...Bull Durham 2... Ugh.

[Mojambo]

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/10/06/Report_Bull_Durham_2_in_the_works/UPI-98181223325631/

I really wish Kevin Costner would stop trying to hurt the world.

[Mojambo]

1. .

:kick:

[sasquatch]

2. If they do it they gotta do it right

[bikebloke]

3. I haven't seen Bull Durham 1 yet.

Crikey! Can't they wait a bit.

[Oeditpus Rex]

4. 'This time around, they will play

the married owners of a Major League Baseball team Costner's character manages, the Post said."



I hope that's an error, and that they actually play the owners of a minor-league club. It's just too big a jump for a career minor-league catcher (okay, minus his 21 days in the bigs) and a part-time community college English teacher to own a major-league ball club, much less for him to also manage it.

Besides, the whole "Bull Durham" bit needs the minors to work.

I envision this film being a called third strike on a roundhouse curve a kid in Tee Ball could hit — kinda like "Major League: Back to the Minors."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Why?

The original movie was an enjoyable and fun movie, but why cheapen it with a sequel more than 20 years after the fact?

This is another one of the dreaded Hollywood "R" trends: Rehash. (As oppossed to Remake or Reboot).

In recent memory, the following movies have inexplicably been given sequels years after the original came to the big screen:

Indiana Jones
Rocky
Rambo
Dirty Dancing

(I know there has to be a couple more notable ones.) None of which were recieved well by critics.

[Symarip]

6. I don't see what the big deal is

Costner movies have always sucked. Why should he break the trend?

[Mojambo]

7. Bull Durham didn't suck.

But the sequel is going to be cringe inducing.

[Symarip]

10. Bull Durham, part 1

Was a boring and predictable romantic comedy. The 80s seemed to be filled with those. Anyhow, if you liked it that's fine. I actually like a lot of shitty movies (see Forbidden Zone sometime... wowie is it awful). Part of me actually likes the idea of a shitty movie having a shitty sequel. It seems fitting. Like City Slickers 2.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Actually, I think Costner gets a bad rap for a lot of his movies.

Field of Dreams was great. Bull Durham, Dances with Wolves, JFK, and Thirteen Days were all good. The Bodyguard and Tin Cup were passable.

And damn it, I don't care what anyone else says, I liked Waterworld. There. I said it.

[Symarip]

11. I loved Waterworld.

Howcome they don't make a sequel to that?

But seriously, most Costner/Swayze movies, aside from a select few, fall into this motif:

Kevin Costner plays a washed up _________ (noun). In his past, he was the best _____ (noun) around but he was young and foolish and pissed it all away. It is his challenge in life to prove that he can do _________ (something) on his own merits with hard work and determination. Along the way he meets _________ (a hot piece of ass) that challenges him to stop being a quitter and to pick up where he left off. They fall in love and/or have lots of sex.

Variable endings:

- He fails, but proves to himself he's not a failure and gains wisdom and insight, and gets laid alot.

- He wins and gets laid alot.

Everyone goes home a winner.

[KamaAina]

8. It'll be worth it to get a fresh Susan Sarandon fix

Real-life couple and "Durham" co-stars Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, who played a pitcher and a baseball groupie respectively in the first installment, are also expected to return for the second film.

:loveya: So many of her films fall into the "chick flick" genre that I frequently find myself Susan-deprived. Of course, it'll lose something with what's-his-face being right there... :eyes: