View Full Version : Donnie Darko Sequel. Codenamed, "S. Darko"
GameMaster
05-09-2008, 11:13 PM
Here are the details. I'll hold my breath. Sequels that don't follow the original character usually aren't that good.
http://i29.tinypic.com/2liekq8.png
Donnie Darko is definitely one film that does not need a sequel.
thatmariolover
05-10-2008, 12:56 AM
Donnie Darko is definitely one film that does not need a sequel.
After they ruined the original with the special edition (which gave a pretty concrete f-you to the fans, 'here's what happened for real, stop interpreting it for yourself') I have no interest in a sequel.
The truth is, the film as he meant it to be was bad. And as this film will be a sequel to that and not to what fans loved about it.
What do you guys think about Richard Kelly's Southland Tales? I rather liked it for what it was. I would like to see the 160 minute Cannes version though cuz the 145 minute felt disjointed from lack of supporting scenes.
Dylflon
05-10-2008, 01:18 PM
Man, the special edition explains what's going on?
I actually wouldn't mind checking that out.
thatmariolover
05-10-2008, 01:23 PM
Man, the special edition explains what's going on?
I actually wouldn't mind checking that out.
Yeah, it adds some pretty concrete scenes regarding time travel.
Professor S
05-10-2008, 02:05 PM
Man, the special edition explains what's going on?
I actually wouldn't mind checking that out.
Don't. Its terrible.
And I expect the sequel will be straight to video looking at the hack director they attached and the 10 mil budget.
Jonbo298
05-10-2008, 06:57 PM
Yep, this'll probably be an epic fail. Like Butterfly Effect 2
Angrist
05-11-2008, 08:53 AM
Bad news. Oh well.
The Germanator
05-11-2008, 12:08 PM
Yeah, I can see this being pretty damn lame.
Typhoid
05-11-2008, 12:18 PM
Yep, this'll probably be an epic fail. Like Butterfly Effect 2
Yeah, because Butterfly Effect 1 was such a masterpiece.
Jason1
05-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Yeah, because Butterfly Effect 1 was such a masterpiece.
I actually liked The Butterfly effect. Underrated movie, In my opinion. But not sure about this Donnie Darko sequal, Im a big fan of the original.
I actually liked The Butterfly effect. Underrated movie, In my opinion. But not sure about this Donnie Darko sequal, Im a big fan of the original.
Completely agree with you. I enjoyed it as well. I think the main reason it was kind of looked at poorly was because Ashton Kutcher was starring in a serious role.
Oh my god the guy from Dragonball! This is going to be amazing!
(Also, $10 million budget? I wouldn't be expecting much from this to begin with, but that budget is pretty damn lame.)
Jason1
05-11-2008, 07:46 PM
Oh my god the guy from Dragonball! This is going to be amazing!
(Also, $10 million budget? I wouldn't be expecting much from this to begin with, but that budget is pretty damn lame.)
Well what to you suppouse the budget for Donnie Darko was...I mean It did have some fiarly big names in it, but im guessing it was still fairly low...
DeathsHand
05-11-2008, 10:16 PM
Well what to you suppouse the budget for Donnie Darko was...I mean It did have some fiarly big names in it, but im guessing it was still fairly low...
In the commentary track on the DVD, they say that the budget was $4 million (though IMDB says $4.5)...
They also talk about how "people worked for nothing" and "nobody made a dime", but folks went through with it "because of the material"...
Drew Barrymore also put up some of her own money to help fund the film... And really, her and Patrick Swayze were the only two "big names" as far as films are concerned... There were a couple more fairly big TV personalities, but Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal weren't exactly big names at the time...
Jason1
05-11-2008, 10:38 PM
In the commentary track on the DVD, they say that the budget was $4 million (though IMDB says $4.5)...
They also talk about how "people worked for nothing" and "nobody made a dime", but folks went through with it "because of the material"...
Drew Barrymore also put up some of her own money to help fund the film... And really, her and Patrick Swayze were the only two "big names" as far as films are concerned... There were a couple more fairly big TV personalities, but Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal weren't exactly big names at the time...
Thanks for doing the dirty work for me :)
Renwood
05-12-2008, 03:26 PM
Man, the special edition explains what's going on?
I actually wouldn't mind checking that out.
The ambiguity was the best thing the film had going for it. When its all spelled out and made clear, its not as interesting of an experience.
