• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film: S. Darko (The sequel to Donnie Darko)

Rate this movie.

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/1star.gif[/img]

    Votes: 3 100.0%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/2stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/3stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/4stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/5stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    3
His Name Is Frank

His Name Is Frank

Bluelight Crew
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
8,832
Location
8888
This has to be the worst idea I've heard in years. They're actually making a sequel to Donnie Darko. This time, the story will center around Samantha Darko, the little sister from the first film.

The story, set seven years after the first film, follows Donnie Darko's sister, Samantha, who, in dealing with her broken family, flees town with her best friend (Evigan) when they are plagued by bizarre visions.

If that doesn't sound horrific enough, they just added Elizabeth Berkley, of Save By The Bell and Showgirls "fame", to the cast. Let the angry ranting begin.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i07a95797894eac5676b972d924609489
 
^yeah same here

same director?

edit: answered my own question
a: no
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231277/

this sounds dodgy
S. Darko takes place in the summer of 1995, seven years after the original film. It follows Donnie Darko's younger sister, Samantha (Daveigh Chase), who, in the wake of his death, has found herself at age 17 with a broken family, mired in feelings of insignificance. She and her best friend Corey (Evigan) set off on a road trip to Hollywood in a bid to 'make it big', but their journey is cut short when their car breaks down unexpectedly, leaving them stranded in a small desert town. When a meteorite happens to crash-land nearby, Samantha is plagued by bizarre visions telling of the universe's end and it appears that their breakdown was part of some grander plan. She must face her own demons and, in doing so, save the world and herself [Source Wikipedia]
 
...how!?

I thought the film was a self-contained, closed loop?

Donnie Darko is one of the better films out there IMO, but it doesn't even begin to touch Japanese mindfuck films.
 
junctionalfunkie said:
I never understood the big fuss about DD.

Mediocre film, at best.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way. I actually don't mind it, but mostly because of the somewhat nostalgic 80s feel I get out of it, even though I spent most of my childhood in the 90s.
 
Wow. Who would have thought that the haters of Donnie Darko would be the first ones to post in here? Your dislike for the "mediocre" film aside, (I'm biting my tongue) this thread is about the sequel. You don't go into the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thread to only talk about Raiders of the Lost Ark.
 
HisNameIsFrank said:
You don't go into the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thread to only talk about Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do. Have you seen the new one? ;)

Think about the 'natural' degeneration or devolution of originals to sequels. Sequels almost invariably suck, and that's when the original is good. (The one exception to this rule I can think of is Beverly Hills Cop, II was a bit better than the first. III, of course was unwatchable.)

When the original movie is unexceptional, I shudder to think of the sequel.
 
Donnie Darko was a good movie but the fucking fan base ruined it.
 
junctionalfunkie said:
Yes, you do. Have you seen the new one? ;)

Think about the 'natural' degeneration or devolution of originals to sequels. Sequels almost invariably suck, and that's when the original is good. (The one exception to this rule I can think of is Beverly Hills Cop, II was a bit better than the first. III, of course was unwatchable.)

When the original movie is unexceptional, I shudder to think of the sequel.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting about Terminator 2 and Aliens. Nevertheless, this sequel is a terrible idea.
 
The idea of sequels usually bores me.

I just don't see a need to make a sequel to DD. It seems like the only reason to do it is to cash in on the name. But it won't contain Jake Gyllenhaal and I don't see how it will really "expand" on DD's story.

I doubt it has the same director either (at a guess). As if they had the same director they would have been better off doing some other mindfuck type film and marketing it as being a pseudo sequel ("from the director of Donnie Darko"), but not actually make it a Donnie Darko film.

I can only assume they didn't get the same director or writer or whatever, as that would be the only possible reason to cash in on the name, without having anything that the name stood for in the first place.
 
^ i doubt anyone who ever worked on Saved by the Bell took their career seriously at the time.
 
Judging it on its own merit, DD was alright. But the 90's had a slew of movies with twist endings. You know, where you learn something at the end that changes the whole meaning of what you just sat through.
"Oh so that guy was ______ ALL ALONG!!! (for the blank, insert: making it all up, dreaming, in a coma, dead and actually in hell, etc) It all makes sense now! I'll have to watch this again with this new perspective!"
Off the top of my head, there was Jacob's Ladder, Usual Suspects, Fight Club, 12 Monkeys, In The Company of Men all with these last minute surprise revelations. And then came DD.
It was an OK movie but by the time I saw it, I was pretty tired of twist endings. I think you can only get away with them once every 10 years or so. Otherwise, they lose their impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top