CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "A golden age of movie sequels"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"A golden age of movie sequels"

post #1 of 29
3/31/11 at 7:54pm
Thread Starter 

I was struck by something Josh Miller said in the latest installment of his inestimable Franchise Me column.  To wit:

 

"Remember all those conversations you used to have with other film fan friends, trying to name all the sequels that were better or at least as good as the original film? No matter who was making the list it pretty uniformly came up Godfather II, Terminator 2, Road Warrior, Aliens, Empire Strikes Back, then with some subjective add-ons of the Gremlins II variety. We’ve been living through a golden age of movie sequels this past decade, in which Part 2 often finds the filmmaker of the first film now returning with the freedom and the budget to show us what he’s really got."

 

I'm of several minds about this.  I think we've been inundated with 2 kinds of sequels this decade. 

 

1) The 3/4 Life Crisis - This is when filmmakers return to franchise characters 20 years down the line and shove out sequels no one demanded.  We got new, variably depressing entries in the sagas of Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones, Gordon Gecko, and Johns both McClane and Rambo.  We're threatened with further installments in the stories of Mad Max and Conan the Etcetera.  There's also stuff like The Expendables and Red, which are set up like sequels to non-existent 80's action flicks.

 

I haven't seen all of these, but the quality seems to largely dependent on how ridiculously the series had flown off the rails in its previous installment (i.e., Indy and Die Hard=crappy, Stallone flicks=not bad).  Overall, though, the soiling of fun franchises outweighs Sly's surprisingly effective efforts to pave over the entire 1980s.  I wouldn't say this trend amounts to a bright new era in sequeldom.

 

2)  Superhero Flicks - This is the one genre where the 2nd entry is reliably the best (X-men, Batman, Spiderman, Hellboy, Fantastic 4, The Punisher reboot, if it counts).  I think this is because these series are increasingly launched with franchises in mind, which leads to the initial installment being hamstrung by an often plodding origin story that bogs down the first half or so.  It's not till part 2 that the world is established and everyone has settled into their roles and can focus on exploring a story that's not burdened by the need to set up a million things without paying off half of them.  

 

Now, most of these are legitimately better than their predecessors, so I can see how one could say that sequels on the whole have been getting better.  However, the improvement does seem to be focused in one genre (which happens to have been all the rage at this time), and I'm not sure whether its fair to hold it against the sequel when the original held so much back in anticipation of it.  Is an installment of a premeditated franchise somehow not a "pure" sequel? 

 

So, are sequels really getting better or just more prominent?


Edited by Schwartz - 3/31/11 at 11:36pm
Reply
post #2 of 29
3/31/11 at 8:54pm

Both?

 

I think they are getting better (at least more ambitious) because there is more thought put into where a story could lead after the potential success of the first entry.  But then there's also the fact that because these things are planned as entries in a series/franchise, they're not as concerned about making a good stand-alone movie.  As you said, we get a limp setup movie only to really get to the good stuff in the next entry.  If it's a trilogy, the 2nd entry ends up seeming superior mostly because the whole things ends up being a 2nd act (all the juicy conflict!).  Then the third is left to tie things up.  That never seems to go well...

 

But sequels certainly feel a lot more prominent.  The more people attempt it, the better the chances are that some may end up being 'good.'

 

EDIT:  I get done typing up this post and end up feeling like I just reiterated everything you just said.  FIE!

Reply
post #3 of 29
3/31/11 at 9:16pm
Thread Starter 

Yeah, the flip side to superhero flicks getting better on the second go is that the third one seems to routinely drop into utter crap.  It happened to Superman, it happened to Spiderman, it happened to the X-men, it happened to Batman once so far.  It seems after a successful launch and a sizeable creative leap in the second, the studios decide that the brand is the real draw and start slashing budgets and/or mucking with creative teams they left alone to build the franchises in the first place.

 

Here's hoping that Nolan can break the mold.  I'm optimistic, because Warners doesn't seem to be too interested in forcing casting, story, or unreasonable scheduling decisions on him.  Would that be the case if Inception hadn't been an unqualified smash?  Who knows, but I think it bodes well for the threequel.


Edited by Schwartz - 4/1/11 at 12:58pm
Reply
post #4 of 29
3/31/11 at 9:29pm

I don't think too highly of Toy Story 3, but it was still an entertaining, solid film.

 

Let's think about how those came about.  Toy Story was a smash.  The sequel originally began as a DTV affair until it was HEAVILY reworked into a film that is considered to be better.  In both cases, the films told tight, self-contained stories.  Toy Story 3 was never really supposed to happen.  But the fact that Disney was going to try to make one without Pixar kind of forced the studio's hand.  I'm not sure what effect that had on the third movie, but it ended up being a very good and consistent trilogy in terms of quality.

 

As much as I love a good cliffhanger, I do wish that these series/franchises would stop trying to emulate The Empire Strikes Back unless they really know what they're doing. 

 

I have no doubt that Inception's success gave Nolan a lot more currency with WB.  Imagine if Nolan had followed up TDK with The Prestige?

Reply
post #5 of 29
3/31/11 at 9:39pm

Well, double-edged sword. I think they're bringing up the mean (i.e. "sequel" is no longer a feared or mocked idea), but by establishing a genuine sequel "formula" they're robbing us of the chance for truly exceptional, interesting, unpredictable sequels. Not a lot of "franchises" out there that would take a drastic left turn from their earlier installments, unless they were low or no budget offerings.

Reply
post #6 of 29
3/31/11 at 9:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I don't think too highly of Toy Story 3, but it was still an entertaining, solid film.

 

Let's think about how those came about.  Toy Story was a smash.  The sequel originally began as a DTV affair until it was HEAVILY reworked into a film that is considered to be better.  In both cases, the films told tight, self-contained stories.  Toy Story 3 was never really supposed to happen.  But the fact that Disney was going to try to make one without Pixar kind of forced the studio's hand.  I'm not sure what effect that had on the third movie, but it ended up being a very good and consistent trilogy in terms of quality.

 

As much as I love a good cliffhanger, I do wish that these series/franchises would stop trying to emulate The Empire Strikes Back unless they really know what they're doing. 

 

I have no doubt that Inception's success gave Nolan a lot more currency with WB.  Imagine if Nolan had followed up TDK with The Prestige?

My guess is we'd probably be seeing The Riddler and Penguin as the heavies instead of Bane and Alberto Falcone.  But at least we'll never have to know.

 

I never saw the Toy Story sequels, but apparently they are great, and a good example of "real" sequels.  It's not like the first was conceived as the beginning of a trilogy.
 

 

Reply
post #7 of 29
3/31/11 at 9:44pm

I'm trying to think of a recent 'unpredictable' sequel... but my mind is drawing a blank. 

 

I love Before Sunset (I only recall it because another thread reminded me of it today), but that movie was unpredictable simply for its existence.  Otherwise, it technically stays pretty true to the first film's approach.

Reply
post #8 of 29
4/1/11 at 6:42am

Is the current rash of sequels really something unprecedented or different? I'm not very up on 1930s and 1940s film releases, but my hazy knowledge indicates that Hollywood's always preferred a perceived "sure" bet over something unknown and unproven. Universal sequeled the hell out of its monster flicks, for one thing, with definite diminishing returns WRT actual quality. Even the original KING KONG was awarded with a quickie (and fairly sucky, IIRC) sequel - something that smells very 21st century to us.  I have to wonder if the internet and 24/7 news cycle has simply made us more aware of the studio's love of sequels and what's in production, versus 30, 50 or 70 years ago, when most folks wouldn't know about a sequel until the trailers came on TV or one sheets appeared at the theater.

Reply
post #9 of 29
4/1/11 at 7:30am
Thread Starter 

I'm not much of a film historian, but I want to say the difference now is a much higher level of serialization between entries has become standard.  Sure, back in the day Universal would jump at the chance to cram Dracula into as many flicks as possible before Lugosi took the big nod, but the originals still had to prove themselves to a greater extent.  Gojira wasn't conceived of as the prologue to an epic 7-part series of monster battles. 

