Contradicting Popular Opinion
A.K.A.
An Enquiry Concerning Why You Suck: Familiar Territory
We’re forgoing the usual format just for this week.
“Another remake? Another sequel? Another old sitcom made into a movie? Blah, blah, blah blah blah blah blah!”
To all of you who sound like that, I must say: Shut up. Shut the hell up. Quit expressing your third hand opinion and your fourth rate ideas. Shut the f*ck up.
I know there are a lot of you out there that are of the opinion that most sequels suck, or that most remakes suck, or that most movie made from TV shows suck, etc. etc. But the thing is… most movies made nowadays suck. Will the sequel to Underworld suck? Most likely, but not because it is a sequel, rather because Underworld sucked.
Since this is mostly a geek culture site, I’ll speak in your terms. Spider-Man 2 is probably better that Spider-man. The same goes for X2 and X-men. Batman Returns has aged a lot more gracefully than Batman. Blade II is far more interesting than Blade. Empire Strikes Back is a better movie than Star Wars. Each of those movies is undeniably a sequel. Each uses the first movie as a base that allows the new movie to hit the ground running. Each uses the fact that it is a sequel to its advantage.
Now, four of the five franchises I just mentioned come from comics. I’ve met several people who, for various reasons, “won’t see a comic book movie.” I have to believe these people are mostly retarded, because often in the same breath they will go on to praise a “comic book movie.”
“Oh comic book movies are so stupid! Let’s watch something else! On DVD I have Men In Black, Ghost World, The Mask, The Crow, From Hell…”
That’s like saying “I won’t watch a movie based on a novel.” Comics are not a genre, they are a medium.
Speaking of “based on” and all that: Who cares where a movie comes from? Most movies are based on something else, be it a novel, a short story, a comic, or, heaven forbid, another movie. Judge a movie on what it is, not that on which it is based.
Who cares if a movie is a remake? So what? Remakes can be good movies. And ones that suck, don’t hurt the original. John Carpenter’s The Thing is a remake, and it is one of the best horror movies around. There are three different Invasion of the Body Snatchers; each offers something different and profoundly watchable.
If I think the new version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a piece of shit, it doesn’t alter my appreciation for Tobe Hooper’s original. (Nor for the underappreciated The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre AKA Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, truly, Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConnaughey at their finest.)
I will add that we have some remakes which avoid the “rehash” label by being almost nothing like the original, e.g. the new Dawn of the Dead and Assault on Precinct 13. But people criticize them for not being like the original. Darned if you don’t, danged if you do. (Fuckin’ A, the column is now PG!)
We also have remakes that avoid the “rehash” label by remaking something few people remember, e.g. Flight of the Pheonix and Ocean’s Eleven. Personally, I prefer Billy Ocean’s Eleven. (Note to self: write a script for Billy Ocean’s Eleven.)
Then there are stories like “Romeo and Juliet” which spawn tons of movies, which may be able to be called “remakes”, from straightforward interpretations, the goofy ass MTV version, West Side Story, the classic Troma picture Tromeo and Juliet, etc.
And don’t get me started on Dracula. Hell, in 1931, there were 2 Draculas being filmed simultaneously at Universal on the same sets.
Remaking movies isn’t a new phenomenon. People have been remaking movies since the beginning. A version of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde was made in 1908, and in 1909, and 1912, and two were made in 1913, and another in 1914, and at least 4 in 1920, and another in 1931, and so on.
Sequels aren’t a new thing. Back in the day, Universal put out Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, Frankenstein meets the Wolfman, House of Frankenstein (the monster also shows up in House of Dracula), and Quentin Tarantino’s inspiration to make movies Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein.
Hell, even Master Hitchcock remade movies. He made The Man Who Knew Too Much twice.
Switching gears somewhat, I should also mention the remake disguised as a sequel phenomenon. It is a very odd thing.
We have the subtle remake as a sequel. For instance, Men In Black II is essentially the same movie as Men In Black. This is what often happens when a film that has no need for a sequel gets a sequel. Terminator 2 is just Terminator with the b-movie sensibilities sucked out and replaced with a huge FX budget.
We have the less subtle sequel/remake, like Return of the Living Dead: Part 2 where actors killed in the first movie show up in the second as basically the same characters. The first movie is simultaneously ignored and referenced.
Then there are the weird ones like Evil Dead 2 which essentially remakes Evil Dead in the first 20 minutes before going on with the new movie.
And then there are the weirder ones like Lion King 1 1/2.
