Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Indy sequel canned -sad day for us all...

Reply
Thread Tools

Indy sequel canned -sad day for us all...

 
 
Thomas Bell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
Mike Kohary wrote:

> If this news is true, I'm glad Spielberg/Lucas/Ford/whoever came to their
> senses. Your mileage may vary, but I'm one of those people who thinks that
> some movies simply don't need and shouldn't have sequels. (And I'm damned
> glad Spielberg never did a sequel to E.T.)


Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. For a few years in the mid 80's,
there was talk of a sequal dealing with the Roy Neary character being
returned to Earth (if you go by the logical theory that an Alien/Human
swap was what happened at the end of the 1st movie).

T.B.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jayembee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
"Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(And I'm damned glad Spielberg never did a sequel to E.T.)


So am I. The original was bad enough.

-- jayembee
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
"Waterperson77" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >And I'm damned
> >glad Spielberg never did a sequel to E.T.)

>
> however, there was a sequel to E.T. a little bit after the first movie was
> released. (the original version).
>
> I don't remember if the sequel said it was approved by Speilberg or not,

but
> there was a sequel.


No there wasn't.

> It was just in printed book format instead of movie format.
>
> I do seem to remember the book saying it was the sequel to E.T.
>
> And it was approved by the same movie company that released the original

E.T.
> movie.


I'm talking about movies, not books.

Mike

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
"Thomas Bell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mike Kohary wrote:
>
> > If this news is true, I'm glad Spielberg/Lucas/Ford/whoever came to

their
> > senses. Your mileage may vary, but I'm one of those people who thinks

that
> > some movies simply don't need and shouldn't have sequels. (And I'm

damned
> > glad Spielberg never did a sequel to E.T.)

>
> Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. For a few years in the mid 80's,
> there was talk of a sequal dealing with the Roy Neary character being
> returned to Earth (if you go by the logical theory that an Alien/Human
> swap was what happened at the end of the 1st movie).


Right, that too. Spielberg, of course, was under great pressure to do a
sequel for E.T. (and probably CE3K, among others of his films), and
consistently refused. He knew that E.T. stood on its own and told a
complete story, and any followup could only serve to diminish the original.

I didn't like that he ended up revisiting E.T. for some Lucasian changes,
but even there, he seemed to understand it was just a gimmick, and he paid
respect to his original film by releasing it intact to DVD (so intact that
it was even more complete than previous video versions, all of which had
minor alterations, exactly replicating the theatrical presentation). I'm at
a loss to explain why Lucas doesn't feel obligated to do the same thing...

(Beating the "but it's his film" critics to the punch: pop in your Star
Wars laserdisc or VHS tape and go all the way to the end credits. Watch
them all, and then tell me it's "his" film. Does anyone think John Dykstra
is happy that most of his brilliant Death Star dogfighting work -
award-winning sfx revolutionary for their time - is chopped out of the
Special Edition? There are hundreds of similar examples. The point being,
filmmaking is a collaborative art, and the SEs disrespect the hundreds of
artists who *helped* George Lucas bring his vision to life on film, without
whom he NEVER could have done it. Ok, tangent over.)

Mike

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
"jayembee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >(And I'm damned glad Spielberg never did a sequel to E.T.)

>
> So am I. The original was bad enough.


Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha!

So, do you guys ever discuss DVDs and films without disrespecting each
others' tastes? Just curious.

Mike

 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
Personally, I'm glad. This was the one franchise cash-in that I was most
dreading.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rwright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
This could be a good thing. I don't think Lucas's STAR WARS prequels have
done much for the original three flicks! Let's face it, Lucas is a hasbeen.


"Derek Janssen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40328f84$0$3068$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Justin wrote:
>
> >>As his last "Okay, this is *really* it this time!...One LAST sure-fire
> >>script before we can it!" attempt, George thought a Frank Darabont
> >>script would be just the thing--
> >>It's just too bad nobody more familiar with Darabont had mentioned that
> >>little...you know...M-word to to Lucas *before* he'd gotten the script?

> >
> > Mature?

>
> "Majestic"...As in, "Ear-bendingly corny Jim Carrey flops".
> (Now, DON'T tell me you've forgotten?)
>
> George was apparently still "Shawshank"-blinded (hey, there are a few
> sad cases left), and apparently thought that the director of "Sand
> Pirates of the Sahara" [the fictitious B-movie from "Majestic"] would be
> just the experienced name-screenwriter to tackle a colorfully nostalgic
> Indy sequel--
> Unfortunately, to get it, he'd also have to take the Darabont who'd
> handled the REST of "The Majestic" along with it...And ya gets what ya
> pay for.
>
> Derek Janssen
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Spatny
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
Waterperson77,(E-Mail Removed) says...
> however, there was a sequel to E.T. a little bit after the first movie


You sure this was a book, and not something you saw on Canadian cable on
your 2.35 aspect ratio tv?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
"Mark Spatny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) k.net...
> Waterperson77,(E-Mail Removed) says...
> > however, there was a sequel to E.T. a little bit after the first movie

>
> You sure this was a book, and not something you saw on Canadian cable on
> your 2.35 aspect ratio tv?


I knew it! This is the same guy, isn't it? But he's changed his ID. Sorry
to be behind the times here, but I thought I recognized him by his rambling
style.

Mike

 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2004
Mike Kohary wrote on [Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:23:54 -0800]:
> "Mark Spatny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) k.net...
>> Waterperson77,(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> > however, there was a sequel to E.T. a little bit after the first movie

>>
>> You sure this was a book, and not something you saw on Canadian cable on
>> your 2.35 aspect ratio tv?

>
> I knew it! This is the same guy, isn't it? But he's changed his ID. Sorry
> to be behind the times here, but I thought I recognized him by his rambling
> style.
>


Yes. Yes he is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now.day and day(now) returning the wrong day! Andy ASP .Net 1 11-06-2008 12:20 PM
YOUNG INDY/"Old Indy" Question Curtin/Dobbs DVD Video 0 11-13-2007 05:39 PM
ANN: Sequel 0.0.19 Released and Sequel discussion list Sharon Rosner Ruby 0 04-16-2007 09:48 AM
Is the extra Indy disc at Best Buy ny good? Bobcancel DVD Video 16 11-06-2003 06:00 PM
INDY News TSKO DVD Video 4 07-08-2003 03:58 AM



Advertisments