Some Films are Sacred: Why 'It's A Wonderful Life' Doesn't Need A Sequel

“Attaboy, Clarence”.  This is the last spoken line of one of the greatest films ever made.  Not one of the greatest holiday films, one of THE GREATEST FILMS EVER.  The film is ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’.  For those of you who may not know, ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ was released in 1946.  The film was directed by a master of cinema named Frank Capra and tells the tale of George Bailey, a man who does everything for others, the most selfless man in town and the richest.  When I say the richest, it’s not in the literal term.  George Bailey grew up in a small town with big world dreams but never accomplished them, (so he thought).  He lived in the same town his whole life and during the great depression saved that town and saved many people’s homes.  He and his wife gave away their money to keep his father’s small “Bailey Business & Loan” open, so a corrupt swindler wouldn’t rob families of their homes.

Enough with the synopsis of the film; all you need to know is George Bailey (played by James Stewart) never thought he’d accomplished anything but, in the end, an angel named Clarence shows him how different the world would be had George not been in it.

‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ truly is a wonderful and remarkable film.  So, when I heard that Hollywood is looking to make a sequel, I think of Mister Potter, the rich corrupt swindler trying to take people’s homes in the film.  Let me make one thing clear, I’m not saying Hollywood is corrupt and I’m not saying Hollywood Executives are swindlers.  What I am saying is, THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.  There is absolutely no reason to make a sequel to ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’.  There are some films that should not be touched.  ‘Gone With The Wind’, ‘Casablanca’, ‘Rebel Without A Cause’, ‘In The Heat of the Night’ and ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ all fall in that category.  These are films that are so close to perfect, so revolutionary (each in their own way), that they should be left alone.  Let them stand the test of time without having a sequel attached.  It all feels very wrong.  I have no doubt that the production company and everyone involved want to make a great film, but we already have one.  What is the reason for a sequel after 67 years?  Why is this a conversation?  Many generations have been and will be exposed to ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ and in the end, George Bailey is the richest man in town.  What else do we need to know?

With All Due Respect,

  

-  George McCann

How Blockbuster/Big Budget Films Have Killed Character Studies

There was a time when blockbusters were films like 'THE GODFATHER' and 'JAWS'.  There was a time when blockbusters were quality films.  Unfortunately, that time has past.  That time past long ago.  Now, the film industry is in a phase of great big films with massive budgets and minimal story.

I understand that people enjoy comic book films and action blockbusters.  My major question is why do these genres control the industry?  We rarely see films with great story and character and when we do, the films get a limited release.  'IRON MAN 3' was released on May 3rd and since then it has played in over 4,000 theaters this year.  The film has made over $400 mil and had an estimated budget of around $200 mil.  'MAN OF STEEL' opened on June 14th and also spent time in over 4000 theaters and the film has made a little bit under $300 mil.  'THOR: THE DARK WORLD' opened November 8th (today is November 14th) and has played nearly 4000 theaters and has already made over $100 mil.  The list goes on and it's not just comic book films.  'FAST AND FURIOUS 6', over 3000 theaters and has made over $200 mil.  'DESPICABLE ME 2', nearly 4000 theaters and made nearly $400 mil.  'WORLD WAR Z', over 3000 theaters and over $200 mil.  These films are ALL blockbusters; three are comic book films and 5 of the 6 are sequels or reboots.  The one exception being 'WORLD WAR Z' which is solely a blockbuster.  Although, on a side note, a sequel is in development.  Anyhow, all of these films have made huge numbers with their time in theaters and 'THOR: THE DARK WORLD' just came out.  

So, those are a few bigger films, action films, summer films.  Let's look at some different films like 'MUD'.  'MUD' was, in my eyes, one of the best films of the year.  It opened in less than 400 theaters and made around $21 mil.  Is that a bad number?  After all $21 million dollars is a lot a money, right?  Not when the budget of your film is around $12 million.  It's a nice bump but it's not huge numbers.   It's not the type of number that make (most, not all) studio executives say, let's make more films like this.  We need more character studies.  'MUD' is a brilliant film that deserved to be in more than 400 theaters and to make more than $21 million dollars.  Another marvelous film and one of my personal favorites, 'THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES', had a budget of right around the $15 mil mark and only made around $21 mil.  'FRUITVALE STATION', another powerful, emotional film...made around $16 mil.  The last film on the list is 'THE WAY WAY BACK' which had an estimated budget of around the $5 mil mark and made, right around, $21 Mil.  So, smaller films are making less money and getting less exposure.  Why? Maybe because great stories don't sell anymore.  If that's the case, it's on US, the consumer.  Moving along...

When 'THE GODFATHER' was released in 1972, the films budget was around $6 mil. $6 MILLION DOLLARS!  That is less than every film on this list, minus 'THE WAY WAY BACK'.  'JAWS' had an estimated budget at $8 million dollars.  The film made an estimate of a hair over $21 mil by April of 1972.  People saw 'THE GODFATHER.  People saw 'JAWS'. Everyone saw 'THE GODFATHER' and everyone saw 'JAWS'.  People still see them.  'THE GODFATHER' has been re-released in theaters and so has 'JAWS'.  Why?  The reason is because they are great stories with great characters and raw emotion.  They aren't blockbusters because of explosions and action.  These films are what created the term "blockbuster."  'JAWS' and 'THE GODFATHER' are blockbusters because there were lines around the block to get into the theater.  Not to see zombies or fast cars or explosions, but to see amazing, quality cinema.  That is what a blockbuster was; that is what a blockbuster should be.  

I ask whoever reads this, when did we decide that action was better than story?  That fast cars were better than great writing?  That zombies were better than real characters?  When did it become ok for studios to release huge action films without the character?  Why is it ok to push character studies to the side?  If someone can tell me when and how that became ok, I'd appreciate it.  Until then, I'm going to watch the films like 'MUD and 'THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES' because at this rate, they won't be around much longer.

- George McCann