Not only did I not see the original, but I also have no idea what it was all about.
And I'm not really asking for an explanation here cuz I have no intention of seeing this one either.
But what I find fascinating is that there were 36 years (1988 - 2024) between the original and this currently running sequel!
That seems very odd to me.
Hollywood originality marches on!
Beetlejuice ^ 2
-
Frayed Knot
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 pm
Beetlejuice ^ 2
Posting Covid-19 free since March of 2020
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Mary Poppins Returns (2018) sure took its time (52 years) before returning.
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
There's a 2024 remake of Nosferatu that came 102 years after the original (1922). Caught the original in a college films class. Haven't seen the new one.
I won' t be seeing the new Beetlejuice, either.
Later
I won' t be seeing the new Beetlejuice, either.
Later
I blame Susan Collins
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in a large group". George Carlin
I have never insulted anyone. I simply describe them, accurately.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in a large group". George Carlin
I have never insulted anyone. I simply describe them, accurately.
-
batmagadanleadoff
- Posts: 8857
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:43 am
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Sequels. Not remakes.
Coming to America and Coming 2 America were many years apart.
Bambi and Bambi 2, too.
-
whippoorwill
- Posts: 4683
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:17 pm
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Saw the first Beetlejuice again last week.
Except Geena Davis and Winona Rider and the little model village it was meh
Except Geena Davis and Winona Rider and the little model village it was meh
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Sometimes, that's kind of how I feel about life.
-
Frayed Knot
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 pm
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Sometimes I think these long-delayed sequels come down to hitting a window where several of the principles simultaneously find themselves devoid of the kind of offers the way they used to get until they finally break and say, 'All right, I'll do it ... just give me the check!'
Posting Covid-19 free since March of 2020
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Sad to give a franchise 30 years to come up with a continuation of a beloved original story only to have it be utter shite. Not this one, which I have not seen, but the ones I have that are comedies are generally pretty rotten.Frayed Knot wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 7:31 pm Sometimes I think these long-delayed sequels come down to hitting a window where several of the principles simultaneously find themselves devoid of the kind of offers the way they used to get until they finally break and say, 'All right, I'll do it ... just give me the check!'
-
Frayed Knot
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 pm
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
I tend to avoid sequels almost entirely.
If I didn't like the original then I'm not going to want to see the story continued.
And if I did like the original I'm afraid that a bad or simply lesser version set the original back a peg or two.
There's got to be some reason to make a sequel other than: 'We made a boat-load of cash on the first one so now we're back for a second boat'
If I didn't like the original then I'm not going to want to see the story continued.
And if I did like the original I'm afraid that a bad or simply lesser version set the original back a peg or two.
There's got to be some reason to make a sequel other than: 'We made a boat-load of cash on the first one so now we're back for a second boat'
Posting Covid-19 free since March of 2020
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
There's likely got to be a better reason for you. Maybe even for me.
But the reason at the studio is that there's a rock-solid business plan. There's no other type of film where you can predict the box office with such certainty. I think 60% of the take from the prior movie is considered the floor for a sequel, with 50-60% outgrossing the original.
The previous film is the marketing anchor for the latter, and that saves in marketing costs. The stars of the previous one are not only now more familiar, but you can get past any worry about testing them in the roles, as the audience has already accepted them in the slots, and if you had any foresight, you signed them all to a three-picture deal, with options on the latter two, so you even though they are now more famous due to a successful initial film, they still cost you what they cost you before the first film.
If the first film bombs, you don't pick up the option. Usually, there's no buyout fee for that.
On top of that, production costs are additionally controlled because the prior production is your blueprint.
Lastly, you own the property, so you don't have to pay the rights owner again. If the original screenwriter or director wants mo' $$, you can toss them and hire some hack. The style is already established from the first film.
So controlled costs, a mostly guaranteed take, a proven production blueprint, and unlike non-franchise fare, you don't have to worry if the critics think it's derivative, because duh, it's supposed to be.
It's certainly a slow-motion race to the bottom artistically, but it's sadly good bidness. Not a lot of execs lose their job for greenlighting Deadpool 3. And when you've got a three-foot pile of cocaine in your rumpus room, and Jennifer Lawrence in your rolodex, you probably make a lot of decisions based on what's not going to get you fired.
But the reason at the studio is that there's a rock-solid business plan. There's no other type of film where you can predict the box office with such certainty. I think 60% of the take from the prior movie is considered the floor for a sequel, with 50-60% outgrossing the original.
The previous film is the marketing anchor for the latter, and that saves in marketing costs. The stars of the previous one are not only now more familiar, but you can get past any worry about testing them in the roles, as the audience has already accepted them in the slots, and if you had any foresight, you signed them all to a three-picture deal, with options on the latter two, so you even though they are now more famous due to a successful initial film, they still cost you what they cost you before the first film.
If the first film bombs, you don't pick up the option. Usually, there's no buyout fee for that.
On top of that, production costs are additionally controlled because the prior production is your blueprint.
Lastly, you own the property, so you don't have to pay the rights owner again. If the original screenwriter or director wants mo' $$, you can toss them and hire some hack. The style is already established from the first film.
So controlled costs, a mostly guaranteed take, a proven production blueprint, and unlike non-franchise fare, you don't have to worry if the critics think it's derivative, because duh, it's supposed to be.
It's certainly a slow-motion race to the bottom artistically, but it's sadly good bidness. Not a lot of execs lose their job for greenlighting Deadpool 3. And when you've got a three-foot pile of cocaine in your rumpus room, and Jennifer Lawrence in your rolodex, you probably make a lot of decisions based on what's not going to get you fired.
-
Frayed Knot
- Posts: 14906
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 pm
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Oh I know perfectly well Why they do it.
I just refuse to participate.
I just refuse to participate.
Posting Covid-19 free since March of 2020
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
Indeed.
I had a school bus recklessly tearing ass down my block last week when I was walking the dog. I looked at my phone clock and realized he was a little late — about six minutes later than his usual time passing our house — and I realized that the stuff we do to keep from getting fired is often far more counterproductive than the stuff we do that actually gets us fired.
I had a school bus recklessly tearing ass down my block last week when I was walking the dog. I looked at my phone clock and realized he was a little late — about six minutes later than his usual time passing our house — and I realized that the stuff we do to keep from getting fired is often far more counterproductive than the stuff we do that actually gets us fired.
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
I’m a huge fan of Tim Burton and a huge Beetlejuice fan. I thought this was a decent follow up and I enjoyed it. Did it live up to the original? No, but I wasn’t disappointed either. It has a lot of nods to the original and kept the spirit of the original film.
Re: Beetlejuice ^ 2
This is pretty much how Lorcan felt when he and friends saw it last week