I don't understand the desire to use the "Darko" brand on this movie. It seems like it has a fair enough premise, and judged on its own, could be entertaining. Now it will judged against something that fans laud over like a martyr and most people have never even heard of.
Yeah, I'm severly worried that this movie is going to have "American Psycho 2" written all over it.
KillerGremlin
05-12-2008, 03:45 PM
Donnie Darko does not need a sequel...but, I guess now that it has gained some popularity amongst casual viewers Hollywood feels that they can make some money, good for them. Money in the bank.
Jonbo298
05-14-2008, 04:50 PM
Well what to you suppouse the budget for Donnie Darko was...I mean It did have some fiarly big names in it, but im guessing it was still fairly low...
Well, at the time, they weren't quite big names. Jake Gyllenhall (however his last name is spelled) was just barely beginning to get known so he didn't require much cash at the time. It wasn't until basically Day after Tomorrow that he really took off (Bubble Boy doesn't count even though that was out before DT)
Yeah, because Butterfly Effect 1 was such a masterpiece.
I didn't say it was a masterpiece. It was a good cult type of flick like Donnie Darko was. BE2 was just an attempt to see if they could cash in on the cult status and it failed because it had nothing to do with the original except "family member" tie in I believe.
Yeah, I'm severly worried that this movie is going to have "American Psycho 2" written all over it.
Don't even bring up that atrocity.
*shudders*
DeathsHand
05-14-2008, 05:57 PM
Well, at the time, they weren't quite big names. Jake Gyllenhall (however his last name is spelled) was just barely beginning to get known so he didn't require much cash at the time. It wasn't until basically Day after Tomorrow that he really took off (Bubble Boy doesn't count even though that was out before DT)
I came so close to being able to say I saw Donnie Darko during it's original theatrical run (which would clearly earn me a ton of indie street cred) because it was playing in a local theater, and I read a good review in The Washington Post because I recognized him in the accompanying picture becaaaauuuse I had seen him (multiple times) in: October Sky...
Such an amazing movie back when I was still an impressionable youngling with hopes and dreams... And his only starring role prior to Donnie Darko...
So I would hardly call Day After Tomorrow his breakthrough role...
You don't usually land a leading role in a "Summer Blockbuster" with a budget of an estimated $125 million dollars unless you've already broken through to some extent...
I'd say bursting onto the scene with two critically-acclaimed lead roles in two critically-acclaimed movies (the second of which gradually built up a large fanbase) would serve that purpose...
I thought Jake Gyllenhaal got pushed to stardom because of his sister Maggie. Damn she's cute.
Renwood
05-14-2008, 07:14 PM
Jake's dreamy. I get lost in that mischievous grin for hours.
The Germanator
05-14-2008, 08:33 PM
Fun fact: Jake used to date Jenny Lewis.
Jonbo298
05-14-2008, 09:03 PM
I came so close to being able to say I saw Donnie Darko during it's original theatrical run (which would clearly earn me a ton of indie street cred) because it was playing in a local theater, and I read a good review in The Washington Post because I recognized him in the accompanying picture becaaaauuuse I had seen him (multiple times) in: October Sky...
Such an amazing movie back when I was still an impressionable youngling with hopes and dreams... And his only starring role prior to Donnie Darko...
So I would hardly call Day After Tomorrow his breakthrough role...
You don't usually land a leading role in a "Summer Blockbuster" with a budget of an estimated $125 million dollars unless you've already broken through to some extent...
I'd say bursting onto the scene with two critically-acclaimed lead roles in two critically-acclaimed movies (the second of which gradually built up a large fanbase) would serve that purpose...
Yeah, he had October Sky also. I was just making references that the general public didn't really get to see him much or know who he was until Day after Tomorrow since it was his first big blockbuster film. Granted, he didn't truly burst out into the scene fully until Brokeback Mountain but..I won't touch that :p
Renwood
05-14-2008, 09:16 PM
Brokeback Mountain was a good film that was unfortunately lauded on by a lot of people for the wrong reasons. The actual narrative and acting were genuinely well done, and while the subject matter obviously mattered to that narrative, it wasn't just something about pushing cultural boundaries about what you can do with homosexuality in cinema. Its unfortunate that so much of the praise centered on that agenda rather than the actual movie.
Heath Ledger's performance was really quite haunting.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.