• GrimChaos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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

      • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Thanks-killing did that, skipped a sequal and the third film was about destroying the second (that dosent exist).

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They’d have trouble fitting all the gags about repetition and nostalgia in a reasonable running time.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      They made that, it was just split into three movies and made by Disney, with different titles.

      Underwhelming too.

    • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Can we get Jews in space and Hitler on ice. I mean technically space balls was the former but what would be the latter.

  • KinNectar@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

  • hactar42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    11 months ago

    The Fifth Element

    I’m glad it didn’t get a sequel because it is such a good stand alone movie. I’m just shocked the studio didn’t try to milk it for everything it had.

  • Ixoid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

  • Jonathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not necessarily surprised this one didn’t get a sequel, but I really wish it had!

    Event Horizon (1997)

        • Hugin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          The theory is basically that in 40k ftl works by sending the ship through the warp (hell). Humans use a Gellar field to keep a bubble of reality around the ship while in the warp. The theory is this is humanities firstf tll so they don’t know they need a Gellar field.

          It’s fun but other then the ftl is hell doesn’t fit at all with the rest of 40k lore.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It was apparently too intense for test audiences, and this was in the pre-DVD-special-features era when no one bothered to keep cut footage. Maybe they cut too much. I watched it recently because I had heard fantastic things and I was just… generally unimpressed. It was an interesting concept that really wasn’t very well explored, and the writing was so stiff.

  • Mokopa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    11 months ago

    Master and commander… They had the ship built already too - why not make a sequel? There’s about 20 books worth of material.

    • Che Banana@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I saw something on this that it was the last “great epic” type movie before Hollywood was run over by the MCU. Absolutely fantastic series of books, which translated well (IMO) in the movie, but…pew pew lazereye firerboys demigods won the day.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    11 months ago

    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. :(

    • Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • loobkoob@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

    • Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m surprised it’s never been made into a decent TV show. The entire thing has already been made into half-hour radio shows, so the scripts are there and road tested. It’s basically halfway done already.

  • Ecksell@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    11 months ago

    Man of Steel. It was a shot in the arm for DC movies, and the Superman character in film. Why they didnt follow up with a direct sequel, and instead released that dumpster fire Batman v Superman instead, I will never understand.

      • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You’d think after the second or third time they tried to skip a rung on the ladder and smacked their face in humiliation they would have learned. At least it seems they’ve learned now and put people who actually understand story in charge rather than people who just chase box office numbers.

    • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      I will forever be mad about that. I was defending Man of Steel, while others shit talked it. I thought it was a great beginning for a Superman franchise. Sure he killed Zod, but imagine how this will change Superman to never want to kill again? But they never went back to do a solo Superman movie. Poor Caville was shafted hard by WB suits who wanted their own Marvel franchise.

    • paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      DC tried launching into their own DCU way too fast. Whereas Marvel setup most of the major characters beforehand and let it simmer for a little bit before jumping into the ensemble movies, DC just tried jumping right into their cinematic universe. DC just can’t seem to do anything right when it comes to their movies unless by accident (or if it’s an animated movie). Maybe James Gunn will be able to turn it around and put together something cohesive, but it’s hard to tell where anything starts or stops with DC now, it just feels like a convoluted mess. Plus, the whole superhero movie trend may be dying out anyways thanks to Disney’s/Marvel’s lazy writing.

    • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Really? The movie was the handout for the people who were pissed the series didn’t last longer. Asking for a second movie is a nonstarter, even if the first was good.

      • Brutticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Which, honestly, to be 100 percent honest, it wasn’t. I hated the movie. I understand its my fatal flaw, but I look at works holistically. One of the things that got me into firefly was it’s pacing; the promise that everything was going to have room to breathe. I would rather just have the first season; the movie crammed plot threads and character arcs meant to sustain an entire 5 season series into a 2 hour movie. Except its worse, because I got to see what the slow burn was like.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Dredd

    Such a great movie that should’ve launched at least a trilogy, it was so much better than the Stalone movie, it kept the stakes relatively low, just a day-in-the-life sort of story, but did some great world-building. No “end of the world” stakes or anything silly, just some Judges trying to clear out a building, one apartment building in a mega-city.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Just an apropos of that, I’m at dinner with friends and one of them says that I had bad tastes in movies. His example of that was that I liked Dredd. I think the entire table turned on him at that point. I think that he said that The Raid did it better. I was like … they’re just different movies to me … I LOVE The Raid. That being said, I really enjoyed Dredd. It’s a damned tragedy Karl Urban didn’t get to reprise the role.