How could you not have John Goodman


This movie is parfetic and just simply awful, i don't know how they could make a sequel to the original without John Goodman, it looks as if it was a direct to video movie because it looks as if they couldn't afford the original cast. This looks really bad i watched a few minutes but just stopped when i found out it wasn't the original cast. Did anybody actually like this?

reply

John Goodman apparently felt another movie was over kill... Hence why this one is a prequel to the animated series, to make it look like the characters have aged and matured a bit..
I agree though, John Goodman was amazing as Fred! In fact the whole cast was much better in the first movie!

reply

I like this movie better than the first actually. This one was lighter and peppier, while the original Flintstones film seemed overproduced. The original cast (while all great actors) didn't seem like they were having a lot of fun with the material.

reply

Because John Goodman was not all that great as Fred. He should stick to Roseanne. Mark Addy was way bettter as fred.

reply

Rubbish. Years before this movie was made I already had pictured him as Fred Flintstone. He just totally looked the part.

reply

What's "parfetic" is the fact that you can't spell "pathetic" correctly.

reply

[deleted]