Originally Posted By ctdsnark Tomorrow sees the release of Basic Instinct 2,a movie which,at least the general feeling in the showbiz community,as well as the general moviegoing public seems to suggest,will not do well at all---in fact,making the movie in the first place was a bad idea as no one,not even diehard fans of the original,even wanted a sequel. That was the general message in an article from the Los Angeles Daily News' Glenn Whipp,printed in the entertainment section of my local paper this very morning;In fact,unnecessary sequels was the topic of the article.In Ms. Whipps' own words: "...there may be no sequel so despised as the unnecessary sequel.It could be a second chapter in a story that required no further exposition or a crass attempt to cash in on a gimmick whose novelty could barely survive the first film,much less a follow-up." There is great validity in these words.If Sharon Stone shares a co-production credit on this film,she may have made this film as an attempt to jump-start a sagging career---which puts her in the same class as producer/directors who,at one time,were the darlings of Hollywood,but after several years of failure,they make a sequel to a groundbreaking success they made years ago---Robert Evans,"The Two Jakes",Peter Bogdonavich,"Texasville",not to mention Blake Edwards' keeping the "Pink Panther" series going after the death of Peter Sellers.Not to suggest anything about the current state of Kevin Smith's career,but I've heard rumors he's considering a follow-up to "Clerks". An almost certain death for a sequel occurs when the star,or stars of the original choose not to return,a lesson New Line Cinema learned recently when they tried to make sequels to two Jim Carrey movies---only without Jim Carrey.Other examples of this type include Caddyshack 2,Speed 2,Blues Brothers 2000,and so on.Of course,even if you manage to reunite the cast---City Slickers 2,Cocoon:The Return---you aren't guaranteed success.Then there is the "I-can't-believe-the-first-one-did-so-well-they'd-make-a-sequel" category---Superbabies:Baby Geniuses 2,Duece Bigalow,European Gigolo,etc. Of course,sequels,like---well,just about any other kind of movie,are yet another example of one man's meat being another man's poison.Case in point:Glenn Whipp began her article with a list of quick examples of the unnecessary sequels,a list which included Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,and 3.I think it's safe to assume there's about a couple hundred people who would disagree---passionately---with that assessment.
Originally Posted By Spooky Ghost <<Not to suggest anything about the current state of Kevin Smith's career,but I've heard rumors he's considering a follow-up to "Clerks".>> He's made several. Clerks 2 is coming out this summer but can technicly be thought of as 6th in the series
Originally Posted By WorldDisney It's funny, I just spent an hour over at IMDB.com to read how bad people thought Basic Instint 2 is and will pretty much crash and burn. I don't understand why stuff like this gets made?? And if it does, why not make it GOOD?? I mean, if they read that script that people now seem to be trashing as crap, why would they go along with it?? If you MUST make this sequel, make it the best it could be. It took 14 years, at this rate another 1 or 5? It won't matter if they find some good writers. That's the problem with unnesseccary sequels, not so much that they shouldn't have been in the first place but that they are usually really BAD!!!! Its obvious there is no more story to tell or it was financed to make a quick buck......and it shows.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark Our local film critic gave it "thumbs down",also mentioning that,in a scene where Stone appears---don't worry,Moderator,I haven't forgotten this is a Disney-themed website!---not entirely costumed,it is quite apparent to the viewer that she's--->ahem<---had some "work" done on her. Like I said before,another man's poison;There wasn't a great deal of critical acclaim for The Mummy,and even less for its sequel---I loved both movies.Despite this,I wouldn't want to see a "Mummy 3",especially considering the way it ended {anyone who seen it knows what I mean by that}.The producers must've realized this,therefore creating the spin-off character of the Scorpion King.Of course,that option doesn't always bear fruit;For years,Warner Bros. considered giving,from the "Vacation" movies,the characters of dirt-poor cousin Eddie and his wife {Randy Quaid & Miriam Flynn},as well as their multitude of kids,their own movie.As far as I know,that plan has long since been abandoned.
Originally Posted By BrnardM I wish I could tell you that it had been, but... <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0367623/" target="_blank">http://imdb.com/title/tt036762 3/</a> ...thankfully I haven't seen it. Some of the best movies in my opinion are ones that leave room for a sequel, but don't follow up on it. The Boondock Saints and Unbreakable come to mind. Sequels for those would have just been out of place. Then there are movies that they just plain force it (like Basic Instinct). Would you beleive that producers are trying to work up a sequel to Gladiator? This brings me to what I beleive really makes a sequel work. Of course there has to be the potential for a great follow up story, but that's not what brings the audience back. We return to the theatre's to be reunited with the characters! I can't wait to see what Jack Sparrow gets up to this summer. Hannible, not a great film, but the chance to see the haunting Dr. Lecter once more is hard to pass. I'm sure this is the thinking behind the Basic instinct sequel. I know that my dissatisfaction with the Star Wars prequels had much to do with the fact that I couldn't connect to the protagonists. Story is important, but the plot is only as important as the characters I care about.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you MUST make this sequel, make it the best it could be.> I think most filmmakers set out to make the best movie possible, whether a sequel or not. Some original movies are well done, and some are not. Some sequels are well done, and some are not.
