December 17th, 2010
10:10 AM ET
'Shakespeare in Love' to get a sequelCall us crazy, but “Shakespeare in Love” doesn’t really scream “movie franchise.” But then again, we’re not running The Weinstein Company or Miramax, the two studios that have launched into a partnership aiming to make a sequel to “Shakespeare in Love," among other films. According to a statement, the idea is to create follow-ups to “some of Miramax’s best-known properties," along with TV shows and home entertainment products.
This team is planning to also bring you sequels to “Bad Santa” and “Rounders" as well, and they're contemplating creating sequels - or perhaps TV series - for films like “Copland,” “From Dusk Till Dawn,” “Swingers,” “Clerks,” “Shall We Dance” and “The Amityville Horror.” The two companies are already working together to bring you additional installments of other franchises that just won't die, such as "Scream" and "Spy Kids." Each of those film series has a fourth chapter due out on April 15, 2011, and August 19, 2011, respectively.
Next entry »Donald Trump will get roasted on Comedy Central
« Previous entryJulia Stiles had 'nothing to do' with 'Dexter' split
 |
  About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.  |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
[...] 'Shakespeare in Love' to get a sequel – The Marquee Blog – CNN.com Blogs [...]
[...] 'Shakespeare in Love' to get a sequel – The Marquee Blog – CNN.com Blogs [...]
You're all wrong. Whether or not this movie is a flop depends on whether or not any movie is a flop–the writing, acting, set design, costumes, etc., will make or break it. And if Stoppard writes it, it will probably be good. Gwyneth Paltrow may be in America, but last time I checked there were still ships in 1600, and for an imaginative writer, anything is possible and can be made believable.
"Shakespeare Breaks Up"
I wonder why the original did not make Joseph Fiennes a major start.
Holy crap! This is straight out of 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' ! Damn Miramax! Damn yous all to hell!
It was right that Shakespear won over Saving Private Ryan. Shakespear made us laugh and feel good where Ryan made us see see how sad war is and how crazy it was to storm the beaches of Normandy. There had to be another way. Sad Sad Sad!
Gone with the Wind 2: Mammy's Revenge!
The Amityville Horror? Sheesh. Here we go again. Anyone remember Amityville 3D?
Out, out damn sequel!
This sequel could be Shakespeare in Mid-Life Crisis: Much Ado About Nothing.
or Menopause-The Tempest
Anytime you make a sequel, you take away from the original. With a few exceptions (The Empire Strikes Back, Indy Jones and the Last Crusade) most sequels are horrible. As long as the cast remained the same and the writing was just as awesome (or better) I'd watch it. Hopefully it would be an exception to the rule, because the original was excellent.
Maybe they can rob another Best Picture Oscar win with it.
The Devil Wears DKNY
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang II–The Tune-Up
Forrest Gump 2: Gump Harder
"Shakespeare in Love" sucked and Gwyneth Paltrow did not deserve an Oscar for that role, that's why there should not be a sequel
Agreed. The part wasn't even supposed to go to her orignally.
Agreed. Saving Private Ryan was robbed.
This is a horrible idea & is whorish at best. A long time ago, I worked at Miramax and we took pride in bringing independent, original film to the theaters. This is not original. This is pathetic, desperate and not what made miramax what it was to begin with. I am disgusted with the Brothers Weinstein. If they do this, they will never gain their legitimacy as artists back again.
Mars Attacks...Again!
Ghandi 2: Skin and Bones
Spaceballs II: The search for more money.
What exactly would be in this sequel?
Star Trek VIII,The Search For Schlock
Lawrence of Arabia 2: Just Deserts
I don't think Westerners should make any historical movie on going back more than 30 years. They don't remember a thing correctly.
we can't even remember 8 years ago.
You think "Easterners" remember anyhting better? What exactly is your point?
Good Will Hunting 2
i'm sorry, but "shakespeare in love" was a fine film, but not worthy of a sequel. i still don't forgive the academy for voting "shakespeare..." the best picture over "saving private ryan."
Agreed. SIL was cute, entertaining at best, but it was not Oscar-worthy.
this can only mean that Hollywood is running out of creativity... the industry is in the gutter already anyways
I don't think Hollywood is running out of creativity, I think they're running out of guts. The entertainment industry has stopped funding projects that are new and edgy, and instead only fund copies of the last thing that worked. The reason they do is because the people buy it up. Indiana Jones 4 was a terrible idea, and a terrible movie, but worldwide made a net profit of over half a billion dollars, which is why the people with the money in Hollywood will probably make Indiana Jones 5. Writers are still coming up with amazing scripts and new ideas, but they're all just staying on paper instead of the big screen because a new idea is too much of a "risk."
Thay haven't had an original idea since the 80s. Since then it's been nothing but remakes, turning old TV shows into bad big-screen comedies and stupid, formulaic action films.
Saving Private Ryan 2- Lost Again
Coming soon to a theatre near you– Shakespeare in Love 2 Be Or Not To Be!!
That is the question...
Shakespeare in Love is by far the worst movie ever to win Best Picture. Why the hell would anyone make a sequel to such a horrible movie?
I think the movie is brilliant, Larry. But your opinion is your opinion, granted. I do wonder what percentage of the opinions of the great movie critics agree with yours. The number is probably very small.
EXACTLY!!! It only won Best Picture (and best supporting Actress) b/c of the million in advertising they'd spent leading up to the oscars.
it was a cute movie at most.
Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, DO NOT MAKE A SEQUEL TO "SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE." Leave it ALONE.
From Dusk Till Dawn IV: Breaking Dawn.
Clerks I just can't see as a series. There were four movies: Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and Clerks II. And I think Mallrats was a sort of the first one of the series.
there was a series, animated. Lasted maybe four episodes. It was too smart for TV.
it was Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Clerks ll.... Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back were just sort of spin-offs
Youve got to be kidding me. They really are out of ideas or the public is dumb enough to pay to a ticket to rehashed garbage. All in the name of the dollar for them hollywood people..
Citizen Kane 2: The Search for Rosebud
I wouldn't mind seeing Shakespeare In Love again. I was too busy getting a mouth-hug the first time.
Rocky XVIII
Shakespeare in Love was poignant because you knew Will and Viola would never see each other again. This meant, WE would never see them again, their futures open to be contemplated. This was a great movie and should not be made into a sequel. There are good ideas out there, Hollywood. Get off your fat ass and go do them.
Amen to that! There are plenty of new stories out there to be told; I'm tired of remakes of the remakes.
wow a clerks tv show they did that 10 years ago and it bombed. why in the world do we need a sequel to rounders. how bout another oz sequel and call it escape to oz cause we cant think of better stuff for movies
Death of a Salesman II?
Death of a Salesman II: Dead Again.
Rise of a Salesman.
It's a depressing zombie flick. But it's based on a pre-existing famous work so it is ironic and witty.
Umm... no? Just... no.
I don't think we need a sequel to any of the above mentioned movies...then again, I wouldn't mind seeing Joseph Finnes in tights again.
Not sure if making a sequel to Shakespeare in Love is such a good idea. It is an incredible movie, brilliant, creative and with a stellar cast. It would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate the magic of the first movie in a sequel.
I agree...it's unfortunate that they are sacrificing the artistic integrity of a beautiful film just to make a few extra bucks. Can't someone come up with some new ideas rather than trying to capitalize on all of these movies that are a decade or more old???
I agree, regarding Shakespeare In Love. Love that movie. But, I am hoping to see a third Elizabeth, with Cate Blanchett.
There's no way this will actually happen. I don't see anyone involved in the original film going for this and the Weinsteins are far to savvy to attempt something so ridiculous.
It will be great if they let Tom Stoppard write it like they did the first one. He is a genius.
Shakespeare: Still in Love After All These Years!
It'll be a wacky, striaight to DVD laugh fest.
I'm sure. This is a bad idea. The heroine is in America and either unhappily married or widowed. The hero is in England and unhappily married. Realistically, there's nowhere for this story to go.
All these negative comments explain why there is such a lack of creativity and originality coming out of Hollywood. Of course there can be a brilliant sequel to Shakespeare in Love. He did write more than one or two epic plays. There were other famous people living then besides Queen Elizabeth and Christopher Marlowe. The original film itself hints at a sequel in the final scenes based on Twelfth Night. Where is your imagination, America? You'd almost think it was a bad idea to turn Spider-Man into a musical! Which is actually a good idea. Just not with any of the current creative team. But I digress....
A Clerks tv show? What a novel idea!
Also: A Clerks sequel?? That's just crazy talk!
They should apologize for Clerks 2 first.