Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:08 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes 
Author Message
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 259
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I like it when I come to a topic and Ken's given a similarly response to what I was thinking, only much better put then I could ever come up with. I'll just add that comparing too different broad catagories of film both of which contain good and bad examples to pick from. Both can do damage, both can add value to a given stories/universes.

However it may be worth pointing out that sequels are inherently more risky than remakes. Consider that with a sequel, you can stick to the same basic plot of the original or you can take the story and universe and move them into a different direction, maybe move them into a different genre altogether (think Chronicles of Riddick). With a remake, you have a blueprint, and it's going to be harder to break from that blueprintl. This may be the reason some sequels ruin their original entries, and some add value. With remakes, there's not a whole lot of value they can add, but then neither can they easily detract by their very nature. Your argument in short James is for filmmakers to take less risks, not more and I don't think is a good thing.

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:56 pm
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
JamesKunz wrote:
The points you make about your Kelly thread are well-taken, but here's the problem. That's the first spark from you in 6 months. You're one of the brightest voices here and yet you don't make new threads. You don't contribute new ideas. I went back into the "View My Posts" log and the last Ken thread I found was from January 28th. And what was this gem of penetrating insight? "Star Wars Episode VII: Not Speculation. Not Kidding." The last one before that? "Movie Themes Played on Floppy Disk Drives." Real conversation-provoking stuff.
New Star Wars? Not conversation-provoking? Come now. And tell me that floppy disk video collection wasn't one of the most original movie-related curios to come down the pike in a long time.

But I take your point. I haven't started a lot of new threads. Despite that, I have visited the forum everyday and posted in existing threads, with very rare exception. If I don't post more, it's mostly because I would see "Last post by Ken" in an endless string running down the side of the "new posts" page, which would make me worry about the direction that my life has taken.

You can fairly decry me for not generating threads, but you can't deny that I'm one of the more prolific posters here, even though I'm far from the most prolific movie-watcher. I'm not someone to go after for a lack of activity.

As for not contributing new ideas, like hell I don't. Full disclosure: the thing I find most irritating about this place is that something will occur to me that I don't think anyone else has brought up yet, and when I post it, boom. Crickets. Yet people are willing to say the same things in response to the same conversational stimuli over and over again ("Year X is good, but not as good as Year Y", "Why does Hollywood keep doing [annoying but obviously lucrative thing]?", "I'm tired of superheroes", etc.). Maybe my own ideas aren't as deliriously interesting to other people as they are to me, but I do have them and I do post them. Example: this thread.

JamesKunz wrote:
I really like this forum but I'm conscious of the fact that it's a shell of its former self. Not many people contribute their thoughts and ideas. So when I try to start a conversation, something you largely refuse to do, and you come by and dump on it...well I just don't know why you would do that.
I applaud your effort to start a conversation and I lament that it's about sequels/remakes--a subject that disenchants me more as time goes by, no matter how carefully wrought its reintroduction is. I don't doubt the goodness of your intentions, but, frankly, I cringe a little every time I see it come up.

Mind you, I did participate with a response that is at least as original and reasoned as anything anyone else has posted. Evidence that I took your idea seriously and didn't come in here just to shit on it.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:31 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2592
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
If anyone cares, i'm going to be more involved from now, i've just got LoveFilm instant - motherfuckers!

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:07 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1766
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Vexer wrote:
Well whether the original film was "good" or not is a matter of opinion, a lot of people love the original Dawn Of The Dead but it was just average for me and I felt the remake was a considerable improvement.


The remake of Dawn wasn't a bad movie, but it did strip out all of the smarts and social commentary in the original. Now, if you don't like horror films that leave you with something to think about afterward, then I suppose the Dawn remake is up your alley. But I'll take the original any time.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:57 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Well whether the original film was "good" or not is a matter of opinion, a lot of people love the original Dawn Of The Dead but it was just average for me and I felt the remake was a considerable improvement.


The remake of Dawn wasn't a bad movie, but it did strip out all of the smarts and social commentary in the original. Now, if you don't like horror films that leave you with something to think about afterward, then I suppose the Dawn remake is up your alley. But I'll take the original any time.

Oh I don't mind horror films that leave with me something to "think" about, but to me the social commentary in the original felt tacked on and it didn't really make me "think" about anything(I didn't think the film was all that "smart" either), so I can't really say I missed it in the remake.


Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:05 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 754
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I don't think the question deserves a simple "remakes > sequels > prequels" answer. It's too complex and there are too many factors in play in each instance. I think there are both worthy and unworthy outings in each category, but I'll just say that USUALLY it all boils down to the motivations behind each film. More often than not, if the main motivation is economical, the result will be mediocre, poor, or half-baked. These are typically the kind of films that are pushed by the studio, regardless of who's on board, rather than by the artistic vision of the director and/or writer (i.e. X-Men: The Last Stand, The Amazing Spider-Man, Alien3 and Alien Resurrection, etc.) However, if the main motivation is one of artistic value, even if there's a money-craving studio behind, the chances of a worthy film coming out of it are bigger. These are the sort of films that are well thought out by a director, with ideas of elevating and/or developing the characters or the story (i.e. The Godfather Trilogy, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films, The Fly? though I've never seen the original). Like I said, there is nothing conclusive anyway. There are studio-pushed sequels/remakes/prequels that can be solid and fun just like there are sequels/remakes/prequels that are supposedly well-thought and conceived that end up being shit, so I'll just say again... it's too complex a question, with too many factors in play in each instance.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:36 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1322
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Vexer wrote:
Oh I don't mind horror films that leave with me something to "think" about, but to me the social commentary in the original felt tacked on and it didn't really make me "think" about anything(I didn't think the film was all that "smart" either), so I can't really say I missed it in the remake.

Tacked on? The whole film is pretty clearly a scathing indictment of American consumerism; the zombies are merely used as metaphor.


Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:23 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Oh I don't mind horror films that leave with me something to "think" about, but to me the social commentary in the original felt tacked on and it didn't really make me "think" about anything(I didn't think the film was all that "smart" either), so I can't really say I missed it in the remake.

Tacked on? The whole film is pretty clearly a scathing indictment of American consumerism; the zombies are merely used as metaphor.

I dunno, the whole message just felt very forced to me and I found it more distracting then anything.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:40 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 234
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I think that most Sequels are made for their monetary value. It can also be arqued that the movie industry likes sequels / preguels / reboots becuase there is generally a built in audience waiting for them. That makes thema a safe financial bet.
A good example of this is all the franchises that exist now i.e., Bond, Star trek, Batman, Avengers, Mission impossible etc....

But this is not really a new thing
If you look back at the eighties there were just as many franchises, ie
Star Trek,
Bond,
Indiana Jones
Superman
Police Academy,
Alien

I would argue that the biggest difference between franchises from 70's & 80's and franchises from now is that in the 70/80's most franchises started from stand alone movies. With the exception of long running serials most of them were one of films that were popular enough to merit a sequel.
This is not the case now. Batman Begins, Amazing Spiderman, Transformers were setup to have several sequels before their story could be told.
With very few exception all films now leave themselves open for sequels. The only present day franchise that was the result of a one off stand alone film that I can think of is "The Hangover".

I have just looked at your topic
"Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes"
The answer is:
Because generally a sequel always plays safe and this is especially noted if the origional film was in anyway daring.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:31 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1322
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Still, I find it hard to believe movies like "Miss Congeniality" or "Garfield" would've gotten sequels had they been made 25-30 years ago. :|


Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:41 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 754
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Still, I find it hard to believe movies like "Miss Congeniality" or "Garfield" would've gotten sequels had they been made 25-30 years ago. :|


I'm sure that if we look back at the "old days", we're bound to find sequels that you would consider as "baffling" as those. Besides, both Miss Congeniality and Garfield were box office hits, so sequels were a no-brainer.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:12 am
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
p604 wrote:
I have just looked at your topic
"Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes"
The answer is:
Because generally a sequel always plays safe and this is especially noted if the origional film was in anyway daring.

Do you agree with JayKay that bad sequels taint the other movies in the series? I'm leaning toward disagree, on the basis that we the viewers are the ultimate arbiters of whether or not a sequel "counts", but I will grant that there are plenty of potential exceptions to shore up his claim. The more movies depend on each other to build a thick thread of continuity, the harder it is to disregard those bummer entries.

Still... don't like the Roger Moore Bond flicks? Just ignore them. Ditto the Matrix sequels, Star Wars prequels, Christopher Reeve Superman sequels, and so on. Sequels are put forth for our consideration, but we don't have to accept them.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:27 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2592
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
I mostly agree with that.

One of my favourite films is The Blues Brothers. I take pride in the fact that I have never, in 15 years, come close to watching The Blues Brothers 2000.

But interestingly you lump the Moore films together. And the aggregate will be damaged if one Bond actor does 2 good films and 2 bad ones. If Craig's next Bond film is a failure, people may (incorrectly) say he was lukewarm overall, since QoS got (unfairly) bad press.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:32 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 754
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
NotHughGrant wrote:
But interestingly you lump the Moore films together. And the aggregate will be damaged if one Bond actor does 2 good films and 2 bad ones. If Craig's next Bond film is a failure, people may (incorrectly) say he was lukewarm overall, since QoS got (unfairly) bad press.


I don't necessarily think the Bond films fall under the traditional sequel/remake umbrella. Most of the previous films, even within each actor's oeuvre, work as separate films with little to no connection to the previous ones except for the actors. That said, the Craig ones are indeed maintaining some sort of continuity which most of the previous ones didn't.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:44 am
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
NotHughGrant wrote:
I mostly agree with that.

One of my favourite films is The Blues Brothers. I take pride in the fact that I have never, in 15 years, come close to watching The Blues Brothers 2000.

