John Carter of Mars
Constantine. Keanu Reeves has said he would like to do it, and there is a ton of story material to draw from between the Constantine series and all of the Hellblazers, not to mention cameos in other series.
Commenting to take notes of movies that weren’t ruined by useless sequels.
I wasn’t really surprised it didn’t get a sequel but I remember that “The golden compass” was made to have sequels from the get go and i think even ended with a cliffhanger, or maybe not. I juste remember feeling like the story was cut short. I didn’t feel this with the Harry potter movies despite being another adaptation of a book, so they probably screwed up.
Dredd with Karl Urban
Still waiting on Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money
I liked Rick Moranis’s idea for it, Spaceballs III: The Search for Spaceballs II.
I feel like you can modify it to include both ideas Spaceballs III: The Search for Spaceballs II: The Search for More Money
Kung Fury has a sequel and it’s been finished for several years, I’m just suprised the damn movie hasn’t released yet. They were suing some company because they were owed money by them but that’s settled now and we have no word as to why it’s not out yet.
I’m not necessarily surprised this one didn’t get a sequel, but I really wish it had!
Event Horizon (1997)
I like the fan theory that Event Horizon is a prequel of sorts to the Warhammer universe.
Not necessarily a sequel but kinda surprised they didn’t make a prequel to coraline
Alita: Battle Angel. I’ve heard there is a sequel planned, but it’s been a few years since the first movie. James Cameron is still involved as a producer, but I guess his blue-skinned money machine has kept him busy lately.
it took ten years for avatar to get one
The Adventure of Tintin.
Adventures of Tintin. Peter Jackson was supposed to direct it, but unfortunately he got busy with Hobbit.
Apparently they were supposed to adapt Prisoners of the Sun, which is arguably the best Tintin storyline to make a movie of.
The Nice Guys
Absolutely. Easily one of the best films of the last decade.
I’m late to the party here, but since I didn’t see it mention elsewhere, I’ll throw up unbreakable with Bruce Willis. given his health conditions, it won’t happen with him but it might be able to happen with somebody else in his place.
I feel like that movie established some solid characters and a somewhat unique case of the every man turned superhero. The whole idea of him just being able to touch someone and then get a glimpse into their hidden life was really cool. Plus there was the relationship with his son, bad guy suffering from that brittle bone disease to contrast with Bruce Willis’s character being, well, unbreakable. it was a good setup I thought for a whole series of films.
(looks around)
(To neighbor) psst who’s gonna tell this guy that unbreakable not only got a sequel. It’s start of a trilogy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbreakable_(film_series)
(Neighbor to me) I think he’s being sarcastic…
I hope you’re trolling.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
It was good. It was written by Douglas Adams. He also wrote screenplays for the next 2 books to be made into movies.
And despite it making a couple million more than it cost, the first one was considered a flop. :(
Thay movie was awful. As a huge fan of the series, I don’t know how anyone can watch it and understand the plot without being familiar with it beforehand.
The BBC series is much better, and goes up to Book 3 iirc.
Agreed. Second-worst date movie ever. She was shellshocked and missed all the humour cues.
I disagree. I loved the film. I remember it fondly.
Do you like the books? I find that people who like or have read the books tend not to like the movie and vice versa. I do not like the books.
The funny thing about THHGttG is that it exists several times simultaneously with wildly different canons. The original BBC radio show was the original, then they did the TV miniseries with much of the same talent (Mostly replacing Susan Sheridan with Sandra Dickenson as Trillian), THEN the book pentology, THEN the 2005 movie. They all start pretty similarly with Arthur’s house and the pub and the Vogons, but then they go into all kinds of different directions in different orders.
For me personally, the plot doesn’t matter all that much anyway. What I love is Douglas Adams’ prose - the plot’s mostly just a vehicle for that - and I feel that doesn’t really translate to film. The perfect example:
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t.
It’s funny. It’s succinct. It’s very descriptive. It doesn’t just tell you that the ships were hovering, it draws comparison to bricks which conjures up images of blocky, inelegant ships, and it gives the impression that the way they’re just stationary in the sky is somewhat unsettling or surreal. I think it’s quite impressive how much such a short sentence manages to convey really!
Translating it to film, and having shot of some blocky, inelegant ships hanging in the sky, doesn’t manage to capture the same humour or feeling that that short sentence in the book does, at least for me. And it’s the same throughout the whole series, but that line is probably the easiest example to bring up. Some books translate really well to film and the imagery in the film ends up being far better than what I could imagine myself on the fly, but that’s not the case with Hitchhiker’s Guide at all.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide radio series has a fair amount of narration so the prose still shines through in that.
I had similar issues with the various Dirk Gently adaptations, too. And I find I have the same issue with screen adaptations of Terry Pratchett’s work for similar reasons. Without Adams’ or Pratchett’s wonderful prose, it often tends to feel very B-movie-esque to me.
