I count 19 sequels released and many more films are remakes or based on TV shows or intellectual property. What is this? Its an obvious strategy for the film producers but why are so many critics and audiences receptive to these films that are rarely non-disposable?
I think they see the disappointing truth of Hollywood cynicism, deny it and reframe it as subversive "pop art" appreciation or some heroic aesthetic recontextualizing for Gen Z. That is always the message spread by the PR stooges who run social media "entertainment news". What would that really mean if it wasn't a lie?
I remember the first wave in the mid 90s: Brady Bunch: The Movie, Addams Family, Lost in Space, Beverly Hillbillies (thankfully Gilligan's Island's corpse was not molested). Besides the sequel to Addams Family, these are truly abysmal movies that only appear positive in contrast to what Hollywood has devolved into. But they are easy to make.
I think this return to aesthetic laziness is tied to our digital zombification, as ADHD ties to our acceptance of the disposable and shallow. The only people unamused by these movies are people with longer concentration and memories. The rest are comfortable watching 1000 hours of mediocre content so they reject the standard that 1000 hours of content should or could be good.
Push for "anti-franchise" films. Anti-nostalgia. Anti-remake, anti-sequel, anti-prequel. This is the new aesthetic of radical narrative commercial filmmaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment