It sounds like a prank. We would all like it to be one. But it seems to be legit.
The story comes from Screen Daily, who reports that S. Darko is being shopped around, with Fox already picking up the North American distribution rights. Touted as the sequel to the 2001 cult hit, the story picks up seven years after Donnie Darko left off. The youngest Darko, Samantha, is now 18 and abandoning her commitment to Sparkle Motion. She heads to Las Vegas with her best friend Corey, but the two are plagued with bizarre visions. I imagine they will involve a rabbit.
Richard Kelly, the original director, is in no way involved. Chris Fincher Fisher* will direct instead. Daveigh Chase, who played Samantha in the original, will reprise her role. It looks like she is the only one. The movie also stars Ed Westwick, Briana Evigan, and Justin Chatwin.
As to the big looming question of why, oh God, why, Simon Crowe of UK sales company Velvet Octopus says they're thinking of the children. "I think there is a new generation of cinema-goers who will be very excited to see this film."
Which generation came of age between 2001 and 2008? Why haven't they rented Donnie Darko? I am afraid these are questions to which Crowe has no answers. But he did quip, "Donnie's not in [the new film] but there are meteorites and rabbits."
Nothing is safe from the all mighty dollar, my friends. Nothing. Even when there is a pretty conclusive ending, there can always be a sequel. I'll leave you to think about that as I go pen my script for No Country for Old Men 2.
[via Empire]
*Very kind thanks to astute reader toad_stone for pointing out our egregious misspelling of director Chris Fisher's last name. Correction made, with our apologies. - Ed.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-09-2008 @ 9:24AM
Monika said...
This idea is so stupid, I don't even know what to say about it...
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 9:52AM
JimeneX said...
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad...
They shouldn't have even released that stupid director's cut...
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 10:01AM
Mr.R said...
This is going to be like the Poltergeist sequel, a load of baloney crap. The director cut was, like jimeneX said, horrible enough, now this...
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 10:40AM
toad_stone said...
Weird news in fact but
Chris FiScher instead of FiNcher no ?
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 10:57AM
Eugene Novikov said...
*rim shot* for JimeneX, please.
This looks brutal.
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 11:03AM
Alex said...
They should make it. It couldn't be worse than Southland Tales.
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 11:57AM
Maeghan said...
Is Mary McDonnell going to be in this one too? That's the only reason I'd see it.
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 1:09PM
nate said...
So.. it's a cross between Donnie Darko and Fear and Loathing?
And possibly a dash of Boys on the Side?
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 1:33PM
Aaron Friedman said...
Stop the Donnie Darko Sequel:
http://www.petitiononline.com