Donnie Darko "Sequel" = WTF

holden · #1 07-30-2008, 10:46 AM

Folks, this is kinda old news, but if you missed it:

"Donnie Darko" (2001) is, if you haven't already seen it, one of the most thought-provoking, mind-blowingly good motion pictures of the last decade. Young-ish Jake Gyllenhall, sis Maggie (yum), Drew Barrymore, Patrick Swayze, Noah Wyle and others cope with alternate realities, time travel and Frank the Giant Bunny, all scored to a great 80's soundtrack (Tears for Fears, Echo and the Bunnymen(!), The Church, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_Darko

Now, some shmoes want to make a "sequel", based on Donnie's little sister Samantha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Darko
original director Richard Kelly has stated he would not do a sequel, because the first film was rather close ended in plot, if not in themes/meaning. And Kelly has no connections with this new project.
Pretty much everyone on the interwebnetsphere agrees this is a crap idea, and it sounds very direct-to-video to me, not to mention sullying DD's good reputation.

is there anything remotely redeeming about this project?

Dirty0900 · #2 07-30-2008, 11:02 AM

I think it could work, the plot with her being a bit screwy with the same thing as Donny can easily fit in. If anything, i'd like to see a sequal. Will be interesting.

gillenium · #3 07-30-2008, 11:29 AM

Sounds like poo to me, although I still think the original is overrated. It was very close-ended though and doesn't need a sequel.

dubman · #4 07-30-2008, 01:30 PM

well since the original was a bit crap...

Deckard · #5 07-30-2008, 01:49 PM

Found the original very enjoyable.

A sequel?...... pfffft. DD was complete enough.

I rate this decision alongide the plan to do the time warp again.

joethelion · #6 07-31-2008, 10:19 AM

yea - this is kinda... well, just plain dumb. There really is no need to do a sequel.

it could only work somewhat if you went from the angle of the original cut of the film (where why the main character see the bunny, etc is left a bit of a mystery), and didn't use the (crappier) Director's Cut where Frank suddenly was like an angel or something

potatobroth · #7 07-31-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty0900

I think it could work,

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

Dirty0900 · #8 07-31-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potatobroth

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

You gotta have faith as George Michael says.

potatobroth · #9 07-31-2008, 01:59 PM

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 · #10 07-31-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

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.