This post was originally published on here
Jazara Torrence
Live-action adaptations and sequels were once groundbreaking in the world of film, but lately they have fallen into overuse of CGI, a calculated money grab and a way to avoid spending time creating original stories. For the sake of the film world, I suggest we move away from everything being made into live-action films or franchises and instead encourage original stories in filmmaking again.
When I think about the way live-action has changed the film world, it is no secret that the very popular multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate, Disney, is using live-action adaptations not only to pile in more money for itself, but also to stay relevant.
A quick look into recently produced Disney films shows how quickly Disney has run through the classic animated films and turned them into live adaptations; for example, “The Little Mermaid,” “Snow White,” and “The Lion King.”
The speed at which Disney is creating these live adaptations creates overlap with future sequels and continuations of popular movies. If Disney ever creates a “Moana 3” while simultaneously releasing a live-action version of “Moana 2” (since the adaptation of the first one is already set to release this year), I predict it would cause chaos similar to when DC was developing two “Batman” franchises at the same time.
Eventually, Disney is bound to run out of animated films to revamp into live-action films if they keep dedicating their time and money to recreations instead of new original stories. So, what does that mean for them in the future? Return to their old reliables and make more sequels?
Even if that was their course of action, it wouldn’t last forever. Sequels are in the same boat as live-action adaptations when it comes to depending on an already established and successful story.
Margaret Chamberlain makes the apt observation that, “it’s increasingly difficult to find an original film in mainstream cinema, with so many sequels, prequels, and remakes.”
Chamberlain’s right: it’s unnecessary to keep pumping out sequels for the same franchise. Too many sequels diminish a story, and an example of this exhaustion can be observed when looking at the “Scream” franchise, whose “Scream 7” is currently in theaters. Many Letterboxd reviews express their disdain with how the series is being dragged on.
“As someone who has enjoyed every ‘Scream’ film, SCREAM 7 was the first one to truly let me down from beginning to absurd, hollow end.” —User Matt Neglia
“This is the kinda stuff the original Scream movies would make fun of.” —User Food_Tornado
“Ghostface will return… in Scream 8 (because this fucking franchise will never end).” —User Liam
Similar reactions can be observed with the fourth installment to the “Fear Street” franchise, “Fear Street: Prom Queen,” or when a “Weapons” sequel is discussed.
Creating more sequels for movies doesn’t last forever, and live-action adaptations can’t be made without original stories to recreate. With how flawed these obstacles for creativity in the filmmaking space are, it serves more of a purpose to show why the creation of unique stories is the foundation of filmmaking, and why we can’t lose that craft to renditions and remakes in the name of monetary gain.
In his article about Hollywood’s obsession with remakes, Justin Hood points out something I’ve noticed whenever I’ve seen a movie trailer on TV or YouTube: the lineup for 2025 is the same as in previous years. “Mission Impossible,” “Jurassic Park,” “Saw,” and “Avatar.” All of them are already established names in the film industry; nothing new.
If the people who oversee brainstorming, crafting, scripting, writing, and producing movies aren’t practicing creativity by making new stories, how can we expect unique original film ideas out of them?
A good example of a movie creator who excels at creating original works is Jordan Peele. Jordan Peele’s directorial debut, “Get Out,” was nominated for 39 Oscars and won three.
It was not a smashing success for no reason. His movie introduced a special mix of psychological horror, satirical social commentary, Peele’s personal experiences, and racial themes that the main character has to face.
All of these things that make “Get Out” a great movie are the result of a creative mind at work, formulating something that hasn’t already been created.
Peele’s innovative and creative storytelling made his name known, with articles naming him the ‘Master of Horror’ and solidifying him as a legendary film director.
Rarely do you ever see live-action films or sequels inducted into the Hall of Fame like Jordan Peele’s work. The senior graying stories that movie studios continuously shove through the wringer don’t catch the audience’s attention over time. I would much rather have the choice to watch something new rather than be surrounded by the same things.
Live adaptations and sequels aren’t all bad, though; some of my favorite pieces of media are live adaptations, one of them being “Sweet Home” or “The Long Walk.” Some of my favorite pieces of media are also movie franchises, one of the top ones being the “Knives Out” trilogy.
Live adaptations and sequels have been very successful at enhancing storytelling for audiences when used intentionally. When either is used willy-nilly, that is when they are being used at the expense of creative moviemaking. Originality and creativity drive film as a whole, so for the sake of film, we can’t let either die out, and we need to prioritize new, original creations in filmmaking spaces.
Headline image from Wikipedia.
