Print Page | Close Window

Seriously...a SEQUEL?!?!?!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: FORUMS on UP-COMING FILMS & PROJECTS
Forum Name: WHITE CHIX 2
Forum Discription: OMG...Why the FUCK Would They Do a Sequel to That?!?!?!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3803
Printed Date: August 20 2014 at 11:29am


Topic: Seriously...a SEQUEL?!?!?!
Posted By: Movie Man
Subject: Seriously...a SEQUEL?!?!?!
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 4:04am

Yep, you read right. No mistake. A "White Chicks 2" is reportedly coming to cinemas near you ( http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/14916/a-white-chicks-sequel-in-the-works - LINK ).

A future Razzie nominee for sure, I think HeadRazz should include it in his Up-Coming Projects list!


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Yer wish is my command...well, sometimes.  See below...  





Replies:
Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 4:10am


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 5:17am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Although it failed to "win" any awards, the original 2004 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/white_chicks/ - was nominated for 5 dis-honors, including Worst Picture ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=354&PN=1 - ).  In the "pantheon" of Wayans Brothers "comedies," it was admittedly one of their bigger "hits." But by normal studio standards, it was not a major success as a theatrical release ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=whitechicks.htm - ) so it is unclear why Sony/Columbia would even consider doing a sequel -- Unless they're planning a Direct-to-DVD release...

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 5:55am

Here's the full text of the announcement in The Hollywood Reporter: 

LOS ANGELES - The Wayans brothers and Sony Pictures are developing a sequel to the 2004 comedy " http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808512470/info/ - White Chicks ," in which Marlon and Shawn Wayans will reprise their roles as sibling FBI agents posing as a pair of white women.

Keenen Ivory Wayans is on board to direct the sequel, which all three Wayans are writing. The plot of the new entry is being kept under wraps.

The first film was a surprise hit, grossing almost $70 million domestically; it was made for about $37 million.

The trio last worked together on "Dance Flick," which they acted in, produced and co-wrote with family members Craig Wayans and Damien Dante Wayans.

Keenan Ivory Wayans' last directing project was 2006's "Little Man." Marlon Wayans is on the big screen as Ripcord in the current release "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra."

(Editing by SheriLinden at Reuters)



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 6:06am

I think I have a solution that should be acceptable to all parties: Why don't we just send the Wayans brothers the 5 Razzies they didn't "win" last for the first film. That way, they get the awards without having to go through the effort of making the movie...and we are spared having to see it. A win/win situation, if there ever was one!

 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 7:38am
The first was a pretty funny movie. I've never laughed so hard. *let the bashing start*


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 12:44pm
Warning:


-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 1:57pm

No feeding, just too easy. 

If the Wayans want to do a sequel, it should be "Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood ... 2". That was the funniest movie they ever have made. Though, admittedly, that's not saying much...



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 18 2009 at 6:59am
If they made that, they'd have to make the sequel name just as long as the first. I'm too tired to come up with anything clever at the moment, but if no one else does, I'll look up some other gangsta movie titles and make a full one.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: August 21 2009 at 3:36am
I wish the Wayans will take on more dramatic roles, such as acting in Requiem for a Dream or Bamboozled, instead of crappy roles like these just for quick cash. Probably a waste of an actor.


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 21 2009 at 12:51pm

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000

I wish the Wayans will take on more dramatic roles, such as acting in Requiem for a Dream or Bamboozled, instead of crappy roles like these just for quick cash. Probably a waste of an actor.

I agree, but they prefer to do comedy instead, perhaps because it's easier for them to do. Their careers are suffering because of their own laziness.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 21 2009 at 4:25pm
Well, it's expected of them. And what's weird is that Shawn has more seeming ability to do more dramatic, and seems to completely refuse to go outside his bubble, whereas Marlon will dip his toes from time to time.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 12:08pm
WHITE CHICKS had bad directing,but it was O.K. in general.You don't believe?Then how come the box office hit?I know you think that means nothing,since a lot of times hits are trashed by critics.That's true,but if this was in fact one of the worst movies ever like you say,it would've flop.
 
If a movie is bad,it can just bad or berry bad.
 
Even though the nominees this year for "Worst Picture" that floped are only 2,and all of the ones up for "Worst Picture Of The Decade" floped.
 
