MovieChat Forums > Vampire Academy (2014) Discussion > Too good to not get a sequel.

Too good to not get a sequel.


Vampire Academy was true to the book (perfect? No, I wouldn't think a perfect adaptation exists for anything.) But, even with the little changes I wouldn't picture the movie going any other way.
The cast is amazing. If you're a book fan and worried about them "ruining" the characters, don't be. They're perfect. ESPECIALLY Zoey as Rose.
All that being said and fangirling aside, there were some pacing issues and transitional issues, BUT honestly it didn't bother me so much or take away from my viewing pleasure.
Action, comedy, friendship, and the dark undertones of the book were all there.
the movie is TOO GOOD to not get a sequel just because people are pre-judging it. Go give it a shot.

reply

Well it's not gonna get one. Sorry.

reply

If The Mortal Instruments got a sequel why can't VA?

reply

More importantly, if TWILIGHT got five movies, why can't VA get sequels?

reply

Twilight got 5 movies because the films made a lot of money at the box office.

reply

If that's true, then we'll just have to wait and see. Most of the fans live in Australia, and they're only getting the movie later.

reply

And there's also the UK, who have to wait until the end of April

reply

As an Australian, our population is TINY compared with the US, our box office is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

reply

I hate the Twilight franchise, but I'd rather sit through all five of them back to back than watch this movie again. At least the Twilight movies were technically good. This movie had bad continuity, terrible direction and worse editing. IMHO, this movie would have done better in two parts, it felt rushed and disjointed and I felt the characters were two dimensional and unlikable. The actors had zero chemistry and their on screen interaction felt forced. Terrible movie.

There is no Justice, there is only me....

reply

"At least the Twilight movies were technically good."

Well that just isn't true.

reply

Hahaha, yes, maybe I should have said "technically better", and that's still stretching it somewhat.

There is no Justice, there is only me....

reply

I hate the Twilight franchise, but I'd rather sit through all five of them back to back than watch this movie again. At least the Twilight movies were technically good. This movie had bad continuity, terrible direction and worse editing


You've gotta be kidding me. The Twilight movies had ridiculously bad "flying" effects and silly fighting and "baseball games", and did horrendous editing drawing on faked sunken cheeks to make Stewart look sick. The final two were some of the most awful boring nothingness it has ever been my misfortune to watch -- even watching Rifftrax with them (the only way I can tolerate bad movies like the Twilight movies) could not make them bearable. They were undersaturated, horrendous, badly-paced, most boring tripe I have ever seen.

Whereas Vampire Academy was warm, clever, funny, well written, well acted (except for Sarah Hyland) and very well done.

Sorry, you hit a nerve there. I can accept -- just barely -- that a lot of teen and tween girls like Twilight movies, but I genuinely do not see anything to like in them.

reply

I agree. At times, it didn't even feel like a movie.

reply

Twilight was a box office hit making the sequels profitable. If it had done as badly as VA did, there's no way that it would have gotten five movies.

Unless it majorly improves at the box office, the chances of Vampire Academy sequels is pretty much zero. Although maybe someday it will be made into a TV show like Buffy was.

reply

Exactly my point! Even the rating is more than the twilight's five movies!!

reply

Twilight had a $37 mil budget and made $392.6 mil at the box office (globally)

Vampire Academy, $8 mil budget made only $15.4 at the box office (globally)


Keep in mind, generally half of the box office goes back into the cinemas (wages for staff and all that), add in marketing costs, etc and well Vampire Academy has likely lost investors money rather than make close to 5 times the invested amount.

There's really no chance of a sequel since the people who invested lost money on this, no other investor is going to take that risk to lose their money on a franchise that lost money it's first time around.

reply

I'll believe that "Mortal Instruments" is getting a sequel when I hear that cameras are rolling on it, because right now they're still just trying to save face and sell DVDS, which "Vampire Academy" will also be doing in a few months. No one associated with the film is going to be like "WOW, yeah, that really didn't do well. We're giving up" when there's still SOME money to be made. Once it starts polluting the $5 dump bins at Wal Mart around Christmas or so, they'll quietly pull the plug on the franchise as far as theatrical releases go. To make a sequel just because the book had a sequel, not because box off receipts justify it, is just p!$$ing money away.

reply

This movie only ranked 7th at the box office. It is barely making any money. Tha is why.

reply

i agree with you

reply

that actually getting turned into tv series now. no squel

*****Some say hating is confused admiration-Nas*****

reply

Actually vampire academy not getting a tv series.


