 |
| Will Smith: Everybody's hero. Hancock,....where art thou? |
Anyone who understands how difficult it is to create a successful superhero movie would ask why a done deal like Hancock 2 was never made. Unlike other superhero franchises Hancock was somewhat unique in that it was not based on a popular comic book hero and therefore had none of this support. The Hancock concept began without a pre-existing comic book space and superhero fan base and yet was one of the most successful movies of 2008 having cost US$150m it grossed around US$624m at the box-office.
There
are many misconceptions about why Hancock was a huge success and why a sequel
was never made. Those who know very little about how movies work will tend to
think that the audience was “lured” into the movie theatre by major acting
talent like Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman, then once lured into
the theatre they were put off by the spandex, flying and other superhuman feats
from actors they were used to seeing in more serious roles. This is a bogus
assessment. The movie Hancock never failed. It drew crowds because people
wanted to see it. Given a chance they would watch it again. When a movie is being made these days it the responsibility of the writers and directors to understand the role and power of diversity. An actor like Will Smith has some clout and the original script for Hancock was darker and more insensitive toward minorities. It had to be changed and toned down to suite him at his insistence. However, even with this intervention some felt that when Will was in character, playing the alcoholic and insensitive Hancock some of the humour smacked of prejudice, was insulting and inappropriate. Despite the fact that Will tried to have the insensitive aspects of the script toned down he experienced a backlash. His career has suffered ever since, quite unfairly in what smacks of nothing less than a form of reverse racism. When an actor is asked to play an unsavory character like Hancock, before he went through rehabilitation, at that point its a job and its unfair to punish them for acting and reading a dialogue he or she didn't write or may not have fully appreciated the repercussions of. Charlize went on to star in Monster's Ball, and won an academy award for this role which placed some distance between herself and the negative reviews concerning prejudice Hancock received in this regard. When one observes the quality and poor reception of movie projects Will has been in since, its likely Will is still judged for his participation in Hancock, which is a pity really, for a talented actor who innately harbours no such prejudices.
Its a responsibility of a Studio to understand modern day audience demographics and carefully handle diversity by providing due diligence that screens unsavory elements of a script and final movie. For instance, when you cast a black actor like John Boyega, Anthony Mackey or Chadwick Boseman the Studio should bare in mind that nearly every black person living in Africa, Europe, the Americas; on earth basically, will tend to identify with that actor. Don't think that when Star Wars writers have Boyega drinking out of a filthy animal trough with a big nosed pig Africans are not going to identify with Boyega and see that its a subliminal insult to them from the Star Wars Franchise. Even if this were not intentional and there is comedic merit anticipated by the crew from the scene this cannot blind the creators of the movie from the potential fall out. It still has to be screened by the studio to see if the same objective can be achieved without the potential for being insulting to any specific group. The presentation of the same scene can very easily be improved to make it more sensitive to the audience. For instance, if it were screened and flagged this specific case could have been neutralized by something as simple as adding one or two other people dying of thirst doing the same thing Boyega was forced to do thereby diluting its association with a specific ethnicity. When Studios introduce series like the Blacklist, with James Spader as the lead actor and the writers, director and other staff hired to create this television series think its cool for Reddington to have Hlsham Tawfic playing Dembe in this modern day as a kind of African man-servant following Reddington around it smacks of colonialism, it adds no real value to the meaning, purpose and narrative of the series. Its like an ignorant child thinking its fun to play with match-sticks and dynamite. It is likely to be viewed by people across Africa to whom colonialism was a very real injustice as the crew's personal indulgence in scenes laced with hate to fullfil some kind of fantasy about superiority. This is not a series about colonialism; there is no context for these scenes in the Blacklist; its as if they are created by a person who lacks exposure, is illiterate or poorly educated and does not understand the potential fall out. To put what is portrayed with Dembe on the Blacklist in context, its like Reddington in a popular series putting a dog leash decorated with Swatikas around a Jew's neck and parading with him continually through various episodes, seasons and scenes of the Blacklist or other television series. In the same way this is insulting to an African audience it will be insulting to a Jewish audience. What would possess any director or Franchise to do this? Possibly in ignorance or deliberately