Friday, July 18, 2008

Sequels

It just dawned on me that there is hardly anything new in the world of movies. Yesterday it rained while the boys and I were home alone, so I decided to make a quick run to the local video store and get something to watch. We settled on National Treasure II. The other movies I considered were Superman Returns (which would be the 5th Supes movie going back to 1977), or Rocky Balboa (the 6th Rocky movie). Then I started thinking--almost every movie I've seen this summer has been a sequel: Indiana Jones IV, Narnia II, even the "original" Iron Man was an adaptation of a 1963 comic book. And today we are going to catch the "new" Batman, which is the 6th movie since '89, not counting the 1966 version, which spun off from the TV show, which was based on the 1940s comic. Also in theaters now or soon--Hellboy II, a remake of Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Mummy III (and the first Mummy was itself a remake, and the first Hellboy was based on a 1980s comic).

Yes, by the way--I do recognize that every single film I have mentioned is some sort of hero/action/adventure movie. It's entirely possible that there is great original work being done in the category of documentaries or chick flicks.* I just don't care.

*footnote: my wife is looking forward to Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants II. So even that horrible genre is not safe!

4 comments:

Pete said...

I can't wait until "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 3: When Pants Attack"

bekster said...

We just came from seeing "Hancock." It was good--different than what I expected, but good. It was NOT a sequel, but it definitely ripped off previously used story ideas (the superhero concept, character improvement, good vs. evil, etc.). That doesn't bother me, though (not that you're saying sequels are bad or something). I think that people like to engage in stories that have familiar elements because they are comforting. A few surprises and twists are good, but if there WERE something that were COMPLETELY new (which I know isn't possible, but still), no one would like it because they wouldn't be able to relate to it.

Anyway, "Hancock" was good. I can't wait to see if they make a second one. :)

Sequels are good because they come with instant hype and pre-created story worlds. If the original story is any good, people flock to see the sequel because they want to know what happens. Bottom Line: Sequels make more money with less effort.

Jeffrey Schimizze said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeffrey Schimizze said...

We just went and saw Hancock not long ago too. We aren't regular movie going people by any means (i mean the military discount is nice but more than that I just have a hard time sitting still that long) but we enjoyed it. I'm not a big fan of sequels. I find that for the most part they're not nearly as good as the first and in some cases end up putting a black cloud over the first one as well. Sequels that I have liked: The Pirates of the Caribbean, Kill Bill, Back to the Future, The Godfather and Spiderman (although I never saw the first or third one. But the second one was good.) But there are SO MANY movies I haven't seen. Again, not really my thing (unless Johnny Depp is in it!)