Showing posts with label pop culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pop culture. Show all posts

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Using Layers of Relative Reality to Measure the Validity of Fictional Crossovers

What a mouthful… The point of this article is to discuss a matter that causes my brain to overload when it considers the possibilities and implications. That matter is: fictional crossovers. A fictional crossover appears when a character or other identifiable element appears in a different piece of media as that same character.
What prompted this was the concept of the “Tommyverse,” that is, a single show that unites about 90% of television shows, according to certain claims. I find this part of the theory fascinating. I find the part about St. Elsewhere taking place all in Tommy’s mind, therefore all the related shows take place in Tommy’s mind pure poppycock.
For the sake of argument, I’ll define the following terms (and I’ll make them relative to TV series, since that’s my primary focus):
  1. A sequel is a show whose narrative continues the main narrative of the original show, but is itself a different show.
  2. A spinoff is a show that splinters off a character or aspect of the original show. It either runs alongside the original show or can happen much later. It differs from a sequel as it does not follow the core narrative.
  3. A remake is a show that effectively “reboots” the narrative and characters. This may have the same characters, but they are not the “same” characters that appeared on the original show (e.g., they are multiversal aspects of the same character, just placed in a different era).
  4. A crossover is an appearance of a character or other element appearing in its non-native show.
  5. A splinter is a show that, like a spinoff, derives its origin from something else, but unlike a spinoff, does not mutually share the universe with its parent.
  6. An homage is a sort of reference in one show to another media. Whether it establishes a shared universe is yet another matter.[1]

Now, the important thing to remember in this discussion are things I like to call “layers of relative reality.” I’ll call them “layers” to make things easier. Typically, there are three types of layers:
  1. A sublayer is a layer whose existence is entirely within another layer.
  2. A main layer is a layer in which an entity exists.
  3. A metalayer is a layer that contains the entity’s main layer as a sublayer.

There are also two flavors:[2]
  1. A shared layer is a layer with multiple observers
  2. A private layer is a layer with only one observer

So, to make it seem less ambiguous, let’s give some examples:
  1. A dream is a private sublayer (as far as I can tell)
  2. A real TV show is a shared sublayer of our main layer
  3. Your life is your main layer.
  4. If you had a life similar to The Truman Show, your life would still be your main layer, and the outside world would be a metalayer.

Okay? Cool. So now, I’m going to break down what I consider a “shared universe.” Here are my rules:
  1. Fan fiction doesn’t count
  2. In fact, only “authorized” or “licensed” matters should count
  3. Parodies don’t count
  4. Dream appearances are hard to justify
  5. Celebrity guest stars are hard to justify
  6. Public domain is hard to justify
  7. It’s easier if the characters make reference to it in their respective shows
  8. Cartoons are okay[3]
  9. Context matters!!!
  10.  All the while, consider the layers

So, let’s take a look at one particular franchise: X-Files.
The show had two spinoffs: Millennium and The Lone Gunmen. Further, it had crossovers with both Homicide: Life on the Street and The Simpsons. If you delve into the comics, you’ll also find crossovers with 30 Days of Night and Ghostbusters.
Let’s analyze this, then. If we assume that characters aren’t multiversal and admit that their appearance on The Simpsons was not parodic (it may have parodied the tropes of X-Files, but it was not exactly a parody of the characters, otherwise they would have names like Sana Dully and Mox Fulder or something. It would be more of a satire). Further, since all the appearances I mentioned were authorized by some authority of X-Files, we can then say that these events all happened on the same sublayer. It’s a no-brainer to say that Millennium and The Lone Gunmen share a universe with X-Files, and it’s just a little more to say it shares a universe with Homicide: Life on the Street (which has crossovers with all those initialism shows: CSI, et al.). Once you get over the hurdle of including Springfield into the mix (and it’s not that hard to assume that the events of The Simpsons could totally happen in the same universe as X-Files), you only have to then assume that there are vampires in Alaska and ghosts in New York.
One thing worth noting on the The Simpsons episode is the appearance of Chewbacca, Gordon Shumway, Marvin the Martian, and Gort. These can safely be argued as “parody,” and therefore, X-Files doesn’t in fact share its universe with Star Wars, ALF, Looney Toons, and The Day the Earth Stood Still, at least, not through this aspect.
Now, let’s look at another show: The Big Bang Theory.
Now, this show is a Chuck Lorre production, as is Two and a Half Men. In both shows there exists another show (a sublayer) Oshikuru: Demon Samurai. This shared sublayer of main layer of the shows. We could then argue that this shared sublayer indicates that two shows are a common main layer (which could be complicated by Sheen’s appearance in The Big Bang Theory). Two and a Half Men also has had crossovers with Dharma and Greg, therefore one could argue that these three shows exist on the same layer.
Now, the main reason why I discount celebrity appearances is because, on some level, most shows are splinters from our main layer, and as such, are likely to have the same celebrities and cities.
The main reason why I discount the public domain is because there is no control over “the canon.” While I really don’t care about “canon,” for the sake of determining “shared universes,” this is important. However, if the same version of a public domain character appears in two different media, then that could arguably link them.
There are few things, though, that break our ability to cleanly show shared universes.
  1. If one show that has a crossover also features people watching the show in which the crossed over (this is hard to argue).
  2. Contradictory things, like if an alien invasion happens on one show but doesn’t even get noticed on the other show.
  3. Quantum silliness, such as time travel and multiverses. These can really mess with a unified argument, as each time you travel through time, you potentially alter the relative future timeline, and you create forks in the space time continuum.

