Tag Archives: sequels

Evan and Gordon Talk: Movies in General

EVAN: Human beings and animals that have somehow taught themselves how to read English, welcome to another E&GT. This week Gordon and I have come off of a mini-hiatus, and as a result are just a tad rusty.

As a result we will be discussing the very broad topic of movies, devoting a portion of our time to each one. Gordon is going to be starting us off with . . .

GORDON: The big screen experience.

If you’ve been to theaters recently (no, Evan, it is NOT spelled “theatre”), you may have noticed a series of ads harping on how “some things just weren’t meant for a small screen.”

“Spectacle” is the term for it. How much is it integral to movies and the movie-going experience? Do we really lose anything by watching a movie on our TVs rather than in front of the big screen? Continue reading

Shame Day: Sequels For Sequels’ Sake

It should be no mystery to us that a lot of movies aren’t made to be good. As a broad generalization, many of the films put out are intended to simply make money. To really hammer this point home I like to point towards Cars 2.

Cars 2 was a Pixar milestone, and the first of their films to beat its predecessor, Cars, in a particular category. It was the movie that garnered a 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, an abysmal score significantly lower than the first movie’s 74%.

As someone who’s seen every film the studio has ever done, I was disgusted by the fact that they would create a sequel to what was ultimately my least favourite of the bunch, but then I understood-

This really says it all. I’m not really going to explain this any further.

Money money money. $10 billion dollars of Cars toys, bed sheets, clothing, toothbrushes, the list goes on. So clearly sometimes ratings can be down, if profits are up. But what about when this isn’t the case? Continue reading

The Movies Always Come Back, the Actors Don’t

Sequels are popular. I know I shouldn’t have to spell that out for anyone, but really, they are. The top 7 movies of 2011 were sequels. The ninth film on that list was too, if that helps prove my point at all.

What also isn’t new are sequels [or prequels] to feature  different actors for the same characters. The earliest example that comes to mind is Christopher Showerman, who played the titular character in George of the Jungle 2, and who also broke the 4th wall by telling the audience that the studio is “too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser.” Another example is a franchise that nobody cares about, with The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption featuring the third actor thus far to portray Mathayus.

A more up-to-date illustration is Rachel Dawes in Christopher Nolan’s first two
Batman films. Katie Holmes was initially to reprise the role in The Dark Knight, but turned it down to be in Mad Money. Maggie Gyllenhaal took over, a choice that did not affect audiences’ enjoyment of the film [it’s currently the tenth highest-grossing film of all time].

In even more recent news, E! Online reported this morning that a Bridesmaids sequel could happen with or without star and writer Kristin Wiig. Co-star Melissa McCarthy is quoted as saying “I think it’s a terrible idea,” coupled with the assertions that she wouldn’t want to be a part of a film without Wiig.

A sequel that has actually been given the green light is The Bourne Legacy, which will not be featuring Matt Damon as Jason Bourne. The film will instead star Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross, with the narrative acting as a “sidequel” to the original trilogy. The current director has not completely ruled out the chance of Damon returning for future films.

What do these choices say about the audiences viewing these films? Is a franchise, a movie title, all that’s needed to draw us back to theatres? If sequels are going to continue to dominate the big screen then we will watch them, but what are our standards for them? How important is continuity to the average media consumer?

TV Tropes has a term “Chuck Cunningham Syndrome,” which refers to characters who simply disappear into thin air. The following trailer for G.I. Joe: Retaliation appears to have all of the cast from the original film die, which I think is definitely one way to justify an entirely new cast.