the "beautiful friendship" statement that is, or is that just a play on the hopes that America is now a friend to the liberation movement? Even so, we could see a movie showing the development of that relationship
shareI mean...you could... Why, though?
The story is pretty complete as it is. We see the arcs between Rick and Ilsa. Those are the people we really care about. Do we need to see Rick and Louis tearing around Europe, shooting Germans? Especially 78 years after this one came out. Plus, no Bogey to fill in (unless they re-created him with CGI...?)
Casablanca is one of the best movies of all time. Do we really want somebody tackling that? What are the odds that any sequel could live up to it?
Negative.
shareThe film certenly doesn't need a sequel. The ending is perfect! Like Ace_Spade said: The story is pretty complete as it is.
shareYou're right, they could easily have made an buddy-action-comedy, about Rick and Louis wisecracking their way through the French Resistance, and working through conflicts to become the best of friends.
I"m SO GLAD they didn't!
And finding Isla and winning her back. Oh god that would have been horrible.
shareA tantalizing what if..
What if.... they could use computer generated images and voices to reanimate the leads for a sequel?
What if...the script is good?
What if....the movies cinematography and overall style are superb?
What if... you can overcome hoards of movie aficionados who say this movie is sacred ground?
What if....you can get the money from backers who are willing to gamble that making this movie will be profitable?
If...all these challenges can be overcome by some intrepid person, it will change the industry.
The story in the sequel would actually have a lot of history playing out from the battle for North Africa between Rommel and Montgomery. We already know Rick has moved on after Ilsa's departure and is at peace but now War is at his doorstep. Even better, it doesn't have to be in the format of a film but rather a seasonal serial so more story and characters can manifest.
shareIt's not that tantalizing to me for the reason of the CGI leads. And, honestly, this has nothing to do with anti-computer FX, but rather a reluctance to hand over the keys to companies to hold actors' legacies in perpetuity. This would put loads of actors out of work as the companies slowly amassed movie stars. It would likely stagnate performance art (imagine if this happened before Marlon Brando, for instance). It would further corporatize artistic endeavours, and they're already corporate enough, thanks. Disney, for instance, is committee-building so many movies and TV series these days and they feel so dull and stale. Imagine if the performers were also just committee-puppets.
I kind of inherently hate the idea of resurrecting dead performers against their knowledge (obviously) to dance for us. It seems wrong to me, for both practical and ethical reasons.
As to the rest of the possibilities, I shall reply as laconically as possible.
"If".
Obviously it is too late for actors that have already passed away...and I agree with your discomfort about reanimation without consent.
How about a still living actor who gives consent to reanimation after death? The actor/actress would give complete control to some they trust, most likely a relative, to make sure the actor is portrayed in a fair way.
I predict that eventually some famous actor will do this very thing.
I would extremely curious to see a movie of a dead actor reanimated in a new story completely by new technology.
I think this is going to happen one day.
I still don't like it.
Acting is a highly competitive field. Very few jobs are available and numerous people are trying desperately for an opportunity. Those opportunities are very, very rare as-is. Imagine if companies never had to pay for performers again.
In addition to ghoulish, it's also just a major problem for employment in the arts.
I want to be clear that I'm not anti-progress. But this is not the same thing as building a robot that assists with production, because factories still employ workers, and because those robots do the job better than a person could (fabrication accuracy, for instance). In the case of actors, however, the robot/CGI image can't do it better because a person performing is what is required, so it's not improving, just replacing.
I think it'll probably happen (heck, it already kind of has with Laurence Olivier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), but I also think it's just another way Disney and Sony and whoever else will shave off paying decent wages to employees so they can fill the company coffers.
I'll let Groucho play me out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU
I doubt they considered a sequel for one minute. But yes, the thought has been an interesting one for decades.
There is a novel called "As time goes by" written in 1998 that is considered the "official" sequel.
They didn't destroy movies with sequels back then.
Anyway interesting theory that the "beautiful friendship" implied the US-France one. Actually the more poignant line for me is this:
"Welcome back to the fight; this time I know our side will win." This implies all the Allies: US-Czech, French, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDm3qr3Zlu0
"They didn't destroy movies with sequels back then."
Yikes. Why do people say things like this?
Of COURSE they've been making sequels since the days of Casablanca. The thinking was identical to today: We've got a hit; let's capitalize on it. What on earth makes you think differently?
To speak to the sentiment, however: there's a reason why you've never seen "Fall of a Nation," but "Birth" is readily available. Ditto for "Son of Kong."
Birth of a Nation was historical, not really good.
And no, they did not do sequels then like they do today.
Maybe you can name one or two, but then never gave then numbers either.
"Not really good" is simply your opinion. Which, FWIW, has nothing to do with the topic being discussed: YES, they did sequels to movies back then. I could name far more than "one or two," but you're on a movie website: it's easy enough to see.
"Never gave them numbers" is also irrelevant. Once more, for the cheap seats: the statement "they didn't destroy movies with sequels back then" is patently absurd, and factually incorrect.
They also did loads of remakes, and some of them (The Maltese Falcon) worked out pretty well.
shareI think you are defending the indefensible.
Yes, they made the occasional sequel, although I cannot really think of one notable one, at least in the realm of classic movies.
You can go with the serials, like Tarzan or Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon.
I think the point is that they had good writers with good ideas back then and did not rely on sequels and special effects like they do today.
They tried to make each movie stand alone - the best it could be. It was an art to say something or tell a story in one fell swoop, so to speak.
They relied on the story being good and the actors pulling people in to watch it.
Today they go into a movie looking at marketing, toys, T-shirts, memorabilia, sex, action and special effects - and serialization. It is a whole different mindset.
Maybe they did the occasional sequel or two, but that is not the question or the point. Although what you mentioned proves that there were sequels, but not that the sexualization compares in any way to today, and in general people did not like them because movies in general were better.
The movie industry today is completely different, and your suggestions that sequels were common is just not proven out by the facts. Alien, Rocky, Halloween, Terminator ... they are not really even stories so much as serial that have little to no actual story or meaning, they are just spectacle.
I'm not "defending" anything. Simply stating facts.
"Occasional" is a term with no currency, in this particular discussion. There are many, MANY more films being made now than there were when Casablanca came out. Feel free to do a statistical analysis, corrected for frequency gradients and any other variables you care to; the fact remains: sequels have been a part of the movie industry since Day One, and the contention that they're a particular aspect of current philosophy/industry mores is Flatly Wrong.
The front page of THIS SITE contains sequels, remakes, and the like. . .but it also has a PLETHORA of originals. The "things were better in the old days" crowd has been around since the 1960's. They were wrong then; they're wrong now.
I never meant, said or implied that there were no sequels, and what I said and you seem to have ignore to just repeat the same things you said before [ by the way when did that ever become some kind of thing, some kind of logical argument, to just repeat something louder or more stridently ... it's not ] is that sequels are an economic thing now, done for profit, and that the art of movies is BS these days.
Movies had to be stand alone for the most part, like books. This is particularly true of the Science Fiction genre, there are hardly any SF books that come out as single stand alone stories - they are all long drawn out space operas or epics.
At least though in SF there is not the repetition and there is some development of the plot ... not really so in movie sequels, except in a few. I can think of Alien 1 & 2, and Terminator 1 & 2, while the rest of them were shitty and done to exploit people's interest in the movies.
Anyway, I expect you will just throw out the same stuff you've done before, so I'll rest my case and this is what I think. I think your theory that there were always sequels while true, not in the same way, for the same reasons, and not accepted before the way they are today - ion other words you are wrong and just trolling based on the point that you can name a few sequels in the past. So what?
I keep repeating the same things because you keep babbling the same nonsense. See how that works? As I'm not quite bored enough to let your blather evaporate into the ether, here we are.
It's fascinating that you can't grasp simple concepts, but that doesn't change the fact(s) of the matter. You continue to bleat about sequels being solely "an economic thing," as if movies have ever been a purely artistic endeavor (hint: they haven't). Sequels have ALWAYS been a part of the landscape. Both because audiences tend to want to know "what comes next," and because companies are in the business of capitalizing on what they think people will buy. Period.
