|
|
Post by Rachy on Jan 7, 2019 20:17:52 GMT 10
The book/tv series seems to have come to an end. And then, several years later, the creator makes a return... or there is a reboot on the cards.
For me, Marianne Curley released an unexpected sequel to her Guardians of Time trilogy, a series I had loved in my teens, and it worked, ten years on. I dreaded it not working and tainting it, but it worked really well, I loved it, and I didn’t feel like the book had ‘aged’, either.
I’ve watched a bit of Sabrina on Netflix, and my main issue there is working out why it’s horror over urban/paranormal fantasy. I’m a bit concerned that the final GoT books will feel like a unsuccessful return when they eventually arrive...
What are some examples of a successful return to a series? What are some things that just didn’t work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Jan 7, 2019 20:35:59 GMT 10
Oh, I used to read Guardians of Time, too!! That's exciting.
I feel as though returns don't often work. I'm still working up the courage to try Go Set a Watchman, and I'm unenthused about Margaret Atwood's Handmaid sequel. On the one hand, yes, get that money - on the other, the original was so complete in my view.
Ghostbusters and Ocean's Eight both worked for me, and I'm looking forward to the Men in Black reboot.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Jan 8, 2019 3:56:42 GMT 10
It sometimes seems like everyone is milking the cash cow, not willing to let any series or franchise die a natural death, and there is a lack of originality with endless remakes. In general, I'm not a huge fan of sequels that aren't planned from early on in the series' creation because I think those works tend to suffer from what a refer to as Sequel Syndrome where the most obvious symptom is there is no real plot or character need for us to continue the franchise but fans will buy more, so the books or the movies must go on as long as people are willing to pay for an increasingly shoddy product. So I tend to approach belated additions to series with more caution and cynicism than excitement though I still tend to faithfully buy the material and sometimes complain about it, ha ha.
I'm a major Star Wars fan, but both the Last Jedi and the Force Awakens get mixed reviews from me (I actually enjoyed the Solo and especially Rogue One anthology films much more since they just seemed to fit into the overall Star Wars story so much better). I like the new characters like Rey, Poe, and Finn while Kylo Ren does work as a complex villain for me. The treatment of the Force is also interesting to me in the Last Jedi in particular. However, both Last Jedi and Force Awakens feel too much like obvious rehashes of New Hope and Empire Strikes Back for the plots to engage me, and there is the abiding sense that my old heroes--Han, Leia, and Luke--failed to achieve anything that leaves a sour taste in my mouth that makes it hard for me to rewatch the original series since it all just feels kind of meaningless now. Also Snoke needed more backstory as did Kylo Ren's fall to the Dark Side (and those two problems are kind of linked in my head since Snoke seems to have been the catalyst for Kylo's fall to the Dark Side). Ultimately I think there needed to be more of a common thread linking the sequel trilogies to the original and prequel trilogies (as the original and prequel trilogies are linked because we can obviously follow the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker) or else it needed to at least be set generations after the original trilogy heroes had died so we can at least feel they achieved something before we have the Empire versus the Rebellion Part Two. So, basically, I don't hate the Star Wars sequels but I think there needed to be more thought about having fresh plots, respecting the achievements of the heroes from the original trilogy that most Star Wars fans love, and making sure the sequels created a coherent overall arc with the original and prequel trilogies since right now they don't. Maybe that will change with the last installment of the trilogy, but it will have to be a truly spectacular film to accomplish that, and I don't want to set my expectations that unfairly high so I won't.
I kind of have similar though slightly more positive feelings about the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them extension of the Harry Potter franchise. The movies are well-filmed, I do love some of the new characters that we are introduced to, and seeing Grindelwald's rise to power has been interesting as has the chance to explore the magical worlds in New York City and Paris. Rowling is expanding her Wizarding World to keep it fresh while giving us some familiar names like Lestrange and Travers and characters like Dumbledore to latch onto so that part is well done. However, she has also made some decisions that retroactively diminish some of the awesome moments in the Harry Potter books for me and got some details wrong that made me wish she had bothered to check her facts in her books or the many fan sites that keep track of such trivia for her. I hate it when authors can't be bothered to keep track of their own canon especially when there are fans out there doing the work for them. It's like do a ten second Google search and get the little details right. So, Rowling needed to do a better job of getting her details right (because fans notice when they are wrong) and of thinking through the implications that her decisions can have on her books retroactively, diminishing the power of moments in the Harry Potter series if she mishandles them.
I'm with you, Rachy, in being worried that the Game of Thrones books might feel like disappointing returns when (and if) they finally come out especially because to me the last two books in that series were the weakest ones with serious structural issues such as bloat, excessive travelogue, and a lack of an ultimate climax or resolution. There are also entire plot lines like Dany, the Ironborn, and Dorne that I find it hard to care about. Dany to me should have started making her way to Westeros after acquiring her Unsullied Army, the Ironborn just never had any appeal to me, and Dorne has been nothing but disappointment to me since Myrcella wasn't crowned queen (I wanted to see her and Tommen be pawns in a war that killed them both in accordance with Cersei's prophecy about her children dying) since nothing but vague plotting as gone on there. Even characters I am interested in like Tyrion and Sam take way too long to get anywhere interesting. Martin needs to improve pacing and cut the bloat but sadly I think his editors can no longer take red pens to his work since he is so famous, and that shows in a bad way.
Since most of this post has been negative, I will say that one sequel that has worked well for me was Tad Williams' return to Often Ard. He expands on the world in exciting ways (and I already thought his Osten Ard world building was some of the best I had ever encountered in fantasy). He also handled the difficult task of making a familiar evil return without making our old heroes feel ineffectual which as I mentioned earlier can be a common problem. The tone was less innocent than the original series but much of the writing craft especially in terms of pacing was improved which was something Williams said he was trying to do based on criticisms of some of the pacing in the original series. I admire an author who tries to grow and also I love the Williams was so open about how he didn't want to write a new series that would ruin anyone's memories of the original Osten Ard books and that he only wrote this new series because he really felt he had meaningful journeys for the characters. That's what the return to a world should be about, not about grabbing more cash. So Tad Williams is proof to me that I don't hate returns that are done well and for the right reasons (artistically motivated rather than crassly commercial). I just want my returns done with a sensitivity to the world and the characters, which shouldn't be too much to ask but often is...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Jan 8, 2019 5:00:17 GMT 10
Fantastic Beasts is an interesting one. I've talked about it so extensively with Lisa that I'm a bit worried that I'm going to be parroting her ideas, so I'll just credit her straight up. I will disclaim that I haven't seen the second film yet, and that I did enjoy the first. My problem with Fantastic Beasts is that it doesn't have to relate to the Harry Potter series. People will watch it anyway. It doesn't have to feature the rise (and fall) of Grindelwald, there should be no reason for it affecting HP canon. I've seen it argued that Newt being Dumbledore's Man diminishes the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry (if he picks a favourite every generation, it is less remarkable that he placed so much trust in Harry). I would love a Fantastic Beasts that was just about Newt discovering and playing with new animals - I don't think it needed the same apocalyptic tone as the HP series. The other belated sequels I can think of are Blade Runner, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and Independence Day. I've seen all the originals but not all the sequels, and I think it's because they don't seem to add much to the originals. |
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Jan 8, 2019 9:37:39 GMT 10
Fantastic Beasts is an interesting one. I've talked about it so extensively with Lisa that I'm a bit worried that I'm going to be parroting her ideas, so I'll just credit her straight up. I will disclaim that I haven't seen the second film yet, and that I did enjoy the first. My problem with Fantastic Beasts is that it doesn't have to relate to the Harry Potter series. People will watch it anyway. It doesn't have to feature the rise (and fall) of Grindelwald, there should be no reason for it affecting HP canon. I've seen it argued that Newt being Dumbledore's Man diminishes the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry (if he picks a favourite every generation, it is less remarkable that he placed so much trust in Harry). I would love a Fantastic Beasts that was just about Newt discovering and playing with new animals - I don't think it needed the same apocalyptic tone as the HP series. The other belated sequels I can think of are Blade Runner, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and Independence Day. I've seen all the originals but not all the sequels, and I think it's because they don't seem to add much to the originals. You make an interesting point about how the Fantastic Beasts films didn't have to relate to the Harry Potter series as much as they did since people will watch anything in that franchise/ wizarding world anyway. It is true that the Fantastic Beasts series didn't have to focus on the rise of Grindelwald.I didn't mind the focus on the rise of Grindelwald too much since I always thought that the best prequel would have been about the Marauders and Lily during Voldemort's first rise and reign so looking at Grindelwald's rise might be the next best thing for me. However, the Fantastic Beasts title does more imply that the focus will be on the beasts, being as you say about Newt discovering and maybe researching various magical creatures rather than about how Newt and others fight Grindelwald. Without getting into spoiler territory I will just say that Grindelwald definitely seems to overshadow the magical creatures in the second Fantastic Beasts film which probably shouldn't happen in a movie named for those animals. I could understand others having an issue with Newt and Dumbledore's relationship diminishing Harry's one with Dumbledore but honestly that didn't bother me because I kind of prefer the idea of Dumbledore having other students that he was close to and put a lot of trust in, but in general I'm not someone who believes the great mentor has to have only one close/favorite student. I tend to think an amazing mentor should have many students to share bonds with since that would be part of what makes them incredible. At least that is the case with the best mentors that I've had. So to me it was just nice to see Dumbledore being close with Newt. I thought the sequels to Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park were okay. They didn't do anything really wrong or really spectacular. They were just kind of forgettable action movies to me that as you say didn't seem to add much to the originals. I'm not sure they had to exist since they didn't add anything but they didn't do anything wrong so there's nothing wrong with them existing. I'm quite indifferent to them I suppose and wouldn't go out of my way to see them again. I haven't seen the sequels to Blade Runner or Independence Day so I can't comment on those but it wouldn't shock me if they were in the same vein. |
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Jan 8, 2019 20:54:06 GMT 10
No, I'm not saying that Dumbledore couldn't be close with any of his students - that's obviously not the case, especially looking at the Order of the Phoenix. It's just that people say specifically to Harry that they think he was Dumbledore's favourite, singled out, and nobody makes mention of Newt ever beyond the Fantastic Beasts book. If they're close, why isn't he mentioned or featured? Why wasn't he in the Order the first time? Why wouldn't Dumbledore call on somebody who also has experience dealing with dark wizards?
