Interesting article (that I mostly agree with):

This week's installment of Matt Springer's "Cut and Print" tackles the subject of film sequels-Hollywood's need to cover old ground in the quest to milk every possible penny out of a franchise. This morning's announcement of a Crow 4 movie when Crow 3 has yet to gain an official release date merely added fuel to Matt's fire. See what Matt has to say:

Cut and Print #4
About a month ago, I was sitting at a press conference for the Dungeons & Dragons movie at Dragoncon in Atlanta when the film's director, Courtney Solomon, blew my mind away.

"I set up outlines for three [films] up front," he said, "and so you're looking at the first, the introduction of the world. In the second, the same characters progress..."

I just about snorted Coke through my nose. Waitaminit. Sequels? For a Dungeons and Dragons movie? This would not appear to be a project that Hollywood was beating down doors to produce in the first place. They had to obtain most of their funding from foreign investors, and even though the film is in the can, it's not scheduled to be released until this fall or next spring, which is never a sign of confidence. This is not the kind of psyched-up, gung-ho atmosphere in which sequels are usually discussed.

Then again, such discussions are becoming more and more
commonplace, in nearly any kind of post-release environment. Battlefield Earth, another independently-financed genre picture, had a sequel in the pipeline months before it even hit theaters. And in spite of the film's dreadful performance, sequels are STILL being realistically discussed. "The last night we were shooting, I
looked at the crew," said Battlefield director Roger Christian, also at Dragoncon. "Usually at that time everybody just scurries off, but the crew stayed on the set for hours afterwards. I think universally, every one of them said they'd like to work together again."

This is the new genre film landscape--the endless search for the ever-elusive Franchise. Back in the day, all you had to do was make a good movie. Now you have to have three films planned--every Franchise starts as a trilogy, natch, to match the Holy Star Wars Trilogy--contracts signed across the board for sequels, merchandising deals hooked up, the fast-food tie-ins ready to go, and the Saturday morning cartoon spinoff series in the pipeline.

Of course, it's been this way ever since the Star Wars films reset the standards for success in Hollywood. But it's almost like Tinseltown has overcome the "blockbuster" mentality, only to replace it with an ever-reaching greed for more, more, more. It's not enough just to open big; if you don't have the next movie lined up, or the next two movies ready to shoot back-to-back in New Zealand, all you have is one big opening. The studios want sequels; they want Franchises.

All we're really seeing happen, though, is that the occasionally great film hits theaters, only to be followed by progressively crappier sequels. All of the truly great film Franchises--Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future--are excellent throughout. There's not a dud in the bunch. Some films are better than others, but I'll defend Temple of Doom, Return of the Jedi and Back to the
Future 2 against anything that's coming out today.

Which, come to think of it, isn't that hard to do. The original Scream? Great. Scream 2? Not bad, but certainly not as great as the first. Scream 3? ••••. Scream 4? Spare us, oh ye Gods of Moviedom! Jurassic Park? Cool. The Lost World? Weak. Jurassic Park 3? I will sacrifice my first-printing collection of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns to keep this off movie screens!

I could go on. I won't. Look at what else we have to look forward to in the coming months: 102 Dalmatians (does Glenn Close need a down payment for a new house or something?), The Mummy Returns (do we need the Rock to make his "big-screen debut"?), Blair Witch 2 (someone's smoking some serious crack) and The Crow: Salvation (huh?). (In fact, the third Crow film doesn't even have a firm release date currently, and they've just announced the cast for the FOURTH Crow film. Which makes me wonder: who
exactly watches these films, and if you know someone who
does, could you ask them to lose the white facepaint for a
few hours and maybe come outside during the daytime?)

And if we're really bad, boys and girls, they'll torture us further with Godzilla 2, Basic Instinct 2, Independence Day 2 and Fight Club 2: Fight Harder. (You think I'm kidding? I'll bet you a dollar they try it.) Look at one of the biggest Franchise juggernauts in the pipeline right now. The Lord of the Rings films have no great value as individual films; they are only worthwhile as a Franchise. It might even be the first-ever pure Franchise production, a film project that
has no illusions about its ultimate goals: to take over the world with hype and merchandising over the course of three juggernaut movies. True, the story told in the novels deserves three films, but is there any doubt that these movies are really being made because New Line is hoping that they can stretch their marketing mania over a few years and milk as much money from Tolkien's rotting corpse as they can? They can talk about their noble intentions in adapting the novels, but in the back of their heads, all they're thinking is "Ca-CHING!"

If Hollywood can start making some good sequels, fine. I would love nothing more than to be blown away by The Matrix 2, or Jurassic Park 3. I highly doubt that will happen, though, which is why I'd rather see a few really good genre films with no sequel strings attached. Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first Back to the Future--these are all brilliant stand-alone stories that
happen to have spawned some great sequels. People love to
forget that even though Lucas may have had huge ambitions
for the universe he created, he wisely decided early on to
simply focus on making one really good movie, Star Wars,
pulled straight from the middle of his overall story.

Somehow, I doubt the creative minds behind any of today's
budding Franchises are too worried about just making good
movies--they're probably too busy wondering how much they'll have to pay Debra Winger to get her to reprise her voicework in E.T. 2: Elliot's Revenge.

http://www.cinescape.com/indexnew.html

They never made a sequel to Gandhi.

Matt, you shouldn't post the entire article. Summarize and Link, or do you want to get Phil into potential legal trouble?

Since the other board about sequels shut down, I'm going to have to rant here.

WHY, OH, WHY do they have to ruin great movies with abysmal sequels? Who's brainy idea was it to make a third "Home Alone" movie? Or "Batman and Robin"? Why did they make "Rock 'n Roll High School Forever"? The original "Rock 'n Roll High School" was a classic, so was "Home Alone" and "Batman", but these crappy successors just cheapen the memory of the original. Just like the third and fourth "Revenge of the Nerds" movies, which happened to be direct-to-TV ('cause nobody in their right mind would pay to see them!). Talk about beating a dead horse! Or the most glaring example of pointlessness: "My Girl 2". The first "My Girl" movie shouldn't have been made in the first place, and why anyone even paid to see the sequel is beyond me. Haven't these filmmakers learned yet?

Alright, I feel much better now that I've got that out of my system.

ScottN, I would have done the "Summarize and Link" thing but Cinescape doesn't have links to individual articles. Click on the link if you don't believe me.

Oh, the name is Mike not Matt.

I do wonder why they ever made a sequel to Mannequin - why make a sequel to a flop?

You guys don't know what you're talking about.

If not for sequels, how could we have "Police Academy Five: Mission to Moscow"?

Would you honestly deprive us of this classic!?

Shame on all of you!

No, no no! The movie you're thinking of was "Police Acadamey 6 : Assignment Miami Beach"

Stoopid typos! that's Academy!

Assignment Miami Beach really ruined the "Police Academy" franchise. I can't believe you even brought it up.

And I thought you had taste.

Yeesh.

As for the Matrix, and Lord Of The Rings, one thing must be kept in mind. Some stories are simply too huge to put into one movie. That's why I feel an incredible surge of dread everytime someone talks about making a movie out of Stranger in a Strange Land.

Of course the other option is mini-series, but unless it's HBO, something could be lost (with the obvious exceptions of The Stand, Roots, and The Shining).

There is going to be a Hellraiser 5. It's coming out directly to video. You know why. Part 4 was awful. Also I heard that they were filming Hellraiser 5 & 6 back-to-back so soom there will be a Hellraiser 6.

I really hate that they kept making sequels that cheapen this sereis. Really they should have just stopped at two. 3 isn't that bad and has some very good things, but it isn't the best. and 4-dont' get me started. But they keep making them

Oh and if you didn't know there is going to be another friday the 13th movie called Jason X. The X stands for 10 as is this is the tenth Jason movie.

One of the worst sequels I have ever seen was "The Dukes of Hazzard: Hazzard in Hollywood." Don't get me wrong, I liked the TV series, but that movie was unbearable. And no, I never saw the first Hazzard movie.

Woo Hoo! Every movie must have a sequel!

(WTW trembles in anticipation for Supernova 2)

The Gate was extremely bad - and they made The Gate 2...

The true stupidity behind Hollywood franchises can be summarized in four words:

Highlander 2: The Quickening

The first film didn't open anything up for a sequel. Connor's the last Immortal, so that's that. If they had to squeeze more blood from the stone (which bombed at the theatres, by the way), a prequel would have been infinitely mroe feasible.

There are direct-to-video sequels to direct-to video movies that I never heard of. (Was "Body Chemistry" ever released theatrically? They did three of those, with ever changing casts.) Enough already.

Are they going to make a series of Harry Potter films? I hope not. The leads would have to change constantly as the previous casts grow up. I am so sick of hearing about Harry Potter and J.K Rowling's personal life. Warner's may be looking for the perfect franchise, and this may be it. We may get Harry Potter movies rammed down our throats into the next century. NO MORE!

Seeing as their are already like 5 books I'd imagine that if this one does good business they will make another one.

>>Some stories are simply too huge to put into one movie. That's why I feel an incredible surge of dread everytime someone talks about making a movie out of Stranger in a Strange Land.<<

Or what about "The Foundation Trilogy."? (more, if you count Prelude and others) Although I'd probably dutifully line-up to see Stranger or Foundation, the stories would most likely be watered down to the point of non-resemblence.

Rowling has said she's going to write 7 of them (one for each year at Hogwarts). Whether all 7 will make films is another matter.

NO! NO! NO! NO!

Was "Body Chemistry" ever released theatrically? They did three of those, with ever changing casts.

If they were released theatrically, I'm sure the Daily Mail (here in the UK) would have had a field day and devoted an entire edition of their newspaper to it. (OK, only joking!) But they are on UK's Channel 5, shown with a worrying regularity on the late-night Friday slot. Apparently.

Actually, there was, in fact, a fourth one done too.

Apparently.

Or maybe you meant the original and three others. I know, I know... :P

"Body Chemistry" was a cheapjack but interesting ripoff of "Fatal Attraction," starring Marc Singer ("V", "Beastmaster") and Lisa Pescia. (Who is she??) The sequel has Pescia, Gregory Harrison, Morton Downey Jr. and John Landis. By the third one, even Pescia had given up. In each film, the Pescia (or whomever) character, Dr. Claire Archer, got away with murder. Neither premium nor basic cable here in the States has run one of these films in a long time, so I am blissfully unaware of the existence of a fourth.

I'm sure the fourth one had Shannon Tweed in it. I think.
But I really ought to know better than to have my eyesight ruined.
So9

Lots of sequels indeed shouldn't be made. On the other hand in some ways its a throwback to the pre TV days of cinema, where there there were a lot of what we'd now call franchises, such the Ma and Pa Kettle films, and the serials, which often had sequels. And its kind of silly to claim that Star Wars is the inspiration for modern sequels when you have series like the James Bond movies, which will be having its 40th anniversary soon.

Lots of sequels indeed shouldn't be made.

What are you, some kind of Commie? Of course sequels should be made! We need to squeeze every penny out of the suckers customers that we can!

How about the opposite side of the coin, films which had the potential to generate sequels but didn't, for instance ET was left open-ended but it was decided that a follow up would spoil things.

This time, it's personal.

No, no no... It's "Why must every movie have a sequel... 3D!

Ooops! You're right! My bad. Part IV would be "The Son of Why must every movie have a sequel?", right? Part V would then be "Bride of Why must every movie have a sequel?"

But, where does, "This time, it's personal" come in?

Jaws 4, I believe.

Ohhhh yes...that wonderful movie where the shark that Roy Scheider blew up comes back for revenge on his family. And in the course of battling it Michael Caine (really) gets dumped into the ocean but is later seen climbing into a rescue boat in perfectly dry clothes.

Spielberg shoulda sued.

Or Peter Benchley, for that matter. At least Mario Van Peebles got eaten.

Caine should have revolted after that. Then we could have The Caine Mutiny!

What's with the ending of Tim Burton's "re-imagined" Planet of the Apes? Fun escapist movie (viewed on its own merits, rather that compared blow-by-blow with the original) that was internally consistant, but then had that tacked-on "oh my god" ending. If a sequel was what someone had/has in mind, the film could have just ended with a flying off into the sunset cliche.
I guess they had to outdo the original film's surprise ending. And it WAS surprising. The new film wasn't; I had an inkling it might end the way it did, but perhaps that's because I knew the original novel ended similarly.
And yes, I know the original PotA spawned 4 sequels, a tv series and a cartoon. Which I suppose leads us back to the original question about sequels...

"American Pie II," "Return of the Mummy," "Rush Hour II," each of those films grossed almost $200M, if not more. That is your answer. Films have sequels, because people want to see sequels. And films will continue to have sequels, until people decide not to see sequels.

Um, the end of Burton's "Planet of the Apes" IS actually fairly close to the way the book ended...and so please tell me why ending a movie the same way the book ended is a bad thing. They ended "Fellowship of the Ring" in the same annoying, frustrating, I-wasted-my-time-for-THIS?!? way the book ended, 'cause if they didn't the Tolkienphiles would've razed theatres to the ground all over the world.

