English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I saw the movie Signs and Fire in the sky I thought they were alright. So far close encounters was the better for me?

2007-04-17 13:09:07 · 3 answers · asked by truthfully777 2 in Entertainment & Music Movies

3 answers

They are only allowed to make a sequel to Close Encounters if it's not as lame as 2010 the sequel to 2001. If it's not at least as good as the original, don't bother.

2007-04-17 13:39:42 · answer #1 · answered by tashay72 5 · 0 0

I tend to agree that a sequel to 'Close Encounters' would be considerably less impacting and wonderfully compelling than it's predecessor; I'd say leave well enough alone.

However, as far as the type of film you are referring to (i.e., 'Signs', 'Fire in the Sky', 'The Abyss', etc.), there is some good news on the horizon; 20th Century Fox recently announced that they are on the fast track towards remaking a classic sci-fi/alien encounter icon. That film is "The Day the Earth Stood Still. The original, also produced by Fox, in 1951, was directed by the late film director/producer, Robert Wise; the new version will be coined by director Scott Derrickson, who last worked on the ghostly horror chiller, 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'.

Let's hope that they do the project right, to the spirit of the original film......,

Can You All Say "Klaatu Barada Niktu!!!"

2007-04-18 00:10:41 · answer #2 · answered by Fright Film Fan 7 · 0 0

All 3 were good. Fire In The Sky was based on a true story. Disgusting when they did all the testing on him.

I don't think there'd be a sequel to Close Encounters...not this long after. Besides, I'd rather not see it, it'd just ruin a classic.

2007-04-17 20:20:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers