The Concern With Twisters

The latest craze in the reboot cycle comes Twisters, a sequel to the highly popular blockbuster that came out in 1996. The sequel features a brand new cast that’s notable for Superman (David Corenswet), Glen Powell, Daisy Edgar-Jones, and Anthony Ramos. The synopsis for the upcoming action-thriller is:
Haunted by a devastating encounter with a tornado, Kate Cooper gets lured back to the open plains by her friend, Javi, to test a groundbreaking new tracking system. She soon crosses paths with Tyler Owens, a charming but reckless social-media superstar who thrives on posting his storm-chasing adventures. As storm season intensifies, Kate, Tyler and their competing teams find themselves in a fight for their lives as multiple systems converge over central Oklahoma.
Twister made an astounding $495.7 million worldwide; to be quite honest, it’s shocking that Hollywood hasn’t tried to milk this franchise even sooner. Disaster films in general can be hit and miss at the box office. They’re the very definition of a popcorn feature, with the prime purpose of mindlessly entertaining the masses. However, the landscape has changed a bit since 1996. There aren’t many disaster films that come out these days, and the last big one flopped hard at the box office. Given the culture of modern filmmaking, there’s a real concern that Twisters could be 20 years too late.

The Premise Sounds Doesn’t Sound Much Different From The Original

The Concern With Twisters

#image_title

No one is expecting Twisters to be some groundbreaking Oscar-caliber film. As I previously stated, it’s a mindless popcorn film, so Twisters can get away with certain logic or plot holes. However, Twisters sound like a lazy version of the original, but with an extra twister added for good measure. The advantage here is that Twister is 28 years old and it’s not particularly a pop culture phenomenon like Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump, so most of the audience may have no clue that it’s a sequel overall.

Twisters can turn out to be this year’s Top Gun: Maverick; a legacy sequel that goes on to rake in over a billion dollars. There are plenty of people who saw Top Gun: Maverick who never even knew that it was a sequel to a 38-year-old film! The key thing is that Maverick was an excellent blockbuster. It had enough story and development that allowed you to care about the characters and plot. Plus, it wasn’t some lazy rehash of the first film. It built on what the original Top Gun did without demanding the modern audience to go back and watch the original.

The Characters Sound Terrible

The Concern With Twisters

#image_title

Twisters doesn’t seem to be building off the lore of the original film nor does it have anything new to say that wasn’t seen in the 1996 film. This film feels like a blatant cash cow. Granted, all movies are made to make money, but a film should NEVER feel as if that’s its only purpose for existing.

Anytime a film has a “social-media star” as one of the characters then you know it feels desperate. Likely, this character will come across as vain and narcissistic, and that doesn’t particularly sound like a person audiences would want to spend their precious time with. Twisters should be in the same light as Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire; a simple film that emphasizes the action and doesn’t offend the masses. People care a lot more about the action, but that doesn’t mean the human characters don’t have any value within Twisters. These are the people that we’ve been following for nearly two hours, so they have to be likable enough for us to care about their well-being.

Twister was far from a perfect film, but the cast was generally a likable group of people. Twisters has great talent onboard, and hopefully, that talent was been given enough material to make their characters pop in a good way.

Mind Numbing Action

The Concern With Twisters

It’s hard to find the proper balance of action in a film like this. Too much story and a little bit of action will bore the audience to tears. Too little story and too much action can also bore them to tears. How do you find the right balance about a film of storm chasers going after a twister? There’s only so much Lee Isaac Chung can do with that premise. However, he would be making a mistake if the center focus was the action. If the director gives us non-stop action then it lowers the stakes of Twisters.

Too much action means we spend little time getting to know the characters; we won’t understand their motivations and what drives them overall. Basically, we could care less about them, and a disaster film must have relatable characters. If we care about none of these people then we won’t have any interest to see whether they live or die. Even then, there’s only so many times a twister can originally destroy things. Hopefully, I’m wrong, and Twisters turns out to be a fun thrill ride that lights up the box office.

Main Heading Goes Here
Sub Heading Goes Here
No, thank you. I do not want.
100% secure your website.