With a second-place finish in its opening weekend to “Finding
Dory,” a lower opening frame than the original did in 1996 dollars ($41 million
vs. $50 million), and less critical support (34% on Rotten Tomatoes vs. 62% for
the original), one has to consider Roland Emmerich’s “Independence Day:
Resurgence” something of a disappointment. So, there are two ways to approach
Titan Books’ coffee-table book “The Art & Making of Independence Day: Resurgence.” One, it’s important to look at it
in light of the movie’s fans—the people in that 34% and the non-critics
who enjoyed this summer blockbuster sequel. Does it work for them? Does it
offer honest insight and interesting detail behind the process of making the
film? Two, does it offer any signposts as to “what went wrong”? Could someone
pick up “The Art & Making of Independence Day: Resurgence” and learn from
it? The answer to the initial “fan service” question is disappointing. This
book is pretty light in terms of process, especially when compared to better
Titan Books offerings. However, it’s kind of a fascinating volume regarding how
the production team approached the project and the impact their decisions made.
One of the things that charmed people about “Independence Day,” and still
does to this day, is how much of it felt tactile, due to the use of practical
effects and stunt work. The new movie has been compared to a video game with
its complete, end-of-the-world destruction and nothing real to hold on to—a notable
problem in the blockbusters of the mid-‘10s, during which we’ve become somewhat
numb to the apocalypse. And so Emmerich’s introduction is interesting when he
talks about how “Independence Day” was a “fun, un-cynical event” and that “We
shot everything in-camera on the first film. The dogfights, for instance, were
second unit and very time-consuming, taking 3-4 weeks. This time the dogfights
took 3-4 days on bluescreen. It was fast, really fast, which is more fun for
the actors.” Say what? Yes, there’s something to be said for actors having fun, quick production times (Emmerich’s next graf is about how the production
came in just over 75 days), but where is the passion that true filmmakers seek
to pass to their viewers? How is anything about fast shoots related to a
continuation of something that was “fun”? It offers proof that Emmerich and
company approached “Resurgence” from a different mindset. Sure, technology has
changed in the last 20 years, but shouldn’t the main purpose have been to
recreate some of the joy of the original?
I also find it interesting that the first THIRD of this
book, over 50 pages, is devoted to the original “Independence Day.” It’s
incredibly thin material—old stills we’ve seen a hundred
times, followed by a few random bits of trivia. You’re really just reliving what you liked
about the first one, and not even learning anything new about how it was made, or why it has lasted for two decades. I’d love a book that focuses on how “Independence
Day” changed the blockbuster or why it’s remained such a popular film. But you
can’t just half-heartedly fold that into the opening of this book.
How’s the meat of the collectible volume? It’s OK. I’ll
admit that I haven’t gotten around to seeing “Resurgence” yet—they didn’t
screen it for critics—but I’ve seen enough of these books that I can tell when
they’re not quite digging deep into the making of the film. You’ll see a lot of
the same stills (often from different angles) and concept art, and an abundance of photos instead of actual text. This is one of those books for diehard
fans only, and even they are unlikely to learn anything new. While people still talk about “Independence Day” twenty years later, this volume’s discussion about its sequel feels thin only a few days after release.
