StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Simon_Jester wrote:By making their movie a 'Zorro' movie, they create certain expectations among people who have a clue who Zorro is. If they fail to meet these expectations, they may well end up with a movie that sells worse than if it were just "The Adventures of Fred: After The End" or some other generic title that has nothing to do with Zorro.

This is especially true if (as I gather is the case but could be wrong about) the people producing this Zorro movie have been trying to get a Zorro movie produced for years.

It's like, if there's a hiatus in the production of James Bond movies, and it takes years to get their shit together, and they announce that the next movie is going to show James Bond in the future...

Say what you will, the odds are good that the producers will at least TRY to make it recognizable as a James Bond movie. Because nobody wants to kill the James Bond franchise by doing a movie that causes the entire Bond fanbase to go "what the hell is this, they just took a random action hero and named him James Bond!" and stop even bothering to do anything other than rewatch the already-existing set of Bond movies.

Well said. If only this knowledge could be hammered into the talentless hacks who work for DC, Marvel, and IDW- comic book companies that keep "reinventing" certain heroes, just for the sake of making them different, only to leave them utterly unrecognizable by long-time fans (like myself), and creating the very reason we're nostalgic for the "good old days."

Ending the side-discussion about what is and what isn't post-apoc since that seems to go nowhere.

Simon Jester wrote:WBecause it would be really easy for them to just, you know, not make it a Zorro movie, if all they wanted was to create another Fury Road? Especially if they felt no obligation to create anything that we could honestly call a Zorro movie in any recognizable sense of the word?

Eh, exactly the point. It'll be some Mad Max copy with the Zorro label slapped on for name recognition but with an otherwise original character. That's the usual Hollywood Hackery. One movie does well and it's immediately copied to death with diminishing returns.

For the rest:

What's the point of the setting change? Can someone explain what would make a Airstrip One Zorro better or more interesting than the original Cailfornian Zorro? If you want a futuristic Zorro in a more modernist setting, well, I already brought up Batman because that's what he would be like most probably. Utterly redundant.

Hmmm... an excuse to cast a Hispanic, Latin, or Spaniard in the lead role?

Not that Hollywood is guaranteed to do that, far too many white guys in other-ethnic roles over the roles. But hey, it's an excuse that fits, right?

Broomstick wrote:Hmmm... an excuse to cast a Hispanic, Latin, or Spaniard in the lead role?

Not that Hollywood is guaranteed to do that, far too many white guys in other-ethnic roles over the roles. But hey, it's an excuse that fits, right?

They don't need to make Zorro set in the future to use a Hispanic actor. It would be just fine set in 1846 during the Mexican American War, where Zorro must protect the innocents who are caught in the crossfire of the two armies.

Broomstick wrote:Hmmm... an excuse to cast a Hispanic, Latin, or Spaniard in the lead role?

Not that Hollywood is guaranteed to do that, far too many white guys in other-ethnic roles over the roles. But hey, it's an excuse that fits, right?

After The Last Airbender and The Lone Ranger and their racelifting shenanigans I think this is probably the last reason they'd use the this specific property.

I don't know, but to me, post-apoc is usually defined by a distinct "technology is lost, we can still use old things we found if we manage to power it, but we a slipping down a slope". There might be a slight difference between factions, but all are essentially in decline.

Mad max - ammunition and petrol are almost unobtainable, metal is only found from wreckages, and wars are fought over ressources, with people mostly resorting to crossbows and melee.
Waterworld - people live of the scrap and with primitive rafts, mostly. Only one faction still has access to jury-rigged technology, but only as long as the Exxon Valdez doesn't run out (which it almost did, already).
Walking dead/others. - We can scavenge stuff from destroyed cities, if we dare to, but stuff is breaking down constantly and things get harder and harder to find.

While dystopians do not suffer from that particular:
Dredd - They still have flying machines, power, invent new things, strong industry.
1984 - the same.
Brave new world - the same.
Hunger games - same, the city still has all that hightech, they just don't let it spread out to the districts, to control them better.

Postman falls kind of in-between. Tech is still there, people are actively recovering it, but one faction is tryin to prevent it to keep in power.

I think I'd prefer a 19th century Zorro not just because that's where the character works best, but because you could make a really good historical drama of it. Whereas situating it in a post-apocalyptic setting just feels like a way to cash in on other post-apocalyptic fiction (plus have the story set in the future so as to avoid controversy over the potential depiction of historical events and people in the 19th century).

Which is not to say that it can't work in a post-apocalyptic setting. It's just that you'd probably be drifting pretty heavily away from what made Zorro Zorro versus a more generic hero, kind of like if you made a "Batman" movie where Batman lives in Los Angeles instead of Gotham, wears a dark blue suit, and fights bad guys with magic sonar power instead of technology.

LaCroix wrote:I don't know, but to me, post-apoc is usually defined by a distinct "technology is lost, we can still use old things we found if we manage to power it, but we a slipping down a slope". There might be a slight difference between factions, but all are essentially in decline.

