The year 2015 is just around the corner. There are only six months left until we usher
that year in. It is going to be a big
year for movies because of all of the sequels being released. People have reversed their outlook on
franchises in the past few years, mostly due to the scheduled releases for that
year. Instead of complaining about the
overwhelming number of sequels being released in 2015, the general masses are
embracing the franchises. A lot of it
has to do with childhood nostalgia.
People are excited for a new Star Wars movie because they have grown up
with the franchise. People are excited
for the second Avengers film because of their love of the first and the comics
of their childhood. My personal way to
get this sort of nostalgic feeling is to go back to the franchises of my past
and rewatch them. Not that I don’t keep
up with the newer franchises as well. I
like movies. But this nostalgic feeling
is part of the reason I recently sat down and watched the four Anaconda films.
The Anaconda series is quite interesting in how it plays
out. A typical film series plays out in
one of two ways. Each installment can be
connected, building a mythology through characters and/or story. This is usually the case as most producers
want to capitalize on established elements.
Having a feeling of recognition is the best way to get audiences to
return for future installments. The
other common way to franchise a movie is through an anthological method. This is done by having all of the
installments connected by a theme rather than characters or connected
stories. The situation of the characters
is similar, but it is not a continuation of what came before in the
franchise. Anaconda is interesting
because it manages to combine the two methods of franchising films.
In the 1997 series starter, we are introduced to a group of
documentarians hoping to film on the Amazon River. They encounter a snake hunter who leads them
on a life-threatening quest to find and capture a record-setting large
snake. Of course people die. It turns into an animal attack movie pretty
quickly. But it is a stand-alone animal
attack movie that, while starting a franchise, does not share any mythology
with any of the movies that follow.
Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid followed in 2004
and was the birth of any sort of mythology or continuity in the franchise. It followed a group of scientists and
students as they trekked into the jungle of Borneo searching for a flower that
could extend lifespans. During their
voyage, they run into anacondas, which are not the same anacondas as in the
first film. The snakes then attack the
people, obviously. There are no
connected characters to the first film, so the only connection whatsoever is
that there are anacondas in it. The thing
that Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid brought to the franchise was the
titular flower, which played a part in each of the two movies that followed.
In the third film, Anaconda III: Offspring, we discover that
some scientists have been experimenting on anacondas with a serum made from
blood orchids. When one of the snakes
escapes from the laboratory, some of the people working for the lab must go out
to hunt it down. The twist is that these
snakes not only have this life-extending serum in them, but they also have
blade-like tails. There are no
characters from the previous films that appear in the third film in the
franchise, but the blood orchid is an element introduced in the second film
that continues to have a presence in the series. This connection marks the first bit of
continuity in the series.
The fourth film in the series, Anacondas: Trail of Blood
almost directly continues the storyline from the previous installment. The main human hero and human villain
return. The blood orchids are still
around. There are still anacondas being
worked on by scientists under the guidance of the same company that owned the
laboratories in the third film. It’s the
first direct sequel in the series and helps to build upon what the previous
film established. The snakes are back to
terrorize people once again, but it’s really the return of established
characters that helps to make this a different kind of sequel for the series.
The Anaconda series/franchise or whatever you want to
consider it has an interesting way of moving forward. Beginning with movies that do not have ties
to one another outside of the name and the fact that there are snakes involved,
it transforms into a series that builds upon mythology and characters. It is neither an anthology series nor a
series of direct sequels. It instead
becomes a combination of both.
Few other franchises have attempted this kind of
storytelling as they moved forward. They
tend to stay to one side or the other while they grow. But franchises such as Anaconda, or the
Return of the Living Dead series try a little bit of both. They have stories that stand alone with no
connections to the rest of the franchise, and they also have movies that build
a mythology and keep a storyline going.
It’s a change in the direction of a franchise that does not always work
out for the best. It satisfies everyone
while satisfying nobody. If a viewer
wants an anthology series, they get a little bit of that, but also some stuff
that’s not that. If someone wants to see
a story build, the stand-alone movies do not provide that, but the other movies
do. It’s a strange combination.
When I watched the Anaconda movies, I appreciated what they
attempted the whole way through. From
the initial anthology style of the series to the later direct sequels, it never
lost sight of what the movies were. They
were about people dealing with snakes that tried to kill them. And even if the method by which the sequels
are conceived changed, that core concept of the franchise was always
there. That’s all that really
matters. As interesting as it is to
think about the different ways to create sequels, the heart of the movies is
always in the idea. Anaconda kept that
simple idea, and was better for it. They
are not great movies. They are still
enjoyable fun for what they are. And
that’s a good thing.
There are a bunch of notes that I’ve got for this post, so
this might take some time:
- Anaconda was nominated for six Razzies. Jon Voight was nominated for Worst Actor, as well as Worst Screen Couple when paired with the snake. The movie was also nominated for Worst New Star, Worst Screenplay, Worst Director, and Worst Picture.
- Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid was nominated for the Razzie for Worst Remake or Sequel.
- Danny Trejo is the first actor to be in four Sunday “Bad” Movies, as he appeared in Anaconda. He previously showed up in Death Race 2, Death Race: Inferno, and Rise of theZombies.
- Jon Voight was the human villain of the first Anaconda film. That marks his third Sunday “Bad” Movies appearance after Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 and Bratz: The Movie.
- Another third-timer is David Hasselhoff who appeared in Anaconda III: Offspring. He was previously in the Sunday “Bad” Movies Starcrash and The Christmas Consultant.
- Ice Cube was in Anaconda. He also showed up in a Sunday “Bad” Movie I covered called Torque.
- There was a woman named Toma Danila who was in Anaconda III: Offspring. She previously appeared in the Sunday “Bad” Movie titled The Devil Inside.
- There were six people who appeared in both Anaconda III: Offspring and Anacondas: Trail of Blood. They were Crystal Allen, John Rhys-Davies, Zoltan Butuc, Cristina Teodorescu, Anca-Ioana Androne, and Vasile Albinet.
- If you have any suggestions for movies to watch for the Sunday “Bad” Movies, I’m always open to the suggestions. Leave them in the comments or send them my way on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment