KIDS FIRST! Jury Blog

There is nothing like a good futuristic story. It may include spaceships, teleportation, invisibility, lasers or just your good old giant robot fight. For many decades, this futuristic tech has been the things of fiction. Recently, that is changing. The objects in films like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or even Transformers are actually becoming part of our everyday life. In Japan, there are robots that have become so advanced and so powerful, they could replace a soldier. Across Europe and North America, there is development of cleaner and much more powerful electricity production and in many nations, space is a big topic again.

Stephen Hawking theorizes how to send a space probe at close to the speed of light, or plans to land on Mars in less than two decades, or even the possibility of sending people to Jupiter and Saturn. This is the talk of science fiction, right? Well, no. With space tourism on a rise and people living much longer then previous generations, science fiction is becoming non-fiction. This brings up an interesting point. In our future world, with all these advanced gadgets, what will become of the science fiction genre? It is described in the dictionary as: fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.

What happens when we actually all those futuristic scientific or technological advances become reality? In 100 years, will we still have sci-fi as we know it now? Most likely, in 100 years, all that technology that we never thought could be possible, will be part of our day to day life. Most likely, sci-fi will either become a much different genre with technology than we believe is simply impossible to exist, like immortality, or magical production that pops anything out of nothing. Another possibility is that in a very ironic way, the imagination that the sci-fi genre sparks will be the one that kills it at the end since, as a human race, we focus on making such a world come to life (even if that world is a good or bad one) and thus, it will cause the death of sci-fi as a movie genre.  What do you think?

Betty White was born January 17, 1922, in Oak Park, Illinois.  She was the only child to her parents, Horace and Tess White. She moved to California at the young age of two.  She is best known for her role as Rose Nylund on the hit TV Show, The Golden Girls.

Ms. White has been in the entertainment industry for a very long time. Her appearances include sitcoms, game shows and even hosting Saturday Night Live. She is a comedic actress and a lover of animals. In fact, she worked with the Los Angeles Zoo and the Morris Animal Foundation for four decades. As if being a comedic actress and animal lover was not enough, she is also an author of several books that she wrote during the 1980s and 1990s. She received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1988.  The star is next to her late husband Allen Ludden’s star. She has been nominated for four Golden Globes awards for Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series and had countless Prime Time Emmy nominations and is a winner of many.

Ms. White never had any children of your own however she is the stepmother of David, Martha and Sarah through her previous marriages. It was a conscious decision not to have children which she never regretted.

Ms. White continues to make appearances on TV and is very close with her animals. She is loved by so many and, not only people in her age bracket, but also teens like me.  She is witty, funny and gets to make people laugh. How can you not love her? She states, “I’m actually the luckiest old broad alive. Half my life is working in a profession I love and the other half is working with animals.” I truly believe you can have a successful career working in what you love to do and someday, I will be doing the same thing.

Jack Nicholson once gave the following screen acting advice to Harry Dean Stanton: “Just let the wardrobe be the character. You play yourself. That’s the way you approach it.” Jack Nicholson is a three time Oscar® winner, 12 time nominee and the star of classic films such as The Shining, Chinatown and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. On the other hand, Ian McKellen once commented, “Acting is a very personal process. It has to do with expressing your own personality, and discovering the character you’re playing through your own experience – so we’re all different.” What I’ve laid out are two completely different approaches to film acting. One is the argument that to be a good film actor, you only must be present and being yourself, with a little charm and charisma is enough to be successful on screen. The likes of Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, Clark Gable and William Powell might be examples of this school of thought. The other argument is one more associated with actors who participate more in the theater, in believing that a successful film actor takes more than presence, it takes an ability to express emotions and portray someone different than yourself. The likes of Pacino, De Niro, Duvall and Nicholson exemplify this. That’s where the great debate lies.

Throughout this blog I will refer to the first argument as presence and to the second as portrayal. If you notice, the examples of actors who fall under the presence category are all stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Which is to say that is the style most popular during that era.

Film acting, at that time in America, wasn’t necessarily thought of as something deep and internal. It was simply a matter of being marketable and was a part of successful films. Of course there were exceptions such as Fredric March, Laurence Olivier and Claude Rains. But the biggest money makers, such as Bogart and Cagney. While they may have started their careers in theater, once they became film stars they never went back.

