f13.net

So, Donnie Darko was pretty much cinematic perfection.  Its that rare type of film that is incomprehensible on first viewing, and yet is emotionally powerful enough to be effective, whether or not the viewer realizes what they have seen.  The story is tightly woven and no detail is unimportant.  Once understood, there is little room for interpretation. 

I ask then, why in the fuck would anyone even consider the idea of a sequel?

S. Darko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Darko) "follows Donnie Darko's younger sister, Samantha, who, in the wake of his death, has found herself at age 17 with a broken family, mired in feelings of insignificance." 

Is this a joke?  For anyone who isn't immediately repulsed by this, let me draw a comparison to another film from which Darko borrowed quite a bit (and gives a nod to.)  How would you do a sequel to Last Temptation of Christ?  It could follow Mary Megdelaine, who, in the wake of Jesus' death, has found herself at age 35 with a broken family, mired in feelings of insignificance.  It doesn't work because, frankly, it is insignificant.  He saved the fucking world - not in the Bruce Willis way, but the messiah way.  There is no sequel!

Richard Kelly obviously has nothing to do with this.  Chris Fisher, a television director, is filming now.  I'm guessing there will be no Sparkle Motion, which would be the only reason I'd bother to see it.

More?  Elizabeth Berkley, aka Showgirl, is attached.  Joy. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231277/)

This will be in the $2.99 bin at Best Buy faster than Blair Witch 2.  Which is arguably better than the original Blair Witch, but I digress.

This is inexplicable.

I can't even call it a moneygrab.

I agree with everything you said except this :




Doing a sequel is stoopid.

That should tell you everything you need to know to avoid the fuck out of this.

Go watch Southland Tales instead.

Its on my queue.  The generally negative reviews of it are encouraging.

If you liked Donnie Darko, I think you'll like Southland Tales. It's not as good, but I liked it a lot.

Highlander 2!

Basic Instinct 2!

Breakin' 2: Electric boogaloo

Thats some quality right there.

The Crow: City of Angels.

 :ye_gods:

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation

Starship Troopers 2

The Matrix: Reloaded

Porky's II

Teen Wolf Too

Dumb and Dumberer

Jaws IV

Speed 2

Weekend at Bernie's II

Caddyshack 2


I can go on.. tremble at the horror.

Leonard Part 6

I'm calling the thread here:

Cannonball Run 2

Raise away.

Blues Brothers 2...000

Tremors 1

through 4

I call your Cannonball Run 2 and raise...

(http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/L10806868.jpg)

Didn't the first one suck though?

Admittedly, I almost folded on Blues Brothers 2000, but I'm not sure I consider that a true sequel per se. Could only stomach parts of it though.

I was going on "bad sequels."  I didn't know the rule was "bad sequels to good movies."

How about...

(http://ricksflickspicks.animationblogspot.com/files/2006/11/NextKarateKid.jpg)

Bah, that was the fourth one  :grin:

Yea, sorry, thought it was horrific sequels to good original movies.

Yes, as the above posts point out, there are constantly bad sequels to good movies.  However, my point was that the events depicted in Darko cannot have a sequel of substance.  What could possibly be as important as what Donnie does?  This is why I mentioned Last Temptation - both films deal with insanity, The Maker, alternate realities, doing what is good above what is desired, and ultimately, the salvation of mankind.  How can you create a sequel to that?

Oh, you all forgot Big Top Peewee - that was a travesty of epic proportions.

What I always get a kick of is "Final Destination #"

You've already got two definitive endings: "Final" and "Destination". There's something more?! It's like saying "infinite infinities" or some shit. Milk milk milk.

Otherwise, yea, unfortunately your profound question go dragged through brinkmanship  :grin:

Cruel Intentions 2
Wild Things 2

There was a Cruel Intentions 2?

That's like making a Merchant of Venice 2.

Even funnier:

(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2092/b0001ljckc01lzzzzzzzkb5.jpg)

I'm looking for words to describe... but I think the film tagline says it all.  An Immoral Playground of Seduction and Revenge.  That making of that movie was immoral and apparently revenge on me for kind of liking the first one.

Although Cruel Intentions was not a bad film, it was a completely taken out of context and lesser Dangerous Liasons.

Another example of what I'm talking about is 2010.  While there certainly is some room for interpretation of 2001, there was no need for a sequel.  2001 takes place before, during and after the current state of man.  2010 brings us back to modern man in an attempt to tie everything up.  That's an unnecessary regression of the story.  My point is - bad sequels to great films are the product of misinterpretation.  Throw any Psycho sequel into that category as well.

