• More
Back to PopWatch Main
Complete Archive

A 'Repo Man' sequel and other trunks that should not be opened

Jul 7, 2008, 05:55 PM | by Gary Susman

Categories: Film, Things That Make Me Die Inside

Repomanbladerunner_l My heart sank when I read here that Alex Cox is planning a sequel to Repo Man (his second, if you count the recent comic book follow-up), a movie to be called Repo Chick, which will not include the characters played by Emilio Estevez (left) and Harry Dean Stanton but will include a more blunt and polemical critique of global capitalism than that of Cox's original 1984 film. This sounds like a terrible idea for a number of reasons: no one wants politics fed to them like spinach (the socio-political critique of the first movie was apparent but subtle); Stanton's absence would leave a gaping void where the movie's soul should be; and the first film was pretty damn near perfect as a grimy slice of life, a spiritual fable, and a self-contained story.

Thinking about this makes me wonder why directors feel compelled to keep tampering and tinkering with their signature movies. Think Ridley Scott and his multiple directors' cuts of Blade Runner (right), or Francis Ford Coppola's decades spent fidgeting with the Godfather saga, or George Lucas' endless and heavy-handed tinkering with his own Star Wars canon. I know, the writer's maxim says that no work of art is ever finished, only abandoned, but shouldn't there come a point where the filmmaker decides to leave well enough alone and let a work of art that millions of people have already experienced stand or fall on its own merits and simply exist as a brilliant but imperfect vision? Isn't there a point where you risk tarnishing your legacy more by messing with it than by leaving it alone? If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Stephanie T. Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 08:06 AM EST

This was why "Rush Hour" should have stayed one film.

Hamburger Royal Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 07:30 AM EST

Generally, the idea is that of the author/director/studio and they can do whatever they see fit with it. The real issue with most prequels/sequels is that they rely on the prestige of the first installment and would never work independently. That is why Aliens is often seen as the best sequel ever. It works outside the context of the original. You don't need Alien at all. For me, this is the acid test for franchise movies. If it has legs on its own, by all means do it. If it depends on preceding films to establish a premise (or worse, changes the premise of the original film - Riddick, I am talking to you), fuh-geddaboudit.

Ackerman Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 04:56 AM EST

I don't think a director's cut or alternate endings or anything like that is in the same league as spinning off a cash-grabbing sequel. If someone (artist or no artist)wants to offer up something different, I don't see the issue. I understand that the movie as a finished piece is what it is, but a director's cut allows us plebians a look into the creative process, judge the choices that were made, understand how the slightest changes can affect the tone and pacing. Also, where do we draw the line with this psuedo-irritation with "tinkering"? If Metropolis was cut for international release and the subsequent years yield more footage, are we pissed? If Scott removes a voice-over, and it makes a different movie, so what? Are you mad at Peter Jackson if treebeard recites poetry? The respective merits of these edits are individual arguments, but the notion that an assembled piece (determined by a host of other factors) can be restructured or accentuated is a silly thing to vent on.

Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 09:37 PM EST

Gary, preach on, brutha; amen! Sequels are USUALLY unnecessary attempts to cash in rather than thoughtful extensions of the original story with new/improved information and story arcs. There are exceptions (Aliens, anyone?), but really, making a SEQUEL twenty years on, instead of creating something new and as original as the first movie (and I love Repo Man) pretty much just looks like the high school quarterback who can't let go of his glory years. I am OVER Hollywood's lame raiding of prior films/TV shows to make mediocre films. The new Batman movies are the only retooling of an old franchise that has worked, IMO, and that's because they RETOOLED it. Completely. But, would I see a Repo Man sequel? Probably, because the life of a Repo Man is always intense!

Nix Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 09:28 PM EST

Nope, we don't ever want to stop tinkering with what we do. A work of art is never finished, it's just snatched by the producers/publishers/patrons and put before critics like you.

anne Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 06:52 PM EST

Sorry to disappoint you Dixie, but that Lost Boys sequel is about to come out on DVD.

Dixie Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 06:25 PM EST

I have to say I'm hoping the purported "Lost Boys" sequel disappears into the same vacuum as "Chinese Democracy" did...unless said sequel turns out to have been filmed in 1989 with all the original stars. But I'm not hopeful.

dan jones Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 05:45 PM EST

I seriously don't get people who make arguments like this. Seriously, why on Earth would you want LESS. Does the existence of an alternate cut somehow ruin the original? And if you said yes to that question... how anal-retentive are you?

Yes, Lucas's tinkering with Star Wars was pointless and dumb... but it didn't make the original versions vanish from existence. If Scott is willing to go back and improve Blade Runner, why not be in favor of it, you know maybe it'll come out... better. But if i doesn't why moan and wail about it? Just watch the old one.

Chaddogg Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 05:40 PM EST

In related news, we're all still waiting for Guns 'n Roses' "Chinese Democracy" to drop in stores....

Kerri Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 05:32 PM EST

Now let's go do some crime!

Kerri Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 05:31 PM EST

Now let's go do some crime!

Kerri Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 05:30 PM EST

I've got to get my car out of this bad neighborhood! But otherwise leave well enough alone... why ruin a classic?! Cox should be thinking of a plate of shrimp instead.

advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Copyright ©2008 Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. All rights reserved.