Tastful Way to Write a Bad Review for an Attorney
Hollywood seems determined to profit from remakes and sequels that movie makers accept no business concern 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 pic industry are on a mission to chop-chop ruin any remnant of millennial babyhood nostalgia.
Then, information technology is with a heavy heart — and in recognition that January 10, 2022, marks 6 years since the passing of the admittedly legendary and incomparable David Bowie — that I am forced to accost the announcement of a Labyrinth sequel. Now, does the original pic crave, necessitate or even hint at a sequel? Is the atomic number 82 actor from the original moving-picture show prepared to brand an advent? Is the original director notwithstanding bachelor? The answer to these questions is a single, resounding "NO." And nonetheless, hither we are. Sigh.
Allow me to take a cursory moment to talk over why a Labyrinth sequel is an awful, terrible, no-good thought.
A Bowie-Less Labyrinth Sequel Will Be a Travesty
The upcoming Labyrinth sequel faces some tough challenges. For starters, it'south going to be missing its eternal, androgynous Jareth the Goblin King — a.k.a. the incomparable David Bowie. In 2016, the iconic genre- and gender-angle rock star lost a long battle with liver cancer. His failing wellness was a well-kept hush-hush, and fans and admirers from all over the world mourned his untimely passing.
If you believe that Bowie'southward absence from a Labyrinth sequel is more a casting claiming than a reason to cancel the unabridged project, I'd recommend that y'all get dorsum and lookout man the original 1986 film. Bowie's presence extends beyond his insanely flustered hairdo, gigantic codpiece and cool charismatic demeanor — the homo also wrote and performed more than than half of the motion-picture show's soundtrack.
Seeing Bowie perform as Jareth is much like watching him as Ziggy Stardust. It tin can be challenging to dissever the truth from the fiction of these performances, equally Bowie becomes so engrossed in his characterization that he simply ceases to be himself. Fifty-fifty as an adult, information technology'due south difficult to sentinel Jareth the Goblin King prance, dance and sing without occasionally stopping to think, "Wow. That really is David Bowie. And, aye, I volition 'Dance the Magic Trip the light fantastic toe' down my hallway."
I'm distressing, but information technology's impossible for a casting director to detect a multitalented actor/musician to fill up Bowie's shoes in an upcoming sequel. Information technology's also a challenge to imagine any feasible reason why the original — seemingly immortal — Goblin King would have suddenly changed course. This blazon 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 moving picture. His masterful puppetry showed a depth of skill unmatched by rival puppeteers, and in a time without impressive CGI graphics, he was one of the go-to guys for practical special effects. 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 every bit a sign that Henson's absence is no big 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 Trick!) Just finish thinking near it and appreciate this magic for what it is!
Making a sequel to the Labyrinth film without using Henson'due south puppets would be like George Lucas abandoning practical puppetry from his Star Wars franchise in favor of poorly-generated estimator graphics. Oh…that'due south already happened, and the response has been less-than-stellar. Fans who have grown upwardly watching a specific film are bound to experience slighted, misunderstood or simply 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 King fanbase (and critics) reacted to the CGI "live-action"' Disney remake. Hither's a spoiler: They didn't like it.
A Project Fueled by Profits, Not Passions
All of this begs the question, "Why are these executives green-lighting so many '80s remakes and sequels correct at present?" Unfortunately, the answer lies in nostalgia-based profit. Academics accept long studied consumer beliefs, and it seems that recent studies have not fallen on deafened ears.
In 2014, the Periodical of Consumer Research published findings on the connexion betwixt nostalgia and money-spending habits. They discovered that people are more willing to spend money when they're feeling sentimental or cornball. Advertising executives and flick producers have taken this tidbit of information 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 now full-fledged adults with existential dread about the hereafter equally 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 film industry would rather take existing intellectual property and rebrand information technology for the younger generation. In most cases, the result is an alienated original audience and a disinterested youth. This is all done in the name of and for the sake of profit.
So Please, Leave This Gem of a Film Alone
A moving picture shouldn't be pre-judged equally skilful or bad, of course, but should instead be judged by its merit, reception and lasting impact. Still, even the well-nigh avant-garde hologram technology could not revive Bowie's onscreen presence (NOR SHOULD IT). And no amount of CGI could replace the authenticity and wonder of Henson'south creations.
The only thing that could remain consistent between the original Labyrinth film and its proposed sequel is its primary screenwriter, Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame and glory). But equally of this moment, in that location's no give-and-take from the crumbling Brit as to his possible involvement in writing a sequel.
As a result, there'south little hope that a Labyrinth two would be annihilation more than than a shameless, soulless cash grab aimed at adults who long for the simpler, stranger world that lay before them during the '80s. Whatever project based on turn a profit, not passion, is doomed to fail, and that's why I'thousand 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 "Tastful Way to Write a Bad Review for an Attorney"
Post a Comment