MovieChat Forums > DevonteHuntley > Replies
DevonteHuntley's Replies
What made you think they saw their son as a cash cow? You might as well say that about any parent of a young child actor, but they still need young child actors to play these roles regardless and thus they need parents willing to allow their child to go through such a career phase so what is Hollywood suppose to do about that? Go after orphans with no parents? Seems like you just have an issue with any child being in a movie and would feel the same way whether it was Jake or Haley or anyone else in the role. Bottom line is, no one knew how the movie would turn out.
How can you blame them? They didn't know how the movie would turn out and they certainly weren't setting their son up for failure. They were simply helping their son establish an acting career like many his age before him and at the same time.
As far as Haley goes, he had his own 1999 movie to cling to at the time, THE SIXTH SENSE.
Like I said, following from the 1939 version the change in tone and style is odd even if close to the books because the 1939 version took a different direction and you'd expect a follow-up to maintain this. But since "Return" isn't OFFICIALLY a real sequel I guess you can give it a pass and take it as its own thing, but calling it "RETURN TO OZ" kind of ruins that since it's "acting" as a sequel to the only one-off movie this story that the evets are succeeding from. Again, it would have helped if they REMADE the original Oz story and then this would be a sequel to THAT for better consistency if they wanted to change everything about Oz, the wardrobes, the designs, the actors even, especially this many decades later.
He's just a boy. He could do very little but do and look how he was directed to be. How many actors been in seemingly "bad" movies and have bounced back? He was very young so he could have done so in a much better movie. Heck, he can do so now if he put his mind to it.
I never knew it was a series of eight books. I never paid much attention to the source material to know that, but yeah so much potential there to do something even during the rest of the 1960s and 1970s.
RETURN TO OZ a great sequel? The movie looks overly dark and the costumes are inconsistent to what we've seen in the 1939 movie. Then again, they weren't out to make an official sequel but really its own thing, but why even bother? They could have just remade the Wizard of Oz story and then went from there for better consistency then just semi-connecting it to the 1939 movie.
Not all of them have been trash. Most were made just to be quick cash-ins. The ones that were actually good were made with charisma and purpose.
Mary Poppins Returns might have worked better if Julie came back and they de-aged her a bit. Not sure why they HAD to go with someone else. A better story might have sufficed, but I like the attempt to finally do a follow-up to such an old movie, though something like that should have came out decades earlier.
I don't lose. You're ignorant. Simple as that. Can't debate with a man who is lacking on what sequels are and can be and the potential story they can tell based on how one measly movie ended for one character.
I'm saying Citizen Kane could have done a sequel about the butler if they wanted to, I'm speaking more-so back when a sequel with the same actor could have been utilized. I wasn't saying NOW. But hey, even now can work if they had different actors. They did it with the Mary Poppins sequel just a few years ago, but a missed opportunity not to use Julie Andrews again.
I'm too good to live in any basement you bleeding roach. Seems like you're keen on getting the last word. Oh you desperate man. Get molested by Jake Lloyd. He's a big man now so let's see how you handle his goodness. :P
Sequels, spinoffs, if they were to have Citizen Kane in the title then it's a sequel. Depends on how the story is constructed. You know how many sequels out there we have without whoever was the lead of the first and it followed another character whether main or supporting? "Evan Almighty" would be an example of this. It's both a sequel and a spinoff but we've had movies like that where they're either one or the other. Heck, a CK sequel about the butler could very well be a sequel/spinoff. Why can't it be both? Get a clue.
I don't know how a sequel to CK with a butler would be good. I'm not out trying to write one, but it could be. You're not even bothering trying to make sense of it, you're just trying to diminish it because it's about a butler you think butlers can't be interesting. How pathetic. I never said the Catholic Church would be a sequel to the Bible but would play a role in telling a "sequel" story to how the Christian religion changed over time. There's like 1500+ years of material to add there where Catholicism wasn't around you broomstick up the dick hole. Go get phlegm stuck in your orfice.
Quoting a video? Well it ought to be you for real since even you deserve to have no kids living at all. You are a real life "phantom menace" and not in a good way. Episode I holds all the quality you lack. Fuck off cunt? Looks like you don't get any. Hahahaha.
Pretty much sounds like any move these days. I don't waste my time with the theater at all. I find them free online if I need to. -_-
The issue is you aren't open for them to continue anything because you're just a one and done brat. You think a sequel to Citizen Kane about the butler can't be good? You'll be surprised but hey, you're not allowing yourself to explore your mind and make it such. You just take things at first glance and want to be utterly blunt about it. Not everything HAS to be a retread if you put your mind to it. Perhaps they fumbled this a bit with Gladiator II but the idea of there being a sequel I don't see being an issue. In this case, they just didn't do it right or maybe even at the right time.
Yes, the Bible has so much that happens after Christ's death and the last two thousand years particularly the catholic church rising to power and making rules of how beliefs should be. PLENTY of story there.
You find your son disappointing? HA! Some father you are. No wonder he took his own life. I'd want to get away from you too and severe all the ties. See what your toxic DNA can do?
Yes the Star Wars prequels will forever be around. Too bad but thank the SKIES you won't be though. ;)
How can you think that when the season clearly ended with a cliffhanger?
The prequels are much better than you no matter how bad they are in your eyes or actuality. Deal with it and lose your life, lesbo.
No, I like them to be more original. I never said they had to be "remakes". You bum. If Gladiator II is a straight copy of the first then shame on it, but the idea of continuing the story I don't see being an issue. Just as long as a sequel is warranted to be made especially this many years later.
You don't think anything needs expanding even in a creative sense if there's been very little installments made and the concepts such as Star Wars and Gladiator that can greatly go on and on and be something big. You should stop watching movies altogether. Limited bastard.
No, you are. They have good visuals, a consistent story, and memorable moments. You need to clean out your original trilogy obsessed eyes and see that instead of overbearing the things you think are flawed to the point you're finding them to be twice as bad than they really are. It clouds your judgment, PUN INTENDED since we hear that in Star Wars. Boogaloo. :P
Well there's continuity here so this is very well a "sequel to Gladiator" and not some random standalone movie as they COULD have done. You're a limited book with no sense of expansion. What can I expect from a rape victim who see no potential in movie story expanding even in the slightest? You're a rod with no iron to shine you. Laugh at that you crooked handjob.
You can still add new things, just make sure the lead person is a Gladiator and set out with a purpose. Doesn't even have to be like what Max went through. I just know he isn't the only one who had it rough and seeing someone else's story as a successor could be accomplished and not be something beat for beat.
And I just realized you're the same gimp I'm debating Star Wars with over on the 1977 movie thread. How peculiar we cross paths here too. Funny I went to add that in my last comment since you didn't reply yet and as I saved the edit, here you come, so I removed it and threw it here instead.