this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
34 points (92.5% liked)

movies

1534 readers
420 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

πŸ”Ž Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Damn, Top Gun got studios looking hard at legacy sequels now that superheroes are fading. Who is the audience for this? Or is it just content for a streaming service?

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

My thinking is digging into the vaults means they don't need to license new IP. It's a cost saving tactic.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

I mean, okay, fine, if they can get the original cast on board, and not try and turn it into a fucking franchise. A single sequel with the family having aged, ideally with a totally unrelated plot involving the next generation with the previous cast taking a back seat? Fine, whatever. I won't be hyped because that movie didn't need sequel at all. It was a great movie (though not high art, it's a really enjoyable little romp), with a great ending. End of story.

Next thing you know, they'll be trying to fucking reboot witches of eastwick

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 3 points 3 months ago

Oh I love the original, Kidman's lack of acting ability notwithstanding. Leave it alone you money grubbing knobs; we don't need a sequel.