Worse than climate change, there is a drought in the writers’ room. We are searching for a drop of creativity and originality in film. Instead, we have tacked the number two onto every popular title that has already made its way through the box office. The movie-viewing community is bombarded with sequels: “Moana 2,” “Happy Gilmore 2” and the list goes on. There are even a plethora of sequels past the second movie. There is a two-part “Mission: Impossible” sequel where Tom Cruise proves, yet again, that the Mission was in fact possible. If not sequels, Hollywood gives us remakes: “Superman” and “Fantastic Four.” Or, the worst kind of remake: taking a beloved cartoon and turning it into a live action film. Cinephiles crave fresh ideas from writers that make film an art, not just a business.
A time-honored practice is remaking books into movies. Filmmakers did not limit themselves to regurgitating the text onto the screen. Instead, they creatively altered aspects of the plot and design to make the material new and exciting for the viewers. For example, the quintessential 90s rom-com set in the lives of Beverly Hills highschoolers, “Clueless” (1995), is a modern retelling of Jane Austen’s novel: “Emma.” The creators took their story from a classic work of literature, but reimagined it to be appealing to modern audiences.
It is difficult to believe that we have simply run out of ideas. I mean, the Ancient Greeks only believed there were like seven plot ideas, but that is not what I mean. I am talking about creative renditions of those plots. The production companies and filmmakers are leaning on one fact: sequels that follow a beloved first movie make money. Audiences will pay to see their familiar favorites. Pixar’s new cartoon movie, “Elio,” made $21 million during its opening weekend, a box office flop compared to “Inside Out 2’s” opening with a whopping $154 million. “Elio”’s release overlapped with the live-action remake of “Lilo & Stitch,” and most families opted to go for something already well-loved rather than something new. This concept of “reduced risk” is what makes the remakes so successful. When seeing a new film you are taking a gamble: it can either be exciting or a complete failure. The sequels revive old characters and storylines that are comfortable. It is natural to want a guaranteed good-time, but the game of chance allows for new art to come to light. It is rare for a sequel to be as renowned as The Godfather II or as exciting as Cars 2.
Remakes often feel unfulfilling. Disney’s live action remake of the cartoon “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” was a failure, making $205.5 million at the box office compared to a budget of $269.4 million. Controversies aside, from an artistic standpoint the film failed to match the magic and wonder in the beloved animated classic. Some of the original songs were swapped out, the storyline was twisted and the CGI was a visual disaster. Of course, going back to the previous idea, the original cartoon was based on a Brothers Grimm fairytale. Instead of ruining what made the original special, it added its own creative elements that preserved the story’s integrity.
Cinema is an art, so filmmakers need to return to what makes people love movies. Take inspiration, but please reimagine into something that is fresh and exciting.
