MovieChat Forums > Firestarter: Rekindled (2002) Discussion > Aren't you required to watch a movie bef...

Aren't you required to watch a movie before you make a sequel to it.....

posted 16 years ago by idgadbtip
16 replies | jump to latest

this was the WORST movie i have EVER seen!! actually to be honest with you i could not even finish it. me and my boyfriend couldnt stop ranting about it for weeks. arent screenwriters required to actually watch a movie before they make a sequel to it?????? honestly. The original Firestarter was amazing. then these guys come along and totally rewrite the whole story line. making Charlie into a whore pissed me off more than ever. and how is she now brunette? she was a cute blonde girl, not she looks NOTHING like that..im pretty sure they could have found someone who looked SOMEWHAT similar to Drew.

also, since when did, uh...Charlie LIKE starting people on fire!!!! in all the "flashbacks" they have her saying to her father that she "doesnt want to stop" when in the orignal movie shes a sweet little girl who hates hurting people.

also...how is that evil guy who calls himself John still alive.......we WATCHED him burn for like 3 minutes AND a barn collapsed on him in the first movie...he would have to be fricken immortal to make it thru that...

everything about this movie is horrible. i would choose the pathetic bomb of a sequel Dumb & Dumberer over this piece of crap.

[–] shiningthrough 16 years ago

I totally agree with you.

The first one was a classic. Like I've said before.The opening credits to part 1 with Tangerine Dream's synth music was a more pleasant experience than the entirity of the 2nd film or any one point. Haha 2002 after movies like the Matrix and the fools can't even pay for good special effects fire.

I think the fire effects in the first movie owned the 2nd. It's so obvious that whoever made the 1st movie KNEW how to make a movie while the person who made the second one was just plain ignorant. It should be against the law to disgrace a film the way they did.

[–] BoSoxRule 10 years ago

"The first one was a classic."

Let's not get crazy here.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

[–] britt_mcgee 16 years ago

I agree with you and it seems like just about everyone else on this forum.

When I first heard they was gonna make a second part of Firestarter I was excited, until I watched just the previews for the movie and I knew I would hate it. I mean ya, making Charlie into a whore is stupid. In the previews I saw they was trying to sell the movie off with sex appeal. I didn't even bother to watch it. But from what I read and from different sources I did myself a favor. I was a big fan of the original movie and the original book. Kinda reminds me of what they did with that one Never Ending Story show. Took parts of the names and stuff and just made up a story using little of the original concept of the first. In the book. Charlie PUNISHED HERSELF for hurting people. Like when she set the guys shoes on fire in the bus terminal, or maybe it was an airport. But either way. She punished herself by forcing herself to stay under a cold shower.

At a very early age her father drove the point home not to hurt people. He didn't tell her at the end of the first movie to go around hurting people. And she DID have control of her powers at the end of Book, the movie cut out a chapter or two at the end and changed a few things. But they did stick close to the book at least. But she did have control of her power enough to send a tiny stream of fire from herself to a cook stove. So saying her powers where uncontrollable is just a total remake of her character

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] livid_86 16 years ago

Ah it sucked yeah, but did you really expect to see a great movie when you rented this? Seriously? It wasn't a fantastic movie but it was kinda fun in a straight to dvd way. I thought the chick playing Charlie was fine. I do agree about John being alive though. He was completly enveloped in flames and wasn't he blasted through the roof of that barn too?

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

[–] Shadowhardt 16 years ago

I;m not into horror movies so I haven't seen the first one. But i saw this one with a friend. and yeah, it didn't even go well as a stand alone movie (which it may as well have been as they re-shot everything from the past)

(am female)
http://shadowhardt.deviantart.com/

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SteveGreen 14 years ago

Firstly, it wasn't a movie, it was a 'fix-up' from a four-part tv series. As a result, it reflects tv values in terms of script, direction, acting, etc. And mediocre tv, at that.

Secondly, if this is sincerely the worst 'movie' you've ever seen, I envy you. I've already seen several worse examples of film-making this year, and it's only August.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mathknapp 14 years ago

Do keep in mind: I think the producers of this film didn't want to connect to the original any more than was absolutely necessary. They needed to change so much to make the sequel, I think they only brought back the original to the extent that it was necessary for the plot of this one to make sense.

[–] cosmicly 13 years ago

Sorry to hear that you did not like "Firestarter 2: Rekindled." My reaction was completely different. I thought the screenplay was well written, the cinematography and special effects were good, and there was excellent acting by an excellent cast, including Marguerite Moreau, Malcolm McDowell, Danny Nucci, Dennis Hopper, Deborah Van Valkenburgh. This movie has a "cult" following, so it may be one of those that you either love or hate. But I can tell you that there were thousands and thousands of people at ComicCon seven or eight years ago who absolutely LOVED this film.

Regarding the requirement that you "watch a movie before you make a sequel to it," I believe that you will find a great difference of opinion on this question. For example, when "Dracula" was remade about 20 years ago, Winona Ryder DELIBERATELY did not watch the original because she wanted to give a fresh interpretation, and not be influenced by the portrayals in the original.

Everyone has different tastes and different expectations regarding films. I hope the next film you see is more to your liking.

[–] nospamfortea 9 years ago

Regarding the requirement that you "watch a movie before you make a sequel to it," I believe that you will find a great difference of opinion on this question. For example, when "Dracula" was remade about 20 years ago, Winona Ryder DELIBERATELY did not watch the original because she wanted to give a fresh interpretation, and not be influenced by the portrayals in the original.

There's a considerable difference between different interpretations of a story, particularly a classic, and a sequel to a specific interpretation of a story. With Dracula, Winona Ryder is not required to convince anybody that she is the same person as whoever played Mina in the Bela Lugosi or the Christopher lee movies. Nobody expects it to even much resemble the same story, except in the most superficial way. But if someone were to make a sequel to Winona's Dracula, it would be entirely reasonable to expect it to fit with the original, and for the characterisation to match up.

Claiming a cinnection with the original movie is bound to raise the expectation of continuing the same story. If you are not going to make that effort, why even bother calling it a sequel? Just say it's a new movie based on the same book.

[–] Abaration 13 years ago

While I completely agree with you on the utter ridiculousness of the plot ( I haven't bothered to watch it or the first movie after reading the summaries of both and being disappointing with the deviations from the book in the first movie. Particularly her destroying a town rather than the Shop. that was very OOC.)I do have to point some things out.

In the book, part of her internal conflict was that she Liked starting the fires, part of her enjoyed it and felt better when she did it. She didn't want to hurt people, true, but while she was using her ability she liked to use it.

IE: "She saw it all. The men on the porch wearing their crowns of flame. The cars exploding. The chickens catching fire. The smell of burning that was always the smell of smouldering stuffing, the smell of her teddy bear.
(and she had liked it)
That was it; that was the trouble. The more she had done it the more she had liked it; the more she had been able to feel the power, a living thing, getting stronger and stronger. It was like a pyramid standing upside down, standing on is tip, the more you did it the harder it got to stop it. It hurt to stop it
(and it was fun)

Firestarter, Stephan King page 231 signet edition.

Anyway, I just felt the need to say as much. :)