Nerdy franchises bear a weighty sum in Hollywood, "Star Wars" being the prime example. It has been the film industry's prerogative to tack on new installments to beloved series.
George Lucas did it with his prequels, and though it was done by its creator, we didn't really have to see how Anakin fell to the dark side. The original trilogy told us the skinny of it, from a certain point of view, and it was sufficient. It didn't matter how Anakin became Vader. His existence as a menacing Sith who could stand idle while whole planets are destroyed was what made his turn tragic and his redemption through his son, Luke, all the more important and centrifugal to the finale of "Return of the Jedi."
Now let's examine another beloved franchise that jumped the shark years ago. The "Alien" series, comprised of five films, has the oddest franchise track record. "Alien" was a masterpiece, period. Terrifying, claustrophobic and bleak, this sci-fi horror led to the creation of one the greatest action films ever made, its direct sequel, "Aliens." From there the series fell into murky waters with "Alien 3's" studio-mangled production and suffocation of fledling director David Fincher's obvious talent.
The last chronological entry in the series, "Alien Resurrection" was an odd bag of body horror that nearly eschewed everything that made its predecessors good, even the depressing, barren mood of "Alien 3" was ignored. Fuck this movie.
This year, "Alien" director Ridley Scott directed "Prometheus," a prequel to the original film. It polarized fans and critics, garnered my admiration and made $400 million worldwide. So comes by point with this franchise.
As with anything that makes money well, they want to make more. Some were pissed that "Prometheus" wasn't a direct prequel to "Alien" but more of an establishing of the mythos set-up mysteriously in the beginning of the latter film. People will always complain, myself among them, but when you're given something with more substance than 99 percent of similar films out there, you just have to swallow your pride and admit soemthing is good.
So is the case with "Prometheus." That being said, "Prometheus" itself doesn't need a sequel and another prequel to "Alien." We know where the Derelict ship came from. We have many interpretations of what the purpose of the xenomorph was, whether it be biological weapon or failed attempt at playing god, or both. I'm fine with just "Prometheus."
Here lies my ultimate irritation with the film business.
This summer saw the conclusion of director Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy" with the release of "The Dark Knight Rises." Aside from the looming question of what the film could've been had Heather Ledger been alive, it was a near perfect ending that did things that not even its source material dared to do: the passing of the cowl to someone else.
Granted Batman has set aside the Batsuit from time to time, usually due to injury, such as in "Knightfall," a comic-arc from "TDKR" borrows from heavily, but Mr. Wayne, from my knowledge, has never desired, nor willingly, passed his crusade to another. The final scene depicted Joseph Gordon-Levitt's nice guy/tough guy cop discovering the Batcave and by proxy, Batman's legacy. This revelation was nicely touched when the character's first name was revealed to Robin, and the fanboys swooned with satisfaction.
Today it was announced that Levitt could portray Batman in the film adaptation of Justice League.
What. The. Fuck?
By doing this, the perfect synergy of the "Dark Knight Trilogy" will be spoiled. We don't need to see Levitt in the Batsuit, the booming implication at final film's conclusion was beyond satisfactory. In addition to that, the Justice League film would feature an abudance of fantastical elements, elements that had no place in Nolan's down-to-earth, gritty trilogy. If this casting were to become true then the stylistic integrity of the trilogy would be tarnished.
If we have Superman in the same continuity then we would have to question why Ra's Al Ghul in "Batman Begins" was not truly immortal (tongue-in-cheek, in film references aside) like he is in every other medium. Or why did Bane not use his signature, muscle drug, Venom? Though not as out there as Ra's immortality, it would have been a clunky effort in Nolan's universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment