Things That Are Bad for You That You Dont Know
Hollywood seems determined to turn a profit from remakes and sequels that movie makers have no business writing, producing or releasing. Rather than working hard to generate new films — ones with novel plot devices, leads and stories from underrepresented communities and compelling cinematic visions, for example — the bigwigs of the American film industry are on a mission to quickly ruin whatever remnant of millennial childhood nostalgia.
So, information technology is with a heavy heart — and in recognition that January 10, 2021, marks five years since the passing of the admittedly legendary and incomparable David Bowie — that I am forced to address the announcement of a Labyrinth sequel. Now, does the original picture show require, necessitate or fifty-fifty hint at a sequel? Is the lead actor from the original movie prepared to make an advent? Is the original director still available? The answer to these questions is a single, resounding "NO." And all the same, here we are. Sigh.
Allow me to take a brief moment to talk over why a Labyrinth sequel is an awful, terrible, no-expert idea.
A Bowie-Less Labyrinth Sequel Will Be a Travesty
The upcoming Labyrinth sequel faces some tough challenges. For starters, it's going to be missing its eternal, androgynous Jareth the Goblin King — a.thou.a. the unequalled David Bowie. In 2016, the iconic genre- and gender-bending stone star lost a long battle with liver cancer. His failing wellness was a well-kept secret, and fans and admirers from all over the world mourned his untimely passing.
If you believe that Bowie'due south absenteeism from a Labyrinth sequel is more than a casting claiming than a reason to abolish the entire project, I'd recommend that yous go back and watch the original 1986 film. Bowie'southward presence extends beyond his insanely flustered hairdo, gigantic codpiece and cool charismatic demeanor — the homo too wrote and performed more than than half of the movie'south soundtrack.
Seeing Bowie perform every bit Jareth is much like watching him equally Ziggy Stardust. It tin be challenging to dissever the truth from the fiction of these performances, every bit Bowie becomes and then engrossed in his label that he simply ceases to be himself. Fifty-fifty as an adult, it's difficult to sentry Jareth the Goblin King prance, dance and sing without occasionally stopping to think, "Wow. That actually is David Bowie. And, yes, I will 'Trip the light fantastic toe the Magic Dance' downward my hallway."
I'g sorry, simply information technology'south impossible for a casting director to find a multitalented role player/musician to fill Bowie'due south shoes in an upcoming sequel. It's likewise a challenge to imagine whatever feasible reason why the original — seemingly immortal — Goblin King would have suddenly changed form. This type of confusion only deepens when considering what might become of the Labyrinth's creatures.
Jim Henson, the mastermind behind the Muppets, directed the original Labyrinth film. His masterful puppetry showed a depth of skill unmatched past rival puppeteers, and in a time without impressive CGI graphics, he was 1 of the go-to guys for practical special furnishings. Sadly, Henson passed abroad in 1990. Since that time, there have been no less than five theatrical releases with his charming Muppet characters — and they've all been awful.
Some might have those movies as a sign that Henson's absence is no large deal when attempting to make a sequel. They would be incredibly wrong. A Labyrinth sequel without Bowie AND Jim Henson would be like a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel without Robin Williams. (Don't you dare, 20th Century Fox!) Just finish thinking virtually information technology and appreciate this magic for what it is!
Making a sequel to the Labyrinth film without using Henson's puppets would be like George Lucas abandoning practical puppetry from his Star Wars franchise in favor of poorly-generated estimator graphics. Oh…that's already happened, and the response has been less-than-stellar. Fans who accept grown up watching a specific film are spring to feel slighted, misunderstood or just plain cheated when that film ends up lost in technological translation.
Not convinced that fans don't want a CGI-heavy Labyrinth remake? Have a look at how The Lion Rex fanbase (and critics) reacted to the CGI "live-action"' Disney remake. Hither's a spoiler: They didn't like information technology.
A Project Fueled by Profits, Non Passions
All of this begs the question, "Why are these executives light-green-lighting so many '80s remakes and sequels correct now?" Unfortunately, the respond lies in nostalgia-based profit. Academics have long studied consumer behavior, and it seems that recent studies have not fallen on deaf ears.
In 2014, the Journal of Consumer Research published findings on the connectedness between nostalgia and money-spending habits. They discovered that people are more than willing to spend money when they're feeling sentimental or nostalgic. Advertisement executives and picture producers accept taken this tidbit of data and run with it.
That's why our electric current film industry is flooded with remakes and unasked-for sequels, especially to icons from the 1980s and 1990s. Children from that era are at present full-fledged adults with existential dread about the hereafter as climate change, pandemics and political chaos leave generations clamoring for familiar, comforting nostalgia.
But rather than re-releasing original footage on updated media (think Blu-ray and 4K downloads), the picture show industry would rather accept existing intellectual property and rebrand information technology for the younger generation. In nigh cases, the result is an alienated original audition and a disinterested youth. This is all done in the proper name of and for the sake of profit.
So Delight, Go out This Precious stone of a Picture Lone
A moving-picture show shouldn't exist pre-judged as adept or bad, of course, simply should instead be judged by its merit, reception and lasting touch. Still, fifty-fifty the most advanced hologram technology could not revive Bowie's onscreen presence (NOR SHOULD IT). And no amount of CGI could supplant the authenticity and wonder of Henson'due south creations.
The only thing that could remain consequent betwixt the original Labyrinth film and its proposed sequel is its chief screenwriter, Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame and glory). Simply as of this moment, there'south no discussion from the crumbling Brit as to his possible involvement in writing a sequel.
As a upshot, there's little hope that a Labyrinth 2 would be anything more than a shameless, soulless cash catch aimed at adults who long for the simpler, stranger world that lay before them during the '80s. Any project based on profit, not passion, is doomed to neglect, and that's why I'g not looking forward to the mess of a sequel that undoubtedly lies ahead.
Source: https://www.ask.com/entertainment/labyrinth-sequel-bad-idea?utm_content=params%3Ao%3D740004%26ad%3DdirN%26qo%3DserpIndex
0 Response to "Things That Are Bad for You That You Dont Know"
Post a Comment