Jaws

Short Answer: Technologically update the original.

Is Jaws... a franchise?

Well, there was a sequel and a part 3 and a reboot, so... yeah. 

But none of those other three could touch the first one in terms of power and excellence. It's in the Top 250 of imdb, and it was made back in 1975. It won 3 Oscars.

The sequel is considered watchable, and the others, well, no.

The thing is, it started a craze of shark movies-- and Shark Week docs-- than has lasted to today. (It was led to people being so terrified of sharks they have driven them to near extinction, but that's not Spielberg's fault). So it's not just a franchise, it's a subgenre. And it also kicked off the whole "summer blockbuster" concept we still have.

And the thing about those other shark movies? They are also not great. Only 3 shark movies rate 80% or above on the Tomatometer's list of Shark Movies, and two of those are Jaws and its sequel. (If you look at the Tomatometer's list, it looks like more have that rating, but those others are documentaries, not movies.)

Even so, there are 36 movies on its list... and only 13 are "Fresh" altogether, including the docs. Not a great record.

As classic as it is, Jaws had one major downfall-- the shark itself. The mechanical menace, nicknamed Bruce by the crew, was also a menace to the filmmakers. Its innards were not made to withstand saltwater (whoops!) and it had other issues as well. It was clunky and ungainly. 

All told, the shark is in this seminal Shark Movie for maybe 4 minutes of screen time. And to today's eyes, not all that convincing.

But of you watch the versions of the original Stark Trek series available now, you can see what they did-- the "exterior" shots of the Enterprise and the planets they orbit have been redone in CGI. They had used a model, back then, but the digitally retooled space-based shots are now almost too good, and make the shots of the bridge and planet surfaces look dull by comparison.

So... do that. With the shark. Go back to the original Jaws movie, digitally edit out Bruce, and replace him with a very realistic CGI shark. We have the tech to do it now and make it look very smooth.

And sure, people will cry foul at this, the way they did when George Lucas started retroactively futzing with the early Star Wars movies. Only he did more than add this or tweak that-- he added in whole story-changing elements.

We would not do that to Jaws. Nor would we make the original version with Bruce unavailable. We would just replace his scenes with a more realistic, if less real, shark. We know more how about how sharks look and move, and the digital one would be more flexible, muscular and sinuous than any robot could ever be, even now.  

This should be done while Spielberg is alive, so we can know that it looks like he would have wanted it to. On the other hand, he has recently expressed doubts about this kind of thing in his own movies.

See, in ET, the original had the Feds at the end holding guns. Yeah, to shoot at kids! Parents cried foul, so he digitally replaced those with walkie-talkies for some more recent digital releases. Now he is saying he should have left the original alone. 

So it's likely he wouldn't go for the digitally redone Jaws. It's still the best Shark Movie, he would say, so why mess with it? 

Because we need it to stay the best Shark Movie. 

Bridget Jones

Short Answer: More Austen!

The original movie was based on Pride and Prejudice, and it was a big hit. The film's sequel, Edge of Reason, was based on another Jane Austen novel, Persuasion.

But the third one, about her baby, does not seem to be Austen-based. This is a lapse, but not unrecoverable. 

For the next one, which is supposedly in development (although the last one came out in 2016, and it's now 2023, so...?) there are are other Austen books to work from.

Of the three, two are "big hits" in the literary world: Sense and Sensibility, and Emma (the one Clueless is based on). 

There are also Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey, which are less well-known, and Lady Susan, which I just found out about now. 

At this point, it's OK to have the leads from the existing movies take a backseat-- and have her son now be old enough to play the lead in a new rom com, possibly the start of a trilogy. If you can't build a rom com around a guy, well, maybe Bridget had another baby, a girl, who is now old enough to be undergo the plot machinations of Emma (if I recall, Sense and Sensibility is built around sisters).

I can see Emma working better as a bassis: Bridget's daughter grows up, finds and reads her mother's diaries, and decides that-- using her mother's life as both an example and counterexample-- she now knows all she needs to know to be a successful matchmaker. 

The Trip

Short Answer: France

The first movie was about a restaurant tour of England, if not a country known for its cuisine, then at least for being the home of its main actors, the ones who go on the titular Trip.

The second movie was The Trip to Italy, which is known for its cuisine. Then the third one went to Spain, which is somewhat known for its cuisine, but not as much as where the fourth one should go.

Which is to France.

I mean, come on. You're in Europe, you want good food... where do you go?

After that?.. Not sure, frankly. The Northern or Eastern European and Scandinavian countries are not known for their cuisine. Unless someone is saying "Let's go out for German" or "Let's order in Swedish" or "I'm dying for Serbian" or "for our anniversary, I took her to that new Swiss place."... and I just don't know them.

The Trip-takers might have to go all the way to Greece or Turkey or India or Japan or something for Part 5.

But for Part 4? Bon appetit!

The Mummy

Short Answer: Revisit the classics, and let the mummy love.

The Mummy series we know, with newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, started in 1999. Its plot involved the same ancient Egyptian emperor the first one-- from back in 1932-- did: Imhotep.

The original series used Imhotep just that once. The reboot did, too, and so did its sequel. Then both were done with Imhotep and moved on.

The original series went with a baddie named Kharis. They got four movies out of him.

The reboot series went with a Chinese "mummy," which was not a bad idea in itself... but the proposed fourth film was cancelled. 

So, let's go with Kharis for the re-reboot. Watch the four 1940s with him in it and see what powers and other characteristics he has. 

