I haven't told many people of my latest harebrained idea/adventure. It goes something like this: I quit my job, fly across the country, and live with my parents for a month and a half. I don't have any friends in the area and I don't have anything to occupy my time with. The room I had growing up has since turned into a place for my parents to store junk which means I'm sleeping in my sister's room. Surprise, Lindsay!
This winter the first part of the last Harry Potter film will be released. I read the first three books when they were released. Then I read them again in preparation for the fourth book. When the fifth book came out, I re-read the first four before moving on to the fifth. I read all five again before reading the sixth. Can you guess what I did before starting the seventh book? Before the first movie came out, I read the book again. You might say I'm a bit familiar with the series.
Because I've only read the seventh book once, I need some refreshing before forking over my hard-earned cash to see the film. Because I don't have anything to do for a month and a half, this is the perfect opportunity for me.
Coincidentally, Oprah interviewed the author of the Potter books today and it was noted on Entertainment Weekly's website that J.K. Rowling is "open to write an eighth, ninth, and tenth book" to follow up on where we left off with our favorite boy-wizard. As much of a fan of the series as I am, hearing this news does not excite me.
When Rowling sent Harry off to Hogwarts, she had planned on writing seven books; one for each year spent at the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. How beautiful and poetic is that? How perfect is that? In the interview with Oprah, Rowling said she felt done, but anything can happen. By "anything," she clearly meant, "If the paycheck is big enough."
That's what I hate about sequels. Someone came up with a clever idea about an ogre and a donkey, made a movie and called it Shrek. It made a killing at the box office so they took that clever idea and stretched it across three more movies to get as much money as possible. The sequels all sucked and took away the magic from the original. Shrek was a classic and now when mentioned, a person must specify which of the four he is referring to.
On the business side, sequels make sense. They're guaranteed money-makers. But as forms of art, they're destructive. Jurassic Park, Caddyshack, Grease. All great movies. All have terrible sequels. The Lost World, and Jurassic Park 3 are awful just plain stupid. Taking out a velociraptor with gymnastics? Are you kidding me? The original was brilliant. It's scary and fun. It was original and influential. The first sequel was Spielberg telling us that he didn't care about making a decent movie. The third was absolute garbage with the Jurassic Park brand attached to it.
Don't even get me started on sequels to real classic movies. I've been hearing rumors on a Goonies sequel for a long time. The Indiana Jones one actually went through and although I tricked myself into liking it, it's still pretty bad. A swinging LaBeouf with monkeys? I just read about a second Independence Day in the works. Wasn't the last July 4th exciting enough? Why not focus on surfacing the Titanic and let the Na'vi have a "vacay" after the hell they've been through?
There are very few sequels that are as good or better as their originals. The Godfather and Toy Story come to mind right away, but look at the third Godfather movie. Eventually greed will turn ugly. Will I read Harry Potter year 8, 9, and 10? Without question. Will they live up to the hype that they're sure to garner? There's no way of telling; especially since there isn't any guarantee they'll even be written. If Rowling does decide to bring Harry back into our lives, I hope they don't tarnish my feelings for the original books.
No comments:
Post a Comment