because the director thinks this element looks "cool" in some masochistic way when in fact the Franchise is being exposed to the dangers of inadvertently insulting and demeaning a demographic in the audience in a manner that is unacceptable. An executive or person with exposure would be able to pick out this problem and prevent it from causing a demographic in the audience unnecessary injury, keep it from tarnishing the project and compromising the Studio. A Studio needs to be aware of the demographic, what is being produced and perform due diligence when setting up and overseeing a project in order to protect its interests. There's little Boyega or Hlsham Tawfic can do about it, its a role and his job is to act out what the writers and director give him to do. The actor is making a living and its work. The same goes for Anthony Mackey receiving the same kind of racial abuse from the writers, director and other staff of the Captain America Franchise. But there's little Mackey can do, its a role and his job is to act the part. These are not shortcomings you can always hold the actor personally responsible for. Similarly, Will Smith should not be penalized for the fact that the writers and director of Hancock were insulting and insensitive to a minority. Neither should the Franchise's project suffer if it is still commercially viable. It is the Studio's responsibility to carry out due diligence, hire writers, a director and other staff who are not going to allow their fraternal narrow mindedness, personal prejudices to tarnish the value of a project, who will not undermine the Franchise by placing childish subliminal or overt dialogue and scenes that betray the Studio. Executives don't necessarily have the time or skill to identify these problems. Nevertheless, those racial or other groups affected will tend to regard what they see and hear as a jab at them or as being simply hateful. In theatre it is said that the show must go on, for good reason: Whatever, faults have been made can be corrected or improved upon in the next show, the next episode, the next season or the next sequel. Its up to the Studio and its executives who understand their role to identify what went wrong is not socially acceptable to a modern day audience and is bad for business. Their role is to ensure that when these prejudices surface to reduce the quality of a finished movie or project they ensure when the next installment is made the same mistakes are not made again by hiring the right producers, writers, directors, artists and other staff.
 |
The Hancock strut: When Hancock walks toward the trapped lady police
officer brushing bullets off his shoulder,calmly deflecting a missile
launched at him, that walk with the limp, that swagger, lets the
audience know he's a black superhero...the swagger was just
another aspect of Hancock that made it unusual,
different and lots of fun to watch. Hancock is a good case study for
a director giving pointers for how to portray a black superhero.
Every superhero needs that edge that makes him or her
different. That's not to say it will work every time, but the walk and poise was an
attribute or style of doing things that gave Hancock useful differentiation from
other superheroes the audience had become accustomed to seeing. Heroes should
not have a generic style, each should have a distinct method of fighting and
interacting during battle that gives a distinct persona. Here Will pulls it off
with gusto, but what he accomplished is much, much more difficult than it looks. |
A Studio, Franchise, writer, director, artist, executive and any staff member associated with a project, whether it is for television or the cinema, as part of due diligence, can no longer afford to live in a narrow minded space. The world is changing as are the markets that consume television series and movies. Digital Satellite television is rapidly expanding the audiences that receive movies and television series. For instance, in the past a popular Fox television series like 24 might take a year or more before its on television screens in Africa, today it can be broadcast as swiftly as 24hrs after it has aired in the US. Tomorrow they will be aired simultaneously. Like mobile phones access to this technology is becoming cheaper every year, before only the wealthy could afford it, today nearly anyone with a decent income can. Even as you read this the viewing audience is no longer local or national, its global. The same applies to movies. When Star Wars 7 opened on December 18th it was opening in Africa and many other locations around the world almost in tandem. The viewing audience consists of a broad demographic that Studio executives need to be cognizant of when they hire writers, directors and artists to work on a project. Many of these may be talented, but they may also come from a confined space which does not appreciate the changing demographic of the audience. They are used to working with certain groups they have formed ties with, to working with predisposed attitudes and biases to race, gender, minorities and so on. Some may have a chip on their shoulder, ego problems and any other aspects of the human condition that will cause them to deliberately tarnish a project as a way of airing their personal objections against people or certain groups they are required to work with, and even against the Studio that is employing and paying them to deliver a project. If the Studio, understanding the