E. Sackman is absolutely right. It's about money. Sequels also have lots of advantages over first films: they generally can be done for less money (each Star Trek film had a progressively smaller budget) and promoted more cheaply--because audiences are more familiar with the product. They also can get straight to the story and not spend the first half-hour with "getting to know you" crud.

The problem with movie sequals is often that extra time to tell a story. Without a good painting the extra canvass is wasted. Was Rocky or Rocky IV a better movie.

Each Trek film did not have a progressively smaller budget. ST-TMP had a cost of $44 million, due to the effects problem. Also, the cost of the aborted Trek movies of the mid '70's and the never produced "Phase II" series was lumped into that film's pricetag. Harve Bennett was brought into Trek by the Paramount suits in order to do a second Trek film for far less than the first one cost (final cost was about $12 million.) Each successive Trek film was more costly than the previous one, with "Insurrection", at about $70 million, the most costly so far.
Anyone out there know what the budget for "Star Trek Nemesis" is?

Re: the Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' film ending similarly to the original novel...
Ending a film like the book upon which it's based isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless the book's ending is a bit weak to begin with.
Mind you, my opinions about 'PotA' are just that: opinions. I've generally never cared for "surprise" endings that just seem a little contrived; they just seem a little too much like using "it was all a dream" to wrap up an otherwise OK story. (I'm referring to books and films, and even tv shows for that matter.)
On the other hand, D Mann has a valid point about book fans expecting certain things in the film version of said book. But, regarding Burton's 'PotA,' were a lot of the people who went to see this film expecting to see the original novel up on the screen? Were they even aware of it? (I guess those questions pertain more to American audiences who had been raised on the original 'PotA' films.)

Gladiator II is in the works. Absolutely ridiculous. What's next? Titanic II?

Um, the emperor and what's his name both died at the end. Don't they think we'll notice if they are running around again?

Don't worry, the Access Hollywood story I saw that on specifically said that Russel Crowe WON'T be it. No Patirck Duffy in the shower here boys so you can relax. A little. ;)

"Titanic II" was on the drawing board at one time.

Cameron is •••••• but not THAT ••••••. Titanic II would probably have been about the survivors and their life after the sinking. As if the first movie wasn't boring enough.

I'm waiting for Dirty Dancing 2 (think I'm kidding? Give Artisan entertainment (home of the Bliar Witch movies and those Denise Austin videos) a call). ;-)

Dirty Dancing 2 is going to be more of a remake than a sequel, new character, new actors, new location same story.

Cameron is •••••• but not THAT ••••••.

Actually Cameron is a genus, remember Terminator, Aliens & The Abyss.

Cameron will direct a movie with Steven "Traffic; Sex, Lies, & Videotape" Soderburgh, called Solaris, starring George Clooney.

Twisted..

Actually, Soderbergh wrote and directed it (it comes out later this year, I believe). Cameron only produced it.

Cameron hasn't directed any features since Titanic. And though he says he has a lot on the board (he talks about a sequel to True Lies), he isn't slated for anything, yet.

First he was going to do T3 but left because he doesn't control the rights and didn't want someone else to have that much control over the project. Now he's talking about doing an IMAX film, making him the first A-list director to do one.

Fitzie: T2 was better than T1, and Aliens left not a single particle of ass unkicked, but let's face it, the guy's a sleazeball. A sleazeball hell bent on ruinging one of my all time favorite books by turing it into an IMAX movie! Yeah, a political human drama set against the back drop of the 4th planet from the sun is going to get the "Oh look what we cna do with big cameras!" treatment. I think I'm gonna puke.

He wrote and directed T2 & T1 so what diference does which one was better make?

Yeah, a political human drama set against the back drop of the 4th planet from the sun is going to get the "Oh look what we cna do with big cameras!" treatment.

Yea it's not like he's ever made a film before where he used groundbreaking technology and turned it into a plotless "look at my special effects demo reel" wait a sec, yes he did remember T2 & The Abyss?

BTW I'm not even sure that his project is even connected to that book of which you speak. The only stuff I've ever heard about his project don't even mention that book. Here's the 2 listings I've found for his project:

http://us.imdb.com/SB?19990816#1

http://us.imdb.com/SB?20001116#2

but let's face it, the guy's a sleazeball.

I assume you are talking about his lovelife? I have a hard time feeling sorry for a woman who has an affair with a married man, marries him and than gets upset when he goes and cheats on her.

Backing up a bit... Solaris? Would that be a remake of the famous Russian science fiction film of the same name?

I honestly couldn't tell you; it was a teaser trailer.

From what I know - yes.

