A straight-to-video Donnie Darko sequel is being made (without the input of the original crew it seems).
I really liked the original Donnie Darko. It has its haters (and I can understand why) but it has enough genuine quality and intrigue for me to like it (story is about creating an ever-changing centre of interest - that's something Donnie Darko achieved, although maybe cheaply).
This sequel sounds like a bad idea to me.
This sequel looks like it's going to centre on his little sister Samantha Darko and from the trailer (made from clips of Donnie Darko) looks like it will be set during the events of the orignal film.
I can see the appeal - I can see why they want to make this. One aspect of Donnie Darko was that it was a collection of smaller stories - of different characters living different lives in the same place at the same time. There were many events in the film that were truly a part of bigger stories that we didn't see. I understand why they might want to make different films that centre on these characters and these stories.
The problem for me is that these separate stories were all contained in Donnie Darko. Even though they weren't fully explored, they gave us enough - any more background infromation would be too much. Making more Donnie Darko movies is pointless - we've met these characters and glimpsed their lives. Sure there's more that can be told but there's no reason for it.
I especially don't see the appeal of watching Donnie Darko again from Samantha's point of view. It seems like an odd character to choose for this project (why not the Science Teacher or the Asian girl?). Picking another Darko Family member puts them too close to the events of the original movie - there will be a lot of repetition and not much new.
Looks like I might have misunderstood the trailer.
Here's the synopsis from IMDB (orignally from Wikipedia).
Quote:
S. Darko takes place in the summer of 1995, seven years after the original film. It follows Donnie Darko's younger sister, Samantha (Daveigh Chase), who, in the wake of his death, has found herself at age 17 with a broken family, mired in feelings of insignificance. She and her best friend Corey (Evigan) set off on a road trip to Hollywood in a bid to 'make it big', but their journey is cut short when their car breaks down unexpectedly, leaving them stranded in a small desert town. When a meteorite happens to crash-land nearby, Samantha is plagued by bizarre visions telling of the universe's end and it appears that their breakdown was part of some grander plan. When she finds out she was actually adopted by the Darkos, and that she is in no way related to Donnie, she must face her own demons and, in doing so, save the world and herself
Now, I really don't see the point in this.
Why not make an entirely different movie altogether - the connection to the first film doesn't seem that integral to the plot.
I'm guessing they're just trying to make more money off the Donnie Darko name.
What a pointless thing to do. Movies like Donnie Darko don't need sequels. The first film confused the hell outta me. It was definetly different, though. _________________ "One of God's own prototypes. Too weird to live, too rare to die." --Hunter S Thompson Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with a lot of pleasure." --Clarence Darrow
I saw it just recently. Not a bad flick, but hardly worthy (or in need) of a sequel.
_________________ John R. Gibson
Host/Writer/Creator Video Masters TV
"The whole planet Houston?" -General Zod
"Am I supposed to conduct with my penis?" -Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
"What does God need with a starship?" - Star Trek V
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