For me, it's about continuity. It's like the difference between a zombie "apocalypse" that kills a majority of Americans but leaves a rump US government still alive and organizing the fight back (World War Z), and one where society collapses entirely and you're down to folks essentially building new social orders and communities out of the ruins with no legal or technical continuation of what came before aside from using its remaining scraps of technology (Walking Dead).

I would like to observe that while Firefly is well received, it is very much, and very undeniably, a "space western. " If you'd told someone beforehand there was going to be a "space western," there's a good chance they would laugh and go "oh yeah, so what, they're going to ride on flying rocket horses and shoot laser-sixguns at each other?"

The challenge is to recreate the basic environment of frontier California well enough for Zorro's conduct to be plausible and make sense in context. My only real worry is that they may drop the 'lives a life of ease as a gentleman' part, which is like having Batman without Bruce Wayne.

Simon_Jester wrote:I would like to observe that while Firefly is well received, it is very much, and very undeniably, a "space western. " If you'd told someone beforehand there was going to be a "space western," there's a good chance they would laugh and go "oh yeah, so what, they're going to ride on flying rocket horses and shoot laser-sixguns at each other?"

The challenge is to recreate the basic environment of frontier California well enough for Zorro's conduct to be plausible and make sense in context. My only real worry is that they may drop the 'lives a life of ease as a gentleman' part, which is like having Batman without Bruce Wayne.

OK, two things:

1.Firefly, both the TV series and the movie, were flops. They're cult classics at best, so not the best example picked to represent your point

2.They were critically praised because they got well-written characters, good plots and a unique because relatively hard sci-fi setting, things not really contingent on the genre

What I was getting at is that Firefly was artistically well received- it was a flop in terms of viewership numbers for a variety of reasons, but relatively few people who've watched the series consider it bad art.

So the potential is there for counterintuitive combinations of theme and setting to work as art, even if they do not necessarily sell well. It is, however, a considerable artistic risk to take.

Simon_Jester wrote:What I was getting at is that Firefly was artistically well received- it was a flop in terms of viewership numbers for a variety of reasons, but relatively few people who've watched the series consider it bad art.

So the potential is there for counterintuitive combinations of theme and setting to work as art, even if they do not necessarily sell well. It is, however, a considerable artistic risk to take.

Relatively few people watched it, period.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

True, but does it invalidate my point? It's certainly been watched by enough people by now that we have a reasonably broad base to judge its artistic merit.

It is?

I thought it was largely the same people who'd been watching it in 2005, but they never shut up.

Gandalf wrote:It is?

I thought it was largely the same people who'd been watching it in 2005, but they never shut up.

I only saw it 3 years ago, been doing my best to spread the gospel. I've introduced 8-9 people to it so far, if they all do the same to the same number of people...we still won't get a second series.

Why not? There was a Beowulf movie that took place in a post-apocalyptic future. Just don't make it that stupid.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120604/?ref_=nv_sr_3
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/beowulf/

Simon_Jester wrote:What I was getting at is that Firefly was artistically well received- it was a flop in terms of viewership numbers for a variety of reasons, but relatively few people who've watched the series consider it bad art.

So the potential is there for counterintuitive combinations of theme and setting to work as art, even if they do not necessarily sell well. It is, however, a considerable artistic risk to take.

Space Western is not exactly counter-intuitive. After all, space as a vast new frontier, pioneers brimming with spirit, unknown dangers everywhere and the government not yet having a strong grip over it isn't such a far-fetched combination. Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, Saber Rider, Outland, Bravestarr, Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers...works in that vein have been done before. Airstriip One/Wasteland Zorro is terra incognita in comparison.

Ah, but stories about heroes traveling a shattered world, studded with the ruins of our current civilization, righting wrongs and serving as Robin Hood figures... Those have been done before. I could list examples but it isn't hard to come up with some of your own.

Sure, none of those stories are, specifically, 'Zorro' stories. But the point is that there are plenty of stories that are at least broadly compar able. The main difference is in the character, behavior, and values of the protagonist. And we can't automatically decide that the setting will make it impossible for this character to be recognizably "Zorro" entirely on the strength of hearing the word "post-apocalyptic" used to describe the setting.

Metahive wrote:The thing is that the social bandit archetype simply doesn't work well in a world where all order has broken down and it's Survival of the Fittest. Robin Hood, Zorro, Jesse James and their ilk are shown to be rebels against a tyrannical and deeply-entrenched state lording over society with overwhelming power. Those roaming post-apocalyptic gangs and scanvengers that are most often shown as the bad guys in such movies just don't carry the same punch. That'd be territory for more traditional heroes.

Also, what exactly would make grimdark Zorro Zorro anyway? Somebody solve this for me, Latin American Robin Hood + Apocalyptic Wasteland = ? Where's the appeal?

You've never read the Postman before, have you?

loomer wrote:
You've never read the Postman before, have you?

I actually mentioned the Postman before and no, the protagonist there isn't a "member of establishment by day and vigilante by night"-type guy either. Gordon Krantz defies the Holnists openly and wages war against them with the help of other groups. Nothing Zorro in there.

Have you actually read the book?

Simon Jester wrote:Ah, but stories about heroes traveling a shattered world, studded with the ruins of our current civilization, righting wrongs and serving as Robin Hood figures... Those have been done before. I could list examples but it isn't hard to come up with some of your own.

Sure, none of those stories are, specifically, 'Zorro' stories. But the point is that there are plenty of stories that are at least broadly compar able. The main difference is in the character, behavior, and values of the protagonist. And we can't automatically decide that the setting will make it impossible for this character to be recognizably "Zorro" entirely on the strength of hearing the word "post-apocalyptic" used to describe the setting.

If the movie doesn't include a hispanic vigilante with a dual life fighting against a corrupt government then it's not a Zorro story. I don't see this working in Airstrip One or the wasteland.

People keep saying that a Zorro movie set in a post-apoc world can work. To which I agree, in the same sense that tomorrow can be our last day on Earth because there's a chance an alien space fleet will appear in orbit and blast us all to atoms.

What differentiates a Zorro from say a Robin Hood is his dual nature, being an active part of an entrenched aristocracy and showing that as his "public face" while simultaneously fighting against it in private under a different persona. In your classical post-apoc setting, your Mad Maxes and such, this isn't possible. There is no central authority, just roving bands of miscreants and ne'er-do-wells. At best you might have communities coming together, perhaps expanding their control over larger and larger tracts of land, but it's still not quite the same thing.

Now if you want to expand the definition of these terms to try and fit in a Zorro character, that's your prerogative. Having the post-apoc genre to include settings whose backstory has an apocalypse in the near or distant past but set in a time when a new centralized and tyrannical government has taken over, could technically qualify as post-apoc since the events of the story take place afterward the apocalypse in question. But making the definitions so broad weakens their usefulness of defining what should be distinct concepts, and the very act of having to make them so broad is indicative of how unsuited a Zorro-type character would be in such a setting. That which defined them in their original setting is lost in the new one, and they essentially just become another Mad Max, in which case you might as well just use an original character.

Metahive wrote:

Simon Jester wrote:Ah, but stories about heroes traveling a shattered world, studded with the ruins of our current civilization, righting wrongs and serving as Robin Hood figures... Those have been done before. I could list examples but it isn't hard to come up with some of your own.

Sure, none of those stories are, specifically, 'Zorro' stories. But the point is that there are plenty of stories that are at least broadly compar able. The main difference is in the character, behavior, and values of the protagonist. And we can't automatically decide that the setting will make it impossible for this character to be recognizably "Zorro" entirely on the strength of hearing the word "post-apocalyptic" used to describe the setting.

If the movie doesn't include a hispanic vigilante with a dual life fighting against a corrupt government then it's not a Zorro story. I don't see this working in Airstrip One or the wasteland.

My very first paragraph gives you easy options on "vigilante... fighting against a corrupt government." I'm going to assume he's going to be Hispanic because otherwise it would be really stupid of them to call it a Zorro movie.

So you have three key elements out of four right there. The only one that is uncertain is "leading a dual life." And there are several ways that might be integrated into the concept too.

Balrog wrote:Now if you want to expand the definition of these terms to try and fit in a Zorro character, that's your prerogative. Having the post-apoc genre to include settings whose backstory has an apocalypse in the near or distant past but set in a time when a new centralized and tyrannical government has taken over, could technically qualify as post-apoc since the events of the story take place afterward the apocalypse in question. But making the definitions so broad weakens their usefulness of defining what should be distinct concepts...

Thing is, we're only even having this silly argument in the first place because some random article described the new Zorro's setting as "post-apocalyptic." For all we know, maybe they mean "post-apocalyptic" as in "everything is a desert and the local government is brutal but isolated from any outside authorities."

Which is pretty much the status quo of Zorro anyway- he's normally set in Los Angeles circa the early 1800s, which was a long way out on the frontier.

So as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that really changes is that the justification for Zorro being able to get away with leading a double life as a masked avenger and not having the FBI or its Mexican equivalent all over him is "he lives after the collapse of that government," rather than "he lives before the creation of that government."

I think it would be interesting if the title "Zorro reborn" was a reference to the spirit of Zorro being reincarnated somehow, or if the "idea" of Zorro was brought back by a descendant. If not I'll catch it on Netflix.

Themightytom wrote:I think it would be interesting if the title "Zorro reborn" was a reference to the spirit of Zorro being reincarnated somehow, or if the "idea" of Zorro was brought back by a descendant. If not I'll catch it on Netflix.

As long as it's not like Jason X...

Borgholio wrote:

Themightytom wrote:I think it would be interesting if the title "Zorro reborn" was a reference to the spirit of Zorro being reincarnated somehow, or if the "idea" of Zorro was brought back by a descendant. If not I'll catch it on Netflix.

As long as it's not like Jason X...

Why not? Jason X might not be an artistic masterpiece but it is an incredibly fun movie. Sort of like the various Sharknadoes. So I would not complain if this one was like that.

What would be interesting is if the movie took place in the same 1600-1800's American West, but that it was post-apocalyptic. In other words, society overall is in decline, the world is mostly wastelands, perhaps there is no longer a Spain/Mexico to send reinforcements from, and Zorro himself is still a wealthy nobleman, but trying to protect the common people from a tyrannical warlord.