RSS
Home
Looking at tone in the big action tentpoles of the summer so far: Pt 1
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
I'm going to examine how tone affects whether a sequel, prequel, remake is appealing. Starting with the first big film of the summer: Wolverine
I remember back when director Brett Ratner abruptly took over the reigns from Bryan Singer for the third installment of the X-Men trilogy. While the film didn't really commit any major sins (except loading the characters too much), Ratner still took a lot of flack from comic book fans and critics alike for squandering the franchise. I suspect this had to do with his overly commercial reputation.
If only those purists knew just how badly the next director would completely mangle the tone and style of the original, there might have been a movement to canonize Ratner.
The original X-Men films were sleek, futuristic, and filled with a wondorous retro sci-fi vibe. The new X-Men feels more like the type of film that last year's Tropic Thunder was mocking. Watching Wolverine is like walking into a bar hoping to converse with a group of friends and being heavily distracted by a loud DJ and strobe lights.The score's back-and-forth between swelling orchestras and heavy bass thumping feels bipolar. The special effects and cinematography during the action scenes are so pervasive and blatantly visible that they distract from everything else.
Because it feels nothing like the original, we're left wondering what's the point? If there is any merit in sequels or prequels, it's being able to revisit old characters and settings we're fond of and exploring them further. If it doesn't feel like the same setting or characters and the story is inferior, why bother?
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
