{"id":1297,"date":"2019-06-11T08:55:39","date_gmt":"2019-06-11T15:55:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ryansmoviecorner.com\/home\/?p=1297"},"modified":"2020-03-30T09:39:21","modified_gmt":"2020-03-30T16:39:21","slug":"sequels-remakes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ryansmoviecorner.com\/home\/sequels-remakes\/","title":{"rendered":"Sequels and Remakes that Outshine the Originals"},"content":{"rendered":"

Originality in Hollywood is becoming a thing of the past. Maybe it\u2019s because there aren\u2019t many ideas left in the think tank that can guarantee satisfying box office receipts. I don\u2019t know. But what I do know is that a lot of the successful franchises of the past are getting remade or rebooted. Some movies are even getting unnecessary sequels. Case in point: Tom Cruise continues to deliver satisfying sequels in his\u00a0Mission: Impossible<\/em>\u00a0franchise, but his attempted reboot of\u00a0The Mummy<\/em>\u00a0did not pan out. And is the upcoming\u00a0Top Gun: Maverick<\/em>\u00a0really necessary? I guess we\u2019ll find out next year.<\/p>\n

Men in Black<\/em>\u00a0(1997) was an original comedy that became a glimmer of hope for a franchise worth watching, but the sequels didn\u2019t pan out. The franchise still isn\u2019t dead, though (22 years later), since we have\u00a0Men in Black: International<\/em> coming out this week.\u00a0 It looks like the same formula but with new faces, so I don\u2019t think I will be seeing that one.<\/p>\n

I often wonder why remakes and reboots are necessary. I suppose studios have quotas they must adhere to and deliver whatever stories they can come up with, regardless of whether they have been done before. Don\u2019t get me wrong, a lot of great, original films are still being made\u2026but they seem to be overshadowed by films with a lack of originality.<\/p>\n

On the other end of the spectrum, there are some sequels and remakes that have outshone the original films. After all, there\u2019s an exception to every rule, right?<\/p>\n

There is never a dull moment in the original\u00a0Star Wars<\/em>\u00a0saga. But I believe that\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Empire Strikes Back <\/em>(1980) stands lightyears ahead of A New Hope<\/em> (1977). The action was more eye-popping, the effects were better, and the ending left fans wanting more. I don\u2019t think many people foresaw the decades of entertainment the first film would spawn.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
Twentieth Century Fox. Image from IMDb.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But with\u00a0The Empire Strikes Back<\/em>, people already knew the world and the characters. There is a war going on between the Rebels and the Empire. Luke is trying to find his place as a Jedi. Darth Vader is bent on bringing down the Rebels after the Death Star blew up. Once all that was set in motion, then there was little left as far as taking time to set up the story. It continued where it left off. I think fans loved that about the middle chapter in the trilogy \u2013 I know I did.<\/p>\n

Terminator 2: Judgment Day<\/em>\u00a0(1991) may have a somewhat cheesy title, but the film was not far from cheesy. The plot was well-thought-out, and it answered more questions than The Terminator<\/em>\u00a0(1984).<\/p>\n

I will give James Cameron credit for saving these answers for the sequel. The original film was still good on its own, but it was more contained as far as story and substance. Cameron probably wasn\u2019t sure that the film would be a hit and that he would get the opportunity for a sequel. In Judgment Day<\/em>, he let loose on the action and storytelling.<\/p>\n

\"Terminator<\/a>
Carolco Pictures. Image from IMDb<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The effects are more convincing, considering the technological advancements made in the seven-year gap between the two films. I\u2019m also partial to the hero-villain matchup of “machine vs. machine,” as opposed to “human vs. machine” in the original. I think Terminator 2<\/em> gives fans more of what they want to see.<\/p>\n

I covered this subject before in my article, \u201cThe Top 5 Oscar Crimes of All Time<\/strong><\/a><\/span>\u201d, but\u00a0True Grit<\/em>\u00a0(2010) is far superior to the original. There is so much more to appreciate.<\/p>\n

Jeff Bridges\u2019 performance as Rooster Cogburn is better than John Wayne\u2019s (I can hear my wife\u2019s uncle gasping in pain from here). Bridges’ character has a sterner feel, which I think works better in a Western. Nobody can top The Duke as Hollywood\u2019s best cowboy, but I think John Wayne\u2019s performance in the original was a little flat. Even Wayne said his performance wasn\u2019t worthy of an Oscar.<\/p>\n

\"True<\/a>
Paramount Pictures. Image from IMDb.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I also loved the locations used for the 2010 film. The cinematography was excellent \u2013 they gave the environment a more rugged feel. That worked better than the bright colors seen in the original (granted, some of that may be due to the newness of color video technology).<\/p>\n

In summary, better stories, effects, performances, and cinematography can help a sequel or reboot outshine the original films. Some films and stories can be way ahead of their time, and it just may take some time to get them told properly.<\/p>\n

Here are some other examples of superior sequels and reboots:<\/p>\n