Why is everyone freaking out about the Spring Breakers sequel?



Someone thought that it would be a good idea to do a Spring Breakers sequel? Really? Out of  the hundreds of thousands of scripts being sent around Hollywood that could have been put into development, somewhere out there, a real life human being (supposedly with a brain), decided what audiences are pining for is sequel to Harmony Korine's brain-fuck of a film.

Artist integrity? What the hell is that? We all know this is about money. Money, money, money. Spring Breakers didn't fair too well critically, but it has spawned a cult fan base and made over $30 million in box office takings. If you're not a brooding Ryan Gosling beating the shit out of people in a scorpion jacket, you won't come close to that sum as an independent release.

"What are they doing? They can't make a Spring Breakers sequel!" seems to be the anthem of supporters of the original film and those who are picketing against the mere idea of Spring Breakers: The Second Coming. Can't we focus on how great a name it is for a porn parody rather than crying out in such horror that this film is happening?

James Franco, who played the Riff-Raff inspired drug dealer Alien, had his say. You know Franco isn't playing around when he uses capitals in the right places on Instagram.



I can get on board with Franco's reasoning. It is a horrible thought and is made far worse by the fact the same production company behind the original are going ahead with the project. Spring Breakers is more than keg soaked titties and chicks snorting lines of coke off each other and it shows in the irony of a sequel being made. Did any of the producers even watch the film?

The internet collectively losing their minds is a continuous draining cycle when it comes to news like this. Why are we stressing over something that happens all the time in the film industry? 

Mainstream and independent cinema are both guilty of lacking in originality. Because of the monetary backing that blockbusters have, we are subjected more to whatever Tom Cruise vehicle needs promoting than an English-language adaptation of a European film. Independent films don't have money, but they can sure churn out low-budget and shoddy b-movies that no one will ever see unless they're looking on Amazon Prime Instant Video. 

Spring Breakers isn't an anomaly to get the sequel treatment from a smallish independent offering either. Remember American Psycho II: All American Girl? Though I'm sure it provided some fairly decent wanking material for Mila Kunis fans, it was a follow-up to a successful box office adaptation of a cult film - again, the original ironically by the same production company responsible for Spring Breakers - that didn't favour well in anyone's eyes (apart from the jizzing part). The name was a dead giveaway that it wasn't going to be on par with American Psycho, but why does it matter? Dudes jacked off to Mila; some laughs were had. Apart from the fact that the film industry is eating our souls away on all levels what's wrong with a terrible sequel?



There isn't a problem in knowing that Spring Breakers: The Second Coming exists. The film is being shopped around in Cannes (but seriously, what does that mean these days?) so we know that it is a real thing. We have a decision here - either watch, or don't. All of us may get lucky and find it as a straight-to-DVD bargain release.

Even if it does score a good distribution company and makes its way to our cinema screens, so what? Sure, it will be publicised in some places, and people will be talking about it. You just have to make the active choice to not go and support it and it'll burn in the fiery ashes of shitty movie hell. Then we can all move on. 

The one thing that this issue will always fall back on is the state of the original. Will its good name - if it has one - be tarnished forever after a botch job on a follow-up movie? Only a few beloved franchises survive the cut-throat world of sequel criticism, so what will the fate of Spring Breakers be? 

Regardless of the quality of Spring Breakers: The Second Coming, the original will remain unscathed and intact. It'll be just as important for modern cinema as it was on its release date, and above all, will remain a defining film for this generation, sequel or no-sequel.

6 comments

  1. Although I didn't really see the film more than trash calling itself art, I agree with you. People love bitching about things that are just too "sacred" to be touched by filthy money-grubbing hands.
    Let it happen and forget it ever did. Mean Girls 2, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely forgot about Mean Girls 2 (which I guess is a good thing). That was in a league of its own and honestly didn't even know people knew it existed, let alone watched it.

      Delete
  2. Well apparently it connected with a certain audience, so I'm not surprised they are thinking sequel(s). Those who complain are not forced to watch part 2, right? As you said, making money from sequels is nothing new, happens all the time.
    I didn't like how Spring Breakers could influence impressionable young people into thinking that violent behaviour is cool and ok in real life. But I did appreciate the performances and how colorful the movie is. The Everytime scene is perfect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed - it is nothing new and adaptations, remakes, , etc. have been happening for far longer than some probably assume.

      There are plenty of young people who would be able to bridge between the fantasy and reality of the film (myself included) that we don't give them enough credit for a lot of the time. But I think what is great about Spring Breakers is that it was a rather honest portrayal in some ways and the violent aspects really turned out not to be cool in the end.

      Yes the piano moment is gold, loved it!

      Delete
    2. I'm with you that its an honest portrayal, they are just young kids having fun, who arguably get involved with the wrong kind of people, and the adventure is a learning experience.
      I think Spring Breakers both glorifies and condemns guns, which is confusing to some. I didn't become any wiser by reading an interview where the director Harmony Korine is asked questions about the gun violence, he is quite evasive:
      http://www.salon.com/2013/03/18/spring_breakers_director_harmony_korine/

      Delete
    3. Hadn't read that interview before, really enjoyed it. Also love the way that he has described Spring Breakers before as a pop poem or a fever dream (which it really is). The hyper reality vibes to it as well, so true.

      I do see what you mean in the question about guns and how he answered it, but I think a lot of directors, filmmakers - especially 'pop stars'/musicians - end up feeling a sense of responsibility for something that they have made because they have a certain audience. (Which Korine really didn't have before this film, and surprisingly, there were plenty of young people who said they hated the film.) I guess it's something Tarantino has battled for his whole career, and even though he is kind of a douchebag a lot of the time, he does have a point - people end up being influenced by a lot of outside sources other than what we see. It's a crazy world, man.

      Thanks for sharing the interview, though, and you definitely raise some good points for me to think about when it comes to the film!

      Delete

 

About



So what's this place Can You Dig It? all about? Who is the enigma that goes under the name of Cherokee? Clickity click on that ugly mug in the GIF, she has the answers to all your burning questions.

Follow on Google+

Reviews of Cherokee's writing


User comment from Jezebel article written in 2011: "I'm a teenager and I could write better than that two or three years ago."

Queen Rehema: "I love you (Cherokee). Bear my children."

I write for...


People who sometimes care what I have to say

Follow by Email If That's Your Thing