Is It Bad to Not Participate in Family Christmas
Hollywood seems determined to profit from remakes and sequels that picture 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 instance — the bigwigs of the American film manufacture are on a mission to apace ruin any remnant of millennial childhood nostalgia.
So, it is with a heavy heart — and in recognition that Jan 10, 2021, marks five years since the passing of the absolutely legendary and unequalled David Bowie — that I am forced to accost the proclamation of a Labyrinth sequel. Now, does the original film require, necessitate or even hint at a sequel? Is the lead actor from the original movie prepared to brand an advent? Is the original director still available? The answer to these questions is a single, resounding "NO." And yet, here we are. Sigh.
Allow me to take a brief moment to discuss why a Labyrinth sequel is an awful, terrible, no-skillful idea.
A Bowie-Less Labyrinth Sequel Will Be a Travesty
The upcoming Labyrinth sequel faces some tough challenges. For starters, information technology's 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 secret, and fans and admirers from all over the world mourned his untimely passing.
If y'all believe that Bowie's absence from a Labyrinth sequel is more a casting challenge than a reason to cancel the entire project, I'd recommend that you go dorsum and scout the original 1986 film. Bowie's presence extends across his insanely flustered hairdo, gigantic codpiece and absurd charismatic demeanor — the man also wrote and performed more than half of the movie's soundtrack.
Seeing Bowie perform as Jareth is much like watching him as Ziggy Stardust. It tin can be challenging to separate the truth from the fiction of these performances, as Bowie becomes so engrossed in his label that he simply ceases to be himself. Fifty-fifty as an adult, it'southward difficult to watch Jareth the Goblin Rex prance, trip the light fantastic and sing without occasionally stopping to recollect, "Wow. That really is David Bowie. And, yes, I volition 'Dance the Magic Dance' down my hallway."
I'm deplorable, but information technology's impossible for a casting managing director to discover a multitalented player/musician to fill Bowie's shoes in an upcoming sequel. It's too a challenge to imagine any viable reason why the original — seemingly immortal — Goblin Rex would have suddenly inverse form. This type of confusion but deepens when because what might become of the Labyrinth'southward creatures.
Jim Henson, the mastermind behind the Muppets, directed the original Labyrinth film. His masterful puppetry showed a depth of skill unmatched by rival puppeteers, and in a time without impressive CGI graphics, he was ane of the become-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 accept those movies as a sign that Henson'south absence is no big 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 Flim-flam!) Just stop thinking about information technology and appreciate this magic for what information technology is!
Making a sequel to the Labyrinth moving-picture show without using Henson's puppets would be like George Lucas abandoning applied puppetry from his Star Wars franchise in favor of poorly-generated reckoner graphics. Oh…that'southward already happened, and the response has been less-than-stellar. Fans who have grown up watching a specific film are leap to feel slighted, misunderstood or just plain cheated when that film ends up lost in technological translation.
Not convinced that fans don't desire a CGI-heavy Labyrinth remake? Take a look at how The Lion King fanbase (and critics) reacted to the CGI "live-action"' Disney remake. Here'due south a spoiler: They didn't like information technology.
A Project Fueled past Profits, Non Passions
All of this begs the question, "Why are these executives greenish-lighting and so many '80s remakes and sequels right at present?" 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 Inquiry published findings on the connection between nostalgia and coin-spending habits. They discovered that people are more than willing to spend money when they're feeling sentimental or nostalgic. Advertising executives and movie producers have taken this tidbit of information and run with it.
That's why our current moving picture industry is flooded with remakes and unasked-for sequels, peculiarly to icons from the 1980s and 1990s. Children from that era are now total-fledged adults with existential dread virtually the futurity as climate change, pandemics and political chaos leave generations clamoring for familiar, comforting nostalgia.
Only rather than re-releasing original footage on updated media (think Blu-ray and 4K downloads), the film manufacture would rather take existing intellectual property and rebrand it for the younger generation. In most cases, the result is an alienated original audience and a disinterested youth. This is all washed in the name of and for the sake of profit.
So Please, Go out This Jewel of a Moving picture Lone
A movie shouldn't be pre-judged every bit good or bad, of course, only should instead be judged by its merit, reception and lasting impact. Still, even the most avant-garde hologram technology could not revive Bowie's onscreen presence (NOR SHOULD Information technology). And no amount of CGI could supervene upon the authenticity and wonder of Henson'south creations.
The only thing that could remain consistent between the original Labyrinth moving picture and its proposed sequel is its primary screenwriter, Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame and glory). But equally of this moment, there's no discussion from the crumbling Brit as to his possible involvement in writing a sequel.
As a effect, there'south piddling hope that a Labyrinth two would be annihilation more 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 profit, not passion, is doomed to neglect, and that'southward why I'm not looking forrad 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 "Is It Bad to Not Participate in Family Christmas"
Post a Comment