Bad Reviews on the Way of the Peaceful Warrior
Hollywood seems determined to profit from remakes and sequels that movie makers take 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 case — the bigwigs of the American film industry are on a mission to quickly ruin any remnant of millennial babyhood nostalgia.
So, it is with a heavy heart — and in recognition that January x, 2021, marks five years since the passing of the absolutely legendary and incomparable David Bowie — that I am forced to accost the announcement of a Labyrinth sequel. Now, does the original flick crave, necessitate or even hint at a sequel? Is the pb actor from the original movie prepared to brand an appearance? Is the original managing director nonetheless available? The reply to these questions is a single, resounding "NO." And withal, here we are. Sigh.
Allow me to accept a brief moment to hash out why a Labyrinth sequel is an awful, terrible, no-practiced thought.
A Bowie-Less Labyrinth Sequel Will Exist 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.m.a. the incomparable David Bowie. In 2016, the iconic genre- and gender-angle stone star lost a long battle with liver cancer. His failing health was a well-kept surreptitious, and fans and admirers from all over the earth mourned his untimely passing.
If you lot believe that Bowie'southward absence from a Labyrinth sequel is more a casting challenge than a reason to abolish the entire project, I'd recommend that yous go dorsum and watch the original 1986 film. Bowie's presence extends beyond his insanely flustered hairdo, gigantic codpiece and cool charismatic demeanor — the homo besides wrote and performed more than half of the motion picture's soundtrack.
Seeing Bowie perform every bit Jareth is much similar watching him as Ziggy Stardust. It can be challenging to separate the truth from the fiction of these performances, as Bowie becomes then engrossed in his characterization that he simply ceases to exist himself. Even as an developed, it's hard to watch Jareth the Goblin King prance, dance and sing without occasionally stopping to call back, "Wow. That really is David Bowie. And, yeah, I will 'Trip the light fantastic the Magic Dance' down my hallway."
I'one thousand sorry, simply information technology'southward impossible for a casting managing director to find a multitalented actor/musician to make full Bowie's shoes in an upcoming sequel. It'due south besides a challenge to imagine any viable reason why the original — seemingly immortal — Goblin Rex would have suddenly changed form. This blazon of defoliation merely deepens when considering what might become of the Labyrinth's creatures.
The Absence of Jim Henson'south Creative Genius
Jim Henson, the mastermind behind the Muppets, directed the original Labyrinth moving picture. His masterful puppetry showed a depth of skill unmatched by rival puppeteers, and in a fourth dimension without impressive CGI graphics, he was one 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 take those movies as a sign that Henson's absence is no large deal when attempting to make a sequel. They would be incredibly incorrect. 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!) But stop thinking about it and appreciate this magic for what it is!
Making a sequel to the Labyrinth film without using Henson's puppets would be similar George Lucas abandoning practical puppetry from his Star Wars franchise in favor of poorly-generated computer graphics. Oh…that'south already happened, and the response has been less-than-stellar. Fans who have grown up watching a specific film are bound to feel slighted, misunderstood or just manifestly cheated when that film ends up lost in technological translation.
Not convinced that fans don't want a CGI-heavy Labyrinth remake? Accept a look at how The Lion Male monarch fanbase (and critics) reacted to the CGI "live-action"' Disney remake. Hither'due south a spoiler: They didn't like it.
A Project Fueled by Profits, Not Passions
All of this begs the question, "Why are these executives greenish-lighting and then many '80s remakes and sequels right at present?" Unfortunately, the answer lies in nostalgia-based profit. Academics have long studied consumer behavior, and information technology seems that recent studies have not fallen on deaf ears.
In 2014, the Journal of Consumer Research published findings on the connection betwixt nostalgia and money-spending habits. They discovered that people are more willing to spend money when they're feeling sentimental or nostalgic. Advertising executives and pic producers accept taken this tidbit of information and run with it.
That'southward why our current film manufacture is flooded with remakes and unasked-for sequels, especially to icons from the 1980s and 1990s. Children from that era are now full-fledged adults with existential dread most the future every bit climate change, pandemics and political chaos leave generations clamoring for familiar, comforting nostalgia.
But rather than re-releasing original footage on updated media (remember 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 name of and for the sake of profit.
So Delight, Leave This Gem of a Moving picture Lone
A film shouldn't be pre-judged as good or bad, of grade, but should instead be judged by its merit, reception and lasting impact. Still, even the near advanced hologram technology could not revive Bowie's onscreen presence (NOR SHOULD Information technology). And no corporeality of CGI could replace the actuality and wonder of Henson'south creations.
The only thing that could remain consistent between the original Labyrinth movie and its proposed sequel is its main screenwriter, Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame and celebrity). Just as of this moment, there's no word from the crumbling Brit as to his possible involvement in writing a sequel.
Equally a result, there's little hope that a Labyrinth two would be anything more than than a shameless, soulless cash grab aimed at adults who long for the simpler, stranger globe that lay earlier them during the '80s. Any projection based on turn a profit, not passion, is doomed to neglect, and that'south why I'm not looking forward to the mess of a sequel that undoubtedly lies alee.
Source: https://www.ask.com/entertainment/labyrinth-sequel-bad-idea?utm_content=params%3Ao%3D740004%26ad%3DdirN%26qo%3DserpIndex
0 Response to "Bad Reviews on the Way of the Peaceful Warrior"
Post a Comment