Thousands of years after civilization was destroyed by a cataclysmic event, humankind has adapted and a new way of living has evolved. Gigantic moving cities now roam the Earth, ruthlessly preying upon smaller traction towns. Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan)—who hails from a Lower Tier of the great traction city of London—finds himself fighting for his own survival after he encounters the dangerous fugitive Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar). Two opposites, whose paths should never have crossed, forge an unlikely alliance that is destined to change the course of the future.
Mortal Engines is the startling, new epic adventure directed by Oscar®-winning visual-effects artist Christian Rivers (King Kong). Joining Rivers are The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies three-time Academy Award®-winning filmmakers Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, who have penned the screenplay. The Universal and MRC adaptation is from the award-winning book series by Philip Reeve, published in 2001 by Scholastic.
On board as producers are Zane Weiner (The Hobbit trilogy), Amanda Walker (The Hobbit trilogy) and Deborah Forte (Goosebumps), as well as Walsh and Jackson. Ken Kamins (The Hobbit trilogy) joins Boyens as executive producer. Universal will distribute the film worldwide. www.mortalengines.com
Looking good to me, though I hope that is Hester's appearance before her injuries. If she is just your typical hollywood stunner (with a token scar on the lower of her face) then it will detract from her character and the story of her and Tom.
Her injury is a huge part of her character and removing/lessening it does nothing but weaken the story for no gain other than having a "pretty" female lead.
For people who haven't read the books, this is her description:
Her mouth was wrenched sideways in a permanent sneer, her nose was a smashed stump and her single eye stared at him out of the wreckage, as grey and chill as a winter sea.
That was my main reservation from the trailer - that scarring is central to her character, and really should still be visible even with the scarf covering up the worst of it. As is, she looks like a pretty girl in a scarf, which is most definitely not Hester.
I wonder what Shrike will end up looking like? I hope he's properly creepy looking.
My hope is that they've kept her face above the mask quite 'normal' so that the reveal is more grotesque. I believe there's even a remark in one of the books about Pennyroyal's telling of their adventures re-imagining Hester as a conventionally pretty girl with a single, cool scar and how much that offended her and Tom. If they do that same thing here then they've missed the point, but at the moment I think it's just an attempt to hide the reveal for those not in the know. Similarly, the landscape we see there is a lot less barren than the rest of the world was always depicted as.
But I think her face being cleaved in half serves as an excellent visual metaphor for the dual sides of her personality. The blind scarred side representing her anger amd desire for revenge, the other representing the compassionate, caring part of her that is hidden deep inside.
A better way of hiding her reveal would be to not have her in a teaser trailer/have her entire face covered (hood plus scarf maybe)
This trailer is the first I've ever heard of the Mortal Engines stories, and I have to say it looks pretty awesome! I might have to check out the books sometime if I can find them (should be easier with the movie coming out).
ZergSmasher wrote: This trailer is the first I've ever heard of the Mortal Engines stories, and I have to say it looks pretty awesome! I might have to check out the books sometime if I can find them (should be easier with the movie coming out).
You definitely should. They are written for young adults but certainly don't pull punches when it comes to the themes examined within them and the writing is excellent.
A Town Called Malus wrote:But I think her face being cleaved in half serves as an excellent visual metaphor for the dual sides of her personality. The blind scarred side representing her anger amd desire for revenge, the other representing the compassionate, caring part of her that is hidden deep inside.
A better way of hiding her reveal would be to not have her in a teaser trailer/have her entire face covered (hood plus scarf maybe)
Very true. However, I still have faith they'll handle it well. To be honest, if they're mo-capping rather than using practical effects they could easily change her appearance significantly between the trailers and the release to preserve the shock. Cruel to Hester as it is to say it, opening with a mangled teenager doesn't make a great first impression for your mass-market movie!
A Town Called Malus wrote:
ZergSmasher wrote: This trailer is the first I've ever heard of the Mortal Engines stories, and I have to say it looks pretty awesome! I might have to check out the books sometime if I can find them (should be easier with the movie coming out).