As far as your claims about Sci-Fi, you're (unsurprisingly) wrong there, too. Check out some Vance, or Butler, or Vinge, or. . .ah, whatever. You'll just claim the fact that I can name countless particulars that disprove your nonsense is somehow irrelevant. No worries. . .believe what you want. You can go now.
You proved asshat is your total existence. You're a sick and uncivilized person.
> Sequels have ALWAYS been a part of the landscape.
Simply BS.
Rotten Tomatoes 100 best sequels, only 6 pre-1980,
Godfather
Spaghetti Westerns
Bride of Frankenstein
and Bond movies ... bullshit exploitation movies.
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-sequels-of-all-time
No, I just gave you the opportunity to show everyone exactly what an idiot you are. Predictably, you took the ball and RAN w/it, Forrest-Gump style, right outta the stadium.
As you pelt along through field and dale, and proceed onward in your adventures in stupidity, take your arbitrary RT lists and your editorials with you. Those of us who can think for ourselves don't need 'em. But you enjoy!
What percentage of movies were sequels in 1943?
What percentage of the box office were sequels in 1943?
What percentage of movies are sequels in 2021?
What percentage of the box office were sequels in 2021?
That's why people say things like that. Why do people argue with reality? Why can't lower life forms seem to ever be able to admit when they are wrong?
I've been wondering the same thing for a while. I've concluded that with a walking Dunning–Kruger effect such as yourself, it's never going to happen. And it's fruitless to speculate. The questions about "percentages" are a perfect illustration: this was addressed in a previous post. But since you're FAR too stupid to understand, you'll never be able to even find someone to explain it to you.
Shrug. Just the way it is.
There was talk of a sequel some years back, it was going to be set twenty years after the events of the first film, concerning the son of Rick and Ilsa, he was to be visting Casablanca for the first time, most probally in search of his father, if he knows Rick is his father that is.
shareSequels always dilute the original. Examples: Jaws...Halloween....Die Hard....Purple Rain....Chinatown, Wizard of Oz, etc, etc....
Some movies, especially true classics, are meant to stand alone and not be eff’d with, sequeled or colorized.
Part of what made that final line in Casablanca so perfect is...it’s the final line. It’s the last moment we get to witness between them. To then create some hackneyed sequel and essentially say: “Wait wait wait...there’s more! Now they go searching for the Holy Grail!” That would be a crime against cinema.
It would be like saying: “Hey...let’s have a sequel to Shawshank Redemption! We could see what Andy and Red end up doing with that boat...and what kinds of jobs they end up getting!”
Some things are just perfect as is...and should not be eff’d with or milked.
"Sequels never dilute the original"
There. . .fixed it for ya. Yer welcome
I LIKE YOU.🙂
shareI agree, but I think that sequels (bad ones) can tarnish the legacy of the original film. The original film is, of course, just as good as it always was, but when I think about Rambo or Rocky, I don't think of the (excellent) first films first, I think of the bloated, dead horse carcasses being continually whipped by Stallone.
Your point is well-taken: the original is still great. And when I watch Rocky (or First Blood, or The Matrix, or Star Wars) none of the crummy sequels can do anything to tarnish those films. However, when people think of, say, The Matrix, do they remember, "That was a brilliant sci-fi movie!"? Or do they go, "Those movies were okay"?
It depends on the person. If they're capable of coherent thought, they understand there was a great original movie, followed by (in their opinion) crappy sequels.
If they can't parse their way through this fairly simple concept, who Cares what they think?
The only negative I can really see is if there's some "consensus" that a series of films is crappy, and therefore [Person R] never goes to see the (excellent) first film. But again: if [Person R] relies on others to make such decisions for them, who cares what [Person R] thinks?
> It would be like saying: “Hey...let’s have a sequel to Shawshank Redemption!
Well, not really, because "Shawshank Redemption" is not 1% of the movie "Casablanca" was.
As Time Goes By - Michael Walsh Both prequel and sequel.
share