A sequel? Why why why!? - Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) Discussion

I can't believe Chloe would agree to star in garbage like that.

reply

I think Chloe would be better suited to a movie on greyhound racing running after a hare with a 6 on her back.

reply

"cause she's a dog... We get it,lol....... Not funny.
.

.
----------

...enjoy yourself, it's later then you think it is!

reply

[–] ravenx25 8 years ago

I think Chloe would be better suited to a movie on greyhound racing running after a hare with a 6 on her back.

chloe is super hot you are a dumb ass

suck my D

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] legendkillinpeopleschamp 9 years ago

They want more money. I didn't care for the 1st one the only funny person was Franco to me.

reply

[–] lebowskithedude 9 years ago

I like the first one, but this does seem unnecessary. Still, I'll see it because I'm such a huge fan of Seth Rogen.

reply

[–] callum9999 9 years ago

How could it possibly be unnecessary if you'd pay to see it? You are aware these film companies exist solely to make money?

And people whinging about sequels are a particular bugbear of mine. If you don't like it then don't watch it. Who on earth do you think you are to make the insinuation that films should only be produced to suit your personal tastes!

reply

[–] dbwilyumz 9 years ago

I generally agree with you but, in all fairness, some of the folks who groan about sequels think they will lack originality and that they take up space on the world's movie screens that might otherwise be used for something new and interesting.

The basic question should be, Is the sequel a continuation of the story and therefore adding something more; or, is the sequel just a retread of the original hit movie and therefore something the world doesn't really need?

reply

[–] catdogpyro 9 years ago

Well, if it has a good story and turns out to have as much humour and heart as the first movie then I'm okay with it.

reply

[–] ASFan213 9 years ago

Neighbors 2 looks to at least retain most of the original's cast and adding new ones.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 9 years ago

Why why why!?

Money money money!!

Neighbors grossed a whopping $150M in the US alone off of a modest $18M budget, and added another $118M in foreign gross for a $268M total gross.

Based on that return, a Part II was a slam dunk...whether the first one was 'average' or not.

Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

[–] Little_C 8 years ago

Well, that doesn't mean it made a profit. Ever heard of Hollywood Accounting?

reply

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 8 years ago

Yes, so true...but I'd have to say even after paying about the same as the budget cost in marketing ($18-20M), and splitting the ticket sales with the theater owners, this movie still made a boatload of profit.

Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

[–] rereboy-903-525228 8 years ago

Rule of thumb for profit in hollywood movies is to make two times its budget. Two times that movie's budget would be 36 million. It made 270 million. So, no.

reply

[–] Arvin-G-Borkar 8 years ago

I thought that was just enough for the movie to break even. Then again, it did make way more than intended.

Reminder: The O.C. resets to its first episode on POP network April 1 @ 2 p.m. EST

reply

[–] sgockows 9 years ago

I have a feeling it's going to be the same movie as the first one. It will essentially be Hangover 2 all over again.

reply

[–] YanderePrime 9 years ago

Why? Because the first made a *beep* ton of money.

Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing.

reply

[–] mail-924 9 years ago

There's a sequel because the first one made money. It's not rocket science.

Cardboard Box is the Future.

reply