(Editorial) The Year of Nostalgia
Over the years, I've asked myself, and others, something that always gets me when regarding movies like these, "Why now?" The majority of these movies debuted decades ago. Some long before we were born, depending on what generation we're talking about. But why do filmmakers insist on either continuing stories that ended on a pretty conclusive note at the end of the previous movie, or just simply reboot the entire series? Most fans and critics would say that the majority of these kinds of movies exist to make a quick buck. In most cases thats pretty accurate, but in other cases there are some things that can bring something new to the table. There are three different outcomes to the question of "why now?" Very bad, Very good, or just okay.
For most of us Film-buffs, we like to see something new done in the movies we see. But sometimes, after a while, having to sit through so many of these things repeated again and again they eventually become expected movie tropes. Like the overuse of SGI in almost every single action movie now. For a while, we had given up on the old days where action scenes and stunts were done with real people and practical effects, we thought that that type of filmmaking would never come back to us. Until, this past summer, a little film known as Mad Max: Fury Road came out. Not only did this serve as a return to form for practical effect driven action movies and visual storytelling, but it was also the fourth installment of George Miller's action franchise which debuted in the late 1970's. The film didn't keep close in continuity to the previous movies, but it made up for that in it's stunts, performances from the cast, and it's visual story telling. To some, it didn't add anything new or game-changing to Miller's storyline, but it give us something not new and innovating, but something we hadn't seen in a long time on the big screen. And it certainly rewarded us for our patience.
Speaking of patience, haven't we been dying to see what happens next in the Terminator saga? That cliffhanger ending to Terminator: Salvation left us with questions that we demanded to be answered, even though the end of Terminator 2: Judgement Day was pretty conclusive. But studio executives believed that we needed to see more of the adventures of John Connor live through Judgement Day and how he becomes the leader of the human resistance, even though John and his mother Sarah Connor did everything they needed to in order to prevent Judgement Day in the end of Terminator 2. Do you see where I'm going with all this? Since Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, the Terminator franchise has been an example of a franchise that has nowhere else to go, much like the Start Trek franchise. After a while, Star Trek had nowhere else to go in it's direction, so what did director J.J. Abrams do? He took a few characters from the future, bring them back in time to the past where the franchise began, retcon everything we remembered into a clean slate, and could create a new timeline for themselves. The newest installment of the Terminator franchise, Terminator: Genisys, did the exact same time traveling retcon formula as Star Trek, and made it more complicated. Now, with the popularity of the new Star Trek movies, studio executives have now looked at the numbers, and have found a loophole into retconing a popular nostalgic franchise, and I predict that we will be seeing a lot more of these kinds of loopholes coming into play in the near future.
Sometimes, the overuse of sequels in film franchises can be viewed as an experimental work-in-progress. What I mean by that, is that every once in a while a franchise hits a roughly downhill patch along it's journey to greatness. But, with every mistake that is made, the smarter the storyteller tends to become and want to make amends and make a better movie to follow. Case and point, Jurassic World. The Jurassic Park franchise has had this kind of experimental track record. The first movie being the best of the series, and the two that followed were flops. Years after the disappointing response of Jurassic Park 3, Steven Spielberg thought of taking the next film out of the funk the third film had left the franchise in. After 14 years in development hell, Universal Studios and director Colin Trevorrow gave us something that we, as fans, had been waiting for since 1993. They finally opened Jurassic Park. This movie took what our expectations formed from the first movie and gave us a realistic and believable theme park. Sequels to franchises, suffering from development hell, can eventually become better than what we feared. The longer the time is used can sometimes serve as a strength to the filmmaker's advantage. Some movies have suffered from the long stretch of time but most others have profited off of it. Sequels and prequels to a franchise can be an experimental work-in-progress that gets better with time. As Ian McKellen said, in Fellowship of the Ring, "All you have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to you."
The overuse of sequels in a single franchise doesn't always have a bad outcome. A positive example of this would be the 007, James Bond series a franchise that punched out sequel after sequel back in the day (and continues to do so today). True the majority of the later is based on a large series of books by Ian Fleming, but there so many installments in this franchise. No body really complained about it that much though, because the series had a specific formula and charm to it. In almost every single movie, we would get the exact same thing; Bond does spy stuff, sleeps with a bunch of women, visit exotic locations, try out fantastic spy gadgets, battle a bunch of very creative villains, and end up saving the world. This formula has repeated itself from when it began in the 1960s until the early 2000s, and we loved every single one of them...almost. The thing is though, none of them really carried on a single story line. Because of the repeating formula, there were certain things we never learned about; who is James Bond, where did he come from, what was his childhood like, why did he join MI6? We didn't find out any of these until the series was eventually rebooted in 2006 with Casino Royale. Since then, the series has been revolving around a singular storyline through, now, four movies while simultaneously giving us Bond's backstory that we never got in the earlier movies. The two newest installment to the reboot series, Skyfall and now Spectre, brought back characters and plot points from the original movies while also diving deeper and deeper into Bond's origins. This is an example of rebooting a very popular series, touching upon similar scenarios while also touching upon elements that weren't before.
We finally end this year long nostalgic trip with something us Film-buffs have been waiting for a long period of time. Depending on the viewer the time gap has ranged from 32 years to 10 years. However long we would like to think of it as, this past holiday season we were given the 7th installment to the Star Wars saga, the Force Awakens. After the series of prequel movies chronicling the life of Sith lord Darth Vader, fans felt that there was nowhere else for George Lucas' franchise to go in order to make up for the disappointment that the prequels had become. Until the Disney company had obtained the rites to the franchise and Star Trek director J.J Abrams was brought on, we were given a new Star Wars movie that certainly did make up for the sins of the past. Though it certainly tugged on our nostalgic strings in more ways than one, according to the majority of the fan base and critics alike, it did also bring a few new things as well. Like Fury Road, the strength of the Force Awakens was in it's characters and their chemistry with one another.
As we finish out this year long nostalgic adventure down memory lane, I ask you again, "Why now?" Well, I have a few theories, 1, Hollywood has officially run out of ideas and studio executives choose to just feed off of the popular nostalgic fame of the familiar without realizing what it was that we loved about them to begin with by exploiting it, relentlessly. 2, most filmmakers in Hollywood today are part of the generation who were kids when they first saw these franchises decades before and want to share the things they grew up with with their kids and the generation that follows. Or 3, the more accurate answer would be that now that we are an older generation and our kids are being introduced to the franchises we grew up with, we see that they are becoming fans of these properties like we were when we were their age, and we've noticed that Hollywood is out of ideas and have decided to exploit these properties because they're out of ideas but believe the popularity will keep money in their pockets.
Many fans and critics have gone with all of these kinds of theories, but I see another theory. Because, 1, we are in the 21st century and we can do so many things with modern technology in how motion pictures are made now. Which can serve as a strength in how we tell these stories. And, 2, we as Film-buffs have suffered in the past two decades. Seeing poorly made rip-offs riding on the coattails of these franchises and we have been in dire need of either something new or a revisit to the franchises that shaped our young lives. This year has certainly shown us what franchises can be brought back to a new generation and what franchises that should stay as a franchise of our time. Let's see what more nostalgia trips 2016 holds for us. 2015, what a year, what a lovely year!!!
Comments
Post a Comment