But interestingly you lump the Moore films together. And the aggregate will be damaged if one Bond actor does 2 good films and 2 bad ones. If Craig's next Bond film is a failure, people may (incorrectly) say he was lukewarm overall, since QoS got (unfairly) bad press.

I don't mean to dismiss Moore out of hand. I was just invoking him as an example, given that he gets brought up a lot when people talk about the lesser Bond flicks. In truth, you're absolutely correct: the fortunes of the franchise are not nearly as tied to the actors as people like to think, and an actor whose run is lesser on average will still have some very good entries to his name.

Plus, even the crummiest Bond films have some entertainment value to them. Live and Let Die is basically a farce, but it's nowhere near as embarrassing or damaging to the credibility of the franchise as, say, Superman IV.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:48 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2592
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Thief12 wrote:
NotHughGrant wrote:
But interestingly you lump the Moore films together. And the aggregate will be damaged if one Bond actor does 2 good films and 2 bad ones. If Craig's next Bond film is a failure, people may (incorrectly) say he was lukewarm overall, since QoS got (unfairly) bad press.


I don't necessarily think the Bond films fall under the traditional sequel/remake umbrella. Most of the previous films, even within each actor's oeuvre, work as separate films with little to no connection to the previous ones except for the actors. That said, the Craig ones are indeed maintaining some sort of continuity which most of the previous ones didn't.



It's easy to say that in retrospect, but even Bond is only 1 or 2 films away from (if not complete destruction) a lengthy lay-off.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:53 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2592
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Ken wrote:
NotHughGrant wrote:
I mostly agree with that.

One of my favourite films is The Blues Brothers. I take pride in the fact that I have never, in 15 years, come close to watching The Blues Brothers 2000.

But interestingly you lump the Moore films together. And the aggregate will be damaged if one Bond actor does 2 good films and 2 bad ones. If Craig's next Bond film is a failure, people may (incorrectly) say he was lukewarm overall, since QoS got (unfairly) bad press.

I don't mean to dismiss Moore out of hand. I was just invoking him as an example, given that he gets brought up a lot when people talk about the lesser Bond flicks. In truth, you're absolutely correct: the fortunes of the franchise are not nearly as tied to the actors as people like to think, and an actor whose run is lesser on average will still have some very good entries to his name.

Plus, even the crummiest Bond films have some entertainment value to them. Live and Let Die is basically a farce, but it's nowhere near as embarrassing or damaging to the credibility of the franchise as, say, Superman IV.


I grew up with Moore's Bond films and so have a pavlovian reaction to defend him ... whilst at once recognising that he had all the acting talent of a prop from Days of Our Lives.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:57 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1322
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
Thief12 wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Still, I find it hard to believe movies like "Miss Congeniality" or "Garfield" would've gotten sequels had they been made 25-30 years ago. :|


I'm sure that if we look back at the "old days", we're bound to find sequels that you would consider as "baffling" as those. Besides, both Miss Congeniality and Garfield were box office hits, so sequels were a no-brainer.

Not every box office hit was always almost automatically granted a sequel. Where was "The Goonies 2"? "Sixteen Candles 2"? "Animal House 2"? "License to Drive 2"? The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).


Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:15 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pm
Posts: 754
Location: Puerto Rico
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Thief12 wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Still, I find it hard to believe movies like "Miss Congeniality" or "Garfield" would've gotten sequels had they been made 25-30 years ago. :|


I'm sure that if we look back at the "old days", we're bound to find sequels that you would consider as "baffling" as those. Besides, both Miss Congeniality and Garfield were box office hits, so sequels were a no-brainer.

Not every box office hit was always almost automatically granted a sequel. Where was "The Goonies 2"? "Sixteen Candles 2"? "Animal House 2"? "License to Drive 2"? The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).


No, but it's a factor that leads studios into a $equel. Which - like I said - makes it less surprising.

_________________
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"

Visit my site: Thief12 profile


Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:11 pm
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 234
Post Re: Why sequels are (paradoxically) worse than remakes
H.I. McDonough wrote:
I'm sure that if we look back at the "old days", we're bound to find sequels that you would consider as "baffling" as those. Besides, both Miss Congeniality and Garfield were box office hits, so sequels were a no-brainer.

Not every box office hit was always almost automatically granted a sequel. Where was "The Goonies 2"? "Sixteen Candles 2"? "Animal House 2"? "License to Drive 2"? The only real head-scratcher of a sequel in can think of prior to the '90s is "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." Well, OK, and the "Meatballs" sequels (the last couple of which went straight to video, I believe).[/quote]
Goonies 2: One eyed Willie's treasure was found. The kids homes were saved. The kids have grown up. Where could they go.
Sixteen Candles 2: Technically, one could argue that The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink were indeed sequels.
Animal House 2: There was a tv series. Does that count.
Licence to Drive: I think drug addiction put an end to any sequel to any Corey Haims film.


Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:45 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Awf Hand, Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr