We Don't Need Another Sequel: "28 Months Later"

To the extent that all films are about human beings and thus are explorations of human frailties/relationships/triumphs/emotions, all sequels do this insofar as they are films. The question is, then, "to what extent and to what degree of effectiveness do sequels do this, as well as or better than the original?" It's a matter of opinion, certainly, but here's a short sample of sequels that IMO successfully explore the human condition, to a degree that is equal to or greater than the original, off the top of my head:

The Empire Strikes Back
Godfather II
Prince Caspian
Revenge of the Sith
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Tarzan and His Mate (1932)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Superman Returns
The Dark Knight
Dawn of the Dead
Aliens
Terminator 2

Again, just my opinion.

 

I think you would agree that the ratio of rotten to good in sequels is extremely high.

However, remakes are infinitely more troubling. I think I have made it clear here that I don't much like Tom Cruise, but when he and (I think) Martin Scorsese were contemplating a remake of Wilder's "The Heiress" in the 1990's, they screened the original and concluded that they didn't believe they could improve upon it. I wish a lot more people exhibited this sort of good sense...namely Peter Jackson ("King Kong"); Steven Spielberg ("Always") and the nimrods that remade "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Magnificent Ambersons", among many others. Video stores, libraries and TV stations will keep the crappy remakes over the wonderful originals, thus limiting the original's ability to be seen (my local library offered me a crappy TV remake of "All Quiet on the Western Front"...I was not impressed.)

 

As I stated previously - Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. The same applies for "original" films, regardless of sequels.

As for your comments about remakes and your wish for people to follow Scorsese's and Cruise's good sense, good sense is rarely a factor in Hollywood film making. Like sequels and original films, yes the majority is garbage. But if they stopped making sequels and remakes we wouldn't have the recent incarnation of BSG or The Dark Knight (the sequel to a remake...sort of). Yeah there is a lot of garbage produced, thats nothing new and not exclusive to sequels or remakes and the mere suggestions that both trends should cease would eliminate the potential for some really incredible films, regardless of the crap present.

 

Spiderfan, well said. I agree 100%.

 

Haven't bothered to see "The Dark Knight", because to be frank, "Batman Begins" was pretty lousy.

 

I disagree entirely. Batman Begins was fantastic (the further I get from TDK the more I love BB). But thats besides the point entirely.

To negate the entirety of something because the vast majority of it is crap is to negate the worthwhile aspects. That logic applies to sequels/prequels/remakes as well as originals.

Without sequels there is no Empire Strikes Back or Godfather 2, and any number of good sequels that people love. I would apply the same idea to remakes, but I will hazard a guess that there is no remake you believe to be an improvement over the original, or at the very least a remake the stands on its own as a good film regardless of the original.

 

The sequels to this years' Oscar winners.

 

Yes, yes, but. The vast majority of Hollywood output is action crap. If you want subtle entertainment, you're better to watch TV, as there are some really interesting shows. Hollywood is no longer making mainstream movies, it's either indie or action. This has alienated about a half to three-quarters of the potential audience, which seems remarkably stupid to me.

All that money could be used for a good movie, or two, or three, for instance. "Batman Begins" was so flaccid I couldn't believe the good reviews, but that's not the first time that's happened to me. Do I suspect "The Dark Knight" is a zeitgeist movie? C'est possible.

 

These are rather bold claims given that Hollywood produces a rather wide spectrum of movies. Action has been a staple since the 80s, doubly so in the last ten years, but its not the only thing Hollywood produces. And I am not sure where you get the idea that mainstream movies are no longer Hollywood's focus when Hollywood produces hundreds of films a year of a wide variety of genres and quality.

I can agree that television has stepped up and filled a quality gap in entertainment, thanks to the quality of shows having been radically increased in the last few years. But that doesn't negate the possibility of Hollywood movies being capable of producing something of quality either.

As for the quality of certain movies (TDK for one) I suppose thats a matter of opinion. You feel Batman Begins was a horribly overrated, poorly made film. I disagree. I think we value different things in movies. So its difficult for me to say with accuracy what is or isn't going to be considered a quality and worthwhile film for you.

