I realize (and God rest His Soul) River Phoenix is no longer with us but I always wondered why they didn't make a sequel because this in my opinion was Redfords best film in decades.
shareRedford does not do sequels and I think the story was done.
Its that man again!!
Because every movie doesn't need a f*&king sequel. When a movie is over, it's over. Sequels are simply acrutch that Hollywood leans on to hide the fact that it has run out of original ideas. Same as remakes and 'reboots'. Need proof? Look no further than WarGames: The Dead Code. What a pile of $hi+ that is.
People who ask 'why no sequel' to a classic movie should be shot.
Actually, one could say that Sneakers is a sequel of sorts to Wargames. The same writers were involved, and they wanted to expand the hacker aspect into a full feature film. However, it took them 9 years to do so, all in all 27 years of manhours involved in the writing process. Not full time, of course, it's a process, after all. The point is, perhaps they just couldn't commit to such a task again?
shareSorry, but just because it has the same creative team doesn't mean it's a sequel "of sorts" or by any definition of the word. There is not a single tie-in from one to the other, not even a tiny little 'in-joke'. Unless you count the single mention of Carl's past history of breaking into the school computer to change his grades, and that's about as far as the stretch can get.
Social Engineering (phishing) is used in both movies, but that means nothing. It is used in pretty much every hacker-centric movie because it is an important hacking technique. It doesn't mean Hackers, Swordfish, The Net, or Takedown are of any other relation to Sneakers or Wargames other than they involve hackers.
IF (and this is a HUGE if) the writers really intended this to be a "sequel of sorts", then NOT making it a sequel and letting it be its own movie is the best thing they could've done for it. With a few very rare exceptions (Terminator 2, Aliens, Godfather II, etc), sequels to great movies NEVER live up to the original, and in most cases are a direct slap in the face to the original.
Well, have you ever heard of the concept of development? Things change in the process. As I gather, the creative team behind Wargames wanted to dig deeper into the hacker community, and ended up with this film. It's a sequel "of sorts", in the sense that it as natural development of the same theme, nobody had done a true hacker oriented film at that point, from a believable hacker point of view.
""We first came across the term 'sneakers' when we were researching 'WarGames,' " says Parkes of the movie for which he and Lasker received an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay in 1984. ... Parkes recalls it was easy selling the concept of a "high-tech 'Dirty Dozen' " when they pitched the idea in 1983. They were teamed with Phil Robinson, whose career was just getting off the ground with his screenplay of "Rhinestone." Nonetheless, it took almost 10 years for the project to be realized. Robinson went on to write "All of Me," "In the Mood" and "Field of Dreams," directing the latter two. Parkes and Lasker also produced such films as "True Believer" and "Awakenings." It was a difficult script to collaborate on, and not just because we were all involved in different projects," says Robinson. "It is a very complex story, both in terms of the plot and the hardware. When you move a comma on page 9, suddenly you have to throw out pages 35 to 45. Also, every time one of us would come across some new technology, we would yell, 'Yeah, let's put it in there!' At a certain point . . . you just have to say, 'OK, enough is enough.' ""
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-09-15/entertainment/ca-743_1_box-offi ce
"Actually, one could say that Sneakers is a sequel of sorts to Wargames. The same writers were involved, and they wanted to expand the hacker aspect into a full feature film. However, it took them 9 years to do so, all in all 27 years of manhours involved in the writing process. Not full time, of course, it's a process, after all. The point is, perhaps they just couldn't commit to such a task again?"
You lost me here. Can you please explain how you figure it took 27 years of man hours to write a single film? Full-time per person would be around 2,000 hours a year per person for 9 years? It might be 9 years elapsed time, but that's very different than full-time.
Yes it does. For the most important reason for a sequel. They left things open ended.
Cosmo and his organization have no way of knowing that Martin and his people turned to machine over to the NSA. Therefore they should have all the reason in the world to try and get it back and kill off Martin & Co.
That said, it's been nearly a quarter century since the came out. So it's a bit late to do one now. They should have had a sequel come out around 1994.
taz420nj wrote:
Because every movie doesn't need a f*&king sequel. When a movie is over, it's over. Sequels are simply acrutch that Hollywood leans on to hide the fact that it has run out of original ideas. Same as remakes and 'reboots'. Need proof? Look no further than WarGames: The Dead Code. What a pile of $hi+ that is.
People who ask 'why no sequel' to a classic movie should be shot.
[deleted]