Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: NFHale; Impy

“Animal House” had an opening for a sequel, “Blutarski Goes to Washington.” It’s too bad Belushi couldn’t get control of his drug addiction and get clean. Who knows how many more classic movies he could’ve made in the ‘80s ?

One problem with sequels is that, #1, they have a totally crappy script or #2, they waited too long to do a sequel (or both). 2-3 years is about the max for doing a sequel. When it comes 5+ years later, it almost always guarantees it will blow.

I look at Chevy Chase’s “Fletch.” There was a whole series of books and he could’ve been set for 20 years playing a new story every 1-2 years, but instead they waited 4 years to do a sequel and it just was subpar (and was one of the films that contributed to the rapid decline of his bankability as a star - and he did the horrid “Caddyshack II” during that period, perhaps the worst comedy sequel in the modern era).

“Aliens”, of course, was one example where they were able to do a superb sequel 7 years after the original. “Prometheus” was just... I don’t know what that was.


70 posted on 05/25/2016 6:53:44 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: fieldmarshaldj; Impy

RE Blutarski Goes to Washington:

You are right - I forgot about that at the end - “Senator and Mrs John Blutarski”

Belushi was one of my favorite actors. Blues Brothers is still in my top 10 movies ever.


72 posted on 05/25/2016 7:09:14 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: fieldmarshaldj
One problem with sequels is that, #1, they have a totally crappy script or #2, they waited too long to do a sequel (or both). 2-3 years is about the max for doing a sequel. When it comes 5+ years later, it almost always guarantees it will blow.

Yeah, I can think of a few sequels that came out past their sell-by date and suffered for it. I think Gremlins 2 is a good example, coming out 6 years after the original. Way too long. Sometimes the sequel is made so long after that you wonder why it was made it all. For example, Crocodile Dundee III was made 13 years after the second film, well after the notoriety of the first two films had long since passed.

Ghostbusters II probably needed to come out in 1986 or at the latest 1987. Not only would the memory of the first film still be fresh, but it would have hit theaters at the same time the popular Real Ghostbusters cartoon was in its first season, which probably would have added to the sequel's exposure.

In addition to story problems, Ghostbusters II had the added misfortune of coming out in the summer of 1989, the same summer of Tim Burton's Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, The Abyss, The Karate Kid Part III, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, License to Kill, and Star Trek V. It was like running into a buzzsaw of big budget summer movies, and of course some of the above got caught in it too.
79 posted on 05/25/2016 8:58:30 PM PDT by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Domo Arigato, Mr. Rubio. Domo Arigato, Mr. Rubio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson