Films, films, films.....
May. 3rd, 2003 09:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
clo_againHave I talked about the worrying trend of the film industry towards making 'sequels' at the moment? I don't think so. So I'm going to.
Edit: I'm putting this in cut tags - I didn't realise how long I'd gone on for. ^_~
This has been bugging me for a while. It used to be; a great film lasts anything from an hour and a half to three hours at a push, so the director had to squish as much damned good filmaking into those hours as possible - resulting in utterly fantastic films, like Notting Hill, A Knight's Tale, Labyrinth, The Sixth Sense, Moulin Rouge..... the list goes on. These are *great* films. But -even better- they're *stand-alone* films. No leaving open-ended plotlines or passing over what could be great facts in favour of 'that'll be good in the sequel'. The directors, producers, whatever, knew they had a set amount of time in which to tell a story and so they had to make that story as rich and inviting and entertaining for the audience as possible. It was wonderful sitting down to a film, knowing you were going to be told a complete story over the space of a few hours, knowing you were going to fall in love with characters who would find love/redemption/death/happiness within the space of those hours. Human beings are suckers for a happy ending - at least I am. I *liked* sitting down to a one off film, happy in the knowledge that I wouldn't be left hanging at the end like with episodes of 'Farscape' or 'Buffy'. I despise the words "To be continued" like nothing else in the world, and though I have yet to see a movie with those words tacked on the end, with films such as 'X-Men 1' and 'Spiderman' you barely need it spelled out for you. Brian Singer described X'Men 1 as "an extended trailer". Should we be paying to see an extended trailer, no matter how damned good it is? I sit down to a movie and I want to be told a story - I don't mind how long it takes, two hours, three, even four (though my ass protests that last one) , but I want to see what happens to the characters I come to know in the space of those hours. I wanted to know why Wolverine couldn't remember his past in X-Men 1, I wanted Harry to take revenge for his father in Spiderman..... I didn't want sequel friendly endings that would take years to be explained, for no reason other than to MAKE. MORE. MONEY.
Trilogies especially are "in" right now. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, X-Men 3 is no doubt looming on the horizon, sequels are being made for the most ridiculous films - isn't there a Charlie's Angels sequel being made? I admit Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have legitimate reasons for being trilogies - or in the case of Star Wars *two* trilogies - but the others? The Matrix was a kick-ass film. I don't want to have it ruined by sequels made to gain more money. If I want a plotline dragged out over months, years, I turn on my TV and watch Buffy. Or Angel. Or Smallville. I don't want to go to a movie cinema, pay £5, and get left with a cliffhanger.
What's more - wouldn't it be nice to have some originality in the cinema? I liked the character of Neo. I love Wolverine and don't even get me started on Legolas because I won't shut up. But I want to meet *new* characters. Okay, maybe cinema is getting overdone. Thousands - no millions - of movies have been made and filmmakers have every right to run out of ideas. But I don't think they *have*. Look around - how many books have you read this year that would make fantastic movies? How many times have you wished someone would put *that* on the big screen or there'd be a movie featuring *this*? Instead we get the same characters, the same settings, the same *plotlines* in what is basically big-budget fanfiction that makes them millions based on an old idea. What happened to daring movies that broke the rules? Moulin Rouge is a recent example of a movie that broke rules, took a step in a new direction, that was in fact an inspired piece of originality. Have they made a What-Christian-Did-After-Satine movie? I think not. And I'm immensely glad about that because if they did, then my entire feelings about the first movie would be ruined. Moulin Rouge Told. A. Story. In just under three hours. It's not impossible. Maybe not as easy as it was in the early days of cinema, but nowhere near impossible. Film makers are becoming lazy - cashing in on past sucesses which means they have to put in minimum effort and get out maximum money. What happened to making a film that you were so proud of that it didn't matter if it flopped? Making something that made people gasp, and sob and change their lives for? Did it ever happen?
