There seems to be a trending theme, in the movie-making industry, of re-distributing pre-defined franchises. It’s rare to find a movie in a theater which is original in story or concept. Imagery, however, is progressing uninhibited. This strange dynamic has (d)evolved the movie going experience within the last two years.
Re-making a movie has been a long-standing tradition of “Hollywood.” There was a time, not too long ago, when re-makes were done in good taste and stayed true to the original concept. I remember watching the 2001 version of Ocean’s Eleven, for example, and thoroughly enjoying it (the original Ocean’s Eleven was made in 1960). However, Ocean’s Twelve (2004) and Thirteen (2007) were completely unnecessary, weak in concept and thoroughly disappointing.
There are times where a movie can be remade and even improved on. In all of its incongruence, The Star Trek 2009 “reboot” (the 11th film in the Star Trek series) comes to mind as one of those improved films. Perhaps this film’s success as a remake leans heavily on the fact that Star Trek has been an established franchise of longevity, changing sets, alternating characters and continues the defined theme of “exploring the unknown.” All of these elements add up to allow a wide interpretation and speculation of its origins, future and concepts. The longevity of the series has brought with it a solid demographic of Star Trek fans who generally accept the fluctuation of characters, themes, sets and concepts throughout the existence of the franchise and are most likely open to the continued fluctuations and changes of upcoming stories.
However, Star Trek may be the exception to the rule that reboots and re-makes are unnecessary, generally disappointing and often alienate the original fans of the story.
Unnecessary films remakes are probably the most abundant. For Example, Let the Right One In was a Swedish vampire film made in 2008 and adapted from a Swedish book. The film was a huge international success and received praise by both critics and fans. However, two years later, the film was re-made from the exact same script, this time called Let Me In. Aside from the setting (from Sweden to New Mexico) and the character names, the only change to this film was the language. Apparently “Hollywood” believes its American audience is too lazy to read subtitles. The mere two year gap between the original and re-make must have been a devastating blow to the original director’s pride. As if “Hollywood” is arrogantly saying, “Nice try, Swedish Film Industry, but we can make your ideas even better.” Any fan of the original film would tell you that this remake was absurd, unnecessary and even insulting to what was already a great film which needed no revising.
Almost all film remakes are isolating to the original fan-base, but some are more so than others. For example, in 1999, The Pang Brothers made a film called Bangkok Dangerous, a Thai action movie about a deaf and mute hit man in Thailand. In 2008, The Pang Brothers made a film called Bangkok Dangerous, an American action movie about an American hit man developing a conscience in Thailand who was capable of both hearing and speaking. These two movies, by the same directors, with the same titles, same setting and yet two completely different stories, could be confusing and alienating for any fans of the original story.
There are also the repetitious franchises, which produce mass sequels to a single film which eventually results in creating the same movie over and over and giving it an incremental roman numeral at the end of the title. Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and 3D are great examples of this repetition. Saw did well in the theaters due to its shocking graphic violence and gritty cinematography. This dynamic created an atmosphere of suspense and terror for the audience. When the sequel, Saw II, was released, the audience watched in anticipation of suspense and terror and they weren’t disappointed. When Saw III came out, the fans of the franchise were so desensitized to the shock, suspense and terror that the movie and franchise lost its appeal for most fans of the original Saw.
This repetitious franchising seemed to have been at home in the Horror movie genre, but is more recently finding its way into all genres. Look how many American Pie movies there are (7) or Alvin and the Chipmunks (7) or Harry Potter (7). More and more, franchises are being squeezed and wrung of every last drop of marketable entertainment until they’re hollow shells of what they once were. Ideas are even being brought back from retirement and re-franchised for “Hollywood’s” newfound squeezing obsession (Tron, Friday the 13th, The Karate Kid, etc.).
While stories and originality in “blockbuster” films is on a steady decline, film technology is rapidly improving. While there’s not much “new” in this area, several older ideas have been revisited and “enhanced.” 3-D technology was once popular in the 1950s and 1980s and it seems it’s back again in the 2010s. This “new” 3D technology has improved drastically from its predecessors. Where we once used color separations and filters to give the illusion of 3-D (anaglyph imaging), we now embrace our technological advances and use special cameras which capture images from multiple perspectives, which when viewed with the correct polarized filters, gives the illusion of 3D (polarization).
Unfortunately, most 3-D technology is being applied to movies that have already been seen; to stories that have always been heard. It would be like someone telling you, “You’re going to re-read all of the books you’ve already read, but this time, Morgan Freeman is going to read them to you.” That’s all good and well and you would probably be pretty excited at first, until you realize you know all the stories. Then you’re apt to say something like, “Morgan, your soothing voice is great, but I think you missed a part.” Eventually, you might not want Morgan Freeman to read to you because of his tendency to abridge what you’re already familiar with.
There was a time when I was excited to go see movies in the theaters. I was excited to hear a new story, to experience new adventures. Now I have to be bribed to go to the cinemas, and even then I don’t always want to go. Aside from the monetary costs, I just don’t have any desire to hear the same stories “enhanced.” Thanks, “Hollywood,” but I’ll hold out for something new, unique, and God-forbid, maybe even creative. Also, please keep Morgan Freeman away from my books.
Re-making a movie has been a long-standing tradition of “Hollywood.” There was a time, not too long ago, when re-makes were done in good taste and stayed true to the original concept. I remember watching the 2001 version of Ocean’s Eleven, for example, and thoroughly enjoying it (the original Ocean’s Eleven was made in 1960). However, Ocean’s Twelve (2004) and Thirteen (2007) were completely unnecessary, weak in concept and thoroughly disappointing.
There are times where a movie can be remade and even improved on. In all of its incongruence, The Star Trek 2009 “reboot” (the 11th film in the Star Trek series) comes to mind as one of those improved films. Perhaps this film’s success as a remake leans heavily on the fact that Star Trek has been an established franchise of longevity, changing sets, alternating characters and continues the defined theme of “exploring the unknown.” All of these elements add up to allow a wide interpretation and speculation of its origins, future and concepts. The longevity of the series has brought with it a solid demographic of Star Trek fans who generally accept the fluctuation of characters, themes, sets and concepts throughout the existence of the franchise and are most likely open to the continued fluctuations and changes of upcoming stories.
However, Star Trek may be the exception to the rule that reboots and re-makes are unnecessary, generally disappointing and often alienate the original fans of the story.
Unnecessary films remakes are probably the most abundant. For Example, Let the Right One In was a Swedish vampire film made in 2008 and adapted from a Swedish book. The film was a huge international success and received praise by both critics and fans. However, two years later, the film was re-made from the exact same script, this time called Let Me In. Aside from the setting (from Sweden to New Mexico) and the character names, the only change to this film was the language. Apparently “Hollywood” believes its American audience is too lazy to read subtitles. The mere two year gap between the original and re-make must have been a devastating blow to the original director’s pride. As if “Hollywood” is arrogantly saying, “Nice try, Swedish Film Industry, but we can make your ideas even better.” Any fan of the original film would tell you that this remake was absurd, unnecessary and even insulting to what was already a great film which needed no revising.
Almost all film remakes are isolating to the original fan-base, but some are more so than others. For example, in 1999, The Pang Brothers made a film called Bangkok Dangerous, a Thai action movie about a deaf and mute hit man in Thailand. In 2008, The Pang Brothers made a film called Bangkok Dangerous, an American action movie about an American hit man developing a conscience in Thailand who was capable of both hearing and speaking. These two movies, by the same directors, with the same titles, same setting and yet two completely different stories, could be confusing and alienating for any fans of the original story.
There are also the repetitious franchises, which produce mass sequels to a single film which eventually results in creating the same movie over and over and giving it an incremental roman numeral at the end of the title. Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and 3D are great examples of this repetition. Saw did well in the theaters due to its shocking graphic violence and gritty cinematography. This dynamic created an atmosphere of suspense and terror for the audience. When the sequel, Saw II, was released, the audience watched in anticipation of suspense and terror and they weren’t disappointed. When Saw III came out, the fans of the franchise were so desensitized to the shock, suspense and terror that the movie and franchise lost its appeal for most fans of the original Saw.
This repetitious franchising seemed to have been at home in the Horror movie genre, but is more recently finding its way into all genres. Look how many American Pie movies there are (7) or Alvin and the Chipmunks (7) or Harry Potter (7). More and more, franchises are being squeezed and wrung of every last drop of marketable entertainment until they’re hollow shells of what they once were. Ideas are even being brought back from retirement and re-franchised for “Hollywood’s” newfound squeezing obsession (Tron, Friday the 13th, The Karate Kid, etc.).
While stories and originality in “blockbuster” films is on a steady decline, film technology is rapidly improving. While there’s not much “new” in this area, several older ideas have been revisited and “enhanced.” 3-D technology was once popular in the 1950s and 1980s and it seems it’s back again in the 2010s. This “new” 3D technology has improved drastically from its predecessors. Where we once used color separations and filters to give the illusion of 3-D (anaglyph imaging), we now embrace our technological advances and use special cameras which capture images from multiple perspectives, which when viewed with the correct polarized filters, gives the illusion of 3D (polarization).
Unfortunately, most 3-D technology is being applied to movies that have already been seen; to stories that have always been heard. It would be like someone telling you, “You’re going to re-read all of the books you’ve already read, but this time, Morgan Freeman is going to read them to you.” That’s all good and well and you would probably be pretty excited at first, until you realize you know all the stories. Then you’re apt to say something like, “Morgan, your soothing voice is great, but I think you missed a part.” Eventually, you might not want Morgan Freeman to read to you because of his tendency to abridge what you’re already familiar with.
There was a time when I was excited to go see movies in the theaters. I was excited to hear a new story, to experience new adventures. Now I have to be bribed to go to the cinemas, and even then I don’t always want to go. Aside from the monetary costs, I just don’t have any desire to hear the same stories “enhanced.” Thanks, “Hollywood,” but I’ll hold out for something new, unique, and God-forbid, maybe even creative. Also, please keep Morgan Freeman away from my books.
No comments:
Post a Comment