Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

I can understand the principle but don't you think we have all to many sequels? Just this year alone we have The Matrix:Reloaded, Legally Blonde2:Red,White, and Blonde, Bad Boys2, Charlie's Angels:Full Throttle, 2Fast 2Furious, and Terminator 3 no less, just name a few.

I guess money is the name of the game. If people go to see them I guess it's a soft touch for the studios. But you know what. In some small way I feel like the imagination and creative juices aren't used to full potential when sequels are made. There are only a handfull of sequels that are as good or better then their originals. That's how I feel about it. What's your opinions?

There was a TV news magazine show about a year or so ago titled: "The Monster That Ate Hollywood" and it cleverly explained the sad fact that now big conglomerates own the studios and are, as most surmise, interested only in the old 'bottom line' = sheer profits. The committees who make up the overseers of the sudios wouldn't know 'art' was if it came up and bit them; they are SUPER-MBAs who know nothing but money and the power that money gives them. Such is the ilk of our society today, and it is futile to hope that much good will come out of Hollywood aside from a few exceptions. The new breed of 'financial advisers' to the Studios makes it clear that they expect a certain regular return on investment in the Studio to justify their involvement, and the easiest way to generate that return (profit) is to ape something that already succeeded. So, to the financially astute (and artistically impaired), any film is but a commodity that can be predicted to some extent by gambling statistics where the 'house' always wins provided that their investment is not too high nor too dependent on such variables as taste, class and character. As that TV show "Monster ..." on "Frontline" (I believe) made clear, we are now in a vicious circle with only films made for teens making money through sequels, thus fewer and fewer films made for thinking adults. Thus, theatres turn into teenage party rooms/cafeterias, and yet fewer 30-somethings+ turn out for films, relying on video to supply them with known quantities in the relative quiet of their own homes. Still, hundreds of films are released each year, both by the studios and the independents, so I guess our day is something like the first line in the "Tale of Two Cities:" "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...."

Just wait till next year.

In 2004, we'll start our season on March 26th with "Scooby Doo Too", wait a couple of weeks for "Shrek 2", then mid-summer with "The Amazing Spiderman".

The upcoming "American Wedding" is the 3rd installment of the American Pie series, and "Meet the Focker's" is the sequel to "Meet the Parents" with Ben Stiller.

Laura Croft - Tomb Raider shows up at the end of July.

I've seen and heard that a final Indiana Jones is in the works?

Barry,

I've also heard about a new "Indiana Jones" installment being in the works.

I understand that Harrison Ford agreed to play Indy again, but that he would only do so if the character was allowed to age to Ford's age. That was apparently agreed to and I understand that the film will be set in the 1950s.

From what I've read, the current line of thinking is that the film will begin shooting in the Spring of 2004 with a projected release in July of 2005.

I really enjoyed "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". The interplay between Indy and his Dad was really enjoyable. My suggestion would be to reprise the roles played by Sean Connery and Harrison Ford, with the new "Indy" being Indy's (Harrison Ford's) adventurous teen-aged daughter.

---

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Customer Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

How old is Sean Patrick Flannery now? He played "Young" Indiana Jones on the TV show that George Lucas produced. He was in the movie POWDER and might still be younger than Harrison Ford was for INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (which actually takes place before the events of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, if I remember correctly).

We might be able to get a couple more chapters with him before he gets perilously close to Harrison's age in the first few films.

I read on some website that originaly Paramount signed some deal with Spielberg to release 5 Indiana Jones movies in total! So I wonder if they'll be making Indy V.

Also on the sequel front, apparently Jurassic Park IV is on it's way...

Saw Flannery on an episode of the New Twilight Zone the other day (which must have been shot within the last couple of years), and he looks to be at least 30 now, but still looking good. So, they could use him for another go at 'junior' "Indiana Jones."

What's with all the sequels? I'm guessing its because Hollywood is out of ideas. When a new movie comes out, its always the same story with different effects and different characters.

---

"Would you like fries with that?"

Sequels have an automatic built-in audience. People who remember enjoying the first LEGALLY BLONDE or CHARLIE'S ANGELS movie cannot wait to revisit their "old friends". However, as we have seen with these two examples, the same contrived plot which may have been "cute" the first time around plays like a re-run the second time. There are films (like TITANIC) which will never have sequels but require some thinking.