|
What You've Missed:
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 February
2004 January
Recommended Sites:
Old Blog
The Washington Post
Roger Ebert
The Onion
Dilbert
Unamerican Activities
Dear readers: Thank you very much for your support of Fluorescent Sunshine. Knowing that I have an interested audience keeps me motivated. Please leave your thoughts on the articles by clicking the link at the end of each post. Your comments let me know that my work is not in vain! Thanks, BJK
|
| Sequels, Part 1 |
| 02.12.04 (1:53 pm) |
[image]bkriner_678245643.jpg[/image][image]bkriner _1292914540.jpg[/image] [image]bkriner_1320599521 .jpg[/image] [image]bkriner_1159562275 .jpg[/image]
Seeing upcoming movie trailers used to be the highlight of a good night at the movies. These days, it's cause for an unpleasant sense of deja vu. The multiplexes keep getting bigger, but it seems that the universe of themes, plots, and characters keeps shrinking. I'm referring, of course, to the tidal wave of sequels, spinoffs, and remakes that seems to emanate from Hollywood these days. No old sitcom or comic book character is too passe for resurrection, and no box office flavor of the month too forgettable to have another go at the Friday night crowd. As an avid movie fan and an observer of popular culture, I find myself wondering if our society is running out of stories to tell.
Let me clarify. Many of the most popular stories in today's culture have their roots in ancient archetypes. Nearly every movie, book, and television program can trace its roots back to the basic universal sagas in human lore: the Bible, Greek Mythology, African Folktales, and countless myths and legends that are so deeply woven into through the human tradition. So common are these threads that they are easily distilled: everyone remembers learning about the three basic conflicts in Literature class (Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Himself). Joseph Campbell further outlined the commonalities of human legends in his [u]Hero of a Thousand Faces[/u]. People have been telling the same stories since the beginning of civilization, each culture adding its own relevancies to create palpable situations and unforgettable characters.
Today, we are still telling the same stories. Over, and over again, usually three times per story. The difference is that we are not drawing upon different themes and characters, but parading the same, hackneyed antagonists and protagonists across the screen. Twenty years ago, only the most memorable characters were worthy of seeing more than once: Indiana Jones, the Star Wars crew, Freddy Krueger, Jason, and so on. Some of these movies were better than others, but there was no doubting the enduring nature of the characters. The essences of Indiana Jones, Darth Vader, and Marty McFly were too big to be contained in just one movie.
In the modern era, franchising rules the day. Characters and situations don't have to be clever or interesting as long as they are familiar, kitschy, or possess a latent, faint nostalgic pulse. How else to explain the mindlessness of the [i]Charlie's Angels[/i], [i]Scooby-Doo[/i], and [i]Brady Bunch[/i] films? The rationale of the studio seems to be: if they were featured on a lunch box or a pair of UnderRoos, they can be inserted in a clear plastic plot that only serves as an excuse to reintroduce them to the mainstream. Ditto for "modern" franchises like the [i]Barbershop[/i] series. You'd think that one movie about guys in a barbershop would be enough, but no, there will be three in distribution by the end of the year.
I see two explanations for the sequel tsunami. The first is the size of movie theaters. When I was a kid, the big theater in town had twelve screens. Now the local movie house boasts twenty-two screens in a two-story building with an in-house Ruby Tuesdays. The multiplex was a place to see a movie after dinner; the megaplex is a self-contained destination. The best way to put more people in front of more screens is more movies, and the studios know it. It's easier and less financially risky to make a sequel; the self-contained movie universe already exists. Many follow-ups are in production before the first installment even hits the screens.
The second determinant of sequels is franchising. Just as it is less risky for studios to make sequels, it's easier for audiences to invest their ticket dollars in a familiar product. Sequels thrive on the same mojo that propelled McDonald's and Holiday Inn to prominence: people enjoy a familiar, comfortable consumer experience where they don't have to risk disappointment. If you liked the first [i]Scary Movie[/i], then [i]Scary Movie 3 [/i]is surely a safer bet than stumbling unprepared into [i]Mystic River[/i]. The same tactic works in reverse: if you missed the first one, seeing a follow-up will probably cause you to rent it for home viewing. There's no way around it: sequels are a gold mine for the studios, and mental Big Macs for the audiences.
A third factor in sequel proliferation is the DVD. DVDs are merchandised in a decidedly different fashion than their VHS predecessors. They are physically compact and inexpensive to produce, making them perfect to be "value priced" in boxed sets. Their low price tag and bonus features adds to their consumer appeal. Since a boxed set has a higher profit margin than selling a single DVD, there is great incentive for the studios to produce a second and third film to round out the series. I give you [i]Jurassic Park 3[/i] as the consummate boxed-set movie, appallingly poor in comparison to the first two, and created only as a cash cow for the studio. So rampant is the production of boxed sets that sometimes it is difficult to purchase only one installment of a series.
With mixed emotions, I resign myself to a moviegoing future in which even more sequels, remakes, and updates adorn the megaplex screens. With good fortune, I will live long enough to see the box office and television hits of my childhood repackaged for my children's generation. I do not begrudge all sequels, only the ones whose characters do not deserve our further dollars and adoration. However, there are wonderful, original films being made all the time, and it is unfortunate that they do not receive the attention and funding of their installment-based bretheren. If you go to the movies in my neighborhood, you will probably find me in the crowd of the next summer sequel sensation. But more often, you'll find me down the hall in a sparesely populated theater, enjoying a respite from the throng attending [i]Alien vs. Predator[/i].
|
|
|
| |
posted by: newbie
post date: 02.13.04 (10:56 am)
I agree with your argument but I would want to branch out a bit farther and talk about the overall decline of the quality movie experience.
True, sequels are running wild in the box office, often taking the place of producing a quality film. Rounding out the box set isn't a reason to produce a movie.
Additionally, I want to lodge my protest to commercials during the previews. Nothing takes away from the movie going experience then 20 minutes of garbage prior to the movie. I don't want to pay for it.
Third, the lines to get food (which is very over priced) are long, slow moving and the staff is terrible.
Finally, the actual movie watchers. When the lights go down shut it! I don't want to hear you clapping, shouting "Damn!" or other wise commenting during the movie. Save it for the Sunday football game.
posted by: bkriner
post date: 02.13.04 (2:36 pm)
Reply to: Iron
I agree with everything you say, especially the part about commercials. I have already subsidized the film with the price of my admission, and I resent being forced to watch ads once I am safely captive inside. However, if this practice keeps ticket prices down, I suppose I can put up with it. Movie tickets are approaching ten dollars, while some DVDs are under twenty dollars...what happens to the box office if those two prices are ever allowed to reach equilibrium?
|
|