The Pros & Cons of Franchising

 [Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)

Have you ever gone for a meal and thought to yourself, 'you know what? I'll be cheeky and order dessert'. In essence, that's the function of sequels: you just can't get enough the first time round and you're hungry for more.

But, as we all know, sometimes more is too much. The Lord of the Rings works because every film (though connected by source material) work as singularities; if you look at the Hobbit series, 2/3 of the films are arguably lacklustre and co-dependent on the far more successful first instalment. A fan following can only take you so far, after all.

The horror genre is no stranger to sequels, often franchising and building a solid fanbase that follows suit. However, one might argue that franchising a film, no matter how popular it might initially be, can damage the reputation and enjoyment of the original story. 

The Pros

Saw (2004)

Let's look at the pros of franchising. For one, a sequel (or many) can be an exploration of the source material, a chance to expand the fictional universe. Long-time fans, even new ones, will seize any chance they get to see their beloved characters facing new challenges. 

The Saw franchise, for example, brings something new with every instalment: sure, it's all the same torture-porn, characters essentially being punished by a sadomasochist with a God complex, but we enjoy the Saw films because of the creative traps. The simplicity of the first film left room for any crazy device imaginable: from a cuff around the ankles to the Rack in Saw III (2006) and the even more so impressive 10 Pints of Sacrifice from Saw V (2008).

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Another pro of franchising is, of course, the money; a household name can become a cash-cow with the right kind of marketing. A Nightmare of Elm Street is one of the most recognisable franchises in horror history, not only for its creative kills but for its iconic antagonist, Freddy Krueger (played by Robert Englund). 

So, if you slap Krueger on anything, it's highly likely that the fanbase will come running to watch it. Take Freddy vs. Jason (2003) for example: according to Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a score of 41%, a considerably low number in comparison to the original film (which stands at 94%). However, devoted fans of the franchise still appreciate and love the film because it retains its campy portrayal of the character. Even at domestic box office, it made a profit.

The Cons

The Conjuring (2013)

Now let's look at the cons. One of the biggest issues that franchises face when churning out multiple films is that the lore can become inconsistent and sloppy, consequently creating loose ends and plot holes. The aforementioned Freddy vs. Jason, for example, creates tension by demonstrating Jason's weakness, which is supposedly water: long time fans of the Friday the 13th franchise will find this dubious, however, as Jason is no stranger to water and it's highly unlikely that he's suddenly developed a phobia of it.

The Conjuring series is also victim to this. Whilst the first few movies were actually credible, the following spin-offs (including Annabelle (2014) and The Nun (2018)) are arguably examples of weak storytelling, an overuse of tired tropes and ineffective jump scares. They don't hold the same gravitas as the original films, which actually take the time to create tension and build an interesting concept from the ground up.

The Babadook (2014)

Some creators, such as Jennifer Kent, are aware of the dangers of franchising. Kent (who directed The Babadook) ensured that herself and her producers already owned the rights to a possible sequel because she didn't want there to be another one: in her own terms, it was "not that kind of film", in that The Babadook was intended to be an artful horror that acted as a standalone tale. 

I believe that Kent (as well as visionaries such as Ari Aster or Jordan Peele) understands that it's not guaranteed that a film's integrity gets compromised by franchising, but that if a story is self-contained and well-rounded in its delivery the first time, then that process doesn't need to be duplicated. It would only be for money, after all.

Conclusion

Friday the 13th: Part 8 (1989)

Franchising is not always a death sentence for films. In some ways, the audience and the creators greatly benefit from delving further into the stories we've grown to know and love. However, there's an undeniable correlation between sequels and their performances (both financially and entertainment-wise) that suggests that less is more in most cases.

I love the horror genre but even I have to admit that when it comes to franchises like Hellraiser, Friday the 13th and Saw, I often don't watch past the first three films because they lack in quality, uniqueness and entertainment in comparison to their original debuts. So, I'd argue that franchising is fun but be aware that if your favourite movies start churning out sequels like there's no tomorrow, then maybe it's best to stay clear of them.

