Fright Night (2011) sequel on the way

[Kaiju]

This is so strange... As a fan of both the original and the remake, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Simply because it's direct to DVD/Blu-ray.

http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/32...-night-sequel/

Weird.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by TheMan

This is so strange... As a fan of both the original and the remake, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Simply because it's direct to DVD/Blu-ray.

http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/32...-night-sequel/

Bad news is, looks like it's going to be some kind of unrelated spinoff with the same title.
Good news is, at least it's not an updated remake of the cheesy "Fright Night II", with the female vampire and the cheap werewolf.

Fright Night Part 2 Official Trailer 1988 - YouTube

[Wookalar]

Just picked up the remake for $7.56 on the Target clearance rack (always check that little area--if it says "AS IS", it was bought online and returned to the store) and am watching it tonight. Heard good things. Some DTV movies aren't bad, but did it do that poorly on the theaters?

[Mandalorian]

Just recently saw the remake and actually liked it more than the original, except for the way they handled Ed, and very soon after ordered the BD. This sounds interesting, but most likely will disappoint. I'll keep an eye on it though.

[legendarymatt92]

Really liked the remake - although unnecessary, it was stylish and very cool. Not sure that a sequel would add anything to it, but might check it out when it's in a bargain bin somewhere.

[Wookalar]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Bad news is, looks like it's going to be some kind of unrelated spinoff with the same title.
Good news is, at least it's not an updated remake of the cheesy "Fright Night II", with the female vampire and the cheap werewolf.
Fright Night Part 2 Official Trailer 1988 - YouTube

Just wondering: why do people pay $60-80 for the DVD of Fright Night 2?

[xxBachelor1981xx]

Wish they would just come out with Part 2 on bluray instead of this direct to video remake.

[KilloWertz]

Loved the remake, but I have no interest in this. Of course Colin Farrell wouldn't be back, but the fact that it's a standalone story gives me no reason to care.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Wookalar

Just wondering: why do people pay $60-80 for the DVD of Fright Night 2?

Same reason people pay extreme amounts for certain steelbooks - because demand pushes the price up, and people feel that they have to pay a high price to secure them the DVD before it gets even harder to find. I've never seen it the whole way through, but from the scenes I've managed to see on YT, I wouldn't pay £1 for it.

[DetroitSportsFan]

At least they will have to do something original (maybe). I'm still not interested in a DTV sequel though.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by xxBachelor1981xx

Wish they would just come out with Part 2 on bluray instead of this direct to video remake.

I do agree .

[Walts Ghost]

I would rather see a sequel that followed David Tennant's character. That was the original plan too, before the movie sunk at the box office. Sad too, because Tennant was my favorite part of the remake and I would have loved to see him continue on as Peter Vincent.

[Clark Kent]

The remake was much better than I expected. These cheap DTV sequels rarely turn out well.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by xxBachelor1981xx

Wish they would just come out with Part 2 on bluray instead of this direct to video remake.

Yes we need part II on blu. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I would rather see a sequel that followed David Tennant's character. That was the original plan too, before the movie sunk at the box office. Sad too, because Tennant was my favorite part of the remake and I would have loved to see him continue on as Peter Vincent.

Wow really? He was pretty much my only negative in the entire film, and it was a big negative! I thought he sucked as Peter Vincent and was badly mis-casted. Different strokes for different folks. Got Em!!

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Wow really? He was pretty much my only negative in the entire film, and it was a big negative! I thought he sucked as Peter Vincent and was badly mis-casted. Different strokes for different folks. Got Em!!

I liked him because he was perfectly cast as a different version of Vincent. He's supposed to be a horribly deuce bag like character, who ends up having a slight change of heart. Tennant just worked well for me as the character.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I liked him because he was perfectly cast as a different version of Vincent. He's supposed to be a horribly deuce bag like character, who ends up having a slight change of heart. Tennant just worked well for me as the character.

Oh I am not knocking u for liking him but I was kinda surprised though. I love the original Peter Vincent so much and this dude was completely different and just hit me the wrong way in a major way. Oh well no biggie, thats what makes cinema fun as we all have similar taste but very different taste at the same time lol. Got Em!!

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Oh I am not knocking u for liking him but I was kinda surprised though. I love the original Peter Vincent so much and this dude was completely different and just hit me the wrong way in a major way. Oh well no biggie, thats what makes cinema fun as we all have similar taste but very different taste at the same time lol. Got Em!!

I know you weren't knocking me, bud. No worries. I just knew they were aiming for him to be more like David Blaine and Chris Angel, and less of the fantastical and older version that Roddy McDowall played. I like both extremes of both versions. Vincent is my favorite character in both movies.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I know you weren't knocking me, bud. No worries. I just knew they were aiming for him to be more like David Blaine and Chris Angel, and less of the fantastical and older version that Roddy McDowall played. I like both extremes of both versions. Vincent is my favorite character in both movies.

I gotcha. I saw someone earlier complain about the way they did Ed. I actually liked Ed and thought McLovin did a great job. Just depends on what we are lookin for and how the characterization hits us. Got Em!!

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by CZAR

I gotcha. I saw someone earlier complain about the way they did Ed. I actually liked Ed and thought McLovin did a great job. Just depends on what we are lookin for and how the characterization hits us. Got Em!!

Didn't say I didn't like the character. I like Chris and thought he did a good job as well. My complaint was the way they handled him. He didn't get the screentime I thought he deserved. He was there and then gone, and then just showed up in the apartment. I would've liked him to have as much attention as the original had. "You're so cool, Brewster!" He was a classic character. Mints-Plasse didn't have that impact.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Didn't say I didn't like the character. I like Chris and thought he did a good job as well. My complaint was the way they handled him. He didn't get the screentime I thought he deserved. He was there and then gone, and then just showed up in the apartment. I would've liked him to have as much attention as the original had. "You're so cool, Brewster!" He was a classic character. Mints-Plasse didn't have that impact.

Oh ok so u do agree that McLovin was good? Yea I liked him and yes he couldve used more screen time. The original Ed was classic as well. Not much wrong with the original film though. How did u feel about the guy who played Peter Vincent in the remake? Got Em!!