Worst-writer can remember his first confrontation with a movie sequel. It was Superman. Then came Star Wars. If you don’t know, dear worst-reader, I’m worst-writing here from the POV of movies from the 1970s. Soon after that, the 1980s, the movie sequel would become the norm. But then, probably around the turn of the century, something changed even with sequels. It is worst-writer’s worst-opinion, dear worst-reader, that change was, of course, only for the worst. And so (1). What happened to the movie sequel? Well, the easy answer is: money. The difficult answer is: creativity is dead. And so (2). The movie sequel was replaced with the movie franchise. Indeed. Which begs another worst-question: are you splitting hairs, worst-writer, or do you actually think there’s a difference between sequel and franchise?
I’ve always judged movies, first and foremost, on whether or not they are based on impulsive creativity or compulsive creativity. Most modern movies that are based on a screenplay alone suck–in my worst-book. Unless, of course, those movies are comedies or horror or whatever genre. Most genre movies suck anyway. But before I get too far off subject, let me abruptly close this worst-thought with this idear: The movie franchise, or the new never-ending sequel, sucks just as much. Reason? Again. Creativity, like god, is dead. So take that Robert Downey Jr. And. By-the-buy. Even though the first Iron Man was great. The Marvel universe sucks batballs. But at least Downey made a lot of money, eh?
Which brings me to James Bond and the article linked below. In worst-writer’s opinion, all James Bond movies sucked after they ran out of source material–which I think ended around Moonraker. With that in mind, 2006’s Casino Royal saved the franchise for worst-moi. Reason? I’ve read the book. The 2006 movie, Daniel Craig’s premiere, was a great version of the book. Of course, every subsequent Bond/Craig movie kinda sucked but I watched them all, on account, well, as far as big screen action movies goes, I’d prefer a weak written Bond movie to all other action movies. So take that praise with a grain of worst-salt. Which begs the question…
Am I interested in what a screenwriter says about the business transaction that is the purchase of MGM? Fcuk-no! I mean, Amazon hasn’t created a thing (except maybe one-click purchasing) since its inception. Can the same be said of the business that is MGM? On the other hand, has Amazon sold more books–created by others–than MGM has made original, non-compulsive (written) movies? Indeed (1). Creating anything was never the idear behind Amazon. And since movie sequels have given way to movie franchises…? Indeed (2). Everything and everyone is about making money and that’s it. Blessed be the greedy heart, eh, #Americant? With that in worst-mind, fcuk Bezos, Bond and all the rest where money murders creativity.