Donnie Darko "Sequel" = WTF

[potatobroth]

Originally Posted by Dirty0900

I think it could work,

only in the way that EVERY movie could have a sequel.

[Dirty0900]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

only in the way that EVERY movie could have a sequel.

You gotta have faith as George Michael says.

[potatobroth]

Faith in what? Why not make a sequel to Goodfellas? Shawshank Redemption? Magnolia? Donnie Darko was a good movie that told its story well. At the end of the movie, some characters' futures were explained, and some were not. Heck, every movie ends with characters going about their lives but that doesn't mean there is a story there that is ripe for a sequel.

I'm sure a team of writers could continue the story for any movie out there, but what's the point? Sequels are used as money makers, and in the case of a non-franchise movie, tend to be quite poorly developed.

[holden]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

Donnie Darko was a good movie that told its story well. At the end of the movie, some characters' futures were explained, and some were not. Heck, every movie ends with characters going about their lives but that doesn't mean there is a story there that is ripe for a sequel.

I'm sure a team of writers could continue the story for any movie out there, but what's the point? Sequels are used as money makers, and in the case of a non-franchise movie, tend to be quite poorly developed.

Exactly.
I think that "Donnie Darko" is the type of movie that holds up to repeated viewing and can be enjoyed on various levels: consider it sci-fi, 80's homage, a film that addresses Big Issues of faith/meaning of life, whatever.
Point is, part of the fun is that it stands on its own and has become something of a cult obsession among fans trying to "figure it out". First time i saw this, i was like "What the beeeep!" for days! It prompted internet sleuthing (it had a clever puzzle website that gave some clues as to the aftermath of the movie without ruining it if you accessed the site first) and led me to purchase the Director's Cut, which some say gives too much away, but also expands a lot of great scenes and themes. I also bought the DD book, which has the original script and some commentary from Richard Kelly. it was clearly a labor of love, a movie he planned to pose questions and remain somewhat open-ended (e.g. who's manipulating who? Why does Donnie react as he does at the movie's conclusion).

The more i read about the sequel, the more i'm convinced it's just a cash-grab with B-list actors (Elizabeth Berkeley?! Come on!) and by apparently interacting with/changing events of the first film, it doesn't honor that world, but disturbs it.

Thing is, though, DD didn't make a lot of money domestically...it basically became a cult hit in Britain and has grown a devoted fanbase. Without any real stars and the fact that it didn't make a big impression on most Americans, i don't know what Fox hpes to achieve financially out of this, unless they're assuming every DD fan will buy a copy on DVD. From the internet chatter, most won't.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by holden

Exactly.
I think that "Donnie Darko" is the type of movie that holds up to repeated viewing and can be enjoyed on various levels: consider it sci-fi, 80's homage, a film that addresses Big Issues of faith/meaning of life, whatever.
Point is, part of the fun is that it stands on its own and has become something of a cult obsession among fans trying to "figure it out". First time i saw this, i was like "What the beeeep!" for days! It prompted internet sleuthing (it had a clever puzzle website that gave some clues as to the aftermath of the movie without ruining it if you accessed the site first) and led me to purchase the Director's Cut, which some say gives too much away, but also expands a lot of great scenes and themes. I also bought the DD book, which has the original script and some commentary from Richard Kelly. it was clearly a labor of love, a movie he planned to pose questions and remain somewhat open-ended (e.g. who's manipulating who? Why does Donnie react as he does at the movie's conclusion).

The more i read about the sequel, the more i'm convinced it's just a cash-grab with B-list actors (Elizabeth Berkeley?! Come on!) and by apparently interacting with/changing events of the first film, it doesn't honor that world, but disturbs it.

Thing is, though, DD didn't make a lot of money domestically...it basically became a cult hit in Britain and has grown a devoted fanbase. Without any real stars and the fact that it didn't make a big impression on most Americans, i don't know what Fox hpes to achieve financially out of this, unless they're assuming every DD fan will buy a copy on DVD. From the internet chatter, most won't.

I've seen it, but I cannot remember a thing about it.