"Standalone sequel" - what a horrible phrase.

Spoiler

Twisters (film)

Twisters is an upcoming American disaster film... It is a standalone sequel to the 1996 film Twister.

  • AernaLingus [any]13•4 months ago

    A sequel to Twister...fucking Twister? Jesus, that's dire. I mean, I like Twister as much as the next person (Helen Hunt? Bill Paxton? Flying cows? What's not to love!), but I'm pretty sure that movie told us everything we need to know about the Twister universe.

    Also goddamn, I didn't realize it grossed half a billion at the box office and beat out Mission: Impossible. Presumably the execs just have a list of movies sorted by box office returns and are greenlighting reboots and sequels in order, reason be damned

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]6•4 months ago

      a list of movies sorted by box office returns and are greenlighting reboots and sequels in order, reason be damned

      In nutshell it's hard to see that not being standard operating procedure. Hollywood has always been a business but it seems now it's only a business to those with power and influence.

      • AernaLingus [any]3•4 months ago

        It's true on a general level, but like...Twister? I get trying to milk beloved cultural icons for all they're worth, but Twister has no cultural cachet whatsoever. I doubt anyone who wasn't alive when it came out has even heard of it, and for the rest of us it's not the kind of movie you reminisce about. As crass as the Disney live action remakes are, the market is obvious. I can even understand Willy Wonka (although I do wonder who tf is actually watching those--aren't we on like the third reboot in 15 years or something??). But Twister? You're really gonna throw $200 million at Twister? Maybe these studio execs know something I don't, but I just can't imagine that many people are gonna get excited about CGI tornados with a cast of randoms.

        • InevitableSwing [none/use name]2•4 months ago

          I just can't imagine that many people are gonna get excited about CGI tornados with a cast of randoms.

          I entirely agree. But I think the current and average Hollywood exec has no real passion for movies or pop culture. For comparison what makes movies like dramas financial successes requires actual interest in storytelling, acting, and directing. The execs have no interest in something that's much-loved. They want money. For example - the profit upside for stuff like dramas tends to be very low.

          "CGI tornados" is the kind of thing that for them smells like money. CGI-based movies are often ideal for them because the tricky part and heart of the movies - storytelling - plays second fiddle to the spectacle, massive CGI overkill, and the cartoon physics. The execs think CGI + Big Stars = a potential huge hit.

          That mindset can create very expensive movies and the risk is high that they don't even break even. But a big budget CGI-extravaganza might make 100s of millions of dollars. And - of course - a hit movie will have the usual possible tie-ins. Sequel(s)? Prequel(s)? Become a full-fledged franchise? Spinoffs like a TV series? Other marketing crap (a Twisters Burger?), etc.

          And - of course - ~20 dramas don't get made because because a movie like Twisters sucks up all the money and resources.