Film So The Matrix Revolutions may not be any good. Wired really puts the knife in here. I will of course reserve judgement. It does re-iterate the argument for me about the nature of sequels and their relationship to the initial film.

When creating a sequel in a genre such as science fiction, why is it important to include the original characters? Granted it's because the viewer wants to see a continuation of their story -- but very often the original story has been told. All we're getting are re-iterations. Why not, if a coherent world has been set up, with it's own rules and ideas can't we visit someone else who lives there and follow their story instead?

It's money, of course. There is a perception that if different characters appear in a sequel, it's a lesser piece. But looking at Men in Black II that's hardly in issue. There was a film which specifically devalued the original by re-energising the Tommy Lee Jones character. One of the themes of the first film was renewal and the possibility that you don't have to keep the hand you're dealt. In the second film, that was all swept under the carpet by the perceived need to get Jones in black. Why couldn't Will Smith have a new partner? Why weren't to new and equally compelling actors hired for a new adventure? It's almost as thought the actor is the fanchise. Which sounds very dull indeed and no way to go about making movies...

No comments:

Post a comment