MovieChat Forums > Staying Alive (1983) Discussion > WHERE was Karen Lynn Gorney ('Stephanie'...

WHERE was Karen Lynn Gorney ('Stephanie')

posted 19 years ago by bheyer
20 replies | jump to latest

Outside of Julie Bovasso (who played "Tony's" mom), there was NOBODY from "Saturday Night Fever" in this dumb, insipid, worthless and pointless "sequel." WHERE was "Stephanie" (Karen Lynn Gorney? There wasn't even a reference made about her in the film! Earth to Sylvester Stallone,
we forked over our hard-earned cash to experience the magic, once again. Making a sequel to
"Saturday Night Fever," without "Stephanie," is like making a sequel to "Casablanca" without
Ingrid ("Ilsa") Bergman! One of the WORST "sequels" EVER MADE! Bad music (the disco craze was over), bad writing (Stallone, of course!), listless dancing, bad direction (Stallone, of course!) and
NOBODY (besides Travolta, of course) to tie this mess to the original movie. Sylvester Stallone should be permanently banned from EVER directing another movie (except "Rocky 69," which features Stallone, as Rocky, of course, making a boxing comeback while confined to a nursing home).

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jtpaladin 19 years ago

I agree. It was bad. Apparently Gorney was supposed to be in the film but they eventually decided against it. The problem with this film is that it works too hard to be its' own film when all we wanted to see was a real sequel to a brilliant original. Tragic.

[–] Emiabambinacara 19 years ago

Yes, she should have been in the sequal, and yes, Staying Alive is cheezy and bad. But I never liked Stephanie anyway. Her dancing was like watching a car wreck, horrible, but amazing in the fact that the rhythmless girl actually learned some moves. Funny people overlook that plot point. I mean he was supposed to see her dancing and think, "wow look at her, she is Amazing." At least in Staying Alive Rhodes and Finola had talent.

Oh, and liked liked Staying Alive. When your a kid you don't look at things like art direction and plot complexity. You just enjoy a movie for what it is. I liked the music for that time period (it actually had some soul to it)and I like the dancing, because it really is that hard for professionals.

[–] KirstenJackson 19 years ago

I was just gonna post this question "Where did Stephanie go?" Maybe she moved on to bigger and better things and places, who knows...

In Loving Memory Of Marilyn Monroe ~June 1, 1926-August 5, 1962~

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KirstenJackson 19 years ago

Aw, well I wish they kept it in there. It woulda' been nice to have her there, maybe it would have spiced up the movie a bit more or something, or she could talk about the past or something like that and how they both got where they ended up.

Where Zen Ends, Ass-Kicking Begins - Steven Hyde, That '70s Show

[–] balboa76 19 years ago

Stephanies not in the sequel because the story takes place five years after Saturday Night Fever. I think they wanted to show that tony had grown and moved on with his life. How many people do you still hang out with that you assoiciated with 10 years ago. Time changes people for better or worse. I would love to know why the writers didn't attempt to developed tony's brother,sister and especially his father's character. It's just amazing how they just bypassed key characters. It would have been interesting, in the scene when he goes home, to have his mother mention some updates on brother, sister and dad. They should have had his brother and sister at the final show at the end. One last thing. A little scene in which tony attends the funeral of Double J or Joey or some kind of scene where he runs into one of them would have been nice. I have know idea how you could do a sequel and only bring back the mother character.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Holiday_Shooter 16 years ago

Karen Lynn should of been in it. It's a shame she wasn't. I think at the time Gorney was in NY working at an art gallery anyway.

[–] emtee73 16 years ago

I didn't know this was a sequel until way later. I wasn't that old when this came out though either. I always thought cynthia rodes character was trying to take the place of Stephanie. I didn't really know who cynthia rodes was either until Flashdance and Dirty Dancing. She is a real dancer, was Karen Gorney? I mean maybe thats why they didn't bring her back. Dancing at a club during the disco days is hardly like the dancing they did in this movie. Also, wasn't she just like an assistant or something? I always liked this movie, but what did I know I was around 12 when it came out. At that age you pretty much like anything. I didn't know it was suppose to be a sequel so I really didn't compare it to Saturday Night Fever.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MichaelMovieLoft 8 years ago

I agree. Stephanie should have been in it since she was his beginning to growing as a person. The sequel should have been a thousand times better. When you make a sequel to an magnum opus like SNF, you expect it to be on par with the original.

MM

[–] daughterofolaf 8 years ago

Haha! A few things...first off, most people (not all but most) hated the character Stephanie (she was a totally unlikable c v n t bag) and most people also felt that on top of the character being absolutely awful that the actress they chose for her made it even worse because she was so bad and unappealing (not to mention she looked like she was fifteen to twenty years older than Travolta). Most people wouldn't have wanted to see her again.

The other rumor that was floating around back when this movie came out was that Travolta supposedly didn't even want to be in the movie if that actress was going to be in it too. Now, that was decades ago and don't ask me for a source because there's no way in hell I would remember but I do remember hearing that at the time.

Anyway, comparing the likes of Stephanie/Gorney to Ingrid Bergman is so sickening that it's almost offensive. There is no reason to have that character in this movie. This can only just barely be called a sequel anyway. Guy has the same name and his mom is in it. Big whoop. Had they used a different mom and a different name there is no way anyone would have watched this and said "Huh, you know...this feels like it is actually SNF part two."

It sounds like you hate this movie to no end so are you saying that if Gorney had been in it then it would have magically been good??

"Why couldn't the monkey arrange this from INSIDE the garbage can?"

[–] stiffarm-43601 8 years ago

Never mind Gorney/Stephanie. What the heck happened to the rest of Tony's family? Okay, so maybe his grandmother died and his parents got divorced, but there was no explanation at all. And what happened to his little sister? She should have still been at home. She would have been 16-17 at the most.

[–] davidcoppola36 8 years ago

During the show at the end, there is a girl sitting next to his mother in the audience that may very well could have been his sister.

[–] jsl_99 8 years ago

Supposedly the script for Staying Alive was dramatically different before Stallone became involved and it did have appearances from some of the characters who were in Saturday Night Fever. I'm a huge Stallone fan but he was all wrong to be the director for this film. He even will admit that. But I read that Travolta pushed for Stallone to be the director.

[–] winepooh96 7 years ago

Stephanie was the worst part of SNF for all the reasons mentioned in the posts above. I saw this and the original years after their release, but always wondered if she was considered attractive for that time. She did look a lot older than Travolta and was also just very unlikeable. So, I'm glad she wasn't in the sequel. They also didn't seem to have the type of relationship that would be long lasting. However, the sequel was awful, not for its content, but because of its missed opportunity. It was unbelievable to me that the film didn't involve any of his friends or family. That would have been a much better follow-up. Even though they grew up and moved on, the guys were childhood friends, you don't just ditch them altogether, especially when you live in the same city. I read that the actor who played the father was in SA but his scene was cut as was Donna Pescow's. I don't get why they wouldn't include even the slightest connection to the far superior original. The film implied that the father died, when they could have easily used the scene they filmed. The message was also very off. Tony's mother was happy he escaped Bay Ridge. BR is a nice area and many people just hop on a train and in 30 minutes they're in Manhattan. They made it like he was escaping from North Korea. He could still have ties or even live in BR and pursue his Broadway dreams. The sequel was just all around bad.

[–] manram24 7 years ago

I wondered where his father was, is he supposed to be dead?

[–] winepooh96 7 years ago

They didn't say, but because it was just his mother when he visited, it seemed to imply the dad might have passed away. Nothing was ever definitive though.