demographic of the audience and aspects of a movie or television series, does not perform due diligence to ensure a project is palatable to a broad audience then from a business point view the executives running the Studio are taking a huge risk on the company's investment. Movies and television series have to be quality controlled before they are screened and Studio executives need to know what to look for in a project that has made its way on to the screen, will hurt some audience groups, and consequently inadvertently hurt the Studio in the long run in terms of the quality of the projects it puts out and the expected financial returns. Studio executives should not be naive about the people they hire and work with on projects. Writers, directors, artists and other staff who they employ on projects who are unhappy about something or about receiving direction from executives can take their personal flaws and objections out on the Studio and craft it into the artwork, dialogue, scenery, CGI and so on in manner that is in some way offensive to the audience. However, moving picture making being an art will make it very difficult for Studio executives funding and overseeing a project to see this kind of subterfuge that will inevitably lower quality and reduce earnings. Due diligence is very important to identify these problems and curtail the damage they can do to the Studio before a project reaches audiences across the world. Its art, but at the end of the day its a business and, like a parent, there are certain fiduciary responsibilities a Studio owes itself and the audience to ensure the financial viability of a project is not sabotaged by not paying attention the final product. Sometimes its best for an executive to admit that he or she may not be qualified to perform due diligence in a specific area e.g. CGI, demograhics and diversity, quality of the acting, believability and so on, in which case its appropriate to bring in someone from outside the project who is and can do this for the studio in confidence.
Its a responsibility of a Studio to understand modern day audience demographics and carefully handle diversity by providing due diligence that screens unsavory elements of a script and final movie. For instance, when you cast a black actor like John Boyega, Anthony Mackey or Chadwick Boseman the Studio should bare in mind that nearly every black person living in Africa, Europe, the Americas; on earth basically, will tend to identify with that actor. Don't think that when Star Wars writers have Boyega drinking out of a filthy animal trough with a big nosed pig Africans are not going to identify with Boyega and see that its a subliminal insult to them from the Star Wars Franchise. Even if this were not intentional and there is comedic merit anticipated by the crew from the scene this cannot blind the creators of the movie from the potential fall out. It still has to be screened by the studio to see if the same objective can be achieved without the potential for being insulting to any specific group. The presentation of the same scene can very easily be improved to make it more sensitive to the audience. For instance, if it were screened and flagged this specific case could have been neutralized by something as simple as adding one or two other people dying of thirst doing the same thing Boyega was forced to do thereby diluting its association with a specific ethnicity. When Studios introduce series like the Blacklist, with James Spader as the lead actor and the writers, director and other staff hired to create this television series think its cool for Reddington to have Hlsham Tawfic playing Dembe in this modern day as a kind of African man-servant following Reddington around it smacks of colonialism, it adds no real value to the meaning, purpose and narrative of the series. Its like an ignorant child thinking its fun to play with match-sticks and dynamite. It is likely to be viewed by people across Africa to whom colonialism was a very real injustice as the crew's personal indulgence in scenes laced with hate to fullfil some kind of fantasy about superiority. This is not a series about colonialism; there is no context for these scenes in the Blacklist; its as if they are created by a person who lacks exposure, is illiterate or poorly educated and does not understand the potential fall out. To put what is portrayed with Dembe on the Blacklist in context, its like Reddington in a popular series putting a dog leash decorated with Swatikas around a Jew's neck and parading with him continually through various episodes, seasons and scenes of the Blacklist or other television series. In the same way this is insulting to an African audience it will be insulting to a Jewish audience. What would possess any director or Franchise to do this? Possibly in ignorance or deliberately because the director thinks this element looks "cool" in some masochistic way when in fact the Franchise is being exposed to the dangers of inadvertently insulting and demeaning a demographic in the audience in a manner that is unacceptable. An executive or person with exposure would be able to pick out this problem and prevent it from causing a demographic in the audience unnecessary injury, keep it from tarnishing the project and compromising the Studio. A Studio needs to be aware of the demographic, what is being produced and perform due diligence when setting up and overseeing a project in order to protect its