Reflections on 'Mirrors'

The other night we watched a film called 'Mirrors 2'.  On my 'Tweet' I said it was boring  -  well, most of it, anyway.

That may have been a sweeping generalisation so I sat down after watching it and tried to analyse what it was that made it uninteresting to watch.

Was it the filming?  The acting?  The script?  All of these things were quite good in their own way so was it the story?

The first film, 'Mirrors', was fine.  It wasn't my favourite film of all time, which is a tie between 'Serenity' and 'The Man Who Would Be King', but it was acceptable viewing over an evening's tea and biscuits.

The story in 'Mirrors 2' is similar to 'Mirrors' but in a different setting.  Was it the 'sameness' that made the emotional hole?

One of the sad facts of today's film industry is that a good film demands a follow-up movie.  Either a sequel or, as in 'Star Wars', a prequel  -  or two.  Invariably the following films are rarely as good as the original.  The 'Firefly' series on TV was a stunning exception but, then, it wasn't a film even though the whole series stitched together into a complete story.

'The Lord of the Rings' started out as a trilogy so, maybe, that cannot be included in this generalisation of good v. bad in the No. 1, 2, 3, 4.... categories.

Many films have gone rapidly downhill from the first release (I know a lot of people will differ) but:
SAW
Friday 13th
Nightmare on Elm Street
Speed
Legally Blonde
American Pie (under other names, too, but, still....  http://bit.ly/cqgH65)
have all been well worth not watching in their rebirths under various numbers.  You can, no doubt, add your own (long) list.

Some of these sequels are quite good but they never seem to match up to that first one.

Why?

I thought about the writer (of course).  His script for 'Mirrors 2' - remember that?  Is good.  There was nothing wrong with the story line nor with the flow of dialogue.  The writer, clearly, had an image in his mind that he (she?) wanted to convey to the person watching the film.  The premise was good, the plot was good and the outcome fine even to the point of leaving that little taster hanging ready for a third movie of this franchise.

If the acting was reasonable, if not outstanding, and the filming was also acceptable was it the directing or the production?

It seems to me that the answer is in the difference between the first and second  -  and subsequent, films.  The difference is minimal.  The setting has changed as have the characters and yet the story-line is pretty much the same.  There is, mayhap, only so much you can do with the "person/ghost trapped in a mirror" idea.

How does this relate to books?

Terry Pratchett has written a large number of 'Discworld' books.  They are very similar in their basic premise, the characters remain fairly constant and yet.... and yet....

Leigh and David Eddings have the same scenarios in each book with the same basic ideas and characters.  Yet each is different.

Pratchett, Eddings, Asimov (Robots, Foundation, for example) and others with series seem to be able to steer away from the trap that films drop into.  Why?

I believe that this hinges on two concepts:
Firstly, the book conveys ideas and images into the mind of the reader.  The 'world' inside those words is of the reader's creation  -  only the framework is built by the writer.  No matter how many times you create the same world the reader will find a new image to put into it; indeed, it is entirely possible that the reader gains comfort from the recreation of the same scenes in each book.
Secondly, each of these authors tell stories based on the same scenes and with the same characters but,  big 'but',  each story brings something different to the table.  A little extra, and different, spice is dropped in to pique the interest and keep the reader's imagination going.

Films cannot do this.  Films give you words and images, there is nothing left for the watcher to create.  They are, necessarily, more superficial entertainment than are books.

I have tried, in my stories, to create, using the same characters, a different view of the universe with each book.  To bring something different to the table so that, when you open 'Book 2' you will not get a re-run of 'Book 1'.

Hopefully, each of them will keep you on the edge of your tea cup.