Dear Hollywood Executives,
What’s that? There’s going to be another sequel to a film that came out twenty years ago, a sixth in a series of bearable movies or a remake of an already popular movie? Yawn.
I am writing to you today, not just as an individual who enjoys a good movie, but as a man, a man who has needs. Needs for originality, creativity and something unseen. Why is it therefore, that you do not fulfill my needs? Why is it you decide to rehash, remake and continue stories that we already know? Stop it, please.
I know why you do it. Money, explosions and CGI. Of course you love these things, and it is these things that make films better. I agree, but save them for original films. Don’t remake a film or produce a sequel just to add in some wicked special effects, CGI or explosion. Like the Die Hard franchise, for example. Each film gets more explosions in it as it progresses. It’ll get to Die Hard 16 where it is just an hour-and-a-half explosion with John McClane walking away in a grubby white vest and not looking back.
As a paying member of your audience, I feel cheated by the same story being used over and over again. One movie that does this is Taken. Now I don’t want to piss Liam Neeson off, but I couldn’t tell the difference between the first and the sequel! Did someone steal his dog or something? I don’t know, I wasn’t paying attention.
And do you know what’s even worse than a sequel? A sequel with none of the original cast in! Like Grease 2, what the hell was that about?! The first one wasn’t worth watching, so what makes you think a second one with no-one from the first in will be any better? How is there any continuity in the two stories? Why was it called Grease 2? So many questions that could have been resolved by not calling it that.
With all this said, not all sequels are bad. As long as they have a point for being made. Like those Harry Potter films. I guess you couldn’t really put all that wizardly nonsense into one film, as people would get far too bored and there are something like 20 books that go along with it. So why is it that The Hobbit, which is just one book, needed to be a trilogy? You could have done that in one film, but no, you just want to take, take and take. It wouldn’t be so bad if I didn’t have to sell a kidney to go to the cinema.
I’m not mad, just disappointed. Live with that whilst you wipe your bum with all my hard-earned money that I spend on cinema tickets and DVDs.
Lots of love
Your good pal