the second 1 is utter trash
2007-01-19 01:20:13 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Dirty Dancing 2 (Havanna Nights) is not a sequel to the first one with same Title.
They are different to each other. It a remake.
But I agree the original film with Patrick Swayze is far better.
2007-01-19 01:27:49 · answer #1 · answered by cheery 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with sequels, particularly a sequel to such a superb film, is that the viewer is always comparing them to the original. This means that the film is off to a bad start with the public from the outset. DD2 is not a "bad" film as it stands, but the comparison is never going to be favourable. Other examples of remakes/sequels that suffer are: The italian Job (excellent film - but not a patch on the original), grease 2 (a bog standard teen film that would have survived if not for setting it at rydell high).
Basically make films for their own sake, not to cash in on a previous success.
2007-01-19 03:46:55 · answer #2 · answered by happysnapper 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The curse of the sequel. There aren't many sequels that are as good or better than the first. Usually down tot he fact that the Production Company made a mint on the first one and are trying to make a quick buck on the second - quality isn't really important as people who loved the first will invariably go and watch the second.
2007-01-19 01:23:52 · answer #3 · answered by flyingconfused 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I quite liked Havana Nights, but they shouldn't have linked it with the Dirty Dancing name. I didn't see what it had to do with the first one apart from that Patrick Swayze had a small role, and that it was about young girl 'finding herself' through dance. A million films have that (the young girl finding herself, not Patrick Swayze as a slightly lecherous dance teacher). As a separate film in its own right it was fine though, music was great.
2007-01-20 09:00:33 · answer #4 · answered by Nikita21 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically Havana Nights is a pre-quel as it is set in the 50's and Baby and Johnny are in the 60's.
Although Dirty Dancing is by far the better movie HN has some goods points.
The dancing is fabulous.
The bit in the competition and they kiss for the 1st time, does make me smile.
But you are right it is just not as good. I have watched it twice to be sure is wasn't as good and i have no good quotes from it. Where in DD is stuff to the brim with great quotes.
" God wouldn'ta given you Maraccas id he didn't want ya to SSSHHHAAKKKEEEEMMMM"
2007-01-19 03:08:28 · answer #5 · answered by Bex 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because they tried to make a sequel to a movie that will go down in history. It's almost a fact that the second movie is never as good as the first especially with new characters. You can't find the chemistry some where else that you found between baby and johnny
2007-01-19 02:56:34 · answer #6 · answered by july8_02 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is either 1 of these...
1.dirty dancing is a brilliant film so it set very high standards for the secondone.
2.Most sequels never are as good.
2007-01-19 01:27:39 · answer #7 · answered by Dan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sequels are rarely as good as the original. Usually they're just excuses for the film company to cash in on the first film's popularity.
2007-01-19 01:23:17 · answer #8 · answered by Danny 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dirty dancings a classic of its time. no matter how old it is or how often you watch it, patrick swazee always manages to light the flame so to speak.... sequel was pretty limp.as soon as they change the main characters things go down hill.
2007-01-22 10:42:17 · answer #9 · answered by kazzy3 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hiya, when dirty dancing 2 came out me and my friend were so excited we went straight out and brought it, and when we got home and put it on we were really dissapointed, we didnt even watch it all cos it was so bad!! dirty dancing is a classic and it doesnt matter how many times i watch it i always enjoy it :0)
2007-01-19 04:35:55 · answer #10 · answered by materialgirl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