You definitely should. They are written for young adults but certainly don't pull punches when it comes to the themes examined within them and the writing is excellent.
Seconded, thirded and fourthed. Some of the best books ever written really, both the first set of 4 and the prequel trilogy (which should definitely be read after the original series for maximum effect). Beautifully written, some exceptional character work (Hester Shaw and Stalker Shrike stand up as some of my favourite characters in fiction) and by the fourth one, taking place on a truly epic stage while still maintaining a deeply personal story. I'd thoroughly recommend them to basically everyone with eyes and the capacity to read words.
Scale as in 'sense of' rather than 'in scale'. In other words, elements of this adaptation (such as an entire city driving around the place) needed to look impressively and impossibly immense and so far, they seem to have done that. The large tree not even reaching the top of the town's wheels, and London itself towering over the whole landscape while still moving at a fair old pace, and none of it looking unnatural or out of place (at least any more than intended), that sort of thing.
I'm just not sure about this. There's so much that looks absolutely bang on, but thus far we've seen basically nothing of Tom and Hester seems to be way off, there's none of the spite or hate in her and they're not even bothering with the mask/disfigurement now. She should be TDK Two-Face levels of gruesome and instead she's just got a Dramatic Hero Scar...
On the other hand, Shrike... That voice is chilling and the brief glimpse of the design looks excellent...
Yeah, that is not Hester. She's been turned into your standard young adult super special female protagonist, which is a huge disservice to her character.
Among the scars which will never heal are my mental scars from having to field 1,000,000 angry comments about Hester’s shortage of physical ones. Actually, I think her scar is surprisingly impressive (it’s been beefed up considerably since I met Hera Hilmar on set last year).
If I’d been in charge of the movie I would have wanted to extend the scar up across her forehead, and maybe given her an eyepatch – but that’s why I’m never going to be put in charge of a movie. Beautiful faces are Hollywood’s most precious natural resource, and the studios are very reluctant to let filmmakers muck about with them: they may be in the business of turning money into light, but they want to maximise their chances of eventually turning that light back into money again. So movie-Hester isn’t ugly, but she’s disfigured enough to believe she’s ugly, and I think Hera’s angry, intense performance will do the rest.
I think having her scar be smaller really runs the risk of potentially alienating audiences if she is acting like it has completely ruined her face. The audience might end up thinking she's overreacting etc. which could make them like her and empathise with her less than if she were more disfigured as it might come across more shallow and petulant.
And Tom being basically absent is also worrying. The story is as much his as it is Hester's. That trailer is suggesting he's been shunted into a supporting role with all the voice over going on about how Hester is so special etc. Tom is the POV character in the first book. We learn about the world through his eyes. We learn about Hester through his eyes.
Shrike is about the only character they seem to have come close to getting right. And, as awesome as he is, that will not be enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also found this article with some comments by Peter Jackson and the director. They do not leave me particularly hopeful.
PJ wrote:“There are always going to be fans of the books who are not always going to be in agreement with the decisions we’ve made. The mechanics of the story that we’re telling is that this young woman is scarred and when you first see her, all you’re going to see it the scar,” he said.
"In order to work as a love story, which the film is ultimately about, the storytellers want you to notice the scar less and less by the time the film is over. "The make up artists, therefore, had to create a “delicate balance” as to what is most visually pleasing, while keeping the true essence of the film.
“You are empathising with Hester the character and the scar almost becomes invisible to your eyes. You want that journey for the audience, and if it was too strong, they won’t get to that point at the end”
CR wrote:“Even though there’s been some criticism for what we’ve done, we know that if she was really hideous and ugly to look at, then a great deal of people who would go to see the film wouldn’t sympathise with her.”