interests. There's little Boyega or Hlsham Tawfic can do about it, its a role and his job is to act out what the writers and director give him to do. The actor is making a living and its work. The same goes for Anthony Mackey receiving the same kind of racial abuse from the writers, director and other staff of the Captain America Franchise. But there's little Mackey can do, its a role and his job is to act the part. These are not shortcomings you can always hold the actor personally responsible for. Similarly, Will Smith should not be penalized for the fact that the writers and director of Hancock were insulting and insensitive to a minority. Neither should the Franchise's project suffer if it is still commercially viable. It is the Studio's responsibility to carry out due diligence, hire writers, a director and other staff who are not going to allow their fraternal narrow mindedness, personal prejudices to tarnish the value of a project, who will not undermine the Franchise by placing childish subliminal or overt dialogue and scenes that betray the Studio. Executives don't necessarily have the time or skill to identify these problems. Nevertheless, those racial or other groups affected will tend to regard what they see and hear as a jab at them or as being simply hateful. In theatre it is said that the show must go on, for good reason: Whatever, faults have been made can be corrected or improved upon in the next show, the next episode, the next season or the next sequel. Its up to the Studio and its executives who understand their role to identify what went wrong is not socially acceptable to a modern day audience and is bad for business. Their role is to ensure that when these prejudices surface to reduce the quality of a finished movie or project they ensure when the next installment is made the same mistakes are not made again by hiring the right producers, writers, directors, artists and other staff.
The
truth is that Hancock was a success because the narrative was unique from the
very beginning of the movie. Firstly, there is or was no black superhero carrying a movie as
the main character on this grand scale. Secondly, most superhero movies do not
introduce the superhero as an insensitive, foul mouthed alcoholic boarder-line bum then go on to show him
reform into the hero he is meant to be. This rags to hero origin story was stroke of pure genius, original, captivating, interesting enough to follow and discuss with your
friends afterwards. To this day Studios like Warner Brothers still don't seem to get this quality about how to make a superhero great. The mistake writers make is to create narratives and screenplays where the Superhero is inherently flawless and godlike, as tends to be done with Superman, thinking this is what will be inserted in the audiences mind, but when audiences see this the psychology used for the objective is completely wrong as they cannot empathise with a flawless hero or a hero with "problems" that aren't real because they make him look good. The creators of Hancock saw this problem and countered it with an indestructible superhero who was human because he was vulnerable, his feelings could be hurt, he was making mistakes, he was trying to help but couldn't see the damage he was doing, his heart was broken, he was suffering inwardly and needed help. Hancock demonstrated that sometimes even a superhero needs to be saved; which is what Ray, a human being without any superpowers, did for Hancock. It may have been portrayed in a way that was rather extreme, but they were on the money and even to this day many Superhero Franchises are no-where close to understanding the ground the approach to Hancock the writers were using was breaking as a means of cracking open the box office and creating blockbuster. Consequently, the Superheros they create are shallow, have no flaws, have no interesting challenges they periodically face other than those relating to their powers, are paper thin and fail to last more than one or two sequels.
This may change with Captain America, Civil War. The differences between Cap and Tony Stark, that lead to their friendship breaking down, choosing sides and outright confrontation is a very good direction for the Franchise as this allows Robert Downey Jr, Chris Hemsworth and the rest of the cast to dig deep and exploit the diverse range of feelings and emotions a crisis between close friends like this creates. There will be feelings of betrayal, one friend standing up for another, mingled with self doubt about how Tony or Cap can turn against a friend, despair over whether things should really go this far, moments where one hero has to hold back, then finally absolute commitment in the moments when its going down and there's no room to pull punches. Inevitably there will be deep and sincere regret because when close friends battle, even if one prevails over the other, nobody wins: there is no glory. There's enough juicy material here to make the audience shed a tear, not know who to support or who is right and who is wrong. There's enough material to make them grip their seats with unease. The director needs to work it. The writers have to suck the audiences into the emotional content of this crisis and the director spin it into moments of superhero agility, super-strength, display of power and brilliance. This is already a blockbuster, the story just has to be executed on the screen by the director in a way the audience will not forget.