Also, we already know that Dumbledore defeats Grindelwald, so there's no tension, and if it somehow winds up being Newt who actually defeats Grindelwald, that will lessen Dumbledore's legacy. And his Chocolate Frog card.
These are all huge issues with prequels, and I maintain JKR would have done better letting Grindelwald be background noise. I'd have liked to have seen the effects of something like that on day-to-day life.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Jan 9, 2019 0:56:40 GMT 10
No, I'm not saying that Dumbledore couldn't be close with any of his students - that's obviously not the case, especially looking at the Order of the Phoenix. It's just that people say specifically to Harry that they think he was Dumbledore's favourite, singled out, and nobody makes mention of Newt ever beyond the Fantastic Beasts book. If they're close, why isn't he mentioned or featured? Why wasn't he in the Order the first time? Why wouldn't Dumbledore call on somebody who also has experience dealing with dark wizards? Also, we already know that Dumbledore defeats Grindelwald, so there's no tension, and if it somehow winds up being Newt who actually defeats Grindelwald, that will lessen Dumbledore's legacy. And his Chocolate Frog card. These are all huge issues with prequels, and I maintain JKR would have done better letting Grindelwald be background noise. I'd have liked to have seen the effects of something like that on day-to-day life. You're right that Newt isn't ever mentioned in the Harry Potter series as anything other than the author of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and I admit that when the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them films were announced I felt it was a bit of an odd choice to elevate someone who was essentially an answer to a Harry Potter trivia question to the star of a film series. It's also true that nobody, not even Doge or Aberforth who have known Dumbledore the longest, ever mentioned Newt and there is no hint that Newt played a prominent role in Grindelwald's defeat so that is an inconsistency for sure. It didn't jump out to me as wrong the way some things (especially in the second film) did, but I see your point there. Depending on Newt's final fate, him not being in the Order the first time might be able to be explained. If Newt dies at some point during the fight against Grindelwald, that could be why he isn't in the first Order of the Phoenix. That would probably be the best way of explaining that, and it would sort of contrast with Harry's resurrection to have Newt stay dead. The opportunity is there for the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them series to take that route, but I don't know if they'll be bold enough to go there. Only time will tell, but I consider it an interesting possibility. It's definitely true that we know Dumbledore defeats Grindelwald (at least I am like you in hoping that the Fantastics Beasts and Where to Find Them films don't make Newt the one that defeats Grindelwald) so I think in that way the movies like many prequels will have to rely on making how the characters arrive at the choices that lead to events we all know will come to pass compelling in order to create tension. That is sort of the challenge for all prequels: that the ending is known in advance so it is harder to get the audience to care about the journey to that ending. The idea of having Grindelwald more be background noise rather than the major focus of the plot is an interesting one. Some of my favorite parts of the Harry Potter books were the sections that depicted the impact that Voldemort and his Death Eaters had on daily life so I think I probably would have enjoyed similar treatments of Grindelwald's rise to power. I do understand your issues and think they have validity to them. I guess I just might not have minded the Grindelwald plot too much since I sat down in the theater for the first movie with fairly low expectations and the fear that it wouldn't have much of a plot at all, so the fact that it did have a plot involving Grindelwald reassured me that it at least wouldn't be a boring film, ha ha. |
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Jan 9, 2019 3:38:32 GMT 10
I'm admittedly biased against the franchise, because I view the first one as the sanitising of Johnny Depp post-Amber Heard, and therefore won't watch the films in the cinema. Going to put this under a spoiler cut, even though it's from a published book: Spoiler
The Fantastic Beasts book reveals that Newt and Tina survive and get married - this is my trouble with big prequels. We know Newt, Tina, Dumbledore, and Grindelwald all survive. Five films of 'how do we stop this disaster?' when we as the audience know the disaster is 1) stopped, and 2) survived by the main characters just... falls a little flat for me. Whilst it's possible that Queenie and Jacob die, they're less high-stakes. But anyway, it's clearly a successful series judging by the box office. |
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Jan 9, 2019 6:23:03 GMT 10
I definitely wish that the role of Grindelwald had been given to another actor besides Johnny Depp. I totally understand not wanting to see the films in theaters because of that.
Oh, I wasn't aware of that part in the book (I have the old copy of that book, not the newest edition). Guess that ends my theory, but it was fun while it lasted, ha ha.
|
|
Maybe once we'd have seen it during Smackdown!