If they can't make us empathise with or feel sympathy for a girl whose mother was murdered and who had her face carved in two because she is now ugly, then I don't think much of their filmmaking aptitude. Audiences empathised with the Elephant Man. They empathised with Frankenstein's monster. They empathised with Quasimodo. She might not be immediately empathetic for audiences but why does she need to be? She wasn't initially someone you empathised with in the books, after all. We only began to empathise with her truly after we began to learn more about her. We naturally grew to know her as Tom did and that slow reveal allowed us to see how each trauma in her past had built her into who she was at that moment we first saw her and how she was slowly healing with Tom.
Well there's a bit of a test for the Usual Suspects - is turning a character who could have been on-screen representation for many people that society has branded "disfigured" into a pretty girl with a wee scar for the sake of making the "normal" male character's eventual love for her seem more "reasonable" to normie audiences sufficient to bring the usual levels of fury when one group or another is perceived to have been slighted by an adaptation, or will they swing four-square behind the filmmakers since they're still getting a Strong Female Protagonist.
If they can't make us empathise with or feel sympathy for a girl whose mother was murdered and who had her face carved in two because she is now ugly, then I don't think much of their filmmaking aptitude. Audiences empathised with the Elephant Man. They empathised with Frankenstein's monster. They empathised with Quasimodo. She might not be immediately empathetic for audiences but why does she need to be?
Those examples are notably all male. It's very much Holy Writ in Hollywoodland that ugly women aren't worth squat.
The Studios especially won't take that risk, and given the general shallowness of audiences... it's hard to particularly blame them for that.
Especially a film like this. It's silly enough on surface details, but with a very cliched plot (Hide the MacGuffin from Evil Father and his Monstrous Minion), so it seems unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to toss additional risks onto the pile.
Its bad enough that they're leaning heavily on Peter Jackson's name for so much of the marketing, when he seems to just be an 'and also contributing' for the screenplay.
Yodhrin wrote: Well there's a bit of a test for the Usual Suspects - is turning a character who could have been on-screen representation for many people that society has branded "disfigured" into a pretty girl with a wee scar for the sake of making the "normal" male character's eventual love for her seem more "reasonable" to normie audiences sufficient to bring the usual levels of fury when one group or another is perceived to have been slighted by an adaptation, or will they swing four-square behind the filmmakers since they're still getting a Strong Female Protagonist.
Not bait, I'm genuinely interested to see how some columnists and commentators who've expressed certain views in the past will reconcile this. Given the usual unspoken hierarchy of worthiness I have my suspicions how that will go.
Those examples are notably all male. It's very much Holy Writ in Hollywoodland that ugly women aren't worth squat.
The Studios especially won't take that risk, and given the general shallowness of audiences... it's hard to particularly blame them for that.
That's true, which makes it even more disappointing that the film has not challenged it since that "beautification" of Hester for mass market appeal is even called out in the books themselves, through an in-universe novel series written about her and Tom which removes her ugliness.
Especially a film like this. It's silly enough on surface details, but with a very cliched plot (Hide the MacGuffin from Evil Father and his Monstrous Minion), so it seems unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to toss additional risks onto the pile.
Its bad enough that they're leaning heavily on Peter Jackson's name for so much of the marketing, when he seems to just be an 'and also contributing' for the screenplay.
Alternatively, adding the risk of a book-accurate Hester would separate the film from any other young adult film with attractive young lead. By removing one of the distinctive elements of the book, you in fact make it more cliched.
I read the books years ago and enjoyed them but I don't remember the details of all the characters.
I don't think it matters for me or a general audience (who haven't read the books at all) if they've modified parts of the story, providing it hangs together well as a science fantasy action film.
Im probably going to get and read the books before I see any of these. It sounds like theyve butchered the characters.
Can see Jackson fething this right up. He had the guts to feth with Tolkiens books, so there's no chance he shows a tiny author's material any respect.
Those examples are notably all male. It's very much Holy Writ in Hollywoodland that ugly women aren't worth squat.
The Studios especially won't take that risk, and given the general shallowness of audiences... it's hard to particularly blame them for that.
That's true, which makes it even more disappointing that the film has not challenged it since that "beautification" of Hester for mass market appeal is even called out in the books themselves, through an in-universe novel series written about her and Tom which removes her ugliness.