The strange thing that comes from this grand unified theory of television is the fact that there are so many people that look like each other and have the same mannerisms. For example, the Tommyverse can link to both I Love Lucy and The Lucy Show,[4] which both feature Lucille Ball playing a woman named Lucy complete with Lucyisms, and in both series, she’s friends with a character played by Vivian Vance. It’s a strange world that has both Lucy Ricardo and Lucy Carmichael.
While multiverses help invalidate most claims to a shared universe, it’s handy to have to explain away contradictions. You could say, then that Show X exists in a layer with an aspect of Show Y, but Show Y does not exist on the same layer as Show X.[5] In many ways, then Show X is a splinter of Show Y, much like most real shows are splinters of our own.

Layers, hopefully, can provide a useful argument tool in determining the validity of a shared universe claim. They are flexible enough to allow for normal use, but also can incorporate multiverses.[6] I certainly hope that this paradigm allows for more reasonable debate on the subject.
Other shared universes of note beyond the Tommyverse are:
  1. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
  2. The Wold Newton Universe
  3. Anno Dracula

Also, I believe that the writings of Stephen King and his son Joe Hill share a universe, or at least reference each other a whole heck of a lot.

[1] Think, for example, the company Yoyodyne. Originally from a Thomas Pynchon novel, it’s been referenced in Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, Star Trek, and Firefly, but is not necessarily indicating that all these things take part in the same shared universe.
[2] There may be a third flavor, depending on whether or not you consider your present layer “observable” by its residents.
[3] People don’t like to include The Simpsons in the Tommyverse, as it’s a cartoon. I say that if you apply the rules above and argue layers, it’s not that big of a deal. If it helps, just think of the cartoon as a different viewing aspect of a real-life version of the same show.
[4] I Love Lucy to The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour (sequel) to The Danny Thomas Show (The Williams family rents out Lucy’s home once) to The Andy Griffith Show (Andy Taylor arrests Danny Williams in Mayberry) to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. (spinoff on Gomer Pyle) to The Lucy Show (Gomer Pyle appears in “Lucy Gets Caught up in the Draft”).
[5] Do I need to draw a Venn diagram for that? I think I’d need to use non-euclidean space to do so…
[6] Think about those “what’s different between these two pictures” kind of puzzles you find in childrens’ coloring books.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Top 10 Recent Original Films

Every year, the powers that be[1] compile the list of top 10 grossing films. For this article, I am going to traverse backwards through these lists and list the “top 10 original films,” that is, films that are not:
  • A sequel/prequel
  • A remake
  • Based on a book/comic book
  • Based on a TV series
  • Based on a real-life event
  • Based on a video game[2]
  • Based on a theme park attraction
  • Based on a toy line
  • stuff like that…
So, here goes…

1. Gravity (2013, Dir. Alfonso CuarĂ³n)

This is a movie in which George Clooney and Sandra Bullock get stranded in space. I don’t think it’s loosely based on Lost in Space, so I’m pretty sure it counts. I had to navigate past Frozen (The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Anderson), Iron Man 3 (sequel to Iron Man 2, and based on the Iron Man comic series), Despicable Me 2 (sequel to Dispicable Me), The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (based on The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien, and a sequel to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey), The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (based on Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins, which is the second book in the Hunger Games series; likewise, this movie is a sequel to the film adaptation of The Hunger Games), Fast & Furious 6 (Sequel to Fast Five, part of The Fast and the Furious film series), and Monsters University (prequel to Monsters, Inc.)

