|
|
Posted by Mac on 07/23/07 00:36
RobertJM wrote:
> "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.
They tried (with Roddy McDowall as Chuin), but it didn't work out.
--
--Mac
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|