MovieChat Forums > Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024) Discussion > I do not believe that sequels to film fr...

I do not believe that sequels to film from the 80's and 90's can re-capture the same magic.

posted 3 months ago by Olivergbyrne (695)
23 replies | jump to latest

Films from those decades just hit different. It was pre-social media. They had a home made feel to them, a purity that are missing in new all shinny digital films. I think I am going to feel the same way about this film as I did for the Hocus Pocus sequel. When I watched the Hocus Pocus sequel I was constantly reminded what made the original better, it looked cleaner, it looked shinier but it missed the heart of the original, felt very commercial and I am pretty sure I am going to feel the same way with Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (1733) 3 months ago

Agree. Best part about 80's horror was that we really didn't know what was beyond those woods. No hunting cameras, no Ring camera, no surveillance like today, maps paper & digital are unbelievably informative about the landscape in 2024. It was a more mysterious time.

reply

[–] Olivergbyrne (695) 3 months ago

Yes ! Films back then were not as predictable as they are now.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 3 months ago

I won't judge it until I see it. They may surprise.

Top Gun: Maverick completely disproves your overly general premise.

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (1733) 3 months ago

Top Gun is kind of an outlier though.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 3 months ago

Agreed. But there's no reason this could not also be an outlier. I'll wait and see.

reply

[–] Olivergbyrne (695) 3 months ago

I hope so. Would love to be proven wrong. In the case of Top Gun I think what made it easier was that the original had no sci-fi elements to it. It is not like Indiana Jones or Hocus Pocus where their newer sequels were riddled with CGI to the point where the scripts felt like they were there just to accommodate the new technology instead of the other way around. I do agree that Top Gun Maverick is an exception and I will even add Cobra Kai (Although it is a TV show) into the mix as well, however those are both Franchises that were fairly grounded in the real world, therefore less at risk to be taken over by fancy new technologies and what they can do.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 3 months ago

Yes. The practical effects and CGI (or lack thereof) will make or break this. People are tired of the artificial look and if you're going to build a movie around nostalgia, it had better damn well deliver.

I remember the pre-scene to Top Gun in the theaters where Tom Cruise said something to the effect that the jets were real and the Gs were real.

reply

[–] sonans (1543) 3 months ago

It was bullshit, two famous VFX youtubers(one was Corridor Crew, but I don't remember the other one for now) already pointed out that a lot of scenes in Top Gun were CGI, they just look real. Even without being a VFX expert like them, normal people still know a lot of scenes must be CGI: all the scenes with F-14, SU-57, and Darkstar must all be CGI because there was no way they could fly the real ones.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 3 months ago

I'm not an expert and I'm sure there was some CGI in Top Gun. But they didn't necessarily need to film the F-14 and SU-57 for the movie. They could have just used some existing footage from somewhere and cut it into the film.

For example the "falling leaf" maneuver of the SU-57 didn't have to be filmed for the movie. They could simply take it from somewhere else and put it in. The F-14 would have a large amount

I'm not saying it was or wasn't CGI but there's no reason to believe that it must be CGI.

reply

[–] blue1981 (7735) 3 months ago

I think this new Beetlejuice movie might surprise some people but like many others are saying we won't know until the reviews. It does look like it might have a majority of Practical effects so that looks really cool.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 3 months ago

That's what I'm hoping for. The costumes and effects of the original are part of the charm.

That green egg-carton foam "grass" from the town model always amused me.

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1369) 3 months ago

I mean, I don't buy the premise, but how in the world does that hilariously bad Top Gun sequel relate?

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 3 months ago

I do not believe that sequels to film from the 80's and 90's can re-capture the same magic.

I know plenty of people that enjoyed the Top Gun sequel. The $1.2 Billion gross agrees.

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1369) 3 months ago

Plenty of people liked the original film and it was a shiny mediocrity. The sequel is insane. All cliches building up to a mission that is truly science fantasy, with no relation to real world aviation or actual physics.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2641) 3 months ago

Also, Top Gun Maverick used very little CGI, giving it the same feel as the original.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 3 months ago

I am planning to see it the week after it comes out. It looks good from the previews I've seen.

reply

[–] HellFire (561) 3 months ago

Shinier and cleaner are the right words. There's a pic of Keaton and Burton stood next to the grave on the set of the original, and a pic of them stood next to the grave on the set of the new film, floating around the internet, and Beetlejuice just doesn't look right.

He looks more like an action figure in the new one. His hair looks too shiny and clean, and his skin not mouldy enough like it was in the original.

I'll still check it out but my expectations are low.

reply

[–] Tam87 (1173) 3 months ago

They don't have to recapture the magic, they just have to be better than the crap of today.

Top Gun Maverick was a pale imitation of the original, but compared to what's around in the current woke age, it was a fucking masterpiece.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (13920) 3 months ago

'They don't have to recapture the magic, they just have to be better than the crap of today.'

Good point!

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 months ago

This is just nostalgia speaking. There is no 'magic', that 'magic' is just warm fuzzy nostalgia and the retro-appeal of a bygone era.

Part of your argument is that newer movies are 'shinier' and look 'cleaner', that older ones looked 'home made'. You're basically saying new movies are worse for having better photography and production values.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38067) 3 months ago

I think this one is the exception.

reply

[–] BuckleBilly (1107) 3 months ago

I've heard good and bad things.

But the real question:

Does watching it matter or was it requiredfrom the original?

I think not.

reply

1
2