I'm not a movie-goer. On the rare occasions I do go, it's as much for theatre ambience as it is the plot I'm witnessing on-screen. I usually leave discussions about questionable scriptwriting to the "experts".
I subscribe to the release-on-DVD theory, and yesterday I did rent a movie that sparked my interest: the revival of the Pink Panther franchise with Steve Martin, with a dash of classic Panther cartoons on the side. I didn't have to watch far to find that the cartoons gave me more of a laugh than the latest movie remake did.
Martin got Inspector Clouseau's French accent down to a "T". But from that point, it was the only drawing card. The overall plot was watered down and did a disservice to the memories of the late Blake Edwards & Peter Sellers. For one thing, no effort was attempted to make the characters of Clouseau and Inspector Dreyfuss look like their previous counterparts. Okay, Clouseau had gray hair in this one... but he's now being made an inspector for the first time? And the actual Panther jewel is now just a pink ring? The die-hards know that the original jewel resembled a diamond that was always in a museum display case.
These die-hard fans (like me) cannot be ignored and will immediately point out discrepancies in continuity over the life of a film franchise. In getting the new generations into old franchises, producers have sacrificed logical continuity for flash. The older films focused more on Clouseau's clumsiness & the gradually lost nerves of Dreyfuss, who wants nothing more than to see Clouseau in a straitjacket. The scenes had a little more buildup and kept you riveted to the screen, waiting for that bellylaugh. And here they start out as friends? Didn't impress me much. "Prequel" won't be the word I'm using to describe it.
Therein lies a reason why reviving franchises these days don't seem to work: the new films claim to owe nothing to what came before them. The franchise doesn't start with the 2006 film; they started many years ago, and to discredit them is not showing the newly converted fan what the characters really meant. Timeless humor is not important to the producers these days. And oftentimes, this really buries their latest efforts which are seen as hollow.
Panther is a recent example, and I'm currently reading a preview for the new Superman movie due out this week. The reviewer basically said that the Christopher Reeve model should have been left alone to stand by itself as the franchise leader. We've never even heard about the new actor playing Superman. It's likely to be more about glitz & sex than before. Is this all writers can come up with? Reeve's Superman shared tender moments with Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Expect a romp in the sack with this one, which the franchise had never stressed before - it's not part of who the character is.
When The Dukes Of Hazzard came out last year, what did we see in the trailers? Jessica Simpson getting all turned on with the Enos character. The old TV series preached good underlying values in spite of the corrupt Hazzard happenings. Did we really need to see Daisy & Enos get it on just to give Simpson some positive reviews? No wonder fans said never to see the movie... and I've not been tempted.
Whatever happened to the idea of just re-issuing the older movies; you know, "digitally remastered"? There's nothing wrong with what came out before; provided the new generation even finds out about it. You can just smell a cover-up by the studios.
Martin was originally talking about a Panther sequel. For those who know better, feel free to relax: the "sequel" I know came in the early 1980s.
Save that popcorn for the next chair.
