Forrest Gump 2 Almost Happened

[Sussudio]

Not sure if this is old news or not, but it's the first time I've heard details on it:

Screenwriter Eric Roth, who won an Oscar for telling everyone life was like a box of chocolates, was turning in a draft for Gump and Co., a sequel to the movie that made himself and everyone who worked on it a bascrillion dollars. It had been seven years since the original movie, but when Roth turned in the script on September 10, 2001, he felt enthusiastic about the sequel's prospects.

Well, suffice it to say circumstances changed. As Roth told Slashfilm, "We sat down, Tom [Hanks] and Bob [Zemeckis] and I, looked at each other and said, we don’t think this is relevant anymore. The world had changed."

Happily, Roth doesn't think that the passage of time since 9/11 means a Forrest Gump 2 is any more likely. "Now time has obviously passed, but maybe some things should just be one thing and left as they are.”

Full story: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Forre...-11-11151.html

[P@t_Mtl]

Too bad, the first one was just incredible. But I see their point, it would have been hard to recapture the magic I think.

[xtop]

man that would have been a terrible idea.

[fatediesel]

I wonder if this was based on the sequel to the book. I read the book (Gump and Co.) and thought it was pretty bad and can't imagine the movie would be based on it. I don't think they could make a sequel that was up to the level of the original. The original was all about events in history and they wouldn't be able to do that in a sequel.

By the way, I'm not sure if the link addresses this, it wouldn't open for me.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

By the way, I'm not sure if the link addresses this, it wouldn't open for me.

there's something wrong with their server. it either takes 10 minutes to load or doesn't load at all. ill put a note in the original post though, good point.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by xtop

man that would have been a terrible idea.

No, not at all. There's themes in the first one that are timeless such as destiny vs. chance, religion, happiness, love, etc. These things transcend time. And the magic of the first one dealt with him being an ordinary average joe to begin with. A sequel would have been great.

Besides Tom Hanks is a great actor and could pull it off.

[Ator the Invincible]

I agree with their assessment some what. There was a time when Gump 2 could have worked, but that time has passed. I disagree that it has anything to do with changes in the real world, however. It's just that the window of opportunity has passed for a natural follow up. It would feel like going back to well at this point, let alone back when they made the decision. So, I think they made the right decision.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

I agree with their assessment some what. There was a time when Gump 2 could have worked, but that time has passed. I disagree that it has anything to do with changes in the real world, however. It's just that the window of opportunity has passed for a natural follow up. It would feel like going back to well at this point, let alone back when they made the decision. So, I think they made the right decision.

that's exactly how i feel about a lot of sequels. if they don't happen with a few years of the original, it just feels like someone's making it solely out of an attempt to capitalize on the first. i think if a sequel doesn't happen within 5 years of the original, it shouldn't happen. just me.

[fighthefutureofhd]

so i take it you didn't like batman begins, superman returns, the phantom menace (ok, i'll give you that one), the godfather 3, lethal weapon 4, indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull (no, i'm giving you that one), the rescuers down under, rocky balboa, terminator 3: rise of the machines, and rambo?

[Red Hood]

It didn't need a sequel.

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Forrest Gump is one of the greatest movies of all time but a sequel would be a disaster.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

so i take it you didn't like batman begins, superman returns, the phantom menace (ok, i'll give you that one), the godfather 3, lethal weapon 4, indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull (no, i'm giving you that one), the rescuers down under, rocky balboa, terminator 3: rise of the machines, and rambo?

batman begins was a reboot, not a sequel. phantom menace was a prequel, not a sequel. superman returns is not a direct sequel, and has been simply called a "continuation" by bryan singer of donner's movies. superman III was the sequel to superman II, not returns.

you are correct on everything else, i wasn't a big fan of indiana jones 4, lethal weapon 4, terminator 3, the new rocky or rambo. all of them were entertaining, but i dont consider them great movies. obviously not every 5+ year sequel is horrible, and i dont automatically think a sequel that comes out after 5 years is bad just because of that. i'll watch it first before passing judgment. i just think that on several occasions they are simply made to make more money. i know this is not always the case and sometimes sequels just have a tough time getting green lighted for various reasons that aren't necessarily financially-based. doesn't mean they are terrible, but imo ive found i dont like a lot of them.

[JessR]

Originally Posted by xtop

man that would have been a terrible idea.

Im with you on this, a 2nd movie would have tanked.

[GoYanks]

Originally Posted by xtop

man that would have been a terrible idea.

you're so right. This is one movie that should never have a sequel.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

I wonder if this was based on the sequel to the book. I read the book (Gump and Co.) and thought it was pretty bad and can't imagine the movie would be based on it. I don't think they could make a sequel that was up to the level of the original. The original was all about events in history and they wouldn't be able to do that in a sequel.

The book was written to be part of a movie-sequel deal (Forrest encounters 90's-history Ollie North and the Berlin Wall) until Hanks turned it down--

Some of the worst sequels in years--"Lost World: JP2", "Hannibal Rising"--started out as contracted print-book deals from the overly hopeful original authors.

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by GoYanks

you're so right. This is one movie that should never have a sequel.

I always feel the movie is a sequel every time you watch it.. through the many times ive watched it, the time I sat through it in theater arts 4, did I discover what the mom had to do to get him into school..

Oh and sorry I never said Hi Yanks..

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

so i take it you didn't like batman begins, superman returns, the phantom menace (ok, i'll give you that one), the godfather 3, lethal weapon 4, indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull (no, i'm giving you that one), the rescuers down under, rocky balboa, terminator 3: rise of the machines, and rambo?

The biggest difference between a sequel to Gump and most of the movies you listed above is that those are pretty much big franchises with multiple entries. The "rules" are a bit different in that case, IMHO. Not that I necessarily agree with DoYouBlu's "5-year rule". I do get what he's saying though. It's rarely a good idea.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by ckent22

A sequel would have been great.

Call it morbid, but I would have liked to to have seen Gump and son on a doomed 9/11 flight. "You neva know what you gonna get, son". Could have been a short feature after the Blu release.

I understand that people would have found this nauseating, but if it was in book form, people would read it.

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Call it morbid, but I would have liked to to have seen Gump and son on a doomed 9/11 flight. "You neva know what you gonna get, son". Could have been a short feature after the Blu release.

I understand that people would have found this nauseating, but if it was in book form, people would read it.

Postal did something like that as its opening sequence I hear some people were offended.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by dk3dknight

Postal did something like that as its opening sequence I hear some people were offended.

Yeah, because it was done for laughs, which is pretty classless. But really, the biggest reason to be offended by Postal is that it's an Uwe Boll movie.