 

Switching to remakes for a moment, I'd like to point out that Pride & Prejudice, for one example, is both a remake and a mainstream non-action film, which happens to be one of the finest films of all time and won oodles of Oscars etc. The perceptions that "Hollywood doesn't make mainstream films anymore" and "all remakes suck" are just demonstrably incorrect.

 

That's not a mainstream film.

And TV did it better.

 

How is it not mainstream?

 

My wife and I are big, big fans of all versions of P&P. She's currently re-reading the book; we watched the BBC miniseries in its entirety last week, and the other night we watched the Wright/Knightley film for about the fifth or sixth time. Some observations:

1. The classification of the film fits any definition of "mainstream film" you might care to cite, unless you've developed your own specialist definition of the term that is at odds from that generally accepted in the media and dictionaries.

Mainstream films can best be defined as films that know a wide release and play in first run theatres (A movie theater that runs primarily mainstream film fare from the major film companies and distributors, during the initial release period of each film). Being sold at Amazon.com or its affiliates can also be an indicator. Hollywood movies are usually considered mainstream. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream#In_film [Dec 2005]

Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority. However in the reality, the mainstream is far from cohesive; rather the concept is often considered a cultural construct. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:

* something that is available to the general public;
* something that has ties to corporate or commercial entities.

As such, the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media. The opposite of the mainstream are subcultures, countercultures, cult followings, underground cultures and (in fiction) genre. Additionally, mainstream is sometimes a codeword used for an actual ethnocentric or hegemonic subculture point of view, especially when delivered in a culture war speech. It is often used as a pejorative term. In the United States, mainline churches are sometimes referred to synonymously as "mainstream."[1][2] --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

2. The film version being two hours long is an abbreviated version of the book compared to the six-hour BBC series, but in many ways it excels the series in terms of emotional depth, cinematic aplomb (including the photog, editing, sets and costumes) and shaping of the material. For example, the series lacks the sharp reproach which Lizzie gives Darcy at the first ball ("Dancing," she suggests, "even if one's partner is 'barely tolerable'.") This is in the book and film, but the series inexplicably omits it.

3. Though it's all a matter of subjective opinion as to which version is better, the BBC series or the film, the point I'm making is that the film was a big hit both critically and financially, despite its being both a remake and a mainstream film, which points Zaz has bewilderingly refuted without any substantiation as to this claim.

 

I agree with the sentiment "Don't like it, don't go see it".

I went to see Star Trek because I like the franchise, and wish it to do well in the future, not to mention see what J.J Abrams was doing with it. I don't think there's any other film I'd like to see in the theater this summer.

 

Yes, the new Star Trek is another example of a sequel/remake/reboot/whatever that excels the original version (in the opinions of some, including me!) and has greater emotional weight, a deeper exploration of the human experience. I have never before shed a tear during a Trek episode or film, but this new one stirred emotions in me, and inspired a sense of delight in the characters, that I had never felt before.

 

A mainstream movie is a movie that all quadrants of the audience wants to see: Women under and over 30; Men under and over 30.

I suspect a large chunk of the female audience either don't go to action movies, or go because their partners want to, and said partners generally refuse to go to chick flicks.

"Pride & Prejudice" isn't going to interest the majority of the male audience.

"Transformers" isn't going to interest the majority of the female audience. Or anyone sentient.

Most big-ticket films these days are designed for the under-25 male audience or for children.

 

That definition is at odds with every definition on every site which offers one.

Can you provide an example of a film that IYO "all quadrants of the audience wants to see: Women under and over 30; Men under and over 30"? LOTR, perhaps?

 

Titanic.

 

I don't think men went to see Titanic.

 

A lot of men did, actually, and it's a much better movie than a lot of people would have you believe. However, given the film's huge success, one thing really surprised me: there was *one* attempt to duplicate it--the lamentable "Pearl Harbour"--and no more. Why not?

I suspect the answer is that producers and directors these days just don't want to do a mainstream movie: they want to do movies that appeal to one quadrant. And I guess you know which one I mean.

 

It's a soulless toy, IMO. YMMV.

 

You'll remake a film you loved! Yes! Make sure it's twice as long and half as good!