|
|
Posted by RobertJM on 07/22/07 19:40
"Michael O'Connor" <mpoconnor7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185039037.519270.170120@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Very, very, very few movies should have a sequel. But if it makes
>> money -
>> there's always talk of a sequel.
>
> I am not a huge fan of sequels, and I can think of many movies over
> the years (Animal House for one) which at the time I thought would
> become a franchise, but the filmmakers were wise enough to quit while
> they were ahead. I've often felt if Batman hadn't come along that Tim
> Burton may have wound up doing a sequel to Beetlejuice. And there
> were some movies where I felt that based on the film title the
> filmmakers were trying to start a film franchise (Remo Williams: The
> Adventure Begins is the one that first comes to mind) and the first
> movie never caught on with fans and they were unable to make a sequel.
>
Ah Remo : Unarmed and Dangerous (don't know if that was the UK/video title),
always expected that to become a TV series.
PS. Just noticed the cross-posting , what is the usual 'netiquette' for
this?
Should I have removed all bar this one? or is it OK they are linked.
--
RobertJM
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|