Those actors, even though they lacked the talents of a thespian, made millions. They were stars, and they starred in the films we consider classics today. Films such as The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With the Wind and His Girl Friday. You’ll notice that the supporting players are the true thespians. That’s because, at that time, to be a leading man or woman wasn’t about your talent as an actor with a deep process. It was about making money and bringing people to the theater to see beautiful, extravagant people. The studios didn’t want actors, they wanted stars. People to fawn over, people with charisma and charm. They didn’t want deep, emotional experiences. They wanted to witness the fantastic – wonderful costumes, extraordinary stories, and attractive actors were the order of the day. This meant, for actors like Sydney Greenstreet and Thomas Mitchell, there were no starring roles in major pictures for them. But they could bet on a supporting actor nomination or even a win.

Nonetheless, that style of thinking within the studio system lasted until Brando came on the scene. Then, the actors of old condemned the new style. We know it as “method acting.” Gary Cooper called method actors “a bunch of goof balls.” Spencer Tracy said he was “too old, too tired and too talented to care.” Then again, Tracy approached acting as easily as “knowing your lines and don’t bump into the furniture.”

But amidst the Brando and Deans of the Golden Age, characterization in the world of film acting wasn’t something desired by audiences until the New Wave came along in the late 60s. Realism was the order of the day and that’s where Ian McKellen’s quote I mentioned earlier came into play. Actors such as Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino came on the scene and offered audiences a new type of movie star – the kind that won Oscars for more than being the box-office star, but because they delivered a wonderful performance of emotional stature. No longer was the dashingly handsome or exceptionally beautiful actor necessary. Now don’t get me wrong, box office stars still included the likes of Robert Redford and Warren Beatty, but even short, off-beat Dustin Hoffman could draw in crowds. That was new. For even in the Golden Age, method actors Paul Newman and Marlon Brando were exceptionally attractive. But now, at the dusk of that classic era, character actors could now lead movies.

That trend has trickled into today. Interestingly enough, it’s still an attractive actors’ medium as far as major motion pictures go. Dwayne Johnson, Chris Hemsworth, Zac Efron and such still fit that stereotypical “leading man” criteria. The only difference is that they aren’t the ONLY ones leading films that are seen and acclaimed. If Claude Rains led a film in his day, it wouldn’t be an “indie film”, it’d be a B movie – just another film to keep the machine running. But there would be no awards’ traction, no sort of acclaim. In today’s film culture, a character actor can be supporting in a major picture and lead their own indie film. Take Paul Giamatti for example, he’s not anything like a leading man type. But Sideways is a film he leads beautifully and he got plenty of awards’ notice. But he’s great at the job that pays him, being the supporting actor in films like San Andreas, Cinderella Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

The debate lies in, “is someone like Cary Grant a better film actor than someone like Philip Seymour Hoffman?” Cary Grant starred in the some of the most beloved films of all time – North by Northwest, To Catch a Thief and An Affair to Remember. Philip Seymour Hoffman has given versatile performances such as his performances in The Master, Punch-Drunk Love and Doubt. The first examples are all time acclaimed films, but Cary Grant doesn’t show much versatility. The next examples are acclaimed performances, but the films themselves aren’t considered classic by the masses. So who do you consider better? Perhaps it depends on who you are. The new generation of critics and movie buffs will say Hoffman easily. But classic movie fans will surely say Grant. What matters more to you? The presence of the actor or the portrayal by the actor?

In today’s society, men in movies, TV shows and ads are often depicted as bumbling, idiots. Since my family doesn’t have cable, I see this trend happening in movies as well. Some recent movies that have done this include the Ted franchise, the Jump Street franchise, The Internship, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, Central Intelligence and The Interview. All the men in Melissa McCarthy films are portrayed as dumb fools. In the new Ghostbusters, instead of having a “dumb blonde” as a receptionist, they show a dumb, young hunk, wonderfully portrayed by Chris Hemsworth.

Most movies with Seth Rogen and Zac Efron typically portray men as ridiculous fools. Even James Franco, a very respected writer, director and actor, appears in some really inappropriate, dumb guy movies. For instance, Seth Rogen and James Franco are the stars of the movie, The Interview. I have watched this movie three times and I actually really enjoy it. They implement a lot of funny, inappropriate jokes that teens like me love. Zac Efron stars in The Neighbors franchise, which not surprisingly, also stars Seth Rogen. I haven’t seen these films yet, but they are on my list. Zac Efron also stars in the recently released Mike and Dave film which portrays two really dumb brothers that need dates to their sister’s wedding. The family thinks that if they get dates, they won’t be as rowdy and ruin the event, like they usually do.

I don’t know when this trend actually started, but it seems to have supplanted the “dumb blonde” trend in movies. Sometime in the 80s. the SNL cast started making movies and many of them followed this trend. I’m thinking of films such as Caddyshack, Animal House, the National Lampoon franchise and The Jerk. This was followed by all the Jim Carrey movies and his persona who, for the most part, was a bumbling idiot. Examples are Ace Ventura Pet Detective, Dumb and Dumber and The Cable Guy.

This trend coincides with a disturbing trend in college attendance by males in this country. Prior to the 1970s, more men than women went to college. Sometime in the late 70s, the ratio switched and more women than men went to college. Now, approximately 60% of all college students are female. According to educators, this is an alarming trend in the U.S. As a teen soon headed to college, I am concerned about these statistics and wonder how I’ll be perceived by my fellow students (most of whom will be female).

June 8th,1984 the original Ghostbusters was released. It blew up the box office, amazed critics and became a comedy classic. June 8th, 2016, to celebrate my 16th birthday and my slow progression into old age, I took a couple of my friends to go see the original Ghostbusters on the big screen because my local movie theater was having a special anniversary screening.

We sat down with our soda and popcorn surrounded by fellow fans wearing slimer T-shirts and Ghostbuster snapbacks. Then the house lights dimmed and the original director, Ivan Reitman appeared on screen. He shared a few words about the film and thanked fans for attending. The movie began and the crowd cheered. As the movie continued, people jumped when the librarian scares the Busters, laughed at the classic dialogue between the characters and you could hear audience members finish certain lines (Me being one of them).

Watching it again on the big screen rekindled my love for this film. When the film ended people, applauded and started leaving the theater. Suddenly, director of the new Ghostbusters, Paul Feig was on screen. He talked about the original classic and then introduced a sneak peek of the new Ghostbusters. Immediately the audience groaned with disgust when the sneak preview came on.

That reaction is exactly why I’m writing this blog. The dislike for the new Ghostbusters is overwhelming. I want to say, for the record, that I’m a huge Ghostbusters fan. I constantly watched the film growing up. I had copies of the original TV show and I even dressed up like a Ghostbuster for Halloween. I also have to admit that I was not ecstatic for the reboot at first. Not because it’s an all female cast, but because it’s a reboot of one of my childhood films. I thought they were trying  to live up to the legacy of the original. I can understand why some people are not particularly excited for the reboot, but the negative and misogynistic reaction has grown. The new Ghostbusters trailer video on YouTube is the most disliked trailer in YouTube history and has garnered a lot of raging comments. Films have had bad advertising reactions before, but this hate continues to grow before anyone has even seen the film. Taking all this into consideration, here are four reasons why I am now enthusiastic about the new film.

1) The Cast: If you’re going to hire female Ghostbusters, these are exactly the comedians to include. Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones and Kristen Wiig are completely qualified to carry the Ghost hunting torch. All of them are hilarious on each has her own unique style of comedy that I’m sure will have the audience roaring with laughter.

2) The Director: Paul Feig has climbed the ladder to become one of the best comedic film director. He’s directed hit comedies such as The Heat, Spy (which he also wrote) and the Oscar-nominated Bridesmaids. Feig knows the perfect balance of smart dialogue and outrageously funny physical comedy. Plus, he’s worked with Wiig and McCarthy on previous films so he knows how to work with them.

3)  It’s not a Remake! It’s a Reboot! Something that the filmmakers explicitly say is that it’s not continuing the original story, it’s four new characters who get into the profession of busting ghosts. So, it is in no way trying to outdo the original film. What made the first film funny is that it put four funny comedians into the situation of hunting ghosts and comedy ensues. The same goes for this film, only they are starting from scratch and these ladies have their own style of comedy. The first film relies on clever dialogue because, most of the time they’re wearing heavy proton packs which prevent them from doing a lot of complicated physical comedy and, because of the infancy of special effects, they had limitations in interacting with the apparitions. The new film, because of modern technology and lighter proton packs, will most likely have smart dialogue but it can also utilize more physical comedy.

4) The original cast give their blessings: Yes, the original cast loves the idea of the reboot and, in a Jimmy Kimmel interview with the new and original cast, Bill Murray expressed his enjoyment of the film. Kimmel asked, “Why was this idea (meaning the new Ghostbusters) appealing to you?” Murray responded, “It was only cause I knew these girls were funny.” Even Aykroyd, who was not only one of the actors but writers, along with Harold Ramis (Rest in Piece) said in a Hollywood Reporter interview, “The Aykroyd family is delighted by this inheritance of the Ghostbusters torch by these most magnificent women in comedy. My great grandfather, Dr. Sam Aykroyd, the original Ghostbuster, was a man who empowered women in his day and this is a beautiful development in the legacy of our family business.” So, if original cast are happy with the film maybe we shouldn’t judge to quickly.

Say what you want about how Hollywood is running out of ideas and that you are tried of seeing remakes and reboots. That’s a given. However, before people start writing pessimistic and sexist comments about a film, how about they wait until the film comes out before writing those negative reviews.

I think Leslie Jones said it best in an Entertainment Weekly interview regarding the sexist remarks: “It’s not a man thing, it’s not a woman thing. It’s a Ghostbuster thing.”

We all have people that we look up to and admire. Personally, I have a high regard for Angela Bassett, Leonardo Dicaprio, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Tyler Perry, Meryl Streep and Matt Damon (just to name a few). I happen to know that Nora Ephron is greatly looked up to by one of my fellow KIDS FIRST! Film Critics as well and I would like to write about her.

Born on May 19, 1941, in New York, NY, Nora Ephron was the daughter of writers. Even though she was born in New York, she grew Up in Los Angeles. Later in life she attended Wellesley College in Massachusetts for her extended education. Her articles and essays were collected and published in the 1970s Wallflower at Orgy and Crazy Salad. She wrote her very first novel, Heartburn in 1983 which was inspired by the ending of Ephron’s second marriage. It also was adapted into a film that Meryl Streep starred in. After that, she wrote a couple screenplays including Silkwood (1983) and When Harry Met Sally (1989). They both earned her Academy Award nominations for Best Screenplay. She directed her first film, This Is My Life, in 1992 and in 1993,  wrote and directed Sleepless in Seattle. This film gave her a third Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay. In 1998, Ephron co-wrote her next screenplay with her sister Della, You’ve Got Mail. In 2009, Ephron received a great amount of praise for directing and writing Julie & Julia, starring Amy Adams and Meryl Streep. On June 26, 2012, at the age of 71, Nora Ephron passed away due to pneumonia, caused by acute myeloid leukemia.

In researching the life and times of Nora Ephron, I have seen true passion, perseverance and, in turn – success. Stepping back to the beginning, there are many people that surround us in media, on television, in films, in books and in many other places that have done so well in and at their lives that they can’t helped being admired. I find that the more people you admire and learn from, the more they help take you on the road to success. Perhaps one day you too will fill those shoes.

“Above all, be the heroine of your life, not the victim.”- Nora Ephron

Hollywood seems to be all about sequels and remakes these days. So far this year, 14 out of the top 20 U.S. films have been sequels or remakes. That’s 70 percent! Does Hollywood keep making these sequels and remakes because they don’t want to take any chances with new ideas and these are a known quantity?

The movie business wasn’t always this way. Of the top ten films in 1985, only one was a sequel or a remake. In 1995, none of the top ten were sequels or remakes. But, by 2005, nine of the top ten films were sequels or remakes. I was looking forward to a lot of the sequels this year: Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, Captain America: Civil War, Alice Through The Looking Glass and X Men: Apocalypse. But, when I look back on the films I most enjoyed this past year, all of them are based on original ideas. For instance, The Big Short, Spotlight, Room, Inside Out, When Marnie Was There and Monster Hunt. For those of you who don’t know Monster Hunt, it was the highest grossing film in China in 2015 and is the craziest, funniest, action-packed, original film I’ve seen in years.

