Forest Gump Sequel?

[emperor26]

According to this news from Yahoo!, there is talks about making a sequel to the 1994 oscar-winning film, based on the novel of the same name.

Don't believe me?

Well, check this link if you're not convinced:

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/fs/2...347702600.html

Well, that's all for now.

[Carlaz]

I hadn't heard this. Thanks for the link.

I doubt the sequel will be able to do justice to the original film of "Forest Gump".

[emperor26]

Originally Posted by Carlaz

I hadn't heard this. Thanks for the link.

I doubt the sequel will be able to do justice to the original film of "Forest Gump".

Your welcome.

[AerostarMonk]

I thought the sequel to the novel, Gump & Co., was quite hilarious. But I wonder how much they'll actually put in. Some of the best parts of the original book were left out. Like when Forrest had to fight for his right to live by playing chess in the jungles of New Guinea. Yes, the book was really weird.

[Partymember]

awwww dude!

i cry during Forest Gump

[Carlaz]

Originally Posted by Partymember

awwww dude!

i cry during Forest Gump

Me too Party Member! I always pack plenty o' tissues when I go to movies like this.

[jekylljuice]

Well, I'm of the opinion that if more than 13 years have elapsed since the original's release then, generally speaking, making a sequel probably isn't a good idea.

If Tom Hanks doesn't even return to play the lead then they might as well make this direct-to-video.

[Mr. Marshmallow]

Originally Posted by jekylljuice

Well, I'm of the opinion that if more than 13 years have elapsed since the original's release then, generally speaking, making a sequel probably isn't a good idea.

I've seen quite a few movies that have come out many years after it's prior film. Such as Terminator, Batman, and of course, Clerks. I think it all depends on the amount of work and effort you really put into the story and content of the film.

If you're just pumping out a non-connecting sequel with nothing attached to the film's connection other then the name, then it's a shallow form to make a quick buck by using a brand name. But sometimes they can be REALLY good stuff.

Clerks 2 was made many years after it's first film and I absolutely loved it, I think it totally blew away the original and improved on many aspects the first film did. But I won't give my hopes up until I hear more about this film.

Like I said, it all matters on how much effort and quality work you put into a film that makes it good or bad, regardless if it's a sequel or prequel pumped out 10 years later.

[jekylljuice]

Oh yeah, I agree that there are always going to be some exceptions to this, so I apologise if my statement sounded slightly narrow-minded. I guess I've just been feeling a little jaded after all the pointless direct-to-video sequels Disney has insisted on churning out of late, often to classic movies made more than 50 years ago.

Before Sunset came out nine years after its predocessor Before Sunrise, and I view that sequel as being every bit as good as, if not better than, the original. Before Sunset was an example of a sequel in which leaving such a sufficient gap after the original's release actually proved beneficial, since it gave the two lead characters enough time to plausibly grow and change, both physically and emotionally, giving the second film a fresh focus. And since the ending to Before Sunrise was left very open, the notion of an eventual sequel didn't seem unnecessary or forced. I haven't seen Clerks 2, but I imagine it works along a similar principle (well, perhaps not so far as the characters changing, since Dante and Randall both still appear to be stuck in dead-end jobs, even if their atmosphere has been altered somewhat). Both Clerks and Before Sunrise were slice-of-life films, revolving around a single day (or night) in the lives of their characters, so adding another chapter from a different era of their lives doesn't seem like much of a stretch (especially when the same ensemble of actors have returned and a similar space of time has passed in between the original film and sequel as in the real world, so the actors' aging doesn't prove a problem). And there are movies such as Batman and James Bond which are part of ongoing franchises that have received many different incarnations over the years, so long spaces of time between each film and even changes in cast members don't seem to matter so much.

Generally speaking, however, I feel that if a film has survived on its own for a long enough period of time, then adding a sequel often seems like an unnecessary embellishment. In the case of Forrest Gump, I don't believe that the film really needs a sequel at all, and that I suppose is my major beef, regardless of how much time has passed. It was a perfectly self-contained movie on its own, and I'm not sure exactly what a sequel could add to it, without using the same formula of the original, that could feel terribly fresh and surprising. I haven't read either of the books, so forgive me if I'm displaying terrible ignorance here, but it seemed to me that Forest accomplished pretty much everything he really wanted to within the original (even if the achievement of his most important goal was rather fleeting). Sure, they could add more episodes of Forest obliviously involving himself with the last twenty years' worth of major historical events, but with what new underlying purpose or motivation?

Plus, Tom Hanks' portrayal of the title character has probably become far too iconic for anyone else to fill his shoes if he declined the role. But heck, we don't know for sure that he will. Don't mind me, I'm just fairly pessimistic by nature.

[Voxxyn]

Hopefully this will never materialize, just like the once-proposed sequel to Titanic. Forrest Gump is high on the list of films that should NOT get a sequel(I know the book did, but I've read that the film was very different).