Especially a film like this. It's silly enough on surface details, but with a very cliched plot (Hide the MacGuffin from Evil Father and his Monstrous Minion), so it seems unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to toss additional risks onto the pile.
Its bad enough that they're leaning heavily on Peter Jackson's name for so much of the marketing, when he seems to just be an 'and also contributing' for the screenplay.
Alternatively, adding the risk of a book-accurate Hester would separate the film from any other young adult film with attractive young lead. By removing one of the distinctive elements of the book, you in fact make it more cliched.
I guess? But 'not cliched' isn't important to the studio approving the casting/look of the cast. Going with cliches that sell is appealing to Hollywood execs- it reassures them, and to them makes a film less risky. The risky bit is selling giant Tonka Trucks Towns Pac-manning around the landscape. And somehow blending the steampunk(ish) driving towns with the very space opera looking flyers in trailer #2 (Daddy's in the opening looks like it came straight from the Star War prequels)
Dropbear Victim wrote: Im probably going to get and read the books before I see any of these. It sounds like theyve butchered the characters.
Can see Jackson fething this right up. He had the guts to feth with Tolkiens books, so there's no chance he shows a tiny author's material any respect.
If you expect the movie to feth it up don’t read the books first. If you’re going to take in two similar things you need to do the lesser first so it can be enjoyed on its level.
Kilkrazy wrote: The medium of books and films are very different. I don't think it's 100% possible to translate directly from one to the other.
While that's true in general, I don't think it really applies to this specific scenario, given the particulars of the character they're changing, how those changes must necessarily affect the story, and what message they send. It's not like we're talking about cutting a few side-scenes for time or compressing a lot of dialogue and descriptive text down into a few establishing shots, by dialling back the severity of her disfigurement they have to also modify other aspects of her character and behaviour to avoid her coming off as unsympathetic(or they won't do that, and she'll come off as unsympathetic, either way it's a problem).
And my first suspicion about how certain folk will react to this was confirmed earlier - a friend of a friend who will tie themselves in knots of performative outrage about badwrong evil gatekeeping male nerds when the issue for discussion is making explicit changes to the source material for the sake of inclusiveness/diversity/representation and so on is fairly falling over backwards trying to justify this specific case of changing the source material in a way that harms inclusiveness/diversity/representation, because of course if the price of getting more female protagonists out there for young girls to look up to is stiffing people with disabilities, disorders, or disfigurements well too bad so sad.
The books are wonderful, so do give them a read first. Inventive and fantastical. Had dinner with Philip Reeve a couple of times and he’s a very lovely, pragmatic chap. He knows his books are his but adaptations aren’t. I suggested allowing other writers to play in his world and expand the universe, and also prequels, and he wasn’t keen. He’s now written prequels himself, and it seems is letting PJ play with his toys. I hope the end result is good, and not a Golden Compass-esque expensive let-down.
I think at the very least this is on track to be a good film. Whether or not it's an equally good adaptation remains to be seen, but in a vacuum everything we've seen thus far looks great from a visual standpoint and the core of the story is there to be enjoyed, even with the changes to Hester and Tom.
I'd be interested to k ow why they made Hester the apparent protagonist, given that putting Tom in that role might have let them represent Hester a little more accurately. Do they see Tom as too boring to be front and centre, or are they just wanting Hester to be Steampunk Katniss?
Anyone saw it?
I saw it yesterday, had not read the book, and thought it was extremely Hollywood and extremely Young Adult (which isn't a good thing, especially with the Hollywood part), but the Shrike character seemed pretty cool. He felt almost like some kind of 2000 AD character lol.
The setting was too ridiculous and it was too rubbed in our face how ridiculous it was to take it seriously either. Like, who the feth turned those cities into big vehicles, and why didn't they use the MASSIVE engineering that it required to make something more worthwhile? Why keep the old stuff when it would have been so much easier to start from scratch
Yodhrin, to answer your question, I am unhappy but not surprised that they decided to beautify Hester. It's a fething Hollywood blockbuster. Sometime something good comes out of it, but it's more the exception.