Some of the overwhelming amount of sequels and remakes were: The Man From Uncle, Fantastic Four, Creed, Avengers Age of Ultron, Terminator: Genysis and Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. I didn’t see Creed, I heard a lot of people loved it, but did we really need a Sylvester Stallone comeback? I did see The Man From Uncle, which was fun, but it was all style and no substance. Fantastic Four was a total waste of time and money. The plot and the acting were so uninteresting that it failed to hold my attention. I purposefully did not see Terminator Genysis because it looked like a rehash of the last Terminator film. Nor did I choose to see Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. It’s the fifth film in the series and I feel they are milking the franchise for no reason besides money. They are even planning a sixth Mission Impossible!

A great place to see original, creative, theatrical films for kids is at children’s film festivals. I have been going to the New York International Children’s Film Festival for ten years now. I always see the most creative, visionary and uplifting films from around the world. They always premiere a Studio Ghibli film, which is how I became such a fan of that studio. There are children’s film festivals all around the U.S. If there isn’t one in your area, check out www.gkids.com for a list of great children’s films from prior festivals that you can get on DVD. And, don’t forget to look out for KIDS FIRST! Film Festival partners such as the University of Hawaii at Manoa which is doing its 10^th KIDS FIRST! Film Festival all summer long.

There was a time in Hollywood when musicals were the top box-office earners. They were the award winners, being lauded by audiences and critics alike. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers were the top toe-tapping stars of their day, giving box-office smashes such as Top Hat and Swing Time. Then along came the likes of Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney in their collaborations, a little guy by the name of Frank Sinatra came on the scene and helped make Gene Kelly a star. Before Hollywood knew it, musicals were winning Best Picture. Films like An American in Paris and Gigi (which are both now hated winners) took home the big prize and in the mid-60s, we even had back to back musical best picture winners with My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music, not to mention a few years earlier West Side Story took home the glory. And we can’t forget Oliver winning just some years later.

Then along came the modern-era of filmmaking, focused on more realistic direction and acting and the theatrical musical was no longer in. Instead, grittier, darker musicals such as Fiddler on the Roof and Cabaret were the (rare) musicals of the time to gain awards traction and audience interest. Musicals wouldn’t become big again until the 80s, when the Disney Renaissance brought in the animated musical, with hits like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. These films would eventually make their way to Broadway. As a matter of fact, the live-action musical wouldn’t make its comeback until the early 2000s when Moulin Rouge and Chicago gained Best Picture nominations, with the latter winning. Then suddenly the 2000s began a resurgence in musical films. This time, mixing the gritty style of the 70s with the fun, theatrical style of Classic Hollywood, like in Dreamgirls or even Hairspray.

The turn of the century brought in a new age of cinema, I believe, an age that doesn’t necessarily have a preference, since fantasy films and realistic films both became audience and critic pleasers. See, in the 70s, suspending disbelief for something in your face and theatrical wasn’t in. Gritty, “honest” styles of filmmaking were preferred even in sci-fi films and horror films (a la The Exorcist and Close Encounters of the Third Kind). But, the advent of more advanced special effects and the resurgence in animated films, brought back a simple, childlike yearning of movie audiences. So the musical was back in business. Mind you, they are still directed with a sense of realism and awards caliber acting, but audiences are again willing to sit through singing and dancing.

Now they aren’t coming out as often as they once did in the classic Hollywood days, but films such as Les Miserables and Into the Woods made money and were favored by critics. But, in this decade, we’ve yet to have the dance musical. We’ve had more dramatic musicals without any classic flair of innocence and good fun. Of the upcoming musicals being rumored about being created, not many of them are dance musicals, nor are they well known within the film industry. Now, my worry is that this generation of filmgoers, which is rooted in the comic book film, the dark drama and the dry comedy, won’t see musicals. This is unfortunate because musicals are a very legitimate genre that mixes the aural beauty of music with the visuals of film. Looking at Into the Woods which made money because it is a Disney film and it has princesses and fairy tales attached. Les Miserables made money because it’s been etched in American culture since the 80s. But will In the Heights make money? Or Jekyll and Hyde? Or even Gypsy? Musical theater nerds like me will flock to the theaters to see these stage musicals on the big screen in cinematic form, because we know them. But the theatrical world isn’t the money making world, unfortunately and theater isn’t very accessible to the mainstream, unless it’s something like The Phantom of the Opera or a Disney adaptation.

