Why are they all diffrent characters??
How can this be a sequel to WANDA if it has all the same actors playing diffrent characters??
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Fierce Creatures (1997) Discussion > Why are they all diffrent characters??
It's more like the spiritual successor
"The great act of faith is when a man decides he is not God."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Sorry Nick but that was a pretty silly question hehe.
It's not a sequel to A Fish Called Wanda, it just has the same cast of actors, much like Casino has a lot of the same actors as Goodfellas and is similar in theme but certainly doesn't have the same characters.
And like Christopher Guest movies.....
share
It's not that silly question when you consider the advertising texts, and what's said in the DVD cover. Wanda is referenced several times, and it's said to be the "original", hinting that this is actually some sort of sequel.
Not only is it not a sequel, it has nothing to do with Wanda, and as a movie/comedy/whatever, it totally stinks. It's not funny, it's not entertaining (very boring in fact), it has no atmosphere, no soul - the actors are getting too old for this and it shows, the plot is not interesting (tedious is the right word for it), the musics are not memorable, the jokes and gags are either 'seen that before' or 'sexual innuendo that just isn't funny'.
What's funny about Cleese shooting a rifle at coffee cups, almost hitting the zookeepers (if it's not supposed to be funny, what then? realistic? I don't think so), who are scared out of their wits at the man who seemingly shoots at them..?
This movie was completely expected to be "Wanda II", and the advertisers did everything to maintain that illusion, despite the attitudes the actual makers of this atrocity had in mind.
Of course it's their comfort blanket now - in their minds, audiences didn't like this movie because it wasn't like Wanda - not because IT STINKS (which it most definitely does).. what a comforting illusion that must be.
Anybody who reads the DVD cover and thinks it's a sequel is an idiot. It mentions the cast is following up Wanda and it has a reviewers comment, nothing more. Then gives a blub to the plot of FC.
Did anyone think A Mighty Wind, Best In Show and Waiting For Guffman are a trilogy because they basically have the same cast? Maybe the same idiots who thought FC was a continuation of Wanda, but nobody else.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
The Carry On films used to have all the same people and not once did they do a sequel to any of their 30 odd films.
shareIt mentions the cast is following up Wanda,,,
That's exactly right. It's a follow - up not a sequel. Many of the sane cast members, but playing different characters in a different story. share
It's NOT a sequel. It's be like saying Best in Show is a sequel to Waiting for Guffman. It don't work.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.