 

Even jumping forward to the 70s and 80s, you had stuff like Bond and Indy where the sequels were pretty much self-contained adventures until 2005 or so.  Casino Royale is a grittier reboot, sure, but it's also molded as the first part of a trilogy with drasticly higher continuity than previous incarnations.  And whereas Temple of Doom was content to ditch the love interest, villain and entire supporting cast, Crystal Skull decided that what we really needed was to revisit Indy's relationship with Marion.

 

I have a half-formed idea that this trend has been influenced by TV's rise as a legitimate medium for long-form storytelling, but...that's about as developed as it's gotten so far.

Reply
post #10 of 29
4/1/11 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

I have a half-formed idea that this trend has been influenced by TV's rise as a legitimate medium for long-form storytelling, but...that's about as developed as it's gotten so far.


I definitely wouldn't disagree with that.  Though I would add that it also has a lot to do with the higher production value that can be achieved on TV these days as well.  Aside from relying more on close-ups, a lot of TV shows would look just fine playing in a movie theater.  Add the fact that more people can achieve a pretty sweet home theater now... What more than the movies offer to compete?  Better movies?  HA!

 

Reply
post #11 of 29
4/1/11 at 7:42am

I was riffing off your original question of "better or more prominent?", but I think you've hit on something: the planned nature of franchises and sequels, the desire to provide continuity flow. I do think that's probably the signal difference; whereas Hollywood's always been happy and quick to cash in on something that worked, the trend of planning a string of films with a long story arc before the franchise has even begun is new to our times. (Interestingly, Nolan's Batman films may not fit in this mold, but it depends on whom you believe. Nolan always maintains he doesn't plan one or more films ahead, but focuses on the story in front of him. Goyer, though, has been quoted saying they originally sketched out three films and have had an idea on where it's going all along.)

Reply
post #12 of 29
4/1/11 at 8:43am

Cars 2

Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules

The Hangover Part II

Happy Feet 2

Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil

Johnny English Reborn

Kung Fu Panda 2

Piranha 3DD

Sherlock Holmes: The Book of Shadows

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked

Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son

Madea’s Big Happy Family

Paranormal Activity 3

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Scream 4

Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part One)

Fast Five

Final Destination 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

 

Granted this is just for 2011 and I didn't count reboots hybrid things like The Thing.  Sure looks like a golden age of Hollywood grasping at anything that remotely turned a profit AKA business as usual.  The failure of creative people to tell self-contained stories (mind you, I'm not talking about adaptations like Potter or even Twilight) is mind boggling.  Hollywood hasn't just embraced superhero movies - they've embraced the Marvel/DC model of 'no-story-ever-really-ends' mentality.  You get more closure at the end of season 1 of TERRIERS than you do from the PIRATES franchise.

Reply
post #13 of 29
4/1/11 at 1:14pm
Thread Starter 
As for genuinely unpredictable sequels, that's one of the few nice things I can say about the latter two Matrix movies. And not having read any of the books(I understand they barely glance at the plot of the books), I never had any idea where the Bourne movies were going. Actually, the Bourne series is a good example sequels that eclipse an original that functions largely as a standalone.
Reply
post #14 of 29
4/1/11 at 1:21pm

AFAIK, the two BOURNE sequels were not plotted out ahead time - Greengrass & Co. did not have a masterplan where to go and finish when he took over the franchise. (I think I remember reading that these were barely scripted, which seems like a miracle, given how great they are.)

Reply
post #15 of 29
4/1/11 at 1:23pm

Yeah, I think all of the Bourne movies were largely written on the go.  I remember reading the same thing.  It had something to do with Tony Gilroy not enjoying that process with Greengrass.

Reply
post #16 of 29
4/1/11 at 1:26pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I heard that too, which is simply incredible considering how neatly the third dovetails with the first two. Most sequels aren't blessed with a Greengrass, though. They're usually lucky to hang on to their Doug Liman.
Reply
post #17 of 29
4/1/11 at 5:33pm

Which brings in the next point which is all about talent. We can talk all day about budget and story but what about the craftsmanship?

 

Len Wiseman on Live Free or Die Hard comes to mind as someone who couldn't make a good Die Hard film if his life depended on it.

