On Friday, we just got news that there might be a Labyrinth sequel! In an article in Variety, we learned that in an interview with Jim Henson, talking about Billy Crystal being involved in their upcoming film "Which Witch" that the company is considering developing a sequel to the 1986 film, along with a Fraggle Rock movie and a sequel to The Dark Crystal. A lot of people, including myself, are excited about this. Labyrinth is an 80s classic. I can ensure you that it is constantly brought up in discussion of what is the best movie of the 80s. Jim Henson took you into a magical world full of wonderment full of creatures that could remove limbs at will, fruit that could take to a party in your wildest dreams, and the wonderment of David Bowe in tights. The news is fascinating, there's a dread in me that the sequel, if everything is confirmed and set to film, would not live up to standards.
The idea of doing sequels years later isn't new. A lot of times they have been bad and less than stellar as well. Rarely do these year-gaped sequels do well at all. The Star Wars prequels had people in awe over what the exact hell did they just watched, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull moved people to get out of their seats and asked for their money back, and we don't speak of Oz: The Great and Powerful. Why is it that these movie sequels fail? There are some considerations.
One is that as obvious there is an age gap between sequel and original, the same could be said for the demographic. You have two different audiences to consider. The ones who grew up watching the movie and the one who mostly didn't. It can be hard trying to appeal to both demographics. Some things will get lost with the new moviegoers and whatever to appeal to the new moviegoers will not get the old generation. Another factor is how the sequel is made is the movie itself. Usually the reason a studio decides to make a sequel for a movie years ago is to make a quick buck off of nostalgia and it shows. It shows how poorly put together it is compared to the originals and it puts off the entire audience.
Before I put the Labyrinth sequel down even before it is even green lit, there is a chance it could be good. There are some year-gaped sequels that are good, not better than the original, but they don't suck. Even it technically isn't a sequel, Disney's Return to Oz was great. To some, not better than the 1939 movie with Judy Garland, but it was a far more superior Oz movie than Oz: The Great and Powerful and the recent Oz sequel Dorothy of Oz was. Why was that? Because they kept true to the source material. The producer and writers knew what they were doing and that they had to remember the magic of the first movie and what made people love the source material. Hopefully whoever attaches themselves to this movie remembers that.
What are your thoughts on the Labyrinth sequel? Is a sequel a good idea? Will it be good?
No comments:
Post a Comment