The Reviews of the Company Are Bad on Glassdoor
Hollywood seems adamant to turn a profit from remakes and sequels that moving picture makers take no business writing, producing or releasing. Rather than working hard to generate new films — ones with novel plot devices, leads and stories from underrepresented communities and compelling cinematic visions, for example — the bigwigs of the American film manufacture are on a mission to apace ruin any remnant of millennial babyhood nostalgia.
So, information technology is with a heavy heart — and in recognition that January 10, 2022, marks half-dozen years since the passing of the absolutely legendary and incomparable David Bowie — that I am forced to address the announcement of a Labyrinth sequel. Now, does the original film require, necessitate or even hint at a sequel? Is the lead role player from the original picture show prepared to brand an appearance? Is the original manager all the same available? The answer to these questions is a single, resounding "NO." And all the same, here we are. Sigh.
Allow me to take a brief moment to discuss why a Labyrinth sequel is an awful, terrible, no-skilful idea.
A Bowie-Less Labyrinth Sequel Volition Exist a Travesty
The upcoming Labyrinth sequel faces some tough challenges. For starters, it's going to be missing its eternal, androgynous Jareth the Goblin King — a.yard.a. the incomparable David Bowie. In 2016, the iconic genre- and gender-bending rock star lost a long battle with liver cancer. His declining health was a well-kept clandestine, and fans and admirers from all over the world mourned his untimely passing.
If y'all believe that Bowie's absence from a Labyrinth sequel is more than a casting claiming than a reason to cancel the entire project, I'd recommend that you get back and sentry the original 1986 motion-picture show. Bowie's presence extends beyond his insanely flustered hairdo, gigantic codpiece and cool charismatic demeanor — the human being also wrote and performed more than half of the pic's soundtrack.
Seeing Bowie perform equally Jareth is much similar watching him as Ziggy Stardust. It can exist challenging to dissever the truth from the fiction of these performances, every bit Bowie becomes so engrossed in his label that he merely ceases to be himself. Even as an adult, information technology'due south hard to picket Jareth the Goblin King prance, dance and sing without occasionally stopping to think, "Wow. That really is David Bowie. And, aye, I will 'Dance the Magic Dance' down my hallway."
I'chiliad lamentable, just it's impossible for a casting director to find a multitalented actor/musician to fill up Bowie'due south shoes in an upcoming sequel. Information technology's also a challenge to imagine any viable reason why the original — seemingly immortal — Goblin Rex would take suddenly inverse form. This blazon of confusion only deepens when considering what might go of the Labyrinth's creatures.
Jim Henson, the mastermind backside the Muppets, directed the original Labyrinth moving-picture show. His masterful puppetry showed a depth of skill unmatched past rival puppeteers, and in a fourth dimension without impressive CGI graphics, he was one of the go-to guys for applied special effects. Sadly, Henson passed away in 1990. Since that time, in that location have been no less than five theatrical releases with his charming Muppet characters — and they've all been awful.
Some might take those movies as a sign that Henson'southward absence is no big deal when attempting to make a sequel. They would be incredibly incorrect. A Labyrinth sequel without Bowie AND Jim Henson would be like a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel without Robin Williams. (Don't you lot cartel, 20th Century Flim-flam!) Only end thinking about information technology and appreciate this magic for what it is!
Making a sequel to the Labyrinth film without using Henson'southward puppets would be similar George Lucas abandoning practical puppetry from his Star Wars franchise in favor of poorly-generated computer graphics. Oh…that's already happened, and the response has been less-than-stellar. Fans who take grown up watching a specific film are spring to feel slighted, misunderstood or just plain cheated when that motion-picture show ends upwardly lost in technological translation.
Non convinced that fans don't desire a CGI-heavy Labyrinth remake? Take a look at how The Lion King fanbase (and critics) reacted to the CGI "live-action"' Disney remake. Here's a spoiler: They didn't like it.
A Project Fueled by Profits, Not Passions
All of this begs the question, "Why are these executives dark-green-lighting so many '80s remakes and sequels right at present?" Unfortunately, the answer lies in nostalgia-based profit. Academics have long studied consumer beliefs, and it seems that recent studies have not fallen on deaf ears.
In 2014, the Journal of Consumer Enquiry published findings on the connection between nostalgia and money-spending habits. They discovered that people are more than willing to spend money when they're feeling sentimental or nostalgic. Ad executives and motion-picture show producers have taken this tidbit of information and run with it.
That'south why our electric current film industry is flooded with remakes and unasked-for sequels, peculiarly to icons from the 1980s and 1990s. Children from that era are at present full-fledged adults with existential dread nigh the futurity as climatic change, pandemics and political chaos leave generations clamoring for familiar, comforting nostalgia.
But rather than re-releasing original footage on updated media (think Blu-ray and 4K downloads), the film manufacture would rather have existing intellectual property and rebrand information technology for the younger generation. In well-nigh cases, the consequence is an alienated original audience and a disinterested youth. This is all washed in the name of and for the sake of profit.
So Delight, Leave This Gem of a Flick Solitary
A motion-picture show shouldn't exist pre-judged as skillful or bad, of course, only should instead be judged by its merit, reception and lasting impact. All the same, even the nearly advanced hologram engineering could not revive Bowie's onscreen presence (NOR SHOULD IT). And no amount of CGI could replace the authenticity and wonder of Henson'due south creations.
The just thing that could remain consistent between the original Labyrinth film and its proposed sequel is its principal screenwriter, Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame and celebrity). But every bit of this moment, there's no discussion from the crumbling Brit equally to his possible involvement in writing a sequel.
As a result, in that location's little promise that a Labyrinth 2 would be anything more than than a shameless, soulless greenbacks grab aimed at adults who long for the simpler, stranger globe that lay before them during the '80s. Whatever projection based on profit, not passion, is doomed to fail, and that's why I'yard not looking forward to the mess of a sequel that undoubtedly lies ahead.
Source: https://www.ask.com/entertainment/labyrinth-sequel-bad-idea?utm_content=params%3Ao%3D740004%26ad%3DdirN%26qo%3DserpIndex
0 Response to "The Reviews of the Company Are Bad on Glassdoor"
Post a Comment