Reply
post #18 of 29
4/2/11 at 11:24am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

I have a half-formed idea that this trend has been influenced by TV's rise as a legitimate medium for long-form storytelling, but...that's about as developed as it's gotten so far.

 

I don't really agree with this.  TVs rise as a legitimate form of storytelling is obviously due to the serialization revolution.  Serialization in TV shows occurred because creators wanted to create richer stories that built a mythology that would reward the core viewers.

 

The way most sequels are treated in cinema is the exact opposite of this.  Most current sequels are not planned as part of the first act or first part of a larger story.  Sure from time to time, stories are still planned as trilogies, but this is relatively rare.  Most sequels now days are just made to keep the characters and franchise alive.  And one of the main reasons for this is studios are more reluctant than ever to end a franchise.  Superhero franchises are the most guilty of this.  These sequels are more Law and Order and less Sopranos.

 

When sequels were planned before hand, they used to be part of a larger story that would come to a satisfying and complete end, like the sequels of God Father, Back to the Future, or Star Wars OT.  Sure we may still get trilogies, but when sequels are planned, now more likely than ever they appear more to be paddling in the same place.

 

I think the rise of sequels has only occurred due to economic realities.  And I don't think sequels are better now, just more frequent.

 

 

And I think one area of sequels we didn't discuss is the sequel to a surprise hit.  Like Terminator 2, Aliens, or Desperado.  One of the reasons the original films were fantastic is because they weren't hobbled by potential sequels.  If these films were made now, guaranteed they would be made with a sequel in mind, and therefore the first installment more likely than not would've been more formulaic, less interesting and much less creatively risky. 

Reply
post #19 of 29
4/3/11 at 12:52pm

I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that comic books are to blame. Specifically the method of "decompression" which has come to dominate mainstream comic books of the last ten to fifteen years. Check out the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_(comics)

 

Apparently American comic book decompression was influenced by Manga, which was in turn influenced by film storyboarding. I came to this conclusion while taking into account Brian K. Vaughan having been on the writing staff of Lost. When I started watching Lost in late 2009, watching the first five seasons in four months or so leading up to the sixth season premiere I started to ponder the style of the show. Experiencing a sense of deja vu, I realized how closely the disjointed timeline and massive cliffhangers resembled Y-The Last Man (which started in 2002).

 

Vaughan's decompressed storytelling seemed, in turn, influenced by the work of Brian Michael Bendis, specifically Powers and Ultimate Spider-Man which both started in 2000. Funny that, although writers that traffic in this method claim they are being more cinematic for the sake of character development, the biggest criticism of decompression is that it strings along the storytelling for the sake of "writing for the trade" (lots of filler in order to stretch a story arc out to 6-8 issues, then released it in trade paperback). This is the same criticism being leveled at movies like Tron: Legacy being written with a planned franchise.

 

So are movie franchises cribbing from television shows which are influenced by comic books which were copying mangas that were imitating movie storyboards?

Reply
post #20 of 29
4/3/11 at 1:15pm

Thanks for that link, Bartleby.  I'd never heard the term applied to comics and TV shows before.  Fascinating.  

 

It reminds me of the shit (wholly deserved, mind you) that Dragonball got as a TV series.  It was particularly frustrating since the manga itself was much more fast-paced without the filler that often dragged the anime.  Kind of the same thing, but in the opposite direction?

Reply
post #21 of 29
4/3/11 at 5:42pm

I don't think the blame can be leveled at the door of comics personally, I think it's simply a matter of modern corporate economics. As more and more studios have been bought out or absorbed into larger mega-corporations, the nature of these companies has changed from being honest to goodness movie studios and more 'entertainment arms' of much larger business entities like GE or Time Warner or whoever.

 

Along with this has come a much more risk-averse business model that shuns anything original for its blockbuster product in favour of adaptations sequels, prequels and reboots. Within this context, of course comic books become about the best creative match for this model ever, being endless franchises with built in fan bases for stories that by their nature, never end.

 

Make no mistake though, because of this corporatisation of modern Hollywood, we are in a relatively unique time as far as this goes, modern mainstream films are becoming the proverbial snake eating its own tail as far as ideas go. To put it into context, try and imagine in this day and age a young writer/director trying to pitch original big budget blockbuster properties like Raiders Of The Lost Ark or Star Wars or Close Encounters or Apocalypse Now or Back To The Future or Terminator or Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or aaaaall the films you love that were made from original story ideas as major Hollywood tentpoles.

 

If the model we have now existed 40 years ago, we'd have a very different blockbuster Hollywood on our hands.

Reply
post #22 of 29
4/3/11 at 7:19pm

I pretty much agree with all of that Rain Dog, but I don't think it's quite that black and white. Unfortunately it seems today that these sequels are a method for big-budget auteurs to get their foot in the door. Look at Nolan getting clout from Dark Night to make Inception, Blomkamp getting the go ahead for Elysium from D9, hell, even Snyder getting Sucker Punch made from 300. I think we're at a point where the artists are using the corporations, and vice versa, but I'd say every day that the noose gets tighter until Hollywood is pretty much a factory, and at that point is when you'll either get the masses going for whatever looks shiny, or a break down in the system.

Reply
post #23 of 29
4/3/11 at 7:40pm

I think you make some valid points, Rain Dog, but I've got to say that Hollywood is "same as it ever was". Back in the 40's if a movie was a hit it would be "remade" constantly. For example, Asphalt Jungle (1950) was a hit, (and well worth a rental!) so the same exact plot was used for 3-4 subsequent films over the following decade.

 

And let's not forget that the inspiration for Star Wars and Indiana Jones were the movie serials from the 30's through the 50's. And just to tie in the comic world: there has always been a healthy cross-pollination between say, the Superman comics, radio show, movie and TV serials.

 

The main difference is we only see (for the most part) only the best of film from the past so we think of a Golden Age where originality was prized and every film stood alone, but I just don't think it was so. I DO think that in the past there was more risk taking, and the percentage of "corporate films" vs. "films made for art" might have been a bit higher.


But the bottom line is, films have always been relativly expensive so studios have always sought to control their risk.

Reply
post #24 of 29
4/3/11 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I think you make some valid points, Rain Dog, but I've got to say that Hollywood is "same as it ever was". Back in the 40's if a movie was a hit it would be "remade" constantly. For example, Asphalt Jungle (1950) was a hit, (and well worth a rental!) so the same exact plot was used for 3-4 subsequent films over the following decade.


Of course and I'm not for one second going to try and paint the days of yore as some Shangri-La of creative originality, Hollywood has always borrowed from other sources; books, plays foreign films, previous films of its own. All I'm saying now is that paradigm - at least when it comes to the blockbuster model as its existed for the last 30 years or more - has shifted all the way over to the extreme end of this spectrum whereby a film won;t get greenlit unless it's based on something directly that's been successful in either another medium or as a film.

 

 

 

Quote:
And let's not forget that the inspiration for Star Wars and Indiana Jones were the movie serials from the 30's through the 50's. And just to tie in the comic world: there has always been a healthy cross-pollination between say, the Superman comics, radio show, movie and TV serials.

 

Exactly - inspired by - not direct lifts or adaptations. There's not been anything truly original since Odysseus said "Gee, I'm glad that's over lads, let's all head home", everything is inspired by something else. The difference is inspiration is a very different beast to direct adaptation or basic sequelisation. When I talk about originality, of course the stories I cite will have been inspired by something before it, no tale exists in a vacuum - but in modern Hollywood that;s not what we're getting right now.

 

 

 

Quote:

The main difference is we only see (for the most part) only the best of film from the past so we think of a Golden Age where originality was prized and every film stood alone, but I just don't think it was so. I DO think that in the past there was more risk taking, and the percentage of "corporate films" vs. "films made for art" might have been a bit higher.


But the bottom line is, films have always been relativly expensive so studios have always sought to control their risk.

 

Of course and I won't disagree with that basic premise for a second, I'm not trying to paint the past as "better in my day or before that", but I am trying to point out a definite shift, an evolution if you will, of the specific blockbuster model that kicked off in Hollywood with the likes of Jaws and Star Wars, and I think that shift has occured with the change in the corporate make-up and thus priorities of the major Hollywood studios. I don't think it's even a matter of risk taking in the face of "corporate films" vs "films made for art" - I'm saying that there used to be studios that would take a chance on a great script even if it was a 'corporate film' that wasn't based on a specific past property - how do you think the classic franchises pf the past started? Because someone read a script called Predator or Alien (to name two off the top of my head) and said "lets do this". Unless the story is seen as a 'sure thing' by having been successful in some other medium now I just don;t see that happening any more.

 

If you're a young screenwriter wanting to create genre stories that would require a budget these days, would you write your script and try and shop it around, or would you try to adapt it as a comic or novel first to get it noticed? That's what I'm talking about.

Reply
post #25 of 29
4/3/11 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rando View Post

Cars 2

Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules

The Hangover Part II

Happy Feet 2

Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil

Johnny English Reborn

Kung Fu Panda 2

Piranha 3DD

Sherlock Holmes: The Book of Shadows

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked

Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son

Madea’s Big Happy Family

Paranormal Activity 3

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Scream 4

Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part One)

Fast Five

Final Destination 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

 

Granted this is just for 2011 and I didn't count reboots hybrid things like The Thing.  Sure looks like a golden age of Hollywood grasping at anything that remotely turned a profit AKA business as usual. 

 

Golden age? More like a Glutton Age HIGHFIVE!

 

1980-1983 - Empire Strikes Back; Wrath of Khan; Road Warrior; Death Wish 2; the flawed-in-execution but ballsy initiative of Halloween III. Friday the 13th Part 3D, "in SUPER 3D!" The only Dirty Harry sequel to catch on in the way the original did. People gave Gus Van Sant shit in '98, but in 1983 someone had the balls to make a sequel to Psycho. THERE'S your golden age of sequels!
 

 

Reply
post #26 of 29
4/4/11 at 2:48am


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that comic books are to blame. Specifically the method of "decompression" which has come to dominate mainstream comic books of the last ten to fifteen years. Check out the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_(comics)

 

Apparently American comic book decompression was influenced by Manga, which was in turn influenced by film storyboarding. I came to this conclusion while taking into account Brian K. Vaughan having been on the writing staff of Lost. When I started watching Lost in late 2009, watching the first five seasons in four months or so leading up to the sixth season premiere I started to ponder the style of the show. Experiencing a sense of deja vu, I realized how closely the disjointed timeline and massive cliffhangers resembled Y-The Last Man (which started in 2002).

 

Vaughan's decompressed storytelling seemed, in turn, influenced by the work of Brian Michael Bendis, specifically Powers and Ultimate Spider-Man which both started in 2000. Funny that, although writers that traffic in this method claim they are being more cinematic for the sake of character development, the biggest criticism of decompression is that it strings along the storytelling for the sake of "writing for the trade" (lots of filler in order to stretch a story arc out to 6-8 issues, then released it in trade paperback). This is the same criticism being leveled at movies like Tron: Legacy being written with a planned franchise.

 

So are movie franchises cribbing from television shows which are influenced by comic books which were copying mangas that were imitating movie storyboards?

 

 

I don't think decompression is the problem at all.  Its mainly just a technique used to slow down action scenes and other dramatic moments in comics.  This is done to give these moments more importance and clarity.  Its just a question of pacing, not of quality or the final destination of the story.  Mangas influence on decompression in western comics is mainly just how action scenes are handeled.  The truth is decompression has always existed in even Western comicsd, but Manga creators were far more aware and shrewd, and Manga had more pages to work with.

 

And I don't think decompression in comics has anything to do with current trends in cinema.  I don't think its even influenced cinema in any way.  Cinema and television is inherently decompressed relative to comics.  And the episodes Brian Vaugn wrote, such as the The Constant, do not bear decompressed story-telling relative to other episodes of Lost.

 

Decompression is certainly not to blame for a shitty film like Tron: Legacy.  Drawing an equivelency between decompression in comics to plodding comic book films is simply wrong.  The reasons many of these comic book films are middling has nothing to do with decompression, because these films are not even part of a larger unified story.  Most of these superhero sequels are very episodic. 

