«

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.

"Mike Kohary" <> wrote:

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

So am I. The original was bad enough.

-- jayembee

"Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >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

"Thomas Bell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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

"jayembee" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Mike Kohary" <> 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

Personally, I'm glad. This was the one franchise cash-in that I was most
dreading.

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" <> wrote in message
news:40328f84$0$3068$...
> 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
>
>

Waterperson77, 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?

"Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
news: k.net...
> Waterperson77, 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

Mike Kohary wrote on [Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:23:54 -0800]:
> "Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
> news: k.net...
>> Waterperson77, 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.