To conclude, I’m expressing my worry that the cinematic musical will once again be forgotten within a generation. Despite the fact a show such as Hamilton is crossing the barrier between theater and the mainstream world, there is still, it seems, a vendetta against movie musicals – particularly ones with dance and family friendly fun. It’s just a shame, I think, that musicals like Singin’ in the Rain and On the Town wouldn’t make a buck today.

Recently, the last season of my favorite show, Person of Interest aired. One of the main characters in the show is a sentient AI. This got me thinking. Twenty years ago, the thoughts of a robot being able to think for itself or do anything remotely amazing was a thing of science fiction. Now, we are creating computers that can do trillions of calculations a second and truly understand the most complex ideas known to man. Although this is truly spectacular and a great innovation of technology, the real miracle is when a machine made out of 0’s and 1’s is able to be sentient. In recent years, these robots more focused on sentient life than doing advanced science have gotten much better. For example, robots from Asia have such a complex speech and response program, you would swear they have feelings. AI assistants, such as Apple’s Siri are not even close to that level of advancement, but still show how an AI could be useful to people. In the last two decades with the massive boom of the internet, AI systems are created purely online. Right now, you can go to specific sites or download programs and talk to an advanced computer that seems like it has an algorithm, but at other times it seems like it is alive. The thought probably makes you feel a shiver, which is reasonable. In the past, people imagined a future with robots to help, but very few of these sci-fi stories ever concentrated on the fact that humans would be creating life from steel and coding. It is amazing to think what the future will hold and perhaps ten years from now, instead of humans writing blogs, it will be sentient AIs writing blogs and sharing their opinions with the world.

A sequel blog to a remake blog? It sounds like a paradox. For those of you who don’t remember, my last blog discussed remakes and looked at them from a more positive point of view. I thought it would be fitting to talk about another one of Hollywood’s quick cash schemes – the sequels and prequels. You all know them, the continuation or back story to a film that has already been made. Now, I don’t particularly dislike sequels as much as remakes. There are some cases of necessary extension of a film’s story. Indiana Jones (not including Crystal Skull) still kept its charm with each new installment. Each Back to the Future film had enough comedy and adventure to make audiences come back to the theater. Finally, who can forget the Toy Story trilogy. This group of films got better and better as time went on.

I have to say that I am a sucker for prequels. I love the idea of taking a film’s story or character and pushing rewind to see how it all started. Red Dragon managed to give an equally thrilling experience from its predecessor Silence of the Lambs. Audiences saw how Hannibal Lecture was captured and the relationship between him and the man who caught him. One of my favorite prequels is X-Men: First Class. Not only is this film strong enough to be its own film but we’re also exposed to Professor X and Magneto’s original friendship, turned rivalry. That’s what makes a good sequel and prequel. Being able to regain the same essence that made people love the original or, better yet, add something new that makes people love the story even more.

All of these are examples of films with good sequels or prequels. Where are the bad eggs and what makes them rotten? Most prequels and sequels that get negative responses happen because they’re unnecessary. Do we really need four Alvin
and the Chipmunks films? One was enough. Back to the Hannibal Lecture trend, Hannibal Rising is a non-essential prequel that killed the mystery of one of cinema’s most terrifying characters. Audiences don’t ask for films such as this and yet, studios keep pushing them out. Films like these make moviegoers and film buffs continue to believe that Hollywood is running out of ideas.

While we can point the finger at studio executives, we need to understand that certain audiences contribute to the sequel and prequel madness. They say, “I loved Frozen and ‘Let it Go.’ I want more Elsa.”  “Wow, how did Anakin Skywalker turn to the dark side?” A lot of the time audiences want to see and ask for more. I’m not saying we are to blame but we are not completely innocent. When producers or studio board members get a pulse that they’re making a lot of money from a film, they want to see how long they can drag it out. Example, “We made a lot of money with Lord of the Rings, let’s see if we can take The Hobbit and make it into three films and make more money.” I understand that’s a cynical way of looking at it and I’m sure filmmakers are not purposefully trying to make poor sequels and prequels but when they seemed forced and redundant they come across that way.

Should we stop asking for more? Of course not. There are films that many people want to see continued. I’ve personally been waiting for another Incredibles film or maybe see the back story for The Matrix. Sequels and prequels aren’t all bad. They just need to be created naturally instead of forced.