Looks like they just went on IMDB. Speaking of Crank 2, did you guys see those spy pics of her on set topless except for black tape on her nipples? Super Troopers 2 is actually a prequel btw.
It makes me sick to think how many great screenplays that would make great movies are sitting out there collecting dust while sheer trash starring Larry the Cable Guy and teeny-bopper bull**** starring supersluts like Paris Hilton and the Olsen twins hit theaters every 6 months. Its all about the target demographic. Its disheartening, but its business.
There was a script floating around four or five years ago that involved raptors being trained for use in warfare. Sounds outrageous, but taking into account how terrible the third one was, it just might have been true. This is one franchise where a total reboot would be the best option. There is so much material from Chrichton's two novels that has yet to be used.0
The first one was really close to the book. The Lost World was completely different from the novel and that's where the series started going bad.
the majority of the movie going public tend to enjoy movies that will just entertain them visually or with just crude storylines, jokes. I am not sure exactly but i am surre a majority of all movie goers are between the ages of 10-20. there is a reason why hollywood is making a lot sequels pg-13 when their predecessors were rated R so it can have this demographic of movie-goers. if movie "A" makes over 100 mil and is just an action movie that has no real substance they'll still will try to make a sequel just because at worst they should make about the same amount of money. the type of people who saw the first film will more than likely see the second film. unfortunately like moes said Hollywood is all about making money and not making movies. When i saw No Country last year I walked into the theater and I was the only person under the age of 40 in there and the theater was pretty empty, maybe only 30 people max were in there. no matter how amazing a movie is if it doesnt bring in the box office receipts no studio will want to finance it.
Most of the movies on this list are not what you'd consider the current sequel model that the studios follow. A good many of them are direct-to-DVD, some follow low-budget movies ("Crank" cost essentially nothing to produce, for example), and at least a couple are aimed at a more mature audience ("The Thomas Crown Affair" was not exactly a teen movie. I can't imagine a prequel to the Untouchables will be all that interesting to the teen boy demographic, either). It would appear that all but a few of these are more a product of the studios setting up and expanding direct-to-DVD divisions a couple of years ago. Many are exceedingly cheap movies that are sequels solely because it's easier to stand out on the store shelves if you're "The Thomas Crown Affair 2" instead of some original direct-to-DVD movie. Just like there will probably be another direct-to-DVD "American Pie" sequel or two (if not more. I mean, there's already been three or four) featuring some really cheap actor and Eugene Levy in increasingly smaller roles, there will be cheapo sequels to other hits (and, I notice that "Get Smart" has a direct-to-DVD sequel that was apparently made at roughly the same time as the theatrical movie).
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. Poor Rico is in box office oblivion.
Yeah I saw something once about dinosaurs with guns... A total reboot would be the right thing to do. Dinosaurs never get old. Unless they carry guns.
Would watch (brainless fun): The Brazilian Job, National Treasure 3, Crank 2, Transporter 3, Super Troopers 2, Mummy 3. Meh (brainless, not-so-fun): Toy Story 3, Cars 2, Jurassic Park 4, Ghost Rider 2 No Way In Hell (just plain brainless): Scary Movie 5/Saw 5, Pink Panther 2, Starship Troopers 3, Ace Ventura 3, The People Under The Stairs 2, Ice Age 3, Shrek 5, Jeepers Creepers 3
Having a reputation is better than no rep as at least one studio greenlighted it and some one saw it. With the straight to cable / DvD market you are guarenteed someone will watch it who saw the first one so the risk is less than trying something totally new.
While the first Jurrasic Park movie was closer to the book I think they got the message all wrong. Being Spielberg he still tried to fill the movie up with the idea of a sense of wonder and that Hammond, the park developer, was really just a guy who wanted to entertain and was good at heart. The book on the other hand was about the dangers of technology and about the reckless pursuit of entertainment at any costs. Hammond in the book was an evil industrialist who cared little about instilling a sense of wonder except to the extent it can make a buck. For those who haven't read the book the difference is best summed up in how the book ends vs. the movie. I've thought it would've been interesting if a director like Paul Verhoeven, who loves to criticize and poke fun at consumerism and corporate culture had made the movie instead of Spielberg how it would've been liked.