 

 

Comics sin against cinema is its legacy of never ending.  This strategy is immediately noticeable in the comic book films of Marvel, since they took over film production.

 

 

 


Edited by Nabster - 4/4/11 at 2:58am
Reply
post #27 of 29
4/4/11 at 3:41pm

Well I did say I was going out on a limb. I wouldn't dismiss decompression entirely, however, as I think it could pertain to the current trend of remakes and origins. First of all, the concepts of prequels and trilogies was (not introduced but) hammered home by Episode One back in 1999. The idea of filling in the backstory went mainstream at that point (with notable attempts such as Batman Begins and Casino Royale, followed by less notable attempts such as Hannibal Rising and Robin Hood).

 

It had been common in comic books, however, for ages. Secret Origins were always a mainstay, but Batman: Year One and Superman: Man of Steel made the origin in graphic novel format accessible. What's changed in the last ten years in comic books, however, is retelling the origin not for origin's sake but in order to lead into a greater, long-form story. This was started by Bendis with Ultimate Spider-Man, and continues even today with Geoff Johns's Green Lantern: Secret Origins (dropping hints about Blackest Night).

 

Decompression when handled correctly can be beneficial for storytelling capabilities and character development, but in the wrong hands it's filler. I'm reminded of an issue of Ultimate Spider-Man that retold the events of the previous issue from the Green Goblin's point-of-view, but added nothing to the plot (or how about the infamous monkey issue of Powers?). I'm not arguing that comics affected cinema directly, but starting with Bob Gale writing for Batman in the '90s it has become very common for notable screenwriters to try their hands at comics. In my defense, as well, Brian K. Vaughan (and Jeph Loeb, who has three popular Batman storylines that were stretched to 12-issues for no discernable reason, and played a large part on Heroes, which dealt similarly in long-form storytelling to ill effect) wrote much more than one episode. From wikipedia:

 

 

Now this is all anecdotal, as I attempt to connect dots. It's actually more likely that studios are attempting to replicate Harry Potter's success with not just built-in trilogies but built in seven-part series.

Reply
post #28 of 29
4/4/11 at 6:44pm

Drew McWeeney makes a a point or two relevant to this discussion in his opinion piece on Universal that Elisabeth linked to in her Greengrass/MLK piece...

 

 

Quote:
Universal is in a hard spot right now, and before you blame any one thing, like their marketing, you have to take a step back and look at the business in general.  Right now, we are in one of the most gutless eras of big-budget filmmaking ever, and every studio is playing the same game.  Everyone is scrambling to identify the "safe" choices, and that means latching onto pre-existing material and treating it like a cure-all.  Comic books, video games, fairy tales, TV shows... WHATEVER.  As long as it pre-exists, you have an excuse if it fails.  "Well, it worked once.  Something must be wrong, and it's not about our decision to make this.  There is an audience.  We have proof."  And demographics and ratings and name brands have never been more important.  More than anything, if you want to take a chance, you have got to have a track record.  You have to be able to say, "I have risked it all before, and I have won when I did so."

 

Reply
post #29 of 29
4/11/11 at 1:24pm
Thread Starter 

Going back to the other kind of sequel from the first post, I didn't mean to imply that the "3/4 life crisis" was a new invention.  Artists have been revisiting characters in their twilight years for centuries, with mixed results. The Color of Money is pretty good, while The Godfather part 3 and The Two Jakes are not.  The Man In The Iron Mask is considered by many to be superior to The Three Musketeers, while the dragon episode of Beowulf is the most forgettable part (though the 3D movie did a good job of juicing it up and tying it to the earlier segments). The Expendables may be aptly titled when it comes to content, but it's aping a form that worked wonders for the likes of Unforgiven and Watchmen.  Then there's Shakespeare's histories.  It can work, and not just in a goofy "OMFG RAMBO THREW BURMA INTO A VOLCANO!!!!" way.  But it's not something that should be standard issue for each and every iconic character, imo.

 

Also, I'd still like to hear from Miller what, if anything, he was thinking when writing the titular comment.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "A golden age of movie sequels"