Lara Croft Himiko! The First Sun Queen! This is Yamatai.

reply

Naw I was talking bout "Mortal Instruments"

*****“Road to Arizona #RavensNation*****

reply

I want to see this movie but have never even heard about the book. Would you say see the movie before reading the book?

Loved Zoey in 'Ringer'.

reply

It looks terrible to me, but in general, I've learned that no matter how good a movie is or how NOT good the source material is to begin with, people will almost ALWAYS complain that the book was better, which is why if there's a movie coming out that's based on a book that looks interesting to me, I'll wait for the movie and watch it first if I haven't already read the book, because if you're going to a movie wanting to just see the book onscreen, you're either a) basically TRYING to set yourself for disappointment, or b) being disappointed anyway when it's a fine adaptation but holds no surprises, because you read the book. "Wow, that's exactly what I knew would happen." I hate thinking that when I come out of a movie.

reply

I have yet to see the movie so I can't tell you whether to read first or see first (though, except for Pride and Prejudice I'm a big fan of reading first). I will tell you that you should read the books. I know they are YA, but my friends and I are adults who started reading the books and passing them on because the were easy fun reading and really very good and addicting. They were not at all like Twilight and though funny at times, were more serious than the movie seems to be.

We as a group really, really enjoyed them. Now I just hope that the movie doesn't suck.

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners have much more fun. B. Joel

reply


You can see the movie without it. surely you'll know a little more info and get some feels from the usage of lines from the book, but other than that it can be enjoyed without reading. They give you all the info you need to know in the beginning, to catch everyone up to what's going on. It's really not that hard to catch onto. Hope you get to see it. And Zoey is amazing in this.
"Sweet sassy molassy," --Rose Hathaway

reply

I'm a fan of the books and really loved the movie. I noticed the flaws, but still enjoyed myself. The first movie in a series is always the hardest... introducing all of the characters, explaining a rich and extensive world as quickly as possible and still get the plot moving.

I know these books were huge in other countries so we never know what will happen. Once the movie gets released to those other countries they might help bring the sells up. I'm just gonna hope.

If you don't want to read the first book before watching the movie (you should read the book sometime though) this trailer, which should have been shown months ago explains what you need to know. I mean it's explain in the movie obviously, but it's just an awesome video!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9yX02fkMlA

reply

I didn't read the books, but it's clear after watching this movie it had the budget of a direct to dvd movie rather than a theatrical movie. The acting talent isn't up to par, the movie looks cheap, etc. This movie seems targeted to an even younger audience than Twilight was.

reply

I'm glad I'm not the only one who enjoyed the movie but noticed the flaws. The pacing and transitions were off for me. Because VA has to set up a "new" take on vampire mythology there was so much exploration throughout that it became almost annoying for me. Maybe it's because I've read all the books and already know the sort of cast system and all the powers ect.,but it became a bit much when there was still exploration going on my the 3rd act. I wonder if it would have been better with a different edit.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It did not even gross 4 mil. Weekend box office was 3,921 million. I heard that some of the theaters were totally empty. Wow. I did not see this coming.

reply


Still in a state of shock that anybody is so stupid as not to understand why Twilight got sequels but VA wont's.
I really hope that some of these fans never have kids,so their stupidity gene will stop contaminating the human gene pool.


I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

Um, see as I'm one of those "stupid gene" people apparently, please enlighten me, oh wise one. Why did Twilight get sequels and VA won't?

__________

"Did you call the hypothetical hardware store and buy a theoretical chainsaw?"

reply

You're joking right?

reply

No, I wasn't. I understand the no ticket sales = no sequel deal, but I was thinking perhaps there are some deeper reasons I'm missing. You know, given the overly dramatic way of putting this, with the genes and the children and all that.

__________

"Did you call the hypothetical hardware store and buy a theoretical chainsaw?"

reply

because twilight made 70 million dollars on OPENING WEEKEND, while VA only made 3.9 million. VA won't be even get 70m worldwide.

reply

Twilight got a sequel because it made 393million worldwide on a 37 million dollar budget. It's not rocket science, it's easy to understand why it got a sequel. Studios are a business, they aren't going to make or not sequels based in what you like. Twilight made Summit a lot of money in 2008 and New Moon was far more successful so it was a smart thing to make sequels. No studio would be dumb enough to make sequel to a massive flop like Vampire Academy because they don't like losing money.

reply

Twilight made the original investors money x5...ie it made them lots of money, say you have 1 apple, now imagine 5 apples, that's what happened to their money, they got 5 times the amount.
Vampire Academy made the original investors lose money.

(box office isn't the same as profit, box office doesn't take out the fee of cinemas showing it which is usually around half, a lot of the box office doesn't end up back at the investors)

reply

As someone who never read the books I'll tell you why this didn't interest me.

VAMPIRES...it's done...it's over...nobody wants to watch anymore vampire movies. It's a dead on arrival topic for general audiences. Blame twilight, blame true blood. It's done. Vampires cannot return to pop culture for at least a good five years thanks to those franchises.

reply

And why is it so bad that these are vampires? You may as well state that because of spider-man 3, Elektra, Daredevil, The two Fantastic four films, Ghost rider, that superhero movies should be gone, and a year or several later from ALL of those Iron Man one came out and yet many epople loved it, not to mention Dark Knight.

You are being racist if you just hate this movie because you are tired of vampires. What if this could become the vamprie mvoie that gets it right? What if those two darn franchises blinded you? Its a shame that they did, but don't take it out on this film. VA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE FRANCHISES! If you actually watched the mvoie, you will find that story wise they are NOTHING alike.

Twilight is about a romance between a girl and a vampire who introduces her to a hdiden world

True Blood is Vampires that live among humans in the southern states


VA is about two vampire speicies who protect one another from the dangers that lurk within the regular and supernatural world

Yes, all of these share contemporary and realistic themes, but thats about it. As Dumbledore once said:

"It isnt how you are alike, its how you are not".

Imagine if we treated people like this. Thne that would mean all jocks should go away for 5 years, all goths, Africans, Jews, etc. Think about that. We enjoy people as much as ficiton

reply

Racist? lol OKAY racist against vampires.

Yeah, you got me. I'm racist against vampires.

Think what you want but general audiences agree. And in the publishing world the quickest way to get your work rejected these days...have it be about vampires. Like it or not the subject is not something people want more of right now.

reply

That is the publishign world ,not the movie world. and perhaps thats the problem with the world: too anal and unopen minded. Just because there is a lot of soemthing that does not mean that it is bad.

reply

Wow you're taking peoples tastes too personally. Enjoy it all you want. But get over the fact that no one else cares.

reply

You are being racist if you just hate this movie because you are tired of vampires.


That comment is beyond offensive. Vampires are fictional creatures while racism is very real and affects real people, comparing hating a movie just because you are tired of vampires to being a racist makes a mockery of racism.

Hating a movie because of vampires does not even begin to compare to hating a person because of their race, it is not even close.

reply

I see no difference, it is making fun of things that people like, which is the next worse thing to making fun of them, and it shows closed mindedness that one will not give soemthing a chance because it has a certain thing in it that involves variety. Its like excluding someone because of their skin colour, as you are exlcuding soemthing because of a creature or soemthing in it. Ficition is not so much different from rea lfie if you think about it. WHY do you think it is not like real life? YES, there is no such thing as sorcery or creatures like vampries, but you'r not reading between the lines and lookign at it deeply: they have the same thematic elements and central, basic ideas. Look at the morals and elements you see in a movie, and then apply them to real life, are they rEALLY that different

reply

Vampires do exist :) Read up on psychic vampires.

reply

God damn you're an idiot...

"Alright let's get this bull sh!t over with..."
-Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm

reply

Please choose not to have children, more of you is detrimental to the future quality of life of the human population since I'm not convinced you can tie your own shoe laces with how stupid your post was.

reply

lmao! Oh I missed this board. I wonder where the fantards are now, they were so funny.

reply

>You are being racist if you just hate this movie because you are tired of >vampires.





ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

You are being racist if you just hate this movie because you are tired of vampires.


Oh no. Better call the equal rights organization or Amnesty International to protect the rights of the Undead.

What if this could become the vamprie mvoie that gets it right?


It is not about the fact that this may become THE vampire movie, but because some of the people are just tired to watch another vampire-theme movie/series in a very short time. The same thing with zombie or werewolves.

reply

Ok who opened the stupid door?

reply

No, I wouldn't think a perfect adaptation exists for anything.

See: The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya.

"In all my years as a barber, that is the weirdest kid I have ever met."
- Doctor Barber

reply

I think it's sad that it most likely won't get a sequel,the movie ends in kind of a cliffhanger. The possibility of it happening is if the movie pulls a Percy and makes enough money overseas for it to happen.

reply

I understand why this movie may not get a sequel, and I understand why Twilight did, but I think you may be overreacting to say that the vampire craze is over when what you mean is that the TWILIGHT craze is over. Vampires are doing rather well, actually.
I work at a library and I can tell you vampire books have not dropped in popularity just because they don't equal Twilight's sales.
Richelle Meade, Melissa De La Cruz, P.C. and Kristin Cast, Rachel Caine, and Charlaine Harris have all made decent money off of vampires, and even L.J. Smith and Christopher Pike have taken up writing about bloodsuckers again.
The CW's highest rated show is The Vampire diaries, and it has a spinoff. BBC's being human was good enough to warrant a SyFy version and everyone I know who likes Anime is in love with either Blood+ or Hellsing.
It doesn't necessarily make any of the material GOOD per se, but vampires haven't lost their appeal-Twilight has.

Platonic love exists: scientists stumped.

reply

Exactly, which is why its absolute foolishness for people to NOT see it because of Twilight. Imagine if the John Carter movie was released b4 Star Wars (which VERY VERY nearly happened as JC has been in development for over 100 years and came VERY close to being made at times) and ruined it eh?

On that topic, there is one thing i REALLY do not get: WHY can Star Trek and Star Wars co exist and b equally/close to being successful, and they are essentially the same concept. YES, there are differences, but seeing as Star Trek had its popularity and negativity like Twilight did, then why can't people take a chance on Vampire Academy?

reply

I also don't get why people tell me I only like certain movies because I'm already a fan of the book(s) (um, how can I disprove THAT accusation? Unread the books and then see the movie?) Or say that good reviews are totally biased/fake and YET
Every time a movie comes out about vampires it's "it's ripping off Twilight!"
Magic "harry potter ripoff!!!"
Dystopia "Hunger Games!/Battle Royale!" And so on.

If I had a dime for every acidic review I've come across for ANY movie or book aimed at teens that immediately assumes some insidious copyright infringement has taken place I could retire and travel the world.
I know some stories are contrived, but do any of these reviewers really read that much? Stories vary very little in the big picture and people think alike a great deal.

So if my reviews are ignorant and biased based on my fandom, shouldn't the naysayers who hate it because they hate similar things take a second look too?

Platonic love exists: scientists stumped.

reply

(stands up and claps, while listening to "Everything is Awesome) I couldn't agree more with you!

reply

which VERY VERY nearly happened as JC has been in development for over 100 years




"Alright let's get this bull sh!t over with..."
-Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm

reply

On that topic, there is one thing i REALLY do not get: WHY can Star Trek and Star Wars co-exist and be...successful, and they are essentially the same concept(?) YES, there are differences, but seeing as Star Trek had its popularity and negativity like Twilight did, then why can't people take a chance on Vampire Academy?


So, you're issuing a plea for film audiences to understand that this film and Twilight are not alike by saying Star Trek and Star Wars are essentially the same concept. Good call.

reply

I thought it was great, an i want a sequel!!!

reply