And I don't want to in any way discourage the making of bad films.  They are a large part of my viewing entertainment.

2010 was first a book. Now, you could argue the book wasn't necessarily needed. However, it still set the stage for a few interesting things in the series, and at least brought some closure.

The movie was a big departure on details, but similar at least in premise. But like Hunt for Red October, those departures made it a better movie than a true adaptation of the book would have.

30 Upcoming Movie Sequels You Didn't Know about (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/13412/30_upcoming_movie_sequels_you_didnt_know_about.html?redux)

I wasn't sure how kosher this list was so I checked some of them against imdb, all of them are listed there, although a fair few are distant "development projects" which I guess may or may not ever see the light of day.

I'm not sure how I'm going to take Paul Verhoeven directing the Thomas Crown Affair 2, it doesn't really seem to be in his line of work.

Didn't Chev die at the end of Crank? How will that work? Making him survive that ruins the whole movie for me.

Hey Darniaq, Final Destination 4 is on that list.

There's too much to quote, but Cliffhanger 2?  Why?

And Michael Bay remaking Nightmare on Elm Street?  Whyer?

That depends at least 2010 was an Arthur C. Clarke novel that was turned into a movie

By the way they are remaking "The taking of Pelham 123". They don't even try anymore or what?

Jason Stratham is apparently in all of them.

Also, American Psycho 2.  I mean srsly?

"Starship Troopers 3: Marauder: Casper Van Diem is back, but it’s still going straight to DVD, as the piss-awful second film did. It’s due out later this year."

From the link above.

Jesus Christ, they should call that list "30 Movies that Should NEVER EVER EVER BE MADE." Fuck me, there are some sequels to some real stinkiers on that one. Ghost Rider 2? REALLY? After the facehumping assspelunking that was that first movie?

Also, shitty sequels to good movies: Scream 2

They could do a good job with an I Robot 2 if they decided to make up another of Asimov's Short stories, rather than make a direct sequel. However this would be too much for many moviegoers to comprehend I think.

Toy Story 3 could be not-awful, the rest though I more-or-less agree.

Yeah, I saw that.  The 2nd movie really REALLY sucked.  Not only did it switch genres from "action movie" to "thriller" the whole script was just awful and took itself too seriously.   A far cry from the campy explosion laden original.  I hope they're going back to the formula of the first, but I expect it'll still suck.

The trailer leads me to believe Starship Troopers 3 will be a return to the campy shit of the original, but it still looks Sci-Fi original movie level of shit.

Prequel?

Nope, it's definitely a sequel.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/11/14/more-crank-2-details-revealed/

Maybe he's a ZOMBIE!   :drill:

Heh, that sounds so stupid it could work.

Iron Man crossover?

Also, see:
Final Fight 2. and 3. and so forth.

Right on.  That's the kind of movie I was looking for.  Scream was a damn good movie because it was barely disguised satire of horror.  You can't make a sequel to that because the cat's out of the bag halfway through the first movie.

Yes, I'm not saying that 2010 wasn't a good work, but it was Clarke's sequel to 2001, which was written with Kubrick as the film was made.  The film was an atomic piece of work that didn't need anything appended to it. 2010 definitely doesn't fall into the category of shitty sequels, just unnecessary.

And S. Darko could be the best fucking movie of the year, but it will still be unnecessary.

 

Butterfly Effect 2

Beverly Hills Cop 4?

ROSEWOOD IS BACK?

Look, call me a retard. But I'll rush to theaters for that. I hope they remaster the theme. Hur hur.

Same with Silent Hill 4.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain about Jurassic Park 4 though.

Jurassic Park 4 will work, but only if Jason Statham is in it.

As a dinosaur. Featuring Stathasaurus!

And Jesus saddle him.

I wholeheartedly endorse this sentiment.

Shrek 5?!  :ye_gods: Shit, I swear, anything Mike Meyers does automatically gets 17 freakin' sequels. I loved the first one, sorta enjoyed the second, skipped the third, and wasn't even aware there was a fourth.

War of the Worlds 2 directed by C Thomas Howell sounds like the sequel to the not-Tom Cruise one. I never saw it outside of listings on the sci-fi channel that I could browse faster past.

Finally, Jurassic Park 4?! As if the last two didn't completely suck?

There isn't, yet.  The 3rd did well enough they green lighted TWO sequels.

Yes, Hollywood is indeed fucked up and so out of ideas that sequels are a foregone conclusion.  So when you get a REALLY good movie series, you go ahead with multiple sequels at once, apparently.   Hey, worked for Pirates!   :uhrr: :oh_i_see: