How Do You Know Chorizo Is Bad
Hollywood seems determined to profit from remakes and sequels that movie 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 case — the bigwigs of the American film manufacture are on a mission to apace ruin any remnant of millennial babyhood nostalgia.
So, it is with a heavy eye — and in recognition that January x, 2021, marks v years since the passing of the absolutely legendary and unequalled David Bowie — that I am forced to address the announcement of a Labyrinth sequel. Now, does the original picture show require, necessitate or even hint at a sequel? Is the lead histrion from the original movie prepared to brand an advent? Is the original managing director however available? The answer to these questions is a single, resounding "NO." And however, here nosotros are. Sigh.
Allow me to take a brief moment to hash out why a Labyrinth sequel is an atrocious, terrible, no-good idea.
A Bowie-Less Labyrinth Sequel Will Be a Travesty
The upcoming Labyrinth sequel faces some tough challenges. For starters, it's going to exist missing its eternal, androgynous Jareth the Goblin Rex — a.one thousand.a. the incomparable David Bowie. In 2016, the iconic genre- and gender-bending stone star lost a long battle with liver cancer. His failing health was a well-kept secret, and fans and admirers from all over the world mourned his untimely passing.
If yous believe that Bowie'due south absenteeism from a Labyrinth sequel is more a casting claiming than a reason to cancel the entire project, I'd recommend that yous get back and watch the original 1986 film. Bowie's presence extends across his insanely flustered hairdo, gigantic codpiece and cool charismatic demeanor — the man also wrote and performed more than half of the movie's soundtrack.
Seeing Bowie perform every bit Jareth is much similar watching him equally Ziggy Stardust. Information technology tin can be challenging to separate the truth from the fiction of these performances, as Bowie becomes then engrossed in his characterization that he only ceases to be himself. Even as an adult, it's difficult to watch Jareth the Goblin King prance, trip the light fantastic and sing without occasionally stopping to remember, "Wow. That really is David Bowie. And, yeah, I volition 'Trip the light fantastic the Magic Trip the light fantastic toe' downward my hallway."
I'thou sorry, but it's incommunicable for a casting director to find a multitalented thespian/musician to fill Bowie's shoes in an upcoming sequel. It's also a claiming to imagine whatever viable reason why the original — seemingly immortal — Goblin King would have suddenly changed form. This type of confusion only deepens when considering what might get of the Labyrinth'southward creatures.
Jim Henson, the mastermind behind the Muppets, directed the original Labyrinth moving-picture show. His masterful puppetry showed a depth of skill unmatched by rival puppeteers, and in a fourth dimension without impressive CGI graphics, he was ane of the go-to guys for practical special effects. Sadly, Henson passed away in 1990. Since that fourth dimension, 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 similar a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel without Robin Williams. (Don't you dare, 20th Century Fob!) Just stop thinking almost it and appreciate this magic for what it is!
Making a sequel to the Labyrinth motion-picture show without using Henson'due south puppets would exist like George Lucas abandoning practical puppetry from his Star Wars franchise in favor of poorly-generated computer graphics. Oh…that's already happened, and the response has been less-than-stellar. Fans who have grown upward watching a specific picture show are spring to feel slighted, misunderstood or just plain cheated when that film ends up lost in technological translation.
Not convinced that fans don't want a CGI-heavy Labyrinth remake? Take a wait at how The King of beasts Rex fanbase (and critics) reacted to the CGI "live-activity"' Disney remake. Here'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 right now?" Unfortunately, the answer lies in nostalgia-based profit. Academics accept long studied consumer behavior, and information technology seems that recent studies have not fallen on deafened ears.
In 2014, the Journal of Consumer Research published findings on the connection between nostalgia and money-spending habits. They discovered that people are more willing to spend money when they're feeling sentimental or nostalgic. Advert executives and film producers accept taken this tidbit of information and run with it.
That'south why our electric current film industry is flooded with remakes and unasked-for sequels, particularly to icons from the 1980s and 1990s. Children from that era are at present full-fledged adults with existential dread about the future every bit climate change, pandemics and political chaos get out generations clamoring for familiar, comforting nostalgia.
Just rather than re-releasing original footage on updated media (think Blu-ray and 4K downloads), the film manufacture would rather take existing intellectual holding 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 proper noun of and for the sake of profit.
And then Please, Get out This Jewel of a Moving-picture show Lonely
A movie shouldn't be pre-judged as good or bad, of form, but should instead be judged past its merit, reception and lasting impact. Yet, even the most advanced hologram technology could not revive Bowie'southward onscreen presence (NOR SHOULD IT). And no corporeality of CGI could replace the authenticity and wonder of Henson's creations.
The simply thing that could remain consistent between the original Labyrinth moving-picture show and its proposed sequel is its main screenwriter, Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame and glory). But as of this moment, in that location's no discussion from the aging Brit as to his possible involvement in writing a sequel.
As a result, there's little hope that a Labyrinth 2 would exist anything more than a shameless, soulless cash catch aimed at adults who long for the simpler, stranger globe that lay before them during the '80s. Any project based on profit, not passion, is doomed to fail, and that's why I'g not looking forrad to the mess of a sequel that undoubtedly lies alee.
Source: https://www.ask.com/entertainment/labyrinth-sequel-bad-idea?utm_content=params%3Ao%3D740004%26ad%3DdirN%26qo%3DserpIndex
0 Response to "How Do You Know Chorizo Is Bad"
Postar um comentário