As for remakes of TV shows, well, everybody bitches about them, but millions of people went to see The Dukes of Hazzard. For every awful rehash bomb like I Spy there seems to be an awful rehash box office success like Charlie’s Angels. And every once in a while, you actually get one of these things that is pretty good. Like The Fugitive or ummm…
hold on a minute…
…
One of those even numbered “Star Trek” flicks?
But aren’t there any new ideas? Sure. The simple fact of the matter is this, though: as much as you piss and moan, you bitches prefer that which is familiar to that which is new and original.
The blame lies squarely with you.
The Star Wars prequels made George Lucas a mint, without being very good. Nobody seemed to like the second or third Matrix movies, but people sure seemed to buy tickets. If you bastards really want something new and different, how come so many more people went to see Meet the Fockers than Bubba Ho-Tep? How come Shrek 2 made so much more money than Spirited Away? How come “Briscoe County” and “Strange Luck” were cancelled so quickly?
And even if it isn’t an actual remake, or sequel or what have you, everybody still jumps onto something that is familiar. How many action movies from the 90s are basically Die Hard? It’s like Die Hard on a bus, or a train, or a boat, etc. Or maybe it is just a beefy guy with a bunch of one-liners that fights vaguely accented, vaguely foreign, vaguely homosexual badguys.
Nowadays, of course, everything tries to pimp itself as he next Matrix (which wasn’t very good to begin with, but that is another column).
But in the end, it just doesn’t matter. A movie needs to be judged on its own merits.
Except for video game movies. They always suck.
Mailbag
I’m gonna share some of the electronic mail that this column has generated. There are more in the g-mail box, but these ones are probably the best representatives of the type of mail I get.
Eternal Sunshine…
hey man…
1. wasn’t a big fan of your ‘eternal’ review…seemed more like a potshot at “indie snobs” than at people who sincerely liked the movie. trust me, i love watching swingers, the goonies, and the die hard collection, and i don’t consider myself an ‘indie snob’…but i also have a real soft spot for ‘eternal’…
we’ve grown used to jim carrey as the crazy man who goes all out with his comedic performances, and to see him portray a deeper and more intimate human is the kind of acting that make many funnymen stand out as great actors (williams, murray)…i don’t want to get into a huge argument about the merits of this movie, and i don’t want to fight over opinions…you’ve got yours, and i have mine.
however, you’re very alone in your opinion, and in your article you really justify why no one should take you seriously.
calling joel’s character a wuss is really narcisstic and unnecessary to make. it exposes the writer for having character issues when he’s calling movie characters ‘wusses’, and it also seems like cheap filler to justify why a movie sucks….not needed.
secondly, you go off-topic in a few instances, and you knock indie snobs…look dude, if you wanna justify your opinion on this movie, go right ahead. but they have nothing to do with your judgement. ultimately, it feels as if you’re becoming defensive towards this movie because you don’t seem to understand what other people do. suddenly, those other people are ‘indie snobs’…that’s stereotyping. the mark of a great writer. why would you include that in your article? do you feel inferior? are you intimidated by these indie snobs? leave them out of this writing, and stick to the points you can justify.
also, you get off topic when you talk about british actors in super-hero movies as an ‘important fact’…perhaps to you, but this may explain your dislike in the film.
i don’t know what you expect from movies, but it seems as though you want to be entertained by lots of action, drama, and color…movies that don’t have deeper meaning…rather, the ones that are spelled out for you. maybe, mr. kennedy, you’re the 12 year old that can’t think outside the box. i don’t want your feedback, nor do i want a reply…but i feel that this article was contrived and unrealistic, and very childish…just like you.
–kyle
ps…action jackson is terrible.
Kyle, just to the left of the letter Z you will find the SHIFT key.
why so angry? i never even heard of this movie. i guess i see why i never heard of it.
That was my brother. The following was sent by someone with the handle “Johnny Sorrow.”
You’ve never actually kissed a girl have you?
I looked up one day and saw that it was up to me.
You can only be a victim if you admit defeat.
I responded:
I regret to inform you that your haiku has the wrong number of syllables.
… and he immediately responded with:
I don’t think you regreted it at all.
I’m still not quite sure what sort of response that merits.
Batman Begins
Good job on dissecting the movie. My friend and I went and saw it about two weeks after it came out, all the hype and buzz, all the comic geeks wetting their pants about how perfect it was. We were so let down, we walked out just shocked anyone thought it was the best thing ever, and we are both Bat fans from childhood.