Movie was ok, bad cast though and over stereotypes. The main hero guy dude is forgettable, always gotta chase that pussycat, wish he actually died when he got pushed. It’s ridiculous how he somehow survived, the girl too. The people in the wall are totally without backbone, bomb our wall, destroy our fleet, no problem, let me shelter your survivors and feed you. Typical western POV, we said sorry, it was my dad who wrecked your town...
Big Mac wrote: The people in the wall are totally without backbone, bomb our wall, destroy our fleet, no problem, let me shelter your survivors and feed you.
You mean, basically what the Allied did with Germany after WW2?
Sure works better than how Germany was treated after WW1 if you ask me .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Like, who the feth turned those cities into big vehicles, and why didn't they use the MASSIVE engineering that it required to make something more worthwhile? Why keep the old stuff when it would have been so much easier to start from scratch
Rule of cool, and rule of plot.
Rule of cool is satisfied by big tank-cities "eating" smaller tank-cities. Rule of plot requires that the big tank-cities be utterly (comically) massive in the way Imperial capital ships are, it establishes them as an unassailable enemy.
Yodhrin, to answer your question, I am unhappy but not surprised that they decided to beautify Hester. It's a fething Hollywood blockbuster. Sometime something good comes out of it, but it's more the exception.
It also spares the actress grueling makeup sessions every time her face is shown on screen. Then there's the rating issue, her scar as depicted in the books would likely have netted the movie an R rating.
dogma wrote: It also spares the actress grueling makeup sessions every time her face is shown on screen.
I'd say it's the opposite, likely. I mean, this isn't Fury Road, those cities ain't actually built for the movie, just CGI everywhere. Doubt Shrike's actor had to go through a grueling makeup session .
I'd say it's the opposite, likely. I mean, this isn't Fury Road, those cities ain't actually built for the movie, just CGI everywhere. Doubt Shrike's actor had to go through a grueling makeup session .
Using CG to create an, ostensibly emotionless, cyber zombie is very different from using CG to create a human protagonist in a movie that isn't fully done with CG.
Imagine a Tarkin movie featuring CG Peter Cushing.
If you see London sadly chugging its way into the sunset, give it some space. It must be devastated after hearing how Peter Jackson’s Mortal Engines bottomed out during its opening weekend, bringing in approximately $7.5 million domestic and $42.3 million worldwide. The film’s budget was over $100 million, potentially setting it up for a nearly $100 million loss, depending on its continued performance.
Directed by Christian Rivers, and produced and co-written by Jackson, Mortal Engines follows the steam punk fantasy journey of humans living in a future dominated by Traction Cities, cities-on-wheels designed to travel the earth and cannibalize smaller towns for resources. Based on the Philip Reeve book series of the same name, Mortal Engines is, unfortunately, a lesser-known big-budget property up against December’s many, many cinematic offerings. Oh, if only the big swings could drive around, gobbling up all the smaller swings.
They must have spent a ton on advertising, too. For a couple of weeks, every YouTube video I watched started with an obnoxious and unskippable Mortal Engine trailer.
Also, it's not like entertainment journalists hadn't warned them to move the movie's release date to a less crowded weekend. There's no shame in bowing out of a game of chicken against the Disney juggernaut.
The setting was too ridiculous and it was too rubbed in our face how ridiculous it was to take it seriously either. Like, who the feth turned those cities into big vehicles, and why didn't they use the MASSIVE engineering that it required to make something more worthwhile? Why keep the old stuff when it would have been so much easier to start from scratch
If you're actually interested in this, the premise of the setting is very well fleshed out in the books, hinted at throughout the main series and dealt with directly (and well) in the equally good prequel trilogy. It's dumb at a glance and I can't speak for how well the film handles it, but in the original material it is all explained (and the books are just worth reading generally on account of being excellent.).
Shame to hear the film isn't doing well, but I can't say I'm overly surprised. Leaving aside that it opened against Aquaman and Bumblebee, I think certain choices discussed in this thread (particularly regarding Hester's look, role and general characterisation) put off a lot of the book audience and as you note it's a hard sell for someone who hasn't read them, seeming completely bonkers. A lot of the marketing makes the setting look very generic-YA-dystopia-goes-steampunk rather than the highly original world it was in the books, and there's no sign that the very strong and unique characters have really carried over either.
It's sad as I've been waiting to see it adapted for years, and Peter Jackson being involved seemed perfect when it was announced, but I kind of get the feeling now that this will end up alongside things like Eragon and The Golden Compass on the pile of adaptations that should have been great but just really didn't work. I guess I can hope it's at least a good film even if it's not a good translation of the book, but from what I've read it's not even that.
I saw it last Monday while I was in London, in 4DX...I can’t help but feel that if my chair had stayed rooted to the floor, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it at all.
I've read a couple of reviews which didn't give it high marks.
I's a bit sad as I loved the books and have been looking forwards to Pete Jackson's brilliance being applied to realise them on the big screen.
However, I will hope to enjoy it better for myself. I'm not fussed about Hester having been "prettified". The idea of tanks the size of cities roaring around and attacking each other is so awesome that I've got to see it.
There’s only one “city fight” near the beginning really, and it’s more just a chase scene that we already know the outcome of because it was in the trailers. London is actually boring. It’s so massive it just rolls along like nothing. Thinking back to it, I can’t even really remember them showing it’s tracks much at all? Just kind of the city on top. Parts at a time, not the whole of it. The smaller cities are far more interesting because they are agile and turn more and you can get a sense of weight and mass as they drive about.
Paradigm wrote: It's dumb at a glance and I can't speak for how well the film handles it, but in the original material it is all explained (and the books are just worth reading generally on account of being excellent.).
In the movie there isn't any explication really, it's just the visuals and it looks obvious that they put actual pre-cataclysm ancient buildings at the very top of the last story of a dozen stories but on top of some huge tracks, so how and why did they do that?
I'll give the books a read on the occasion.
AduroT wrote: Thinking back to it, I can’t even really remember them showing it’s tracks much at all?
We do see them several time, they even do some big overkill near the end if you remember it . Also the big ravines left by the tracks are featured a lot too.
Haven't read the books (not translated here yet). I don't mind silly setting, it's steampunk, all of it is silly with airship cities and robot dinosaurs and whatnot. Tracked cities hardly stand out there. But the trailer gave impression of the movie being very generic and bland so little wonder if it's not a big hit.
Lance845 wrote: Wild wild west. Very successful. Actual steam punk.
It made ~52 million, which isn't that successful given that it had the backing of the TV series, Will Smith, Kevin Kline, Kenneth Branagh, and Salma Hayek.
There have been big budget steampunk movies between Wild Wild West and now. That we might argue which of them are “real” steampunk movies might be part of the struggle of this genre.
Maybe it's as much a failure of marketing as a lack of interest by mainstream audiences.
Steampunk also runs into issues with consistency of the world. You need some kind of super fuel to power these steam driven engines or else none of this technology is viable as people cannot be carrying around kilos of coal with them and stopping to shovel it in to their furnace on their back. But then why are people not adapting that super fuel into a more efficient design, such as an internal combustion engine? And how is the energy stored for use in, say, weaponry? Why is that technology not just being used as portable energy storage which is recharged from power sockets supplied with electricity by huge power plants burning this super fuel?
Much of the steampunk setting that is popular (especially among cosplayers) is big on the steam, but lacking on the punk. They like the big clothes and facial hair of the victorian era, especially with some brass cogs stuck on there for random reasons, but don't seem near as interested in the portrayal of the workhouse children producing those clothes, the miners dying from exposure to the dust of the super fuel mines, the racism, the classism, the impacts of imperialism etc.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Much of the steampunk setting that is popular (especially among cosplayers) is big on the steam, but lacking on the punk.
