A sequel about avoiding sequels
I don't do sequels.
I should clarify that.
When it comes to movies I don't (willingly) watch sequels. When I do, almost invariably it ends up proving my rule. So, for example, I've never seen a Star Wars movie after the first one (or would that be the fourth one?) Where I have seen a sequel, it is usually at the insistence of a friend or family member, and I always regret it. Especially because it takes what may have been a good movie in my head and weighs it down with a lesser one and then the average rating for both drops, so when I think of them I remember the overall "Meh," not the original "Wow!"
I don't watch remakes, either. If the original movie was worth watching, then that is good enough for me. If it wasn't, why remake it? (koff Red Dawn koff) I can think of few remakes that were worth the effort and expenditure, let alone came close to surpassing the original. Which is yet another reason why I watch few new(er) movies now.
Yet sequels and remakes seem to be all Hollywood can hash out any more. It is better to strip mine the past, finding those creative nuggets of high-grade ore to recycle rather than to prospect in new, uncharted territory (hmmm - "recycling ore?" mixed metaphor, that). Our only hope is from technology. New music, books and even movies are easier and cheaper than ever to make and distribute, and lots of people are doing it (in less than five years the number of published book titles has exploded from 250,000 to something like three million). There might be a lot of junk created, but I think through sheer numbers a lot of creativity will be unleashed. There is certainly a renaissance going on in independent music right now. Let's hope we see more of that in movies as well.
Meanwhile, just say no to sequels and remakes. They got your money once. Make 'em work for any more of it.
2 comments:
i used to watch soap operas a lot--which are constant sequel--and still respect the genre. i would imagine that at least in mainstream america, sequels tend to be sloppy, resting on their laurels. but then there are things [in the book or film] like the famed harry potter series, which seemed to me [as a non-movie-fan] to be pretty good.
remakes; i avoid most of them, but mainly b/c i like old [30s 40s] film in general, and dislike 60s-and beyond] in general, so my dislike of most remakes iv'e seen [or 1/2 seen] probably stems from that rather than the film itself.
then again, i'm a fan of tv, whose dramas and sitcoms are ALL sequel. but also re remakes, in a sense any production of a not-new PLAY is in effect a remake. but i'd hate never to see a new 'hamlet' in my life.....or in opera, same thing. as a film fan, is your sense that remakes MIGHT be good if they approached on that basis? or that just the medium itself works against it?
Karen,
As you may or may not know, I don't watch TV - at all. Haven't for about 12 years now. So while your point about TV shows is valid, it also just reinforces my point (about me :). You bring up an interesting argument that without remakes there could be no new interpretation of "Hamlet." I hadn't thought of that. I need to give it a bit more time before I answer, but my kneejerk reaction is in those cases they are using the same SCRIPT, and that may well make all the difference (instead of completely walking over and trashing the original work, as all Hollywood remakes seem to do).
Perhaps the real problem is the old saw that, like jokes, there are only seven (or nine, or some small number) of plots. The palette is already limited by that, and then if you limit it more by remaking a known story instead of trying to create something new, it just hamstrings the effort too much. I don't know.
I do know I still don't like sequels and remakes. :) But you have me thinking about some of my stance. Good. :)
Post a Comment