I get a lot of what you're saying.
But I'm still going to see Star Wars #7 when it comes out.
As will I, but that's more because I think they can actually continue the story in an entertaining fashion. With Indy...yeah, not so much.
I mean, don't get me wrong. Maybe it could be good. But as a general matter in Hollywood, it just strikes me that audiences need to let some stuff go and learn to appreciate the old stuff AND the new stuff. Like, let the old stuff stay old and quit trying to update or remake it. Make new stuff instead.
Maybe the lesson here is that we need to stop giving remakes any benefit-of-the-doubt when the word comes that they suck.
I heartily agree. Instead of buying tickets based on hope, buy them based on conviction. And seriously critically evaluate a film. Does it look like a good story in and of itself, or are you just reacting to the branding? If the film was stripped of its existing IP, would it look good, or would you say "Whatever. Looks like a crappy rip-off of [franchise]." If it's the latter, maybe skip that one. Demand that films stand on their own, rather than rest on their branding.
On the other hand I actually liked KOTCS. Not the best Indy movie but it was more fun than TOD. I actually liked getting to revisit Indy in older age too. Him getting back with Marion after all those years put a much better taste in my mouth for the entire underage thing alluded to in Raiders. It helped my feelings for the whole character, even retroactively back to when I watch the existing 1980s movies again.
KOTCS wasn't a remake though, it was a continuation. That's another thing. The fact that it had the same stars & continuity is what made the things I liked about it possible. A weak continuation of Indy would have been less likely to get my money.
Well, here's a question for you, and I don't mean it in a snarky way. Do you think that, if the same story was told with different characters and different actors, you'd have liked it? Or were you reacting more to "Harrison Ford is back, and it's an Indy film"? I think a lot of times, people give a pass to otherwise mediocre films, just because they're part of XYZ franchise or have ABC intellectual property shoved into them. I firmly believe that if Transformers had been called Battlebots and didn't have Peter Cullen voicing Optimus Prime, those films would've tanked at the box office. It's that kind of stuff I'm talking about, really. Especially when it comes to the hard core fans who just...keep seeing stuff because it has the brand.
I mean, yeah, I'll go see Star Wars 7. But you know what? At this point, if it sucks, I don't know that I'll be back for any of the other films. I'll just decide that the franchise has moved on without me, and enjoy the stuff I enjoyed. At least until I see the franchise get back to form. And that goes for any franchise. I didn't see an X-men film in the theaters after X-Men 3. It took First Class to make me want to go see Days of Future Past. Why? Simple. The franchise just...wasn't very good.
I dunno, I find that in the last, oh, 10 years or so, I've become a far, far pickier consumer of films. I'll watch random crap on Netflix because it's all by subscription, but I will only pay to go see stuff in the theater if I think it genuinely looks good. If it looks awful, I don't care if it's from my favorite franchise. I'm skipping it anyway because the film looks awful. Likewise with film adaptations of IP that I love. There's no way I'd pay to see a G.I. Joe film, even though I grew up LOVING G.I. Joe, from the comics to the cartoon to the action figures. But the films? Mostly garbage, especially the first one. The second one was...marginally better, but that's practically damning with faint praise.
I want more from movies. And the thing is, I'm GETTING more on TV. These days, the TV experience is actually way more enjoyable for me than the film experience.
opcorn
