April 23, 2001, 9:42 a.m. CST
by sticky the clown
I don't think that Kevin C. has it in him to make any thing worth while. Even Sam Raimi could not bring him back from the dead. Don't make the movie.
April 23, 2001, 10:23 a.m. CST
I'm not saying Dances couldn't spawn a good sequel though this lacks a sort of genuineness (as in belieavble)of the first. This one sounds sorta action/adventure oriented, common. Also, I don't think there was a lot of KIDNAPPING in the old west. or anywhere else ever for that matter (except for the hour or day preceeding the captive's rape and murder). One other thing is this cannot be done without Costner and then Costner would probably fuck it up. He'd sing a duet with his daughter for the end credits.
April 23, 2001, 10:29 a.m. CST
Sounds vaguely like "Fortress" (and the sequel) starring Christopher Lambert. Probably will have Costner jumping through waterfalls, throwing Native American axes at soldiers, shouting/mumbling, looking at sunsets, covering up his impending baldness with computer animation...
April 23, 2001, 10:36 a.m. CST
Dances with wolves was so boring and the sequel will suck too. Oh and Forest Gump the movie was much better than the book.
April 23, 2001, 12:12 p.m. CST
April 23, 2001, 2:37 p.m. CST
I think the movie version of "Forrest Gump" was successful because the title character was an all around innocent and decent man. I couldn't believe it when I read the book, since Forrest was portrayed as a huge JERK. Kinda like a retarded Holden Caufield (Yes, I HATED Catcher in the Rye). As for Costner, let him do a damn sequel. Anything to keep him from churning out those God-awful post-apocalyptic "epics".
April 23, 2001, 2:47 p.m. CST
by otis von zipper
All I can say is look at the examples of Godfather 3, Texasville (Last Picture Show) and Two Jakes (Chinatown). Lame sequels to classic films made several years down the road when certain people were desperate for some success and that no-one saw. Oh, I guess some people saw Godfather 3, but are any of them happy about it? You'd think someone would get the hint. But no, this movie will probably get made and then we'll start hearing about the sequel to The Sting or Apocalypse Now or Terms of Endearment, oh wait, they already did.
April 23, 2001, 2:47 p.m. CST
by otis von zipper
All I can say is look at the examples of Godfather 3, Texasville (Last Picture Show) and Two Jakes (Chinatown). Lame sequels to classic films made several years down the road when certain people were desperate for some success and that no-one saw. Oh, I guess some people saw Godfather 3, but are any of them happy about it? You'd think someone would get the hint. But no, this movie will probably get made and then we'll start hearing about the sequel to The Sting or Apocalypse Now or Terms of Endearment, oh wait, they already did that one.
April 23, 2001, 2:58 p.m. CST
by Evil Mastermind
Please for the love of God---do not write a sequel to "Dances With Wolves!!!!!" I don't see any reason to make a sequel!!!!! Making this would lessen just how good a movie the first one was!!! I must go---because the bunny in the upper left hand corner is making me sick!!!!
April 23, 2001, 2:58 p.m. CST
Though it has only been a Two months, is seems like many Years since the death of my tribal chief and friend Ten Bears. His teachings while mostly silent, will stay with me until my own death, which I fear may be all too soon. My wife Stands With A Fist and son Hunting Hawk, have been captured by the soldiers at the fort as I hunted for food. My Brother Wind In His Hair is gone, butchered by the white's. I do not know what has happened to Kicking-Bird and it worries me constantly. I know him to be a proud father and loving husband, who would not desert his family. I fear they are dead, I pray it is not so. My own family is now used as bait to lure me into a trap, it is only a matter of time before my wife is raped and my son murdered. Their seems little alternative but to surrender myself to the soldiers, I am unsure of my destiny now and my families safety play heavily on my mind.
April 23, 2001, 3:10 p.m. CST
Is there going to be a bells and whistle's 4 hour+ version released by the Criterion Collection. Especially after we have had a great disc such as spartacus, and even stuff that should have never been Criterion.... The Rock, we deserve a Multi Oscar winning film such as Dances With Wolves to be treated as something extra special. I could list loads they should include, such as making of featurette, exclusive commentary tracks, at least two, one with kevin and the other cast members, such as graham green and rodney grant, oscar night awards footage, Trailers and tv spots, outtakes, even a completely new cut on a second disc that was once rumoured to be around seven hours should be included. with the latest compression and multi layered disc technology, it would be possible. Come On Criterion..... START DANCING!!!!!
April 23, 2001, 3:38 p.m. CST
Dances With Wolves was on here in the UK last night, and as it got to the end, I thought "It's about time some idiot tried to squeeze blood from this stone and make a sequel." Hey, I have ESP! (And having watched it last night, ScorpionSpawn has it down perfect!)
April 23, 2001, 3:44 p.m. CST
by A Certain Frank
April 23, 2001, 3:54 p.m. CST
by A Certain Frank
But you obviously have not read the book Forrest Gump. "This smells like Winston Groom writing GUMP & CO. after Zemeckis ruined his book." That is truly an uneducated statement. Forrest Gump is probably the most improved movie vs source material I know of. It is one of the stupidest books I've ever read, especially when compared with the movie. Everthing that made Forrest Gump a great movie is missing from the book. Winston Groom wrote GUMP & CO to try to milk the success of Forrest Gump the movie, not to try and set the record straight of what the "real" Forrest Gump is. It is a great movie, a sub-par book. I know how much you love to criticize Forrest Gump the movie, but this book argument is just sad.
April 23, 2001, 4:02 p.m. CST
michael blake created the character and wrote the novel (which is a damn sight better than the movie they made from the book if you ask me). maybe he's got someplace to take the story, maybe he doesn't. but while i hate to see people cashing in on previous successes with sequels, blake has battled hodgkin's disease twice in the last decade and he probably has a few or three bills to pay. that also might explain why he doesn't sound much like an underdog anymore. yeah, i know, life is rough for everybody... but... if it comes out and sucks, it probably won't get made into a movie anyway. and i know people think costner is a pinhead but you should listen to the commentary track on "Dances" and you might think different (it reveals he's a MAJOR pinhead! unfortunately, I gotta love him 'cause he played Gardener Barnes in "Fandango" a great & thoroughly underappreciated flick, and for that he will be forever exempt from my disdain).
April 23, 2001, 5:55 p.m. CST
by Stimpson J Cat
You filthy ideots,duh,you know you cant wait for this one to come out!,duh,YOU ALL WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS MESS LIKE THE ME, DAM YOU ALL TO HELL...........ITS A MAD HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 23, 2001, 8 p.m. CST
It's no secret that if you want to win an oscar as an actor, that all you have to do is play a sympathetic idiot. Hell, everyone raved about Di Caprio in 'What's eating Gilbert Grape' and Hoffman in 'Rainman' and Hanks in 'Forrest Gump'. There are many, many other examples. I personally find Forrest Gump the movie to be a masterfully crafted abortion of a film. They took what could have been a really great premise and glitzed and schlocked and kitzched until I was ready to puke. Making a good hearted idiot responsible for some of the major events of the latter half of the 20th century was not amusing to me. Neither was the blatant Hollywood formulaic manipulation. I can already hear you saying "film snob". It ain't the case. I can appreciated a good piece of fluff for what it is and have a good time watching it. Just remember that Gump was fluff. It was trite, preachy, melodramatic, counter-subversive (if there's such a thing) all rolled into one. ******* That being said, I have not read the book. But, if Gump comes off as a jerk, it can only be an improvement over the movie. Hanks deserved an oscar as much as I deserve a blowjob from Jennifer Love Hewitt. ******** Now these are just my opinions and are worth no more no less then that. But I can't understand some people's fascination with idiots. Most of the idiots I've known were more like Lennie Small then Forrest Gump (movie version). Scary, weird, can be friendly, but prone to irrational outbursts of violence. Too bad that's not how they portrayed Gump, would've made for a hell of a movie.
April 23, 2001, 8:59 p.m. CST
by Sith Lord Jesus
Seriously, why? Oh wait, I forgot: CHA-CHING!!!!! Bastards.
April 23, 2001, 9:22 p.m. CST
"Little Big Man" is a thousand times better than "Dances With Wolves," -- lest we forget the fact that the no-talent hack Costner won Best Picture/Director over Goodfellas/Scorsese. Dances With Wolves DOES NOT deserve to be mentioned in the same BREATH as Dustin Hoffman and Arthur Penn's brilliant Western work. Only for some melodramatic too-long epic sermon would someone like Costner get nominated for Best Actor (???!!!!)... Costner should be banned from all Hollywood offices, lots, etc.
April 23, 2001, 9:46 p.m. CST
by Bad Guy
Why can't Hollywood leave well enough alone? We didn't need Rocky 2-5, Jaws 2-4, Godfather 3, Nightmare on Elm St. 2-? or any of the Friday the 13th movies, but they just keep on churning them out. The original is a masterpiece and definitely one of Costner's best. His career has pretty much been on a downward spiral ever since: Robin Hood, Waterworld, The Postman, Message in a Bottle, For Love of the Game, etc. I would'nt mind seeing him regain his glory days: The Untouchables, Field of Dreams, JFK, Bull Durham. Let's face it, for a while there the guy was pretty much unstoppable. But a sequel to Dances? Definitely not what he needs and without him I don't think it'll go anywhere anyway. Man, this just smells like a bad idea. Well, it's late and I'm starting to ramble. Later.
April 23, 2001, 10:17 p.m. CST
if someone said to you, "hey, that Mona Lisa paintings a piece of crap", you'd say (beign well versed in art theory) "well thanks for your opinion, but you are wrong....." Now to get onto Mr parrot parot man Stuffedparot-whatever, comment about hating Holden Caufield yet likeing the one dimensional character of hank's Forest........you my friend are wrong, I wont tell you why, you have the rest of your life to work that out for yourself........Oh yeah, if anyone is interested, the best book that deals with mental health is "Flowers for Algernon" there was a movie adaption under a different name, but it was no were near as good, but remember, that observation was just my opinion..............
April 24, 2001, 9:01 a.m. CST
I for one though that Dances With Wolves was an excellent story and an excellent film. Considering "The Holy Road" is not even out yet, I believe I will be optimistic and hope that it is an equally compelling story and that Michael Blake will adapt it for the big screen positively. I am sure Kevin Costner will be pursued and I hope he accepts but ultimately, if the story is strong it could survive with different characters and therefore actors.
April 24, 2001, 9:19 a.m. CST
This reminds me of another sequel that is being made to a decent movie that was perfect as a single installment. The Matrix. Both movies were self-contained, and of the two ideas Dances with Wolves actually has a more plausible opening for a sequel. At the end of the Matrix Neo was the one, and he had infinite power, etc. There was/is no reason for a sequel. In Dances with Wolves there is always the question of what happens to the titular character in the future. Neither movie needs a sequel, but I wouldn't be surprised if both get them.
April 24, 2001, 9:26 a.m. CST
This reminds me of another sequel that is being made to a decent movie that was perfect as a single installment. The Matrix. Both movies were self-contained, and of the two ideas Dances with Wolves actually has a more plausible opening for a sequel. At the end of the Matrix Neo was the one, and he had infinite power, etc. There was/is no reason for a sequel. In Dances with Wolves there is always the question of what happens to the titular character in the future. Neither movie needs a sequel, but I wouldn't be surprised if both get them. And by the way, could your new server set up be any worse? I didn't think so.
April 24, 2001, 5:49 p.m. CST
For letting me know that I'm not the only person in the world that thinks Catcher in the Rye wasn't the masterpiece it was supposed to be. And to the guy who criticized me, did you READ my post? Did I SAY that I liked Forrest Gump? All right, I did like it, but that's beside the point. I won't admit a book's a piece of great literature just because the whole world says it is (much like the Mona Lisa). I found CITR pretentious and its main character annoying(in my opinion, of course). I did find Flowers for Algernon an effective piece of writing, but precisely because it affected ME, not because it affected other people that read it. Okaaay, now back to the fun!
April 24, 2001, 9:19 p.m. CST
Rocky 2 is awesome! The jogging scene, where now he a city behind him (compare to jogging scene in R1) is classic! And R4 was out when I was 5 years old, and I SOOOOOO bought into the Cold War propaganda! When Rocky beat Drago, it was a victory for Good, for Freedom (in my eyes). I'll never forget that. When the Moscow people rooted for Rocky, it was like "Wow! They too see that USA is better!" And I always hated R5 until I saw it again recently and it has its moments...
April 24, 2001, 9:27 p.m. CST
the fact that you've never liked "catcher in the rye" doesn't automatically make you a jerk (though that is a risk factor). when i was thirteen, i read the book and it really affected me, really made me feel better as young guy. and then i read it when i was twenty, and i realized that, for me, it wasn't a book i could go back to. "catcher in the rye" can sometimes be like a childhood best friend that never gets any older. so if you read it at the wrong time, or too late in life, i think, it means something else. but isn't that the truth with every piece of music, film and literature? half of it is what YOU bring to it and where you are at the time that you experience it. but for all i know, you might be thirteen years old right now (that's really not a put down). But if you are thirteen, go back and read it again!!!
April 25, 2001, 7:18 p.m. CST
Well, this whole article is well-driven. I see a bunch of remarks about Forrest Gump. I enjoyed the film. I read another fanboy's remarks about the 'nice guy' portrayal of Gump and how he disliked that and how formulaic it is. Well, it is formulaic And rightly so. But people don't want a movie about mediocre. With a mediocre protagonist! Replacing Gump with an irrational, crazed human being would only hold true to the way things really are. We know mentally handicapped people are prone to that behavior, so why have a lead character that fits that? It's ridiculous. It's mediocre. And, above all, it's not Forrest Gump. Well, anyhow. I got that off my chest.
April 26, 2001, 2:22 a.m. CST
Bad idea. Very bad. We have no more hours to spare for Kevin and his wolves.