Addendum re: Shitty Sequels

After she read the prior post, CB (yes, the significant other has been assigned a code-name) pointed out to me a spectacular example of the trend I was describing. And it was a better example than any I used. Specifically, the Die Hard movies.

Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.

Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.

Good shit.

Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."

As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.

Wiseman, not so much.

The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.

Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?