News Ticker

The Dark Crystal Sequel…Good Idea or Bad Idea?

A sequel to the fantasy-with-muppets movie, The Dark Crystal, has been rumored to be in the works for a good while now. Today we have official word that a sequel is officially on and will mix live-action with muppets and the new, gee-whiz! 3D technology the kids seem to like so much these days. Called The Power of the Dark Crystal, it will take place several hundred years after the first movie and..

…follows the adventures of a mysterious girl made of fire who, together with a Gelfling outcast, steals a shard of the legendary Crystal in an attempt to reignite the dying sun that exists at the center of the planet.

So first of all, a sun exists at the center of the planet? Really? How does that work exactly? Magic? Don’t get me started on magic. Still, I liked the first movie well enough to purchase the DVD, but I haven’t watched the whole thing in a long, long time. I do remember Fizzgig though. Who doesn’t like a cantankerous fuzzball with nasty teeth? But I’m not sure I’m invested enough in it to rush out and see a sequel.

And 3D? What exactly is that bringing to the table? Aside from the gobs of money to be made by theaters charging $5 more just to see it in headache inducing stereoscopic vision. I’m not sure I get why 3D is such a great thing. Note: I have not seen Avatar, you’re challenge: Convince me I should. Where was I? Yes, 3D. I don’t see that technology being anything other than just a fad that will die over time. It didn’t work in the ’50s and it’s not going to work know because there is no reason for it.

So I’m left wondering if this production, even with the help of The Jim Henson Company, is a good idea or a bad one. Aside from a small group of people, is there going to be an audience here? Will they be able to entice new fans? I don’t know. I do know they will have tough sell to make for me.

Good idea or bad, you decide.

Side note: I do know a bad idea is to remake Real Genius. No one messes with the Kilmer. No one! Except for George Lucas and that was just one movie, thank God.

About JP Frantz (2323 Articles)
Has nothing interesting to say so in the interest of time, will get on with not saying it.

11 Comments on The Dark Crystal Sequel…Good Idea or Bad Idea?

  1. JP, you need a grammar class. Your (note correct form of that phonetic) articles are often rife with grammatical errors. You are (alternatively, “you’re” which you misused in this article) dragging sfsignal down with your frequent errors. Please stop.

  2. Whoa Drake – back off man, its JPs rant and he can be as incoherent as he wants to be!  This isn’t a professional news organization run by journalists, its a blog worked on by a group of friends – all unpaid.

    If you don’t like JPs posts you are welcome to skip them.

  3. I was more excited when Genndy Tartakovsky was going to direct, but Brian Froud is still involved so I’m hopeful.

  4. Matt A // May 6, 2010 at 7:59 am //

    I agree completely about the 3D.  It just smacks of a gimmick, and I refuse to pay an extra 5 bucks to see a movie that wasn’t even shot in 3D but converted after the fact (yes, Clash of the Titans, I’m talking about you).  

    But, I do enjoy Dark Crystal, so this could potentially be cool.

  5. slothflyer // May 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm //

    I hate 3-d.

     

    it gives me a headache. 

     

    the 3-d glasses wont fit over my glasses, so everything is very uncomfortable or very fuzzy

     

    the glasses are tines so things are darker

     

    it is usually so unremarkable, that it feels like a big waste.

  6. Old fart // May 6, 2010 at 8:33 pm //

    I am with you on the 3D bit. There isn’t a single movie I’ve seen that was shown in 3D — even a great story like Hondo, that was shot in 3D — that needed the 3D. With one exception: Avatar.

    Avatar is an unexceptional story about unexceptional characters in unexceptional situations, using unexceptional science fiction tropes, with a modicum of excitement if you suspend disbelief and allow yourself to be sucked into the story.

    But the 3D. Avatar was designed and built around 3D. I have <em>never</em> seen 3D used like that. It’s not the usual thing you see in movies like Hondo, or Jaws 3-D — horses galloping out of the screen at you, knives and spears flying right at you and so on.

    Instead, 3D is used to give Avatar an unparalleled depth of field. That beautiful scenery and cinematography doesn’t hit you in the face, like it does in more unimaginative 3D efforts. Instead, it reaches out of the screen and puts a comforting arm around your shoulder, engaging you in beautiful (if a bit empty-headed) conversation and making you at home on Pandora. I was ready to leave by the end of the film, but man, it was a wonderful trip.

    The rave reviews you’ve seen about the 3D? Believe ’em. The story is typically shallow Cameron, with some excitement and cardboard character interactions that he did better in Aliens. But the cinematographic use of 3D? I don’t know the right superlatives.

    Oh, there is one character in Avatar that stands out. We call him Col. Bad-Ass around our house. This guy runs through poisonous atmospheres without a gas mask, he’s so tough. He’s so tough, he can beat you down into a bloody pulp without even touching you. He’s so tough, his <em>power armor</em> has a big honking Rambo knife. He’s so tough, he can take an arrow the size of a 2×4 through his lung and still nearly kill you with his bare hands. He oozes testosterone. My son and I were rooting for him the whole movie. He’s just as cardboard as the rest of the cast, but this is Men’s Cardboard we’re talking.

    It’s fun, OK? And don’t forget, it’s beautiful.

  7. The original Dark Crystal is a classic. Leave it alone!

    There’s no need for a sequel really – I’d rather see that creative team tackle something new.

  8. I agree that the original Dark Crystal was a classic (and a trailblazer in animation at the time it appeared).  It also boasts an immortal exchange:

    Jen: But I don’t have wings.

    Kira: Of course not – you’re a boy.

    3D is not worth the headache it induces.  As for Avatar, the PR far exceeded the film itself in quality: Jar Jar Binks Meets Pocahontas

  9. Setting the sequel 100 years later and returning only to the world, and not to the original story, is a good idea. I’m in. Dark Crystal holds up well given that all the effects were practical and so didn’t date like the digital effects of the time would. I’ve watched it several times in the past few years.

    As to Avatar, without discussing its merits or lack thereof etc., you should see it simply because of your position as a commentator in the SF&F field.

  10. I’m with Lou – Avatar is one of the most popular science fiction movies of all time.  How can you skip it? The visual effects are extremely impressive and the overall production value is quite high.  It’s not a crappy film or a waste of your time.  And don’t forget, we’ve seen Space Raiders :).

    I appreciate that some people don’t like 3D, but I do, and I think it adds something to the immersion and aids the suspension of my disbelief.  I see things in 3D all the time, why exactly don’t I want my films to be in 3D?  I can appreciate that most directors don’t understand how to use it right (all that “comin’ atcha” crap) but some do, and I think Cameron is one of them.  I’m curious to see how Pixar and Dreamworks handle it.

    I believe the technology will get better (and ultimately be glass-free in your home) but its here to stay.

    The list of 3D films coming out this summer is extensive.  Just look at this list: Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3, The Last Airbender, Despicable MeCats & Dogs: the Revenge of Kitty Galore

  11. Aside from the money? What?

     

    The entire purpose of movies is economic. People invest in making them in order to make money. If 3D bring Teh Money, what more do you really need to know? Bidness is bidness.

     

     

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: