Prequels, Sequels and Remakes
I went to see the Star Trek prequel last night. It was really, rather good. It could have done with cutting in the middle. The plot got a bit wonky at times and there was the usual Hollywood obsession with set piece CGI spectaculars, even if they get in the way of the story but it was entertaining. My wife only fell asleep twice.
It got me thinking. One gets used to the idea that a long running brand in films or books will gradually get worse until it becomes a parody of itself. In any series there is a ‘jump the shark’ moment, if you’ll pardon the cliché. You know you have reached that point when the news that Dejah Thoris has been abducted again causes an exasperated response of ‘why doesn’t the damn woman be more careful’ rather than a thrill of excitement. There is a particular problem with a fantasy series in that the author feels pressed to reveal more and bigger revelations about the ‘world’ with each book until all sense of mystery is lost. Sometimes, the more I liked the original book, the faster the shark approaches.
However, long running series can be rejuvenated by a ‘back to basics’ approach where all the accumulated drag is stripped away to get back to the core of what made the story a success in the first place. One example is the James Bond franchise with Casino Royall. The new Star Trek movie is another.
All of which brings me to remakes. Why do they bother? A couple of years ago I noticed in my local DVD shop that the remake of the Italian job was heavily discounted while the original was still selling at full price. The mini was the star of the Italian job. It was a radical car that was iconic of England in the 60s. They remade it in California using the BMW mini, which is just another European car.
Last night I watched the remake of Reggie Perrin. It is utterly pointless. Martin Clunes is a good comic actor but he isn’t Leonard Rossiter. The dialogue does not work as they have set it in the 21st Century not the 1970s but retained some of the original but rewritten parts. So you get ghastly constructs like ‘take an email Miss ....’ That is funny only the first time it is used.
The question still remains – Why?
Posts
7 comments:
The question still remains – Why?Because if Jack the Producer doesn't have a movie to produce, he doesn't get paid. But Jack is out of ideas that he thinks the investors would like.
Hollywood is a bank. It tries to limit risks.
The question still remains – Why?Because if Jack the Producer doesn't have a movie to produce, he doesn't get paid. But Jack is out of ideas that he thinks the investors would like.
Hollywood is a bank. It tries to limit risks.
I'm taking my sons to see the Startrek movie. For some reason, Startrek just hasn't hit the right note for them. They love Firefly and Red Dwarf.
It sounds like this 'back to basics' treatment will enthuse them.
Star Trek is a child of its time - the 60s. It is very American of that period in its optimism about the future. It has a world government where everyone buys into 60s American values. Red dwarf is very English. Space turns out to be just like home with heroic incompetence, lager and curry, and strange stains that won't wash out.
You know the old Joke. Americans see situations as serious but not hopeless, while the English see them as hopeless but, hey, not serious.
John
Dear Ori,
Banks limiting risks?
Would you not care to reconsider that?
John
Banks limiting risks?
Would you not care to reconsider that?I don't know about British banks, but in the US they practice a very sophisticated form of risk limitation, called "the gov option".
If they make money, they're a private institute and it's theirs. If they lose over a certain amount, they are essential to the economy and the government bails them out.
Bitter? Me?
Post a Comment