Originally Posted By mele The Godfather II is an awesome sequel. "I know it was you, Fredo." Oooh, love it!
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Here's a link to the New York Post's review of "Basic Instinct 2." It's probably the funniest review I've ever read: <a href="http://www.nypost.com/movies/66285.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/movies/6 6285.htm</a> And after you read it, you'll understand why people say that the New York Post is barely a legitimate newspaper.
Originally Posted By Labuda Ok, I just have to step in and say this - Blues Brothers 2000 had an INCREDIBLE soundtrack. That final concert scene is GREAT - take it from one who hangs with musicians fgrequently - that alone redeems the film.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead By the way, M Night had actually meant for Unbreakable to get a sequel. In fact, he envisioned an entire trilogy for the film. I still say the worst sequel ever is Disney's Hunchback 2. Wretched and ugly and wrong.
Originally Posted By woody Didn't Basic Instinct, the original, get bad reviews? I thought the first movie was heavily criticized, but the movie wasn't so bad. This sequel just didn't seem to work from the description, but it could be better than that.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Not every movie has to be a blockbuster, with great acting and a fantastic script. The only place in the world where that criteria is used is on Disney theme parks. Everything created in the Disney theme park world must be a blockbuster with great acting and a fantastic script.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark I still remember what came to my mind when I first heard of "The Rage:Carrie 2". "Waitaminnut---didn't she---well,DIE at the end of that movie?!!?What---Amy Irving's nightmare at the end WASN'T a bad dream,she really did rise from the grave,and is now continuing her reign of terror as a zombie?!!? Wait---I got it---Dr. Frankenstein dug her up and brought her back to life,not knowing who she was?!!? Oh,no---it's a PREQUEL---we get to see her tormented in grade school,and the final scene is of her starting high school,and the last shot is a close-up of her face,moments after another kid teases her,and there's this musical sting....?!!?" {Before anyone brings it up,I know what the plot was.}
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <If you MUST make this sequel, make it the best it could be.> <<I think most filmmakers set out to make the best movie possible, whether a sequel or not. Some original movies are well done, and some are not. Some sequels are well done, and some are not.>> I certainly agree with that....to an extent. Yes, I bet 99% of people in the industry don't want to make crap. I've ALWAYS believed that. There was a time in my life I wanted to make films and write screenplays too, the whole thing. It's GUT WRENCHING to put so much work into something like a student film and hear one person say one off-remark about it, just one, when you spend all of that time and sweat to make a few hundred dollar student film. I can't imagine how someone like Sharon Stone would feel right now KNOWING people are saying the most evil things about her and the movie when all she wanted to do was make a good popcorn movie and give people some cool entertainment to talk about and bragg to other people. I never believe you make something ahead of time thinking its going to be utter crap, ESPECIALLY when you are a big name star and the whole point is to 're-capture' your once star image---not soil it more . But with allll that said, there's too many scripts that really DON'T pass muster and they know it!! It always comes down to the written page and HOW can you get a script through with all those highly paid script writers and producers and then a year later, a 14 year old can see through all the cliches and loopholes of that finished film with a fine tooth comb is beyound me? You wait 14 YEARS, you come up with a script that is really going to get people talking and involved. If you can't and 40 writers and 60 revisions later it still not working, pack it in and go home and don't waste everyone's time.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark Of course---what constitutes a "necessary" sequel?As an example,the Lord Of The Rings films,by definition,are not sequels at all,it's just one long story that took three long films to tell.The Harry Potter movies could be considered the same,an as-yet-unfinished seven-part story. It's common knowledge that George Lucas' intention,from the very beginning,was to make an entire saga about the Skywalker clan and the Jedi,because he had far too much material for one film;of course,had Chapter 4 A New Hope{not its original title,of course}bombed,such plans would have to have been abandoned.In a similar vein,Joseph L. Mankewitcz wanted to release his Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton "Cleopatra" in two parts,with Burton coming in at the very end of part 1,but the 20th Century Fox brass said no,deeming the tabloid-fed relationship between its two stars too important to risk waiting,and having it end before part 2 hit the screens. As mentioned above,Lucas didn't reveal,at least not originally,that his 1977 space epic was actually the middle chapter of a much longer story.When you look at this film,it's a story that could stand on its own,although the possibility for further adventures does exist.By contrast,The Empire Strikes Back ended with an cliffhanger,resolved in the very next film.The Matrix and Back To The Future films used that same formula,as is the X-men movies,if the upcoming third installment is any indication. In Glenn Whipp's article,which compelled me to begin this,she also lists as "unnecessary" the Police Academy movies,and the then-seemingly unending adventures of Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger.As undesirable as these films may be,and as crazy as I know this will sound---can these really be considered sequels?There have been some twenty-odd James Bond films,but Dr. No doesn't keep coming back again and again.Despite the Roman numerals in their names,I think "series" would be a more apt desciption,no different than the low-budget series Hollywood used to make,about a talking mule and his hapless human friend,or a dirt-poor couple and their multitude of kids,spun off from a Fred McMurray comedy,or a bunch of tough-talking,but good-hearted guys who live in Brooklyn,but keep getting mixed up in crazy adventures. {"Wait---is he comparing Ma & Pa Kettle to Freddy Krueger?!!?"} God,I hope not!