As a writer and director always remember that when "drama" is brought to an action movie, the drama should be very closely tied to the action sequences. For instance just before battle or at intervals during battle to heighten the emotional tension. Avoid separate set pieces where the drama is not tied to action, or if the actor sobs it should be just as he or she is jumping out of a window; you're not making a soap opera. There is nothing more off-putting to an audience that sits down to watch an action movie or television series that finds it has to observe profuse human emotion without an outcome that involves action, confrontation or physical activity; this is like having to watch and listen to the squeal of chalk grated against a chalk-board. Its amazing how even seasoned directors can turn action movies into soap operas. When a member of the audience pays to see a soap opera then its only good for business to give them the drama, but when it pays to see action the drama cannot be out there without direction it must without exception be in tandem with the full on thrill and action the audience paid to see.
Thirdly the special effects for Hancock were tight for 2008. The audience could watch the superhuman feats without feeling they looked too fake which would have destroyed the movie (today they could be many times better). The fourth factor was diversity. Diversity opened the movie up to a much wider audience and was another first in this genre of movies. For instance, it's not about having an all or mostly black cast for Black Panther because this does not reflect the world today, not even in Africa, believe it or not. Take the time to go to any major shopping centre in Johannesburg, South Africa or the capital of any African country with a thriving economy today and you will see people of all races, Blacks, Whites, Asians moving around freely, shopping, having cappuccinos, watching movies and so on. The diversity you see is the demographic in the movie theatre audience today and to develop a blockbuster a Studio should put itself out there in the real world, ideally tailor its casting, narrative and material around this diverse demographic. Honcock was one of the first movies that saw audiences were diverse enough to accept seeing diversity in superheroes on the big screen. This kind of big budget diversity debuted with Hancock in 2008, but we are only just beginning to see it applied seriously to the fantasy genre in 2015, notably with the debut of Black Panther in 2018 ( with Ryan Coogler identified as potential director). Hancock was way ahead of its time in this sense. It was bold, creative, different, it seemed to follow its own rules and audiences left the theatre feeling as though they’d been slapped in the face only due to the fact that it was nothing like anything they expected to see or had been conditioned to see in this genre of movies. Audiences couldn’t process it psychologically because though they believed in equality it had never been demonstrated to them in this genre. To then say a sequel shouldn’t be made because it was different from what they expected makes no sense when the movie industry is using the very same methodology that made Hancock a success to make similar movies box office hits today: A more diverse cast, supeheroes of different races, real actors known for playing serious roles and so on.
This may change with Captain America, Civil War. The differences between Cap and Tony Stark, that lead to their friendship breaking down, choosing sides and outright confrontation is a very good direction for the Franchise as this allows Robert Downey Jr, Chris Hemsworth and the rest of the cast to dig deep and exploit the diverse range of feelings and emotions a crisis between close friends like this creates. There will be feelings of betrayal, one friend standing up for another, mingled with self doubt about how Tony or Cap can turn against a friend, despair over whether things should really go this far, moments where one hero has to hold back, then finally absolute commitment in the moments when its going down and there's no room to pull punches. Inevitably there will be deep and sincere regret because when close friends battle, even if one prevails over the other, nobody wins: there is no glory. There's enough juicy material here to make the audience shed a tear, not know who to support or who is right and who is wrong. There's enough material to make them grip their seats with unease. The director needs to work it. The writers have to suck the audiences into the emotional content of this crisis and the director spin it into moments of superhero agility, super-strength, display of power and brilliance. This is already a blockbuster, the story just has to be executed on the screen by the director in a way the audience will not forget.
As a writer and director always remember that when "drama" is brought to an action movie, the drama should be very closely tied to the action sequences. For instance just before battle or at intervals during battle to heighten the emotional tension. Avoid separate set pieces where the drama is not tied to action, or if the actor sobs it should be just as he or she is jumping out of a window; you're not making a soap opera. There is nothing more off-putting to an audience that sits down to watch an action movie or television series that finds it has to observe profuse human emotion without an outcome that involves action, confrontation or physical activity; this is like having to watch and listen to the squeal of chalk grated against a chalk-board. Its amazing how even seasoned directors can turn action movies into soap operas. When a member of the audience pays to see a soap opera then its only good for business to give them the drama, but when it pays to see action the drama cannot be out there without direction it must without exception be in tandem with the full on thrill and action the audience paid to see.
