Chimney Rock, NC), some of my friends were in the movie as extras, and my dad was even on set one day. Everyone turned out to watch them burn the fort set down, it was pretty cool. As a Native person, I have mixed feelings towards the film though. Sure, it's a better treatment of Natives than in the book, and at least they hired Native actors, but yeah... Anyway, just felt like reminding everyone we're still here, and "civilized" whatever the heck that means. Thanks for that, Rappe. Also, Wes Studi is the man and I'll take Daniel Day Lewis over Kevin Costner any day.
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 11:39AM
cissa said...
I adore Master and Commander, the books are absolutely mesmerizing and addictive. I would love to see a sequel to it.
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 1:00PM
Julie said...
HOLLYWOOD ARE YOU LISTENING? If only they would.There is a world of great adventure just waiting, bookshelves are full of them. How much more sex, drama and intrigue can you get than the court of the Tudors? As you mentioned, the Tudors, Rome, Sharpe, Hornblower, are proof there is an audience salivating to tune in. One of HBO's biggest mistakes was canceling Rome. And I don't think American audiences are any different from those in the UK in their love of historical literature or films. Hollywood somehow thinks we wouldn't go for all those bodices and flowing shirts or that there is no money to be made in such things, but Masterpiece Theater still draws huge audiences and as you mentioned, Hornblower was bigger here than there. Sharpe has fans the world over and the success of Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility bear that out as well.
How I long for more Jack Aubrey...and with all the girls loving that film and book series, what does that say about chic flics? We gals love our blood, guts and adventure right along with flowing shirts and bodice ripping (none of which occurs in Master and Commander BTW-it is pure high seas adventure and still dead sexy)
Please Hollywood, pack up and take us adventuring! Thanks for the great piece Beth.
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 1:26PM
Layne said...
Master and Commander would be perfect for a franchise!
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 4:33PM
Ken said...
Well, we can only blame the studios part way. But we have to blame the audiences as well. According to the movie studio bosses, most people (readers of this blog not withstanding of course ) are too dumb or too lazy to want to watch a movie that might make them think. They just want to be entertained for a 90 minutes (let alone the three hours it might really take) with escapism and explosions, not history. Hence the whole reason for a movie version of Land of the Lost, please, are you kidding me? The studio heads may be right to a point, but they also don’t give the audience enough credit.
Think back to Lawrence of Arabia (yes, I know it's it not series material, but bear with me). To most movie fans, this is one of the greatest movies ever made and with a few embellishments here and there, it tells the basic story of the Revolt in the Desert as led by Lawrence. But can you imagine someone going to a studio today and pitching a three-and-a-half hour epic that in today's money would probably cost $300-million to make properly. They'd laugh that person right off the lot because the studio bosses would feel that only a handful of people in today’s audience world would probably go see such a movie. Yes, there are exceptions. The aforementioned Gladiator and Braveheart are two examples and again they are the exceptions. And yes, it can be done, but it’s a huge gamble.
I have studied the legends and history of King Arthur for 25 years and always thought there was plenty of material there for a franchise of movies. Think about other characters from history or literature and tell me any others who have survived and flourished over the centuries more than King Arthur. There really aren't many. And even though the “real” Arthur was supposed to have existed over 1,700 years ago, the related stories and legends continue to flourish and new interpretations appear every few years at least in print.
So when the movie “King Arthur” was coming out a few years ago, I thought (more hoped) that it would be a novel approach to have a movie about the "historical" Arthur. The movie is supposed to be an updated telling of the Arthur story from a historical perspective, Arthur and his companions are soldiers in the Roman Army at the end of their service and have to complete one last mission before they can go home. Great starting point but alas, poor execution.
They removed the whole Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle, removed the Grail and removed all the ideas added by the French in the 14-century and tried to return to "history". That's fine for me, but unfortunately, the average viewer (again, no offense to anyone intended) will not watch a movie about Arthur without Lancelot and all that baggage (that's why the French authors added it in the first place, to sell books to the aristocracy and masses). The only reason that there are characters named Lancelot, Bors, Tristan and the others in the movie is for name-dropping and marketing purposes. I was okay with the name-dropping, but the movie was still bad. Poor script, poor acting (Clive Owen excepted), poor everything. Which is very surprising considering the cast: Clive Owen, Ray Winstone, Stellan Skarsgard, Keira Knightly. What a waste of great talent.
There have been a few recent books series on this subject (the Bernard Cornwell and Jack Whyte series are excellent interpretations along this path) that would make for great franchises. As already mentioned, the Aubrey-Maturin material is fantastic and plentiful. There’s easily enough stuff there for four of five movies, let alone 10-20 to cover each book in the series.
But, unfortunately, if they don't have stuff blowing up, women (or men) in skimpy outfits, and outrageous special effects so the masses won't go see them and hence the studios won't produce them. In my mind, the Transformers movies and the latest Terminator are perfect examples of this. Brain dead plots, no characters to watch or care about, but dazzling special effects.
Thank god we have the BBC and PBS television productions to pick up Hollywood's slack, prime example being the recent BBC production of Robin Hood. So, the screen is a little smaller and there may not be the greatest special effects, but who cares? At least we get a dose of history as well as (most of the time) thoroughly entertaining and educational shows.
Sorry for the long rant as it were, but I was on a roll. :-)
Reply
6-03-2009 @ 6:13AM
hatchepsout said...
I think "Master and Commander" is a real achievement, an outstanding work of art with a perfect balance between pictures and soundtrack, a breath-taking Russell and moving Paul Bettany with their minute and humorous dialogues. It's a wonderful source of energy for the audience !
Would it be possible to go on with a sequel ? I suppose it would prove very tricky. Besides, it was definitely hard and exhausting to shoot, if I have understood it well ...
Reply
8-09-2009 @ 9:51AM
Mac said...
The Last of the Mohicans is my all time favorite film.
"There at filming" ...for god sakes are like you people ever going to be satisfied with any kind of American Indian film???? Get the fuck over yourselfs already. It's a film... a movie... not a documentary.
Reply