1. You covered pretty much every problem I had with it, only missing the massive property destruction bats does in his bat-tank when running from the cops, oh and the little part where he runs over cop cars and flips them with explosive tire spikes. I never knew Batman to even come close to hurting cops, especially in his early days when he was establishing himself.
Oh well. Great job, this is going out to every who annoys me with empty praise for the film.
Steve***
Heya.
1. Just got through your column and I gotta say – finally! Personally, I was very disappointed by the movie, for at least some of the reasons you mentioned. But there were a few others things that stuck out as well – at least to me.
I won’t get into how horribly convenient it was that Ra’s was the employer of Joe Chill (they implied that, right? I seem to remember it), even though how the Joker was behind the murder was one of the things I disliked about Burton’s first. Neither will I mention the dumbed down, stereotypical Islamistic extremist undertones of Ra’s’s group – but maybe I’m just imagining those.
Instead, something that bothered me was the Batman/Gordon-relationship. Here you have supposedly straight-as-an-arrow Gordon in a town full of bad cops and corrupt officials, but the second a guy in a ski mask breaks into his office, he’s willing to trust him blindly. In the comics, he at least had to earn his trust, but in BB we’re just supposed to accept that Batman and Gordon are pals, ’cause that’s just the way it is.
I can buy the fear gas. That’s no problem. I can’t buy that someone sprayed with fear gas will remain relatively calm while speeding through high traffic while chased by police, with a guy dressed as a giant bat at the person’s side. Also, have you ever seen an angry/spooked horse? They’re scary. I doubt they’d be something you climb on if your mind is “lost to fear”. Likewise, if a little kid is trapped on an island full of insane people and is sprayed with fear gas, why is he perfectly calm when a completely unknown lady runs off with him? One of these things in the movie wouldn’t be so bad, but it’s like they decided to completely ignore any internal consistency.
There was more as well, but to remember it all, I’d have to try harder to remember the movie and that’s not really something I want to do. But hey, maybe it’s my fault I didn’t like it, since I expected the intelligent action-thriller they hyperbolically promised, instead of throwaway summer junk. Ah well.
Phew. Anyway, all that said, I enjoyed the column and I look forward to the next one!
-DV***
Hello,
Excellent column. I really enjoyed reading it. ‘Twas
very refreshing to read something at such an opposite
of the mainstream. One thing you didn’t mention though
was that the Illinois license plates didn’t change at
all. 20 years pass and the plates stay the same. what
lazy government is running the state, any state, that
would allow the same license plate to be printed for
at least twenty years? That irked the hell out of me
when I saw it.
But yeah, Batman does come off as a killer; the comic
book Batman, nor animated TV series Batman, wouldn’t
leave someone to their fate like that.That jittery camera stuff really bugged me, too. It
sucked in Saving Private Ryan, and it sucks almost 10
years later. What is wrong with focused, still
cameras, and intricate set piece battles that show the
viewer what is going on? The older war movies are fine
viewing and they stay on focus.Anyhow, I really hope you continue writing as I enjoy
well-written columns, especially regarding movies. I
can’t wait for more.Thanks for brightening my day for a few moments,
GeorgeP.S. How about doing something opposite, proving a
movie is really good despite what critics say?P.P.S. Also excellent grammar and spelling, at least I
didn’t notice anything and I can usually notice at
least one thing when Lucard writes (not that he’s a
bad writer, but my eyes notice these things, although
not always my own writing I’m afraid to write)P.P.S. You can never, ever, know too much about old
horror movies, the old Universal flicks kicked ass,
especially The Bride of Frankenstein.P.P.P.S. Am I among the few that felt Terminator
2:Judgment Day wasn’t that good, if only for the fact
that the T-800 didn’t kill every biker in the bar, I
mean he hasn’t been told to kill yet, and all of
sudden he is about to kill that guy in the parking
lot. Huh, how can one have a terminator that doesn’t
terminate other things, besides other terminators and
himself?Even Sarah Connor didn’t kill anyone, if I
were insane and knew what would happen, I don’t think
I would care about the consequences of murdering a few
people to save a million times more. Stupid movie
heros that don’t kill. Terminator 2:Judgment Day
deserves some tearing up, no?
The Final Word:
Well this wasn’t the format of the column proper, so instead I am just going to ask you all to send me a list of some awful sequels to pretty good movies. I’ll start the ball rolling with:
Howling II
Pumpkinhead 2
Oh and hey, make sure you check out the new Culture section. There you will find the spooky Lucard there, the lovely Ms. Reller, the angry ML Kennedy, and many more.