Thirdly the special effects for Hancock were tight for 2008. The audience could watch the superhuman feats without feeling they looked too fake which would have destroyed the movie (today they could be many times better). The fourth factor was diversity. Diversity opened the movie up to a much wider audience and was another first in this genre of movies. For instance, it's not about having an all or mostly black cast for Black Panther because this does not reflect the world today, not even in Africa, believe it or not. Take the time to go to any major shopping centre in Johannesburg, South Africa or the capital of any African country with a thriving economy today and you will see people of all races, Blacks, Whites, Asians moving around freely, shopping, having cappuccinos, watching movies and so on. The diversity you see is the demographic in the movie theatre audience today and to develop a blockbuster a Studio should put itself out there in the real world, ideally tailor its casting, narrative and material around this diverse demographic. Honcock was one of the first movies that saw audiences were diverse enough to accept seeing diversity in superheroes on the big screen. This kind of big budget diversity debuted with Hancock in 2008, but we are only just beginning to see it applied seriously to the fantasy genre in 2015, notably with the debut of Black Panther in 2018 ( with Ryan Coogler identified as potential director). Hancock was way ahead of its time in this sense. It was bold, creative, different, it seemed to follow its own rules and audiences left the theatre feeling as though they’d been slapped in the face only due to the fact that it was nothing like anything they expected to see or had been conditioned to see in this genre of movies. Audiences couldn’t process it psychologically because though they believed in equality it had never been demonstrated to them in this genre. To then say a sequel shouldn’t be made because it was different from what they expected makes no sense when the movie industry is using the very same methodology that made Hancock a success to make similar movies box office hits today: A more diverse cast, supeheroes of different races, real actors known for playing serious roles and so on.
 |
| Serious Talent: This genre today cashes in on having very talented actors who previously took on serious movie roles, diversity has also become essential, even in a leading role. The movie Hancock already had all these attributes, it was way ahead of the competition at the time it debuted in 2008. |
Hancock
is the movie Will Smith needs to go back and make the sequel to for his fans; this is the
right time as audiences are now more open to seeing serious actors taking on
superhero roles and diversity is being used to reach a wider demographic and international audience.
Like the long wait for Star Wars the Hancock sequel is overdue and the time is
ripe for Will, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman to return to this movie, its success is a done deal.
From
a business perspective it makes no sense not to make this movie. To begin with
it already has interest from the audience. Secondly, its already been debuted
therefore the sequel has very great potential for having a very high return on investment.
Certainly, in the industry, this is what is known as "sure thing". The best
approach is to take the movie up a notch by having two or three nemeses arrive
on earth from outer space bent on world domination. They have super-strength, can
fly and have other strange abilities that local authorities cannot handle. They
arrive on a ship, are a rogue group being sought by some intergalactic force
that they have evaded for the time being. The only hero who can face them and protect earth is Will a.k.a Hancock and at some point they are so powerful he needs Charlize and Jason’s help. Jason provides the research and
tactical support while Charlize provides the extra muscle when Will is overwhelmed. When the nemeses are
eventually defeated that intergalactic force comes to pick them up and lock them away.
Hancock 2 is an opportunity for Columbia Pictures and these stars to get past differences, correct past mistakes, cash in on the current popularity of the sci-fi, superhero and fantasy genre. It makes absolutely no sense for the studio and actors not to benefit from the publicity and the returns gained by properly reviving this lucrative franchise. Anyone who knows anything about business would get the right script, a good director, fund this long overdue movie and dance a jig all the way to the bank.
Hancock 2 is an opportunity for Columbia Pictures and these stars to get past differences, correct past mistakes, cash in on the current popularity of the sci-fi, superhero and fantasy genre. It makes absolutely no sense for the studio and actors not to benefit from the publicity and the returns gained by properly reviving this lucrative franchise. Anyone who knows anything about business would get the right script, a good director, fund this long overdue movie and dance a jig all the way to the bank.
