So maybe that title is a little harsh. Yet I've had this conversation recently over the past month or so with my friends talking about how unoriginal we have become with our story telling - mainly from movies and TV shows.
Think about the countless sequels we've seen. How many times do they REALLY live up to the first one? Sometimes they just feel so forced and unnatural that it's actually painful. Real quick though - there's a difference between sequels and the continuation of a story. By that I mean something that was made with the purpose of having multiple iterations - the Star Wars / Lord of the Rings / Harry Potter / James Bond types. Movies that had a sequel when they weren't originally intended - name about 1000 different ideas in your mind - that were so terrible compared to the original.
Or think about the remakes we're seeing. The Spiderman franchise, which saw enormous success when it transitioned to film in 2002, is already seeing a reboot. Do we really need another one less than 10 years later? REALLY? Although the Batman/Dark Knight reboots have been fantastic, they are the rare stand outs. This summer we saw the release of a reboot of The A-Team, which from what I heard was really terrible transition from the show. There's a remake of 90210. I never watched it, but why?
This conversation was really stimulated by the last Indiana Jones that came out in 2008. I've always been a huge Indy fan and loved the original three, and the fan in me likes the fourth, but it sucked. Why wait 30 years to make the next one? And to make one that sucks? Brutal. Totally ruined everything I loved about the franchise. Part of that is cause George Lucas is high off his ass because of the unbelievable following his films have gotten (mainly Star Wars obviously) that I really believe he doesn't know how to make film anymore. The new Star Wars sucked too.
When things are considered "classic" or "historic" they are meant to stay that way. They aren't meant to be touched again. We don't try to re-write books, because it ruins the integrity of the author's vision. Why do we not respect that vision when it comes to film?
My easiest guess is the $$. The studios want an automatic home run every time. Take a successful film, create a second one, and it should be successful too, right? It should be more of a slam dunk than taking a risk on a film that may not make it (i.e. Inception/Avatar) So then, let's make a third one. Then we probably need a 3-D one. Soon we'll have a 4D or whatever the next craze is. We've become so dependent on franchises for everything - because they are the biggest money machine - that it's ridiculous. It does make sense - most of the movies that are "critically acclaimed" by awards shows, don't get seen by the average movie-goer. They like being entertained, not seeing a complicated, not-always-happy-ending story. I don't know a lot of people that saw The Hurt Locker, but who didn't see Avatar?
I also think some people want to re-make movies with today's technology. Think how different Jurassic Park could be today? I'm in no way encouraging a new reboot, but that's people's logic. Movies that are older probably get considered even more.
Quick tangent on other entertainment division - video games. I was looking at the video games I've been playing this summer, and all of them are sequels except for one. They have a "2" or a "3" or a "2010" on them, or they are based off of a movie franchise (what can I say, I love Ghostbusters - NEW TANGENT. NEXT PARAGRAPH.)
They're making a third Ghostbusters. Near 25 years after the original. I end my case. The creative minds are being lost or suffocated by the bigger money-making opportunities to create less-good movies with more potential for revenue. I really hope we can somehow break this cycle, but I don't know. Maybe it'll be a good thing so then we'll stop being so dependent on repetitive forms of entertainment.
In the meantime, who wants to see the super original Piranha 3D with me?
No comments:
Post a Comment