Let's talk about sequels for
a couple minutes. I think we can all agree that sequels are most often not
nearly as good as the original. There have been exceptions. Off the top of my
head I can think of Aliens, Evil Dead II,
Terminator 2, Psycho II, The Bride of Frankenstein, and Magnum Force. Every one of those movies
was as good or nearly as good as the original. The reason every single one of
those sequels worked as well as they did as that the writers and filmmakers
found a way to expand the universe created in the first picture without losing
sight of the original narrative. One major element always remained consistent
while the general story itself evolved.
In Aliens, we got more aliens. I mean really, that was the major
change. It went from being 1 lone woman vs. 1 unknown acid-spitting xenomorph
to a team lead by said woman vs. multiple acid-spitting night creepers. The
elements that made the first movie great remained generally intact. They were
only expanded to add a new level of suspense and thrill for the audience. Had
it followed the exact same 1 on 1 formula the movie probably wouldn't
have worked. At that point in the franchise the ante needed to be upped to draw
us back in. To make us say, “how is she going to get
out of here alive this time?” The suspense that worked
so well in the first movie just couldn't work the same way a
second time because we had already seen the monster. Evil Dead II was essentially, a remake of the original film done in
the way the director wanted to do the film the first time but couldn't
due to a lack of money to do it. It worked too. Again, the scenario was mostly
unchanged but the universe was expanded. New supporting characters, bigger set
pieces, and a deeper exploration into the powers of the Necronomicon spellbook
and its history. The Necronomicon, if you folks don't
know, was an ancient Sumerian text known as 'The Book of the Dead.' Of course the Necronomicon as we know it in pop culture, is largely influenced
by the book as it was used in the writings of H.P. Lovecraft. It is an
essential plot point in Raimi's Evil Dead movies. Anyway, as to not veer off topic, one can see the
commonality among great sequels.
Bad sequels have a lot in common
too. Like I said, they usually break the rules the previous film or films put
into place. Take A Nightmare on Elm
Street Part 2: Freddy's
Revenge. If I were to watch that movie wholly on its own merits, there are
things I can really get into. First off, Robert Englund is always amazing. One
of the greatest actors ever when it comes to the use of body language. He is a
guy who can say so many words with his hands, facial expressions, walk, and
shoulder movements. Of course when when wearing a striped
sweater and a clawed glove, he's at his very best. Other
merits of the film would include the awesome Clu Gulagar, the very creepy
score, and some pretty awesome kills. Now the bad: and no I'm
not talking about the homosexual subtext people have been debating since 1985.
I'm talking about that rule breaking again. It was
established in the first movie that Freddy Krueger was a powerful demonic force
when encountered in the domain of dreams. The only way he could be hurt or
killed was to be pulled into reality by the dreamer he was attacking. Nancy
succeeds in bringing Freddy into reality and waiting for him are a bunch of
dangerous booby traps she has specifically prepared. In Freddy's
Revenge, even knowing his human vulnerability he seemingly wants to inhabit
the body of the very human Jesse and use him to strike again in the world of
the living. Say what? Like in the first movie there is still some supernatural
presence to him even whilst walking around in reality. However, to inhabit a
human body he opens himself up to human vulnerability. We can be shot, stabbed,
set on fire, and blown up and we aren't dusting it off like
Fred does in the land of nightmares. So as you see, the story clearly makes a
dumb-dumb choice. It defies Wes Craven's original assertion that
Freddy is just as mortal as the rest of us when playing in our plane of
existence.
One of the biggest things I hear
from people, particularly genre buffs, is that somehow sequels will “ruin”
the original movie. My response to that is, “seek counseling.”
The events displayed in a sequel should have no effect on your opinion of the
movie that precedes it. It’s madness to think otherwise. If
the sequel sucks, the original still exists by way of DVD, digital copy, VHS,
and or film print for your enjoyment. You can opt not to buy the sequel when it
comes out and just end your collection of whatever franchise it belongs to with
the last film in said franchise you enjoyed. Which in some cases may be the
first film. You can pretend it doesn’t even exist! Believe me,
that's what I do with a lot of remakes. Oh and Jason X and Seed of Chucky.
Since I mentioned it, let's
talk remakes for a second. Remakes are not technically sequels because they are
supposed to exist outside of the original established universe. They are an
attempt to start over or restructure the previous universe. So in a way they
are more forgivable than sequels that completely disregard the preceding film's
laws. Then in another way they are not forgivable. One of my problems with the
vast majority of remakes is this: if you vastly alter the characters or plot
you're just making a new movie altogether. So why must you
use the title, character names, and basic story elements of the original film?
Why not just make an entirely different film with your own characters. Of
course the answer is generally because Friday
the 13th is a bigger name than The Killer in the Woods and thus, guaranteed to sell more theater
tickets and merchandise.
The other real issue I have with
remakes is that the marketing machine tries to pretend like the original didn't
exist. This is because they want the general public to buy the new vision so
they may make plenty of profitable sequels. They don't
want you to think you've seen it all before or that you
have an alternative. For instance, last year, Warner Brothers (Who now owns the
original studio New Line Cinema) released a Nightmare
on Elm Street box set featuring the first 8 films starring Robert Englund.
Guess whom they had on the box art? Jackie Earl Haley, the new Freddy Krueger.
Why would they do that? No offense to Jackie but he had absolutely no involvement
in those movies. It is a cheap marketing ploy to make young folk who may have
never seen the original believe they will be getting a product very much like
the new one they liked. Of course the studio only did this after they realized
people hadn't forgotten about the old films. I see now that the box
set has been re-released with Robert Englund on the cover, as should be.
Apparently the new A Nightmare on Elm
Street didn't come close to matching the
success of the Robert Englund films and people still envision Mr. Englund as
Freddy Krueger. He was the voice of their childhood nightmares after all.
If Warner Brothers had waited at
least another 10 years to reboot the Freddy Krueger brand they may have had
more success. This is another problem we run into with remakes. The last film
featuring Robert Englund was in 2003. He was doing press for and promoting new
Freddy Krueger TV projects, comic books, and film sequels up until about a year
before they announced the 2010 remake. No one had forgotten about Freddy
Krueger or Robert Englund. So Robert suddenly being replaced and a remake being
announced looked mighty suspicious. It looked like nothing more than an attempt
to “update.” Which is something you
hear a lot these days. “Hey that old movie looked like it
was made in 1984. We can make it so much better with our CGI." The flaws and technical limitations of the old movie are really just part of
the charm. Studios don't seem to understand this
mentality. They also underestimated the role Robert Englund played into the
character's success. In their attempt to keep anyone from being
reminded of the original movie, they only reminded us of how great the old one
really is.
In my mind, remaking a movie that
is 50-100 years old is no issue. It re-introduces the movie-going public to
concepts and characters that have fallen out of popularity or that have just
been replaced in the public's mind by literally thousands of
other movies. This can in turn stir up interest in seeking out the original
film. It can also get studios to get off their ass and commission proper DVD
and Blu-Ray releases of the old movie. They will view it as a worthy
investment.
So whether you're
talking sequels, prequels, or remakes, there's a lot to consider. You
have to analyze each movie on its own and then see how well it correlates with
the source material. Good movies can come from sequels and remakes if the new
writers and filmmakers embrace the material as their own while doing their best
to maintain the integrity of the franchise's starting point. It is a
simple concept that is often times marred by artistic arrogance, pretention,
studio pressure, and the need to make a buck. Just remember, no matter how
badly a sequel or prequel fails, we always have the original to run back to.
The original must be cherished for without it: there is no sequel and there is
no remake.
Really enjoyed the blog and I've shared it.
ReplyDelete