Seed of Chucky comes out this November. It's being released by an outfit called "Rogue Pictures." This is an offshoot of Universal's art-house division, Focus Features.
Anyway, haven't we seen enough of that little terror doll? No more.

Adam: As a geek, I am actually quite excited by this one.

Me too. It's also the directing debut of Don Mancini, the writer of all of the Chuckey movies.

Sly Stallone is gearing up to make (guess what?) - Rocky VI. I thought that Rocky V was the end of the line for the Rocky Balboa character. Stallone reportedly wanted Rocky to die in that one, but the studio overruled him. Also, Rocky V had the unfortunate timing to open on the same day Home Alone did. And we all know how well that movie did, and how well Rocky V didn't.

But the real question is, will Stu Nahan be in this one?

Hmmm...let's see...

Line from "Rocky I"..."Yo, Adrian!"

Line from "Rocky II"..."Yo, Adrian!"

Line from "Rocky III"..."Yo, Adrian!"

Line from "Rocky IV"..."Yo, Adrian!"

Line from "Rocky V"..."Yo, Adrian!"

My prediction for a delivered line from Stallone will be: "Yo, Adrian!"

What do you think?

I think that "I yam a fight-ah!"

What's he gonna fight in this film? Incontinence? High prescription drug prices? E.D.?

My prediction for a delivered line from Stallone will be: "Yo, Adrian!"

Early reports were that Adrian would have died in the time that has passed since Rocky V. There was a question as to whether Talia Shire would reprise the role, maybe in a flashback. Of course, if the character has passed on, Rocky could always go to the gravesite to say "Yo, Adrian!"

To add insult to injury, Stallone is returning to his other franchise to make Rambo IV, after he completes Rocky VI. More here.
Maybe some smart writer could combine the two Stallone franchises, and make one movie with both Rocky and Rambo. Or, Sly could do a third season of The Contender.

Or maybe combine all three? Rambo decides to retire from the military and become a boxer by appearing on the Contender.

Does this mean that it might be true what was said in Spaceballs about Rocky 5----thousand.

Or...Rambo Vs. Rocky

I can hear it now...

Rambo: Yo! I'm gonna shoot you down, Rocky!

Rocky: Yo! Why not put down that gun and fight like a real man!

Rambo: Yo! I am a real man! And I will fight you like a real man!

Rocky: Yo, Andrian! Watch the kids! I'm gonna fight Rambo!

etc...etc...

Stallone must be taking a salary cut, or a deferral, for Rambo IV. The $55 million estimated budget is $10 million less than the $65 million pricetag for Rambo III. (The $65 million figure is from IMDB; I remember some articles in 1988 saying the estimated pricetag for Rambo III was as high as $80 million.)
Plus, how are they going to replace the late Richard Crenna?

"R" said above: Or maybe combine all three? Rambo decides to retire from the military and become a boxer by appearing on The Contender.
Ya know, maybe you should get an agent, and pitch that idea. If they could do multiple Michael Keatons in Multiplicity, maybe TPTB could pull that off. But, who would win the prize fight - Rambo or Rocky?

I might but it would scare me that they might actually make it.

And I was thinking of when Stallone played the Toymaker in Spykids 3D when I thought of that.

And as for who would win it would wind up a draw as neither would be able to compleately finish the other off as the hero factor would help them keep getting back up for just one more final punch.

I might but it would scare me that they might actually make it.
Muy bien there. I laughed my arse off when I read it. You made my evening.

No problem. :-) We need some laughter aorund here.

I don't believe this one - Fox is actually making Alien Vs. Predator 2. More here.

Clint Eastwood is reportedly making one last "Dirty Harry" flick, to be titled Gran Turino. How will the 77 year old Eastwood approach the role? I assume that Harry will be retired from the SFPD, and called out of retirement for some odd reason.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear that he's making a film for his fans, instead of the Academy.

Dirty Harry is cool, but Clint earned the right to make any kinda film he wants. His fans shouldn't squawk either, seeing as how many lowest common denominator films Clint produced during the '70s and '80s.

Gran Turino? Sounds like a skiing movie.

One of my favorite Eastwood films in the underrated The Eiger Sanction, from 1975. Clint directed and starred as Jonathan Hemlock, college professor, art connisseur and professional assassin. He's hired to carry out a hit during an arduous climb of the Eiger mountain.

Gran Turino? Sounds like a skiing movie.
Actually, I should have been spelled it Gran Torino. The plot, as far as I know, is that Harry comes out of retirement when his grandson (and others) are killed by a marauding driver in a 1972 Ford Gran Torino. (I don't remember if it was ever established if Harry ever had children. But, it was established in one film that he was a widower.) The film is planned for release at the end of 2008. More here.