Something my old history teacher once told us: the first piece of moving film ever shown was a simple black and white few-second movie of a train leaving the station. What happened? People ran out the cinema thinking it would come out the screen and hit them. Movies and film have come so far in the years between then and now that it's almost impossible to connect something like 'Lord of the Rings' with a simple few frames of a train. Yet modern films can have just a big an effect on us. I left the cinema after Lord of the Rings and knew I'd seen something incredible, trilogy status nonewithstanding. I watched Moulin Rouge for the second time and finally understood the full story for the first time. It was unbelievable. Why do they need to make trilogies to achieve that feeling?
Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are exceptions to the rule - a story that big can't be told in a few hours and I for one am glad that they didn't attempt them like that. But The Matrix? I don't need to revisit Agent Smith and Neo. I'd rather see the director/producer/whatever make something just as good but just as original. If I want to rewatch it I'll get the DVD. It's not difficult.
So is this the future of modern cinema? In a few years will we sit down to a movie with our popcorn and pretzels, knowing that the plot won't be resolved in the next few hours? That we'll have to spend £20 or more on cinema tickets over the next four or five years to discover exactly what's going to happen? That doesn't inspire any confidence in me as to the quality of the movie I'll be sitting down to watch. X-Men 2 is the most perfect recent example. It's a continuation of a film - not a stand-alone. Even worse, the ending still feels unfinished. I may be glad that I get to see more of a hairy Hugh Jackman kicking ass over the next few years, but I'm not so glad that I'll probably have to rewatch both the first and second movies before I go to keep up with all the plot details. Which means I'll need them both on DVD. Plus the extended editions to catch everything I've missed. That's what, £20 per DVD, plus £5 for each cinema ticket - I'll be spending in excess of £50 on just *one* set of movies. Not to mention the countless other trilogies that I will no doubt need to spend the same, or more on in the case of LotR.
I'm not happy with being made to pay money to see something unoriginal. I'm not happy with being treated like I'm not worth the effort of making inspirational films for. I'm a fan. I pay money to be told stories - we all do. I don't pay money to be told "Sorry, we need to keep the dramatic ending for the next film. Pay for another ticket and we'll tell you what happens next year."
Jeez this turned into a major rant. Sorry. I guess X2 set me off.
Love + peace + jelly babies!
Clo
Edit: I'm putting this in cut tags - I didn't realise how long I'd gone on for. ^_~
This has been bugging me for a while. It used to be; a great film lasts anything from an hour and a half to three hours at a push, so the director had to squish as much damned good filmaking into those hours as possible - resulting in utterly fantastic films, like Notting Hill, A Knight's Tale, Labyrinth, The Sixth Sense, Moulin Rouge..... the list goes on. These are *great* films. But -even better- they're *stand-alone* films. No leaving open-ended plotlines or passing over what could be great facts in favour of 'that'll be good in the sequel'. The directors, producers, whatever, knew they had a set amount of time in which to tell a story and so they had to make that story as rich and inviting and entertaining for the audience as possible. It was wonderful sitting down to a film, knowing you were going to be told a complete story over the space of a few hours, knowing you were going to fall in love with characters who would find love/redemption/death/happiness within the space of those hours. Human beings are suckers for a happy ending - at least I am. I *liked* sitting down to a one off film, happy in the knowledge that I wouldn't be left hanging at the end like with episodes of 'Farscape' or 'Buffy'. I despise the words "To be continued" like nothing else in the world, and though I have yet to see a movie with those words tacked on the end, with films such as 'X-Men 1' and 'Spiderman' you barely need it spelled out for you. Brian Singer described X'Men 1 as "an extended trailer". Should we be paying to see an extended trailer, no matter how damned good it is? I sit down to a movie and I want to be told a story - I don't mind how long it takes, two hours, three, even four (though my ass protests that last one) , but I want to see what happens to the characters I come to know in the space of those hours. I wanted to know why Wolverine couldn't remember his past in X-Men 1, I wanted Harry to take revenge for his father in Spiderman..... I didn't want sequel friendly endings that would take years to be explained, for no reason other than to MAKE. MORE. MONEY.
Trilogies especially are "in" right now. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, X-Men 3 is no doubt looming on the horizon, sequels are being made for the most ridiculous films - isn't there a Charlie's Angels sequel being made? I admit Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have legitimate reasons for being trilogies - or in the case of Star Wars *two* trilogies - but the others? The Matrix was a kick-ass film. I don't want to have it ruined by sequels made to gain more money. If I want a plotline dragged out over months, years, I turn on my TV and watch Buffy. Or Angel. Or Smallville. I don't want to go to a movie cinema, pay £5, and get left with a cliffhanger.
What's more - wouldn't it be nice to have some originality in the cinema? I liked the character of Neo. I love Wolverine and don't even get me started on Legolas because I won't shut up. But I want to meet *new* characters. Okay, maybe cinema is getting overdone. Thousands - no millions - of movies have been made and filmmakers have every right to run out of ideas. But I don't think they *have*. Look around - how many books have you read this year that would make fantastic movies? How many times have you wished someone would put *that* on the big screen or there'd be a movie featuring *this*? Instead we get the same characters, the same settings, the same *plotlines* in what is basically big-budget fanfiction that makes them millions based on an old idea. What happened to daring movies that broke the rules? Moulin Rouge is a recent example of a movie that broke rules, took a step in a new direction, that was in fact an inspired piece of originality. Have they made a What-Christian-Did-After-Satine movie? I think not. And I'm immensely glad about that because if they did, then my entire feelings about the first movie would be ruined. Moulin Rouge Told. A. Story. In just under three hours. It's not impossible. Maybe not as easy as it was in the early days of cinema, but nowhere near impossible. Film makers are becoming lazy - cashing in on past sucesses which means they have to put in minimum effort and get out maximum money. What happened to making a film that you were so proud of that it didn't matter if it flopped? Making something that made people gasp, and sob and change their lives for? Did it ever happen?
Something my old history teacher once told us: the first piece of moving film ever shown was a simple black and white few-second movie of a train leaving the station. What happened? People ran out the cinema thinking it would come out the screen and hit them. Movies and film have come so far in the years between then and now that it's almost impossible to connect something like 'Lord of the Rings' with a simple few frames of a train. Yet modern films can have just a big an effect on us. I left the cinema after Lord of the Rings and knew I'd seen something incredible, trilogy status nonewithstanding. I watched Moulin Rouge for the second time and finally understood the full story for the first time. It was unbelievable. Why do they need to make trilogies to achieve that feeling?
Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are exceptions to the rule - a story that big can't be told in a few hours and I for one am glad that they didn't attempt them like that. But The Matrix? I don't need to revisit Agent Smith and Neo. I'd rather see the director/producer/whatever make something just as good but just as original. If I want to rewatch it I'll get the DVD. It's not difficult.
So is this the future of modern cinema? In a few years will we sit down to a movie with our popcorn and pretzels, knowing that the plot won't be resolved in the next few hours? That we'll have to spend £20 or more on cinema tickets over the next four or five years to discover exactly what's going to happen? That doesn't inspire any confidence in me as to the quality of the movie I'll be sitting down to watch. X-Men 2 is the most perfect recent example. It's a continuation of a film - not a stand-alone. Even worse, the ending still feels unfinished. I may be glad that I get to see more of a hairy Hugh Jackman kicking ass over the next few years, but I'm not so glad that I'll probably have to rewatch both the first and second movies before I go to keep up with all the plot details. Which means I'll need them both on DVD. Plus the extended editions to catch everything I've missed. That's what, £20 per DVD, plus £5 for each cinema ticket - I'll be spending in excess of £50 on just *one* set of movies. Not to mention the countless other trilogies that I will no doubt need to spend the same, or more on in the case of LotR.
I'm not happy with being made to pay money to see something unoriginal. I'm not happy with being treated like I'm not worth the effort of making inspirational films for. I'm a fan. I pay money to be told stories - we all do. I don't pay money to be told "Sorry, we need to keep the dramatic ending for the next film. Pay for another ticket and we'll tell you what happens next year."
Jeez this turned into a major rant. Sorry. I guess X2 set me off.
Love + peace + jelly babies!
Clo
