Editorials
Good Or Bad? When a Movie Franchise Changes Direction
Change the Tone/Genre
This approach is not used very often, but it does happen. This is one of the more polarizing approaches to redirecting a franchise, since it is usually (though not always) turns a horror film into a comedy. As I have mentioned before, horror comedy is not the most accessible of sub-genres, even for horror fans. Examples of this include Bride of Chucky, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II and pretty much the every film in the Alien franchise.
Turning a horror franchise into a parody is a bold move, as it’s not something horror fans expect when walking into the theater. Marketing can be tricky too, since you don’t want to turn off people who loved the original films with the comedy but you also don’t want to bait-and-switch them either.
Would it surprise you to know that Bride of Chucky made $47.1 million at the domestic box office? While it doesn’t surpass the box office take of Child’s Play or Child’s Play 2 ($66.7 million and $51.8 million, respectively), it nearly doubled the $26 million brought in by Child’s Play 3 arguably the worst film in the franchise until Seed of Chucky was released in 2004 (which was a critical failure and took in an underwhelming $21.4 million). Audience reaction was somewhat mixed, with some viewers lamenting the comedic elements of the film. Of course, the Child’s Play franchise always had some humor in it (it’s about a killer doll, for crying out loud), but some believe that Bride of Chucky went too far. Also, it’s trailer didn’t look very funny, unless you count the ironic use of Billy Idol’s “White Wedding” as funny, which is understandable.
Of course its self-referential meta-humor was inspired by Scream (Bride of Chucky was released just two years later), but it was successful enough financially to reboot the franchise, leading to the much-maligned Seed of Chucky six years later.
A similar abrupt change of tone was present in Tobe Hoopers The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. There are still horror fans today who loathe Hooper’s sequel for making a mockery of his original film. Others, find that it works as a standalone film. Still, it’s box office take of $17.3 million compared to the originals $148.6 million is nothing to scoff at. People were not please that the villain that once terrified them was now a laughing stock.
What is bizarre about this film is that Hooper though the darkly comedic elements in the sequel were present in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but audiences didn’t notice them because of how shocking the film was. Needless to say, not many people agreed. Today, the film has garnered a cult following, but the franchise would not gain back the respect it initially had until the 2003 remake, which brought the terror back to the franchise and is arguably the best installment since the original (though it’s Rotten Tomatoes score wouldn’t have you believe that).
A film where the change in tone helped a franchise from a creative (but not financial) standpoint was the little-seen Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II. The original Prom Night is considered a classic, but it was unloved by critics at the time and even considered the weakest out of all of Jamie Lee Curtis’ early 80s horror films (which also included Terror Train and The Fog). While reception was lukewarm, a $42.4 million box office take is nothing to scoff at, so a sequel was made seven years later. Where as the first film was a by-the-numbers slasher film, the sequel was a supernatural horror comedy. Think of it as A Nightmare on Elm Street meets Carrie.
The film only took in $5.4 million domestically, so it was a huge flop, but it is surprisingly the better film when compared to the original. Originally titled “The Haunting at Hamilton High,” it an extremely meta film (a common trend with these horror comedies), featuring references to other horror films, and even names some characters after Wes Craven, John Carpenter and George A. Romero. It was a huge departure from the original film, and was a sequel in-name only. You have to admire how brave the filmmakers were to go in this direction. Besides, how can you hate a film that features a possessed teenager killing a fellow classmate by crushing her in a locker to the point where her brains come out of the vents (this year’s The Lazarus Effect would completely steal this idea, to lesser effect).
Finally, we have what may be the greatest success story of changing a film’s tone and genre. It’s not as drastic as the previous films mentioned, mostly because it doesn’t inject any comedy into the film, but Aliens is stylistically and tonally different from its predecessor in nearly every way.
Considered to be one of the few sequels that is better than the original (though some fans would fight you to the death in that argument), Aliens was a sci-fi war film with horror elements, rather than the haunted house film in space that Alien was. The box office numbers didn’t lie, either. While the first film grossed $258.5 million, Aliens would go on to gross $184.7 million. While it didn’t match its predecessor in terms of money, that amount is still nothing to scoff at.
Aliens does what all sequels should do: it takes what made Alien the perfect film that it is and expanded upon it. Instead of one alien, we get a lot. Ripley gets a backstory. The Weyland-Yutani corporation becomes its own character in Paul Reiser’s sleazy henchman Carter Burke. The violence and intensity is ramped up to 11. Rather than feature suspense all throughout the film, Aliens is a visceral assault on the senses (though there is suspense, to be sure).
Aliens would go on to win two Academy Awards (and was nominated for seven). When compared to the two nominations and one win for Alien, that’s quite impressive. Its success was so great that it’s surprising Alien 3 went in the direction it did, though the production issues with that film are probably more famous than the film itself.
Changing the tone of a genre is an extremely risky move for a franchise to do. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, am I right? However, if it is broke, maybe a fresh path is warranted. Or if you don’t want to risk a “more of the same” quality to a sequel, change it up a bit. Looking over the films listed above, it’s clear that if this new tone is handled delicately, it can work in the franchise’s favor, be it monetarily, creatively or both.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.