There will be a second part, where everything is tackled which was part of the Dangerous era and from then on out.
That honestly sounds like it makes the most sense.
Critics are going to be upset regardless.
Relax. There won't be a second film. The estate is just a PR machine. They're not interested in the inconvenience of allegations. It doesn't fit their narrative.
I'm perfectly relaxed thank you
. Let's see what happens.
If any of this is remotely true (which it could all be), then we shouldn't be surprised if any of the cast seem uninterested and bored during the promo tour/interview circuit. Stuff like actors signing on for a job for it to be completely re-written after the fact always come to light a few months after the release too.
who gives you this certainty/finality, unless you're privy to something we aren't? as they stated in the earning calls of november 6th, there's way more than a change of a second movie coming out of the first one does well
You're not sure???
I believe they will show what happened in 1993. They just split the movie because it's so much info they wanted to be able represent his entire life without squeezing everything in.
How does it make sense when Lionsgate have basically confirmed there will be a second movie? They just haven't announced it officially. But its pretty much a given. Especially after the massive response the teaser trailer got.
Do you understand that right now Estate has no part in the movie promo campaign etc? All this job is and will be done by Lionsgate. The script has been agreed and that's all.
I don't want to believe it but the trailer not having anything from the 90s and the talk about a second movie isn't helping.
I haven't seen any posts wishing for this to be bad, but there are more than enough reasons to be more than concerned.
for the record, I am not saying there aren't good reasons for concern and skepticism as me myself have expressed them many times. what I don't get is people on here and other places treating their own assumptions and conjectures as verified facts. the way I watch some fans talk about this movie - having or not a second part, or what it will handle and not, how it will perform at the box office etcetera etcetera...- with absolute certainty is unwarranted. My bone of content is people treating their own guesses as confirmations. especially when it comes to the timeline of hows and whys of the reshoots
Belloni crying out they can't use any of it, it's a disaster bla bla bla - but now it's all saved for the second film. Well which one is it?
Isn't the sequel talk from the studio? Saving stuff for a sequel is a good way to explain the unsused footage from their perspective and gives them more time to figure out what to do with it.
As this is a discussion forum, I fully respect that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I'm very curious to know how you have come across this information. It seems you are suggesting that the JC settlement had nothing to do with the reshoots? Also, never heard that anyone was cast in LMP role. The 92 MITM part sounds very plausible based on the first photo released of Jaffar as MJ.
Hypothetically speaking, if the NDA is an issue, the estate could get around it by branca and mcclain not having taking a producer credit. Branca took a credit for this first film, but if he backs off for the second film, and lets graham take all the credit then yes the second film can definitely go into the allegations. Graham and Fuqua did not sign anything with the chandlers. And from what I know Graham is a staunch believer in Michael's innocence and has wanted to get the truth out there for a long time. He did 5 years of research all on his own. Branca stated in the lastest article that came out that Graham was not who the estate originally chose for the project. They got rid of the original director and team because they were not supportive of Michael's innocence and they brought in Graham after that.
Or perhaps they just aren't finished editing the second film yet.
That is something I have been wondering about for a long time now... How trustworthy would you assess this interpretation?? Anyone from the legal field here? Would it be safe to include the whole full blown story in a movie that wasn't backed by the Estate, as in using real names, using Evan Chandler's phone call etc.? I mean all of this is publicly available, isn't it?
What else could have done it though?
Senior execs balking at the idea of putting CSA at the forefront of a potential billion dollar movie at the 12th hour, the timing of the Cascio revelations. I dunno, it could literally be anything. It wouldn't be the first time a film undergoes serious rewrites and reshoots, and won't be the last (again, IF that's what has happened).
Alien3, Blade Runner, Dune (1984) and Suicide Squad come to mind too. Especially Alien3 - Fincher wouldn't even go near it when they were making new cuts of the other films for the DVD set release. Reading up on the production of Blade Runner is absolutely wild too and almost as interesting as the film itself.
I don't think they are editing the sequel right now. They would definitely film a lot of new material for it if it happens.