- K

 

Dear Hollywood: Reboot Your Attitude

This morning, I awoke to the news that there is currently a bidding war for the rights to Train To Busan (2016), the intention being that James Wan wants to produce a remake. I, for one, hate this idea.

Train To Busan is barely two years old and, in my eyes, completely fine as it is. It was a tremendous success for Korean cinema and undoubtedly a thoroughly entertaining film in its own right. The only reason they are trying to buy the rights is to piggyback off director Yeon Sang-ho's success and make more money for an idea that's already been executed well.

Remakes are problematic, in many senses of the word. I admittedly have a strong disdain for them, purely because most remakes that are put out into the world in recent years are unnecessary and reflect badly on the original material.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

For example, when A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) was announced a few years ago, I knew a lot of people who were excited for it. I was biased and hated the entire concept of the franchise being rebooted because I have such fond memories of watching the original films as a kid and, to me, no one else was worthy of playing the iconic antagonist, Freddy Krueger.

Lo and behold, I was right: post-release, the film received a lot of negative feedback from both critics and fans alike. While I cannot deny Jackie Earle Haley's talent as an actor, something he most definitely proved in Watchmen (2009), he just couldn't fill Robert Englund's shoes effectively. But I digress. If anything, the director and visionaries behind that film are to blame, not the actors hired.

It leads me to question whether Hollywood are aware of the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". In many of these examples, from The Thing (2011) to Godzilla (1998), it seems to me that the people behind the scenes think that new-age technology and advancements in CGI make up for what they lack in original concept or writing. One of the main selling points of the Nightmare remake was that they had made Freddy Krueger look like a real burn victim and demonised his character further by writing him to be a blatant child rapist.

Yes, the franchise is a horror and yes, Freddy Krueger's character isn't supposed to be redeemable, but at least the original was both terrifying and amusing at the same time. Haley's portrayal of Krueger was downright disgusting and unpleasant to watch, and not in the fun way that you'd expect from watching a horror film.

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

On the flip-side, CGI can be used effectively to bring a concept into the modern day and even improve upon a concept that's already been done.

For example, whilst I wouldn't say it's my favourite film ever, I thoroughly enjoyed Alice in Wonderland (2010), a remake of the 1951 Disney animated feature. The special effects used to enlarge Helena Bonham Carter's head, elongate Crispin Glover's body or even transform Matt Lucas into two, incredibly chubby twins were cartoonish and slightly disturbing, stereotypical of auteur Tim Burton's films but also a truly accurate homage to both the original film's unique eccentricities and Lewis Carroll's book. 

In some cases, an updated version of a film can be just as iconic as it's predecessor. It (2017) quickly became popular for its new depiction of the classic villain Pennywise, originally played by Tim Curry and now donned by brilliantly talented Bill Skarsgård. Pennywise will always be known for the red hair, the white gloves and Tim Curry's unnerving smile but now we can recognise him to be freakishly tall with blazing, orange hair and eyes that move in different directions. This newer version will be thought of fondly, in retrospect, as are most villains (e.g. Leatherface, Ghostface, Jason Voorhees etc.)

Ex Machina (2015)

However, when it comes down to it, there are too many remakes being churned out of Hollywood, like overly-tenderised meat through a grinder: so much of the film's original flair is lost through cheap tactics (such as jump scares, CGI or lazy writing) and becomes disappointing. It seems ridiculous to me that Hollywood allocates money to these projects and not ones that are more original concepts, such as Get Out (2017) or The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016).

For me, the front-runners of genuinely exceptional and well-executed films right now are A24, an independent film company that have produced films already considered culturally iconic in cinema, such as Under the Skin (2013), Ex Machina (2015), Lady Bird (2017) and Hereditary (2018). These films are deemed successful due to their content, not their budget, and that's the big difference.

If Hollywood continues to churn out garbage, then I fear people will become accustomed to it, unable to truly appreciate original work when it finally gets its chance to shine. There is nothing wrong with a remake...as long as it's done well. And I can't say that it's the case for most remakes I've seen in recent years.

- K