Has some steampunk ever been punk? I thought it was named steampunk as a reference to cyberpunk but never had anything to do with anything punk (a bit unlike cyberpunk that had a very nihilistic outset and focussed on street characters and all that).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: To be fair, steam is *very* efficient - why do you think they use it for nuclear reactors?
Which, incidentally, means that nuclear submarines are literal steampunk engines of mass destruction!
My first introduction to steampunk was a comic book written by Neil Gaiman called Teknophage, about a dinosaur man who survived millions of years to become a Gilded Age robber baron style intergalactic warlord. Now that definitely had political overtones.
Hey but political undertones alone don't really make a thing punk, do they?
I wouldn't call very obviously political syfy like 1984 or Brave New World punk.
But the politics in this case are criyical of dehumanizing corporate greed. I think this is why steampunk seems such a natural analog to cyberpunk. There is a strong parallel between the excesses of the Gilded Age and the mega-corp dominated future.
Maybe it's as much a failure of marketing as a lack of interest by mainstream audiences.
Well, like Backfire said, there was Sky Captain (even if it's actually Diesel Punk). There's Wild Wild West which, while profitable, was not profitable enough, and was a critical failure to boot. And then there's The Golden Compass, which wasn't well received either.
Now I would say that, in the desire to produce a grand looking spectacle, the makers of punk movies forget crucial things like the plot and characterization, but that wouldn't explain what happened with the Bladerunners, which are two of the greatest films ever made and yet were still box office disappointments. I know that these movies are all technically from different genres, but what they have in common is that they're all 'punk'.
Maybe we just have to face the fact that punk genre movies are niche, not for mainstream audiences, and that they'll never be successes at the box office. If the reactions to Bladerunner 2049 from my workmates at the time are anything to go by, punk movies are ironically too 'highbrow' for most people.
Without wanting to be too harsh, I'd criticize the punk genres as immature art forms. By that, I mean they are relatively new, niche, and have not developed much. They're often valued for their visual and stylistic appeal, but offer little else that makes them compelling. Hollywood and big budget entertainment often struggles with style over substance, which probably doesn't help them much when trying to tackle a genre that has the exact same problem.
I don't think it's correct to characterise "punk" as an art form as such. It's just a nickname for a genre of music and various SF sub-genres. The art form is music, or literature, or film.
As regards the prioritisation of style in big budget, that is a natural consequence of the visual medium in which spending $100M on a script won't make a film look 1 cent better, so the money gets spent on the visuals.
Ironically, the His Dark Materials books which for the basis for The Golden Compass, are one of the very best YA fiction series of the past 50 years, and the translation to film was done with style and panache, yet somehow it didn't work despite the high quality of the original source material.
Manchu wrote: But the politics in this case are criyical of dehumanizing corporate greed. I think this is why steampunk seems such a natural analog to cyberpunk. There is a strong parallel between the excesses of the Gilded Age and the mega-corp dominated future.
Thanks, I understand your point better now, and it does indeed link Cyberpunk to Steampunk.
But I think the part that lead the cyberpunk genre to having punk in the name is less the criticism of corporate greed (which definitely was a big part of the genre, don't get me wrong), and more the cynicism and the “street creed” of the protagonists, imo.
Kilkrazy, I'm mostly musing about why the SF genre got their name from the musical thingy.
Back in the late 1970s, both pop music and were seen by some as being in a rut.
Then British Punk Rock broke out with a new energy and passion. In the same way, the new cyber based SF was seen as a disruption and challenge to established forms, with new authors and new things to say. The name of punk got attached to the new sub-genre of SF.
This IMO explains why Steampunk and Dieselpunk haven't lit up the skies in the same way. Instead of being a disruption and challenge to the establishment, they are actually somewhat conservative forms which give a nod to late Victorian SF and pulp era SF. Even the use of "punk" is a lazy way to describe them, and Dieselpunk is a doubly lazy name, obviously imitating Steampunk which imitates Cyberpunk.
Obviously I am painting with a broad brush here. There are some very good Steampunk books, ironically some of them by Cyberpunk stars (e.g. The Difference Engine) as well as new writers.
Manchu wrote: But the politics in this case are critical of dehumanizing corporate greed. I think this is why steampunk seems such a natural analog to cyberpunk. There is a strong parallel between the excesses of the Gilded Age and the mega-corp dominated future.
But that's a key disconnect. Cyberpunk is is now and forward, but steampunk is back in the day: it's a nice thought but it really doesn't matter.
It also spares the actress grueling makeup sessions every time her face is shown on screen. Then there's the rating issue, her scar as depicted in the books would likely have netted the movie an R rating.
If that's actually true, then it only reinforces the problem the industry has.
Manchu wrote: But the politics in this case are critical of dehumanizing corporate greed. I think this is why steampunk seems such a natural analog to cyberpunk. There is a strong parallel between the excesses of the Gilded Age and the mega-corp dominated future.
But that's a key disconnect. Cyberpunk is is now and forward, but steampunk is back in the day: it's a nice thought but it really doesn't matter.
I think the idea is, this dehumanization is systemically linked to technology. It’s not as if evil arrived with the computer.
I’m adding lots of things to my reading list. Incidentally, I’m about to begin reading twenty thousand leagues under the sea. I don’t know if it’s steampunk exactly, but if it’s not, it’s the next best thing.
Manchu wrote: But the politics in this case are critical of dehumanizing corporate greed. I think this is why steampunk seems such a natural analog to cyberpunk. There is a strong parallel between the excesses of the Gilded Age and the mega-corp dominated future.
But that's a key disconnect. Cyberpunk is is now and forward, but steampunk is back in the day: it's a nice thought but it really doesn't matter.
I think the idea is, this dehumanization is systemically linked to technology. It’s not as if evil arrived with the computer.
I agree with that.
Steampunk requires us to imagine that Jules Verne's novels were historical, not science fictional of their time. From that angle, Steampunk isn't futuristic, and perhaps it shouldn't count as SF.
This doesn't address the "punk" angle of course, but I feel that is merely a nod to the earlier success of cyberpunk. The really significant trends in early 21st century SF have been the emergence of dark urban, and the resurgence of space opera in a modern, high-tech guise.
Steampunk actually exists as much as a cosplay format as a genre of literature. It ties into the "Chap" movement which itself is a broadening of "New Fogeyism".
I wouldn't class Perdido Street Station as Steampunk. it's "new weird." But this in itself helps to demonstrate the difficulty of identifying Steampunk.
Anyway, we live in a age where the SF shelves of bookshops routinely contain a mixture of actual SF and fantasy (i.e. sword and sorcery) so do these classifications matter?
I'd say given the laxity of book store shelves it matters even more. Sometimes I'm happy to read something that wasn't quite what I expected, but sometimes I want to get exactly what I sodding expected to get(a sentiment in which I doubt very much I am alone) and an at least moderately accurate structure of genres and subgenres is necessary for that to happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: Steampunk actually exists as much as a cosplay format as a genre of literature. It ties into the "Chap" movement which itself is a broadening of "New Fogeyism".
I wouldn't class Perdido Street Station as Steampunk. it's "new weird." But this in itself helps to demonstrate the difficulty of identifying Steampunk.
Steam is pretty easy to identify from a cosplay standpoint:
[_] gears?
[_] goggles?
If both checked = "steampunk"
Shouldn't we take the discussion of what is or is not steampunk, cyberpunk, dieselpunk, or anythingelsepunk into its own thread and keep this one talking about Mortal Engines?
On that note, I saw it today and I actually enjoyed it a lot. Of course, I've never read the books so maybe that's why. The whole ridiculousness of the setting actually made it enjoyable on a certain level. While it's hardly a masterpiece, I think it's an okay movie, especially if you like epic imagery like whole cities moving around on wheels/tracks/whatever.
ZergSmasher wrote: While it's hardly a masterpiece, I think it's an okay movie, especially if you like epic imagery like whole cities moving around on wheels/tracks/whatever.
.
