Terminalcoffee discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives
>
Sequels/Franchises Pros and Cons...
date
newest »
newest »
Call me crazy, and as much as I find this film annoying, I've always fancied a sequel to Ferris Bueller's Day Off, in which I imagine Ferris is all grown up and adult-like, working in the Bush White House as some kind of Republican flunky with ideas for some kind of devious fascist plot; Ferris always seemed like a bit of a fascist to me anyhow.
I think there have been more bad sequels than good. Anyone remember the awful sequel to Romancing the Stone?
I think there have been more bad sequels than good. Anyone remember the awful sequel to Romancing the Stone?
Consider yourself lucky, then, Larry.
sequals that deserve to be sequals are the movies that arent completly told all in one movie, any movie that forces out a crappy sequal in order to make money or prolong a 15 minutes doesnt deserve to be made.. its one of the reasons why my opinion of disney isnt too high..
I saw an article today about the strange fact that no sequel is being made to the Golden Compass, despite the first movie being a success. Pressure from the church.
That sucks! Boo to the movie industry to bowing to censorship! While I think The Subtle Knife is a mess of a book, and The Amber Spyglass definitely has an axe to grind about religion, I think they could be fascinating movies.
Do you think that's true, though? Money will trump the church every time...I don't remember the movie being that big of a success...how much did it make compared to budget?
yea, i dont think the church has as much power in reguards to whether or not movies are made.. if they had any power then the dan brown people couldnt have made their movies, they were even banned from the vatacan but made them anyway.. how is that censorship? (and that doesnt even include all the other movies that can be seen to be in anyway heritical and or blasphemous which theres tons)i have an easier time believing in political censorship and indoctrination which may or may not include thoughts concerning religion (on both sides) then i do the church having any power at all..
it goes along with the winners writing history, which pisses me off, at one point the church had the big swinging shlong for it, i think by now not a lot of people give too much creedecence to what the church says other then the believers..
i was thinking the same thing about which church...yea i guess maybe, but as i said i dont think its too influential, if anything clergy becoming activits are getting people more upset at the church for taking a stance for their beliefs and against the beliefs of those who are mad at them.. as if they are oppresing the whole of civilization for a personal statement of faith, or politics..
i apreciate pastors who are ambiguous yet still have a way of saying things, there were a couple of guys like that when i was at college.. you dont need a protest sign to make a point.. you dont even need to take a formal position..
Buns and David, how does the political position thing work with non-profit status? When I was a Unitarian Universalist I remember the church made a big deal on not taking political positions because of non-profit status concerns...
Huh. This is really interesting. I still don't quite believe the Catholic church can shut down a profitable movie enterprise, though...because they'd be shuttin' down a lot of movies then, I would think...I keep wondering about other factors, but i could be wrong...
heh if your really interested i found this report:http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/m...
hopefully that link works, it talks about all things church and state, i think.. its not so much for sake of non profit, theres a deeper moral/ethicical subtext in how we should reguard the relationship between church and state..
i would agree with not taking a stance outright though, to me theres a time and place for what needs to be said, the pulpit is to focus on the cross, not sell a product or agenda..
Maybe I am wrong here, but I do not think the first movie, Golden Compass, did that very well financially. Compared to the cost of making it.It was high for the first two weeks release or so, and then it seemed to die down. Not a bad movie, but not a big cash either.
If it were highly profitable, I suspect Hollywood would go ahead on it.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
Now, obviously the big winners on sequels and franchises are the people who make a shitload of money from them.
But what movies deserve sequels? What sequels turned out well? What sequels should never have been made?