However,this shouldn't be made.They got lucky the first time,but this one could flop.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 12:42pm
The reason why it made money was because the Wayans were on a hot streak from the "Scary Movies". Once people saw this piece of s***, that hot streak cooled quickly. The movie wasn't funny, the Wayans looked nothing like humans let alone white women when they were in make-up, and the movie was full of racist and sexist undertones. There is no reason for a sequel.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 1:22pm
All of those visual errors are to blame Keenen Ivory Wayans.Like I said,it had bad directing,but I think it's good all together.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 4:24pm
We're all allowed to like a terrible movie here and there, but BO does not exempt a movie from BO. (That's Box Office, as in money, for the first BO, and body odor for the second). Again, look at Rotten Tomatoes top 10 Box Office on any given week, and there's generally 2-3 movies with a positive rating. My point being that in the United States at least, people have terrible, terrible taste in movies, in general.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 4:46pm
Yes,but if you read a list of the worst movies in any site,you'll notice that at least a lil'over half were flops.

When a bad movie does good at the B.O.,it means it's errors are easier to be found by experts.

When a bad movies flops,it means it's errors are so big,even someone who knows nothin'can see them.

And I know that this year we only have 5 flops out of 15 nominees,and 4 have just 1 nomination.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 5:08pm
Lol, I'm afraid it has more to do with how well it's been marketed, not how well it was actually made. You have no idea how many times I've sat through the previews in a movie and listened to people say "WOW, THAT LOOKS AWESOME", only to have me know already that the movie is 2012, and I'm cringing in my seat.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 11:02am
Wrong again.

When http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum397.html - "2012" and AVATAR premiered,they were the sh*t.However,only the latter stayed #1 for weeks,'til it became the highest grossin'movie ever.Why?It's good,and the other one is bad,but not that bad.

I hate myself for sayin'this,but THE VILLAGE opened good because of the marketin',and'cuz it was a Shyamalan movie(he was a success back then).After people thought it was bad,it fell hard in the B.O..How is it that it was a B.O. success anyway?It's not that bad.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 2:04pm
Ummm... 2012 and Avatar had huge opening weekends... not sure what you're anglin at.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 2:30pm
That's right.They had great openings.After people realize how bad and good were(respectively),they each earn diferent numbers.One of them became the highest grossin'movie ever,and the other one stayed at #1 for 1 week(mostly'cuz of the premiere of http://razzies.com/forum/twilight-saga-new-moon_forum398.html - NEW MOON ),and then it went down.It was still a success in money terms,which means it wasn't that bad.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 3:26pm
... - aHEM

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 3:49pm
The point is that just because a movie makes a lot of money, that doesn't mean it's good. Take "Transformers 2". It's #10 in the highest grossing movies of all time, yet here it is with 7 Razzie nods and it's considered a heavy favorite to win everything it is up for.
 
"White Chicks" was a bad movie, plain and simple (and I do mean "simple"). It made a lot of money at first because people thought it would be as funny as the "Scary Movies', but it wasn't. Because it was a bad movie, people then avoided "Little Man" and "Dance Flick". The Wayans are stuck in a rut, and a "White Chicks" sequel is not going to help them out. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 4:59pm
For the last time:It's bad,but not that bad.That's why worse movie flop at the B.O..

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 11 2010 at 8:37pm
Lol but you're missing the point still, Vits... My point is that bad movies being bad doesn't mean that Americans don't still go to them, and Paul Blart: Mall Cop is the ultimate example.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 5:39am
Look,I know we're not real critics,but if we're gon'na discuss bad movies,you need to understand that each movie has it's own level of..."badness".WHITE CHICKS and PAUL BLART are bad,but they're not worse than movies that actually flopped,like http://razzies.com/forum/miss-march_forum344.html - MISS MARCH .

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 5:54am
Paul Blart looked every bit as bad as Miss March to me. I didn't see either. For whatever it's worth, I'd rather see a movie written by two of the guys from The Whitest Kids U Know than either of the other two. I still say however bad or good a movie is hardly determines its success.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 8:38am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

The point is that just because a movie makes a lot of money, that doesn't mean it's good. Take "Transformers 2". It's #10 in the highest grossing movies of all time, yet here it is with 7 Razzie nods and it's considered a heavy favorite to win everything it is up for.
 
"
 
I've been on this campaign for awhile now, but I personally think that box-office numbers have become a completely meaningless measure of how a movie is performing. How can anyone seriously suggest that there is an viable comparison between a movie that made $100 million back in the 70's when ticket prices were 4 bucks and a movie that makes the same amount now when ticket prices are $12? (Most people who saw Avatar on an IMAX screen in 3D probably paid $20) Further, back in the 70's, it was often something of an effort to see a particular movie. If you lived in a small or medium-sized city, particular movies might take a couple of weeks to get to a theater reasonably nearby, whereas today, most small towns have mega-screen theaters so most of the major films appear everywhere in the U.S. on opening weekend.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 10:02am
Look,if a movie is bad,but still does good at the B.O.,it has to be'cuz it's not that bad.
 
The errors we see in movies also have different "levels".
 
If WHITE CHICKS's errors had been more obvious for non-experts(aside of course from the fact they don't look like real white women),it would've flopped.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 10:10am
Originally posted by Vits

Look,if a movie is bad,but still does good at the B.O.,it has to be'cuz it's not that bad.


*Taps on his Paul Blart sign*
Do you realize that if The Hangover hadn't come out, THAT would've been THE comedy of 2009? And look, I liked Hangover as much as the next guy, but it wasn't really THAT great. It wasn't anything terribly special at all, really. And that's now, what, the most profitable comedy of all time or something like that? Probably the best of 2009, and I don't mean to sound like I didn't like it, but it doesn't deserve that. I'm telling you, the problem is that audiences have become entirely retarded. (I'm looking forward to condemnation from Sarah Palin.)

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 10:52am
O.K..You're right on the fact that you're entitled to your opinion,but you can't simply say it's bad,considerin'that aside from the good B.O.,that as we established,doesn't mean a lot,it has good reviews,and the Golden Globe for "Best Movie-Comedy And/Or Musical".
 
It's not "the most profitable comedy of all time",it's the most profitable R-rated comedy of all time.
 
THE PROPOSAL did $100 million better than PAUL BLART,and that one had better reviews,but of course not as good as the reviews of THE HANGOVER.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 11:38am
Yes, thank goodness for "The Hangover" for overthrowing "Paul Blart"!
 
And don't joke about Sarah Palin becomign President, it might come true if you do!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 1:14pm
Originally posted by Vits

O.K..You're right on the fact that you're entitled to your opinion,but you can't simply say it's bad,considerin'that aside from the good B.O.,that as we established,doesn't mean a lot,it has good reviews,and the Golden Globe for "Best Movie-Comedy And/Or Musical".
 

It's not "the most profitable comedy of all time",it's the most profitable R-rated comedy of all time.

 

THE PROPOSAL did $100 million better than PAUL BLART,and that one had better reviews,but of course not as good as the reviews of THE HANGOVER.


Which movie are you talking about? If you're talking about Paul Blart, it had an abysmal 34%. There's no argument that it's a good movie, unless you're 13 and under, and you've never seen a good comedy. Great BO simply does not mean a good movie.
Whatever Hangover has, it holds a record, and it was not the best R rated comedy of all time. I'd call Airplane!, for example, far better. The Proposal was a 43%... Still pretty awful. Look, critics are pretentious and holier-than-thou, and sometimes their tastes are a bit TOO specific for the common man, but when you look at them collectively, like Rotten Tomatoes does, you get a pretty good idea of how good the movie is, by getting the professional opinion of a wide variety of people, keyword "PROFESSIONAL". And then, if you take into account the top 10 BO of the week, and how often you see the little green splattered tomatoes, you start to get a sense that there's a very large disconnect between "the people" and "the people who know what they're talking about".
Great Box Office =/= Great, Good, or even Not Terrible

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 1:33pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Originally posted by Vits

O.K..You're right on the fact that you're entitled to your opinion,but you can't simply say it's bad,considerin'that aside from the good B.O.,that as we established,doesn't mean a lot,it has good reviews,and the Golden Globe for "Best Movie-Comedy And/Or Musical".
 

It's not "the most profitable comedy of all time",it's the most profitable R-rated comedy of all time.

 

THE PROPOSAL did $100 million better than PAUL BLART,and that one had better reviews,but of course not as good as the reviews of THE HANGOVER.


Which movie are you talking about? If you're talking about Paul Blart, it had an abysmal 34%. There's no argument that it's a good movie, unless you're 13 and under, and you've never seen a good comedy. Great BO simply does not mean a good movie.
Whatever Hangover has, it holds a record, and it was not the best R rated comedy of all time. I'd call Airplane!, for example, far better. The Proposal was a 43%... Still pretty awful. Look, critics are pretentious and holier-than-thou, and sometimes their tastes are a bit TOO specific for the common man, but when you look at them collectively, like Rotten Tomatoes does, you get a pretty good idea of how good the movie is, by getting the professional opinion of a wide variety of people, keyword "PROFESSIONAL". And then, if you take into account the top 10 BO of the week, and how often you see the little green splattered tomatoes, you start to get a sense that there's a very large disconnect between "the people" and "the people who know what they're talking about".
Great Box Office =/= Great, Good, or even Not Terrible
 
What movie was I talkin'bout?Gee,I don't know.It has to be PAUL BLART since it won the Golden Globe...was that sarcasm?Yes(DR. SHELDON COOPER).
 
THE HANGOVER is the highest grossin'R-rated comedy.Check anywhere.
 
Most people's opinions on movies are about the same at what critics feel.
 
All my comments'bout "not that bad" movies at the B.O.,have nothing to do with how good a movie does.Movies with great reviews and awards have flopped,such as KISS KISS,BANG BANG,STRANGER THAN FICTION(my all-time favorite dramedy)and more recently,CRAZY HEART.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 3:07pm
Paul Blart won a Golden Globe?

I don't doubt that The Hangover is the highest grossing R-Rated Comedy... That's kinda why I brought it up.

I think I'm entirely missing what you're trying to argue at this point. My point, stated simply and clearly, is "A bad movie can do well at the box office, for as long, if not longer, than a good movie."

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 4:27pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Paul Blart won a Golden Globe?


If you're gon'na be sarcastic,write it like me.If you're serious,then no,it didn't.I was talkin'bout THE HANGOVER.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I think I'm entirely missing what you're trying to argue at this point. My point, stated simply and clearly, is "A bad movie can do well at the box office, for as long, if not longer, than a good movie."

Sorry,I didn't get that.It's just I've been arguin'with B.H.B.,and I thought you were replyin'cuz you were takin'his side.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 4:50pm
Lol dude, no one gets and does sarcasm better than I do. I never said anything bad about The Hangover, other than it wasn't the funniest movie ever. Now, I've said Paul Blart was crap, and therefor, if you're talking about a movie that I said was bad, I'm going to assume you're referring to Paul Blart. In other words, you simply weren't clear enough as to which movie you were referring.

My argument is independent of his in this case, yes. I'm guessing our points of view aren't terribly different, but I feel that I've stayed fairly consistent with my point.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 18 2010 at 12:14pm
Yeah.We should team up agains B.H.B..

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 03 2010 at 7:04pm
I just saw WHITE CHICKS AGAIN.I still laugh,despite having bad directing.

I also saw PAUL BLART.Not that funny,but still a lot.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 03 2010 at 8:13pm
And the bad script, the bad make-up, the bad acting ...  

Originally posted by Vits

I just saw WHITE CHICKS AGAIN.I still laugh,despite having bad directing.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: pasim
Date Posted: September 06 2011 at 6:33am
I totally agree with Vits (see below). We've seen quite a long thread of badly reviewed films doing great and those with great reviews flopping. I think it's a trend that has been established that whatever doesn't appeal to the massive audience, regardless of its actual quality, will probably not do too well at the box office, while something "made for the masses" can receive terrible reviews and still make money. That is the reality of film-making now, isn't it? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am not trying to sound like an expert.   

Originally posted by Vits

Movies with great reviews and awards have flopped,such as KISS KISS,BANG BANG,STRANGER THAN FICTION(my all-time favorite dramedy)and more recently,CRAZY HEART.


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 06 2011 at 7:41am
Sorry, but I think you're a little late to the party. Not because the post you quoted was from last year, but because right now, THE HELP has #1 at the box office for three weeks, while a lot of this year's remakes and sequels(with and without 3-D) have either flopped or grossed less than expected.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: pasim
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 3:26am
Oh, haha, sorry about the late quote :D. It's just my personal impression, really, I am not trying to pass for an expert :)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:56am
That's OK.I'm not an expert either.I just wrote what I've heard and read.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window