But let's for sure use the better, more interesting motivation for those earlier Mummies' actions; those stories-- both with Imhotep and Kharis-- have more personal motivations for those baddies than (yawn) "take over the world." 

Namely, when they awaken, they seek to reunite with their lovers from their own time, and mistake their now-living descendants (or re-incarnations) for those women. 

Let's say, for our movie, this modern woman has have always found themselves drawn to Egyptology but never knew why. Now they realize the reason.

So at the end, does she break the pharaoh's heart again and say, "No, I'm not her. She died ages ago. Mourn and move on, and I will move on as well." Or does she sacrifice herself to save the world? 

Or does she do the latter... while tricking the Mummy (and the audience) into thinking she has done the former, by... using a decoy? 

This works because it sets us up for a sequel in which the Mummy realizes it has been deceived and now also feels betrayed by her. Vengeance has always been a good motivation for the undead. The second time, she has to choose for real. 

What she chooses is to use a better decoy, one that had her DNA. As long as it's SOME descendant of the original lover, she realizes, the Mummy's heartbreak will be mended. So she directs the Mummy's attention to the grave of a blood relative of hers who was also a descendant of his lover. 

And we in the audience are OK with this because that person, when alive, also always was drawn to Egyptology, but could never afford to go, or was a selfless person altogether...

or maybe even said, "I always felt like I was part of Egyptian history. I wish I could be buried in one of those pyramids." And now our Egyptologist heroine thinks about that and, seeing the spirit of the Mummy and their relative enter the pyramid together, says: "You always were of this history. And now your wish has been granted."

Step Up

Short Answer: Boy bands... in LA and Seoul

Would you believe there are already six installments of this series, going back to 2006? In 2026, they have the opportunity to celebrate 20 years of Step Up movies. 

One hallmark of the series is having the action being set-- after the first two were in Maryland-- in different cities thereafter: NYC, Miami, Vegas... and then Beijing.

I am writing this from Chicago, and there is definitely a thriving dance scene here. But we have to sell tickets to this movie, so the next logical American city to set a story in would be L.A. It's nicer outdoors there for a greater part of the year, and street dancing largely happens on streets... outdoors.

But there is another venue for this style of street dance that the series has inexplicably left unexplored-- the world of boy bands. 

Let me be clear about what a "boy band" is, in. my view. It is not simply an all-male musical group. It is a group of usually young, clean-cut, fresh-faced singer-dancers who dress in a coordinated if not matching way, harmonize with no clear lead vocalist, focus on puppy love as a song topic, and dance in sync.*

So the movie ping-pongs between two timelines. A former member of a 1990s boy band, LA-ZER, is brought in by a South Korean record company as the dance coordinator to help create a new K-Pop boy band clearly patterned after BTS. 

In coaching these teens, he flashes back to LA-ZER, his own scrappy boy band rising, in 1990s LA, alongside acts clearly patterned after Backstreet Boys and 'NSYNC. They had one hit, "Here We Go Again," but then flamed out.

He tries to guide his new act so as to avoid the pitfalls that ultimately derailed his own band, but he sees everyone-- his dancers, the studio and label bosses-- repeating the same behavior patterns and assumptions. He struggles to get them to not make the same mistakes 

The band founders, so the bosses bring in another of his old LA-ZER bandmates, who starts to impose his will on the proceedings. This leads to conflict:
"I was already here, I was handling things!"
"Really? Then why did they fly me in from LA, if you were 'handling things' so well?!"
"They need more discipline, more practice!"
"That's what you always said-- but there was no room for self-expression!"
"This is not that kind of music, though! Harmonies require thinking of each other, listening!" 

In a climactic scene, the two are arguing in the studio. But they don't know the mics are on, and their angry words are being heard by the young Korean bandmates. 

Just as they are about to come to blows, the studio door opens and the Korean boys file shyly in. They point to the open mic and one says, "Yes, we heard you fighting. And now we realize that as you have tried to tell us, we have been behaving the same way, and are hurting our own changes for success. We should have listened."

"Yes," says another young Korean singer-dancer. "We should have been listening to you, and to each other. It's not about ego. Our best change at a hit is if we support each other, harmonize with-- and not sing over-- each other." 

"We would like to try it again-- your way. Together." Of course, they sing and dance flawlessly together, and the scene dissolves into a montage... from them singing in the studio to them singing onstage-- on TV, in videos on people's phones, and them on an awards show... where they win the Korean equivalent of Grammy for Song of the Year. 

The two LA-ZER guys also get an award, for producing the song. While they are onstage, they sing a snatch of "Here We Go Again" and do a couple of their signature dance steps. The crowd goes crazy.

The last scene shows the two LA-ZER guys and their other bandmates have opened up a school in LA to teach teens how to sing and dance in order to increase their chances of being in a successful boy band. They notice that a five of the students have made friends and are starting to naturally develop their own steps and harmonies together. Our hero looks at his friend and says, "Here we go again."

Appearances by members of actual boy bands and K-Pop bands would be nice, too.

*Yes, some consider the Beatles and Monkees to be boy bands. While they have some similar attributes-- matching outfits and puppy-love songs, with some harmonies-- these acts played instruments and did not dance. The Jackson 5 were much closer to a boy band, although some played guitars as they danced. Boy bands also pulled heavily from Motown acts like The Temptations, 4 Tops, and Pips, with their matching outfits, dance steps, and harmonies.
It really wasn't until Menudo that all these necessary elements from earlier bands were coalesced into the same act and could be called a "boy band" as such.