I guess for two reasons.
1) Mere familiarity. There were four of them, and they were who they are. John Cusack offered the heart to balance the raunchiness of the rest of the cast. Whether Adam Scott can offer this too is irrelevant simply because he's just not Jon. Simply not having the SAME people means something significant for the dynamic of the films.
2) Star power. John has the legacy of a film star that Adam Scott and the rest of the cast does not have.
Also I have another reason why I think this film won't do as well and it's not related to the cast, but related to the theme. Countless people have expressed that they enjoyed the original film because of the 80's nostalgia throughout. With the sequel being set in the future, there is little room for that nostalgia charm to appeal to the audience. I find this interesting because I was born in 1990 and all my nostalgia fixes come from beyond the 80's, but I still loved the original. Just for the humour and the zaniness. I didn't even realize initially that nostalgia was a factor because I simply did not recognize those aspects of the film as being such. But I see now that many others did and that makes sense to me. But I do realize that I am likely part of a SMALL percentage who didn't need nostalgia to connect with the original film. I also do realize that because of this, maybe I might still enjoy the sequel. Guess I'll find out tomorrow when I go to see it!
reply
share