... Good news....?

[litharriel]

The Jim Henson Company is planning to make a sequel to its 1982 fantasy classic The Dark Crystal, reports Variety.

Titled The Power of the Dark Crystal, the new movie is written by David Odell (The Dark Crystal, The Muppet Show) and Annette Duffy. No director is yet attached to the film which starts shooting this fall for a 2007 release. It will combine live-action animatronic characters with CG animation.

The story is set many years after the original, which was helmed by Frank Oz and Jim Henson. Original heroes Jen and Kira are now king and queen, and must fight to save their kingdom when the crystal is once again split.

Comments

Nrrrggg......

[aureantes.livejournal.com]

I love that movie--but as it is, complete, its cosmology and symbolism uncluttered by overspecifics. The way I like the first Matrix, and haven't bothered with anything of the series since. It was one of the most beautiful and inspiring things in my childhood media experience (pre-CGI, to date me), and I highly doubt that whoever's helming the sequel has the vision to recreate, much less surpass, the impact of that one movie. Not to mention that its genius lay precisely in its ingenuity--in *physically creating* a world without humans or any recognizable animal parallels. The creature workmanship and puppetry is amazing....

This is one instance where I just hear a franchise talking. If the "power of the Dark Crystal" (which isn't dark anymore by the end of the original movie, so that title's a bit off) is desired to have a maximum impact, I'd actually be more in favour of a prequel than a sequel. Show how the Urskeks made their fatal error--and rerelease the original movie to complete it. We don't really *need* to go on past Jen and Kira as they were in the last scene--especially because, for a lot of us, they represented us. Admittedly they were meant to be at least adolescent, if not fully adult (Kira's speaking voice kinda undermines that a bit), but they were by far the most natural thing for any child in the movie theater to identify with. Besides...symbolically, I don't *want* the union of the ending to be disturbed and superseded. It's a fairy tale, a myth--the structure of it is complete and doesn't need adding on more. Despite the Disney code of tacking on as much as possible under a single brand name.

As I've probably said somewhere, and likely more than once, the two greatest achievements in the world of fantasy films are The Dark Crystal and The Lord of the Rings--each being the peak of artistry and technology and creative vision for their times. I won't deny Star Wars its mythological credit, either, but its long evolution and serial-prequeling and remastering kinda dilute the original impact. The original trilogy--unremastered, untinkered-with, un-elaborated--was complete for its own self, and stands--or stood for years--as a masterpiece. To go back and have the "beginning" be dramatically triter and visually more sophisticated than the start....well, it fucks with the myth. You have to be careful when you make myths and they actually work.

I *could* maybe see a prequel, rerelease, and *then* a sequel--maybe--but it would have to be structurally intact to the whole symbolic world, not just a "this is what happens next in their story". If you can't recapture the original feeling or make it even more powerful, then don't mess with it for the sake of extending a franchise.

P.S.--um, the last time the crystal split, it couldn't be healed for a thousand years.....are they actually remembering this?

Re: Nrrrggg......

[aureantes.livejournal.com]

That's the one area I really tend to get touchy on--whether a good movie or a good concept is going to be ruined for the sake of making a buck. Something that readily-available CGI technology has made much more likely, as it distances the emphasis of concern away from the live action and the acting (and plot, and character development, and logical considerations). I still maintain that no CGI actor-to-big-hairy-creature morphing has superseded the classic (and meticulous) transformation sequence in An American Werewolf in London...the werewolves in Cursed were very well-done *because* it was also Rick Baker in charge, but the main CGI transformation there was faulty both visually and logistically. If they keep their animatin' hands off the main characters themselves, a sequal *might* work out well...but I still don't like the idea of tacking on more to something that was pretty damn well perfect in itself.

Including the soundtrack....lol That music always gets me.

Re: Nrrrggg......

[litharriel.livejournal.com]

I've seen all three Matrix films, and I think you're right not to bother with the other two. They're okay, great visually, but the storylines are mediocre at best--particularly in comparison with the first.
I do agree with you on An American Werewolf. Hands down my favorite lycanthropy film.

The things that give me hope, here, is that both Brian Froud and the original script-writer are in on it... Plus it says in World of Froud that the puppets will again be used, so there's good news. I'm going to approach it with much the same spirit of open-minded skepticism that I did Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Good people working on it, good source material, but a lot can go wrong.

What did you think of Charlie, btw? (The oompa-loompas and Danny Elfman stole the show, in my opinion. I found Depp's Willie endearing, his darkness more subtle, but not as instantly likable as Wilder's interpretation of the role... )

Re: Nrrrggg......

[aureantes.livejournal.com]

I still haven't seen Charlie.....I liked the first one fine if they'd just taken out the whole bloody score, 'cause I thought Wilder struck a great note as the enigmatic creative type, at least for most of the movie (the sappy bit at the end sucked). Danny Elfman has definitely been stealing the show since Batman, Edward Scissorhands, and originating the theme for The Simpsons, and I think he's great--Tim Burton too, only I tend to prefer a dark naturalism/surrealism to candy-coloured, ultrabright surrealism--hurts my preturnaturally sensitive eyes, ya know.....

If Froud's on, the puppets are on, and the original scriptwriter is too, then it has a definite chance (they better get Trevor Jones for the score, too). I'd still rather see a prequel first (my sister agrees)--and really, I doubt that it will have anywhere near the profundity of the original, which was so great a part of my basic "enlightenment". The thing that I worry about majorly with the post-Henson era ('cause I've seen it before) is the crappifying-down of things to "family-friendly" level of intelligence and intent--I mean, The Dark Crystal is *not* a cute fluffy G-ratable movie, imho--nor would I treasure it so much if it were. On the note of fairytales again, they're best when they come with a certain amount of mental challenge and disturbance....>:)....

Re: Nrrrggg......

[litharriel.livejournal.com]

Yes, darkness is much more cozy. I think the thing that hurts this new one of Burton's is its PG rating, and all the things that come with it. There were a couple of pleasantly disturbing bits, but I think they could've gone a good bit darker (both thematically and visually), and had a better movie for it.
A Prequel for TDC would make a lot of sense, and I agree that this new one will be ruined if they try to "sanitize" it for our protection. Too many good ideas are ruined that way.