59 replies to this topic

[Lim_202]

What was that one year when sequels came out for EVERYTHING. Although that was most years I can remeber one that was just plain crazy.

[Eeyore]

Nnononononono!!! I refuse to believe it. Forest Gump is far too awesomely amazing to make a sequal for it!!! Rawr! Why can't they leave great films well alone?

[Rufio]

some movies are better to be left without sequels....and this is one of them.
all we can do now is hope the 2nd one doesnt suck that bad but hey, it might be better ^-^

[Kail]

Nnononononono!!! I refuse to believe it. Forest Gump is far too awesomely amazing to make a sequal for it!!! Rawr! Why can't they leave great films well alone?

Me agree.. Forest Gump was sooo goood but now there gonna ruin it (possibly)

And i saw a trailer for Godzilla 2 somewhere like 4 years ago

[Quadra]

When they are making sequels to such ancient movies you know that the studios is desperate and idealess.

[Jewbert]

When they are making sequels to such ancient movies you know that the studios is desperate and idealess.

Yes. That and remakes. How many remakes of old old movies has their been? MANY. Aka Charlotte's Web. UGH.

[Warlord]

I werk for sum kinda froot compuhny
yo, im foresssttt gummmppp

"and he told jfk that he really had to pee"

"he's gump! he's gump! he's gump! whats in his head?"

[dolphinbomb]

Does anyone realize there's been a sequel in book form for several years now?

It's called "Gump and Co." Same author and everything. Consider that before you automatically say it's going to be shit; the book wasn't half bad.

[Jewbert]

Does anyone realize there's been a sequel in book form for several years now?

It's called "Gump and Co." Same author and everything. Consider that before you automatically say it's going to be shit; the book wasn't half bad.

Yeah. I knew there was a book. But most of the time the movies based on books are NOT that great....

Depends. Books are ALWAYS better............

[Ryd3rX]

Yeah. I knew there was a book. But most of the time the movies based on books are NOT that great....

Depends. Books are ALWAYS better............

Not ALWAYS...

http://althouse.blog...-than-book.html

http://www.scalzi.co...ver/002626.html

[Ender]

Remember that the first Forrest Gump movie was based on a novel by Winston Groom. Roth’s sequel script was based on Groom’s followup novel, “Gump & Co”. “Gump & Co” takes place several years after “Forrest Gump” and finds Forrest’s shrimping business failed and Jenny dead, leaving Forrest a single unemployed father. As you’d expect, Gump still stumbles through more important historical events. In this case it’s a cavalcade of history from the 80s and 90s. He even meets Tom Hanks.

-shrugs- I think it could work.

I looooove you Jen-ay

[Sweeney]

Most of the films suggested as better than the books are so different to their source material that they can barely be called adaptations.
Further, many people who espouse the film as better, saw the film first, and were therefore limited in their enjoyment of the book because they already had the characters and settings fixed firmly in their heads.

The best part of a book is the part you imagine, and you can't do that if you have -seen- everything already.

[vattu-]

My god.. what are they doing I wonder how Forest "2" will look like

while talking about sequals, heres something to think about and laugh
http://www.albinobla...chronologically

[Oaken]

this just ruined my day lol

I'm really into my movies and had not heard anything about this......i'm shocked....big time. If this ruins the first film I will be devastated!

Anybody heard about the Brazilian Job? Thats another shocker I cant believe they are doing.

[hinro]

A sequel to the book Forrest Gump was written. but due to a dispute between the author and Paramount Pictures, the screenplay written in 2001 based on the book was not put into production. The dispute has been worked out and Paramount producers are taking another look at the Forrest Gump II screenplay.

Details about the sequel.

Edited by hinro, 25 May 2007 - 12:50 AM.

[Warlord]

The Fast And The Furious 4

Ghostbusters 3

Beetlejuice 2

Just some other examples to prove my point of why forest gump 2 will never happen. go ahead and google any nonexistant movie sequel you can dream of, chances are you'll find such an article on it.

[hinro]

With most of the movies that come out in the past few years being either: Comic book adaptations and Sequels the possibility of it happening is growing. Most the studios are unwilling to try something new since movies cost way more to produce than they use did ten years ago.

Also i did just that and found some interesting information. Though using google will only find misinformation.

Edited by hinro, 25 May 2007 - 01:21 AM.

[Kiribati]

Damn Gump has MORE STORIES to tell?! I thought he was damn well done!

[Eeyore]

Okay, just checked imdb, there's no mention of it there, so it's not gonna happen .

[Kiribati]

Dang. I liked Forrest's stories. Oh well.

[Freystein]

I don't care how much money that they could make from this. Creating a sequel to Forrest Gump is cinematic sacrilege.

[phalkon]

i don't FG 2 would be HORRIBLE if they did it right.

if they got everyone on board and told the story better than the book then maybe they could hope for mediocre, at best?

the first FG was awesome. it was almost magical. you hoped for the guy, you pulled for him. you watched a mentally incompetent man bumble through two decades for just as many hours.

no granted they did leave a large gap (he talked about the late 70s, but then suddenly it's the 90s and he rich from Apple?) i mean, i guess filling in the space would be nice, but it would be like a little prequel inside of a sequel?

eh, it's confusing. part of me wants it, part of me doesn't.

but Ghostbusters III on the other hand....

[Hazard]

Yea i fink Forest Gump 2 would be good if it has original character such as Tom Hanks, but it will be hard to make the sequel better then the 1st film