Starsky and Hutch did it. Who else drove a Gran Torino?

Actually, it's been revealed of late that Gran Torino is not a "Dirty Harry" movie.
And, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 comes out later this summer. Who saw the first one? No one I know.

Adam, you're not their target demographic. Teenage girls.

I've actually heard the first one was not that bad a film as far as such movies go.

Adam, you're not their target demographic. Teenage girls.
That makes sense, especially since I don't have a daughter. Because of that, I've (thankfully) missed out on a lot of stuff like Lizzie McGuire and Hannah Montana.

I've seen both shows--they're relatively painless (the latter especially when she isn't singing). Even Stevens is superior though.

Nia Vardalos announced on Twitter this week that she's writing a sequel to My Big Fat Greek Wedding. As a total cynic when it comes to marriage, I can't help but think it's going to be titled My Big Fat Greek Divorce. As an aside, I hated, hated, HATED Greek Wedding. It was one of the least funny "comedies" I've ever had the displeasure to watch. Watching my laundry agitate in the washing machine is more entertaining.

A minor trend with sequels is that some of them seem to be done years, sometimes decades, after the originals. There's the aforementioned sequel to My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which I've heard nothing about since my post above); that will be at least 12 years after the original. Dumb and Dumber To, which came to be a good two decades after the original, opens this week. At least Horrible Bosses 2 will open fairly close (28 months) to the release of the first one.

Well, the sequel to My Big Fat Greek Wedding, titled (imaginatively enough) My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 opens on March 25, 2016. I'll be doing laundry, or anything else, then.

Who else drove a Gran Torino?
Well, my dad drove a Torino station wagon. A green 1972 model. He bought it new, and drove it until 1980, while beating the hell out of it for both work and pleasure. Does that count?

And, to continue the trend I noted back on 11/10/14, sequels to Blade Runner and Top Gun have been announced. (I'd give real money if Harrison Ford's Rick Deckard says, in BR II, "I'm too old for this sh*t.")

Three remakes will fill up theater screens this fall, in addition to the Blade Runner sequel: Flatliners, Death Wish and Murder On The Orient Express Will the Death Wish remake spawn as many sequels (four) as the original?

I wrote, a while back..

---

quote:

A minor trend with sequels is that some of them seem to be done years, sometimes decades, after the originals.

---

Brian Fitzgerald wrote, way back in the Mesozoic era of 2004:

---

quote:

It's ("Seed Of Chucky") also the directing debut of Don Mancini, the writer of all of the Chucky movies.

---

Sylvester Stallone is apparently not yet ready to put his Rocky Balboa character to rest, despite playing the character eight times. Including the two recent Creed movies, where roles were reversed, and Rocky was the trainer to the young Adonis Creed. More on that here.

Rocky Balboa is a wonderful character despite some of the increasingly improbable things in his life. Definitely the role Stallone should be always remembered for.

Richard Donner has been confirmed to direct the upcoming Lethal Weapon 5. Apparently, they've got Mel Gibson and Danny Glover to come back; it's been 22 years since the last one. All three of them can now say "I'm too old for this sh*t". . Question - Will all the rest come back? Like Rene Russo, Darlene Love, Traci Wolfe, Chris Rock et al? More on that here.
The cynic in me says this will never get off the ground.

Richard Donner has been confirmed to direct the upcoming Lethal Weapon 5.

Richard Donner had to drop out of the project, on account of being dead. So unless he plans to direct via a Spiritual Medium or a Ouija Board...

Mel Gibson still has a career?

All the actors are too old to play these characters anymore. What is it with aging actors thinking that they can still play a character like they did when they were 35!?

Robert Downey Jr. is in the midst of remaking the Hitchcock classic Vertigo. He says he can do it better, due to his personal experiences with fear. Umm...I don't think so. Maybe the current writers' and actors' strikes will sink this. More here.

Talk about arrogant!

Speaking of aging actors, like Tim stated above, the ultimate franchise for aging action movie stars has a new installment. I am, of course, referring to The Expendables. Specifically, Expendables 4 is now playing in theaters. A movie I had no idea was made, as I have seen zero advertising for it. No TV commercials; no subway or bus ads; no billboards. That probably means the studio (Lions Gate) is dumping it, as they have no faith in it.

With the actor's strike still going strong, they can't be picky about what they are releasing.

Never even heard of this entry.