Having just noticed that ‘Deadpool 2’ has just been released and that ‘Solo’, a ‘Star Wars’ spin-off, is about to be on the circuit it occurs to me that there seem to be a huge array of films around about us that are a follow-on from the original.
This really only occurred to me recently because there was an advertisement* for a film called ‘Return to the Blue Lagoon’. It would appear that this is a remake of the old film but with more adult actors and a few changes in the script and setting.
The original film was excellent. This one? No comment as it has yet, if ever, to be viewed.
But why the sequel?
There is a strong suspicion that the makers will hope that those of us in the older segment of the population will recall the original film with some fondness and go to see it. It may appeal to the younger audience a fascination o see what it was about the original film that causes people to speak well of it.
So money, then.
It is all about money.
‘Blade Runner’ was another film in the same vein. The original was superb. A masterpiece of the film-makers art. The sequel was also an excellent film – supposing, of course, that you remembered the first film otherwise it would have been somewhat mystifying.
Money. Again.
Here we have a successful format and so the temptation to repeat it with a few twists is overwhelming.
‘Star Wars’, mentioned above, is a huge money-spinning project. Not just the film itself that generates vast revenues but the marketing of merchandise must, at least, equal the sums that the film makes on its own.
The whole concept of ‘Star Wars ‘ is built on the idea of ‘prequels’ and ‘sequels’. This is how it is structured – and successfully so.
The idea of ‘Sharknado’, for example’ is entirely different. Here there was an idea that someone had the temerity to put on screens as a visual rendition. It is entirely hokum, nonsensical. Then they decided that the original was so poor that a follow up is necessary to provide depth. Unbelievably there are more sequels to this. Why? The original had nothing to commend it so why on Earth would they make one sequel let alone several – six, in fact. There are also two spin-offs and a video game!
Unbelievable.
The idea of ‘flashbacks’ is something else that needs to be handled with care - it often is not.
In ‘The Osiris Child’, a formulaic sci-fi movie that is quite entertaining, until the ‘beasts’ arrive, the flashbacks are done quite well in that they are not confusing. But there are many films where my wife and I have stopped the film, or TV series, to discuss whether the action that is taking place is current or whether it is a recollection of the past.
Confusion.
In my own stories I try very hard to keep a ‘straight-line’, avoiding flashbacks altogether. That said, I have hearkened to the past in ‘My Name Is A Number’ but only in the gentlest of ways to avoid confusion in the mind of the reader.
A reviewer once said that they find the timeline in ‘Crater’ confusing, which only goes to prove that you cannot please everyone all the time. I hope that reviewer will find more satisfaction in other stories of mine.
So do I avoid sequels and prequels? No. Not at all. The ‘Adepts’ series is based on sequels and a continuation of their struggles against considerable odds. Similarly, the ‘Ruthermore Heidigens’ series is also a tale of separate stories but linked together in some way.
Of course, the mini-stories of ‘Three’s Company’, ‘Four’s A Crowd’ and ‘Five’s the End' is nothing if not a trilogy of sequels.
Prequels? Yes. ‘Rhittach’ is a prequel of sorts to the ‘Adepts’ series in the same way that ‘Solo’ is to ‘Star Wars’.
We are not casting sequels, prequels and flashbacks into the pit of damnation but, rather, entering a plea for them to be carried out with more imagination and creativity.
As an aside – what happened to ‘Lucifer’? They left us on a cliff-hanger ending to the third series and then ‘Fox’ drops it.
Let’s hope it finds a new home.
#savelucifer
*'Advertisement'. Pronounced: 'advertissment' and not 'advertyzement'. Just so you know.
No comments:
Post a Comment