2. Inception (2010, Dir. Christopher Nolan)

This movie is about people who steal things from people’s dreams. It’s not based on Hamlet’s soliloquy. “What dreams may come...”I had to navigate past Man of Steel (Superman film), and Thor: The Dark World (sequel and based on comic series, and part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe), every top ten movie in 2012 (The Avengers, Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Ice Age: Continental Drift, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2, The Amazing Spider-man, Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted, The Hunger Games, and Men in Black 3), every top ten movie in 2011 (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides[3], The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Kung Fu Panda 2, Fast Five, The Hangover Part II, The Smurfs, and Cars 2), Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

3. Despicable Me (2010, Dir. Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud)

I’m pretty sure that the “story” that Sergio Pablos wrote was specifically for this film, but I’m unable to find any information indicating either way. This is about a typical “evil genius” who must balance his life of evil geniusdom with raising three kids. I only had to navigate past Shrek Forever After, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Iron Man 2, and Tangled.

4. Avatar (2009, Dir. James Cameron)

While some have said that this film is essentially Dancing With Smurfs, it does not claim to owe its origin to any outside source, and that’s what counts for this article.
I only had to get past How to Train Your Dragon. Lucky me.

5. 2012 (2009, Dir. Roland Emmerich)

While this movie does owe some of its origin to our misperception of the Mayan long-count calendar, and the writings of Al Gore, it doesn’t seem to actually be based on anything that came before it. We got here after rushing past Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

6. Up (2009, Dir. Pete Docter)

Leave it to Pixar to make an original film, every other film. This was, to date, the saddest Pixar film I’ve ever seen, but it also got nominated for an academy award for best picture (to date, only three animated films, all Disney, have been nominated for this award). I didn’t have to navigate past anything, except the bucket of tears the first five minutes of this film brought.

7. The Hangover (2009, Dir. Todd Phillips)

While the subject of getting drunk and doing crazy things only to have to piece them together later on has been around since Hunter S. Thompson, this movie owes its origin to no discernable work that came before it, and as such is “original.” To get here (...yay...) I had to get past The Twilight Saga: New Moon, Sherlock Holmes, and Angels & Demons).

8. Kung Fu Panda (2008, Dir. John Stevenson & Mark Osborne)

This film tells the tale of an anthropomorphic pandabear that learns kung fu. What makes this movie particularly interesting is that the animals adopt the kung fu style named after them. Nice move, DreamWorks. I had to get past The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to get here.

9. Hancock (2008, Dir. Peter Berg)

A superhero movie that did not require a comic book to come before it. It came in right after Kung Fu Panda.

10. WALL-E (2008, Dir. Andrew Stanton)

Once again, Pixar gives us another original film (though some might argue that it’s My Fair Lady with robots and the obese…). I hear a lot of criticism of this film, saying “The first half was good...” I don’t get it. I love this movie all the way through. To get here, I had to get past Mamma Mia!, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, Quantum of Solace, and Iron Man.
Whew. That was a lot of work. I had to go back about 6 years to get all 10. Also, based on the current standings for 2014, I don’t think we’ll see another “original” movie until that Public Domain thing starts kicking in again. I’m glad I didn’t go for 20, or else, I’d probably have to go back to the eighties (checking, 2007 - 1, 2006 - 2, 2005 - 3, 2004 -2, 2003 - 2, okay, not exactly the eighties).
So the valuable take-away from all of this is: if you want to be a commercial success, don’t be original. Wait, that’s not the lesson I want people to learn! The take-away is: I want more original movies. They’re better, even if they aren’t more commercially successful. The only reason more people watch the less original films is because they’re familiar. Let’s take away familiarity for just a year, or a summer or a “holiday season”, and let’s see if we can have a top 10 that’s all new material.
Please?

[1] Box Office Mojo
[2] This check is essentially a no-op
[3] Not only a sequel in a series based on an attraction at Disney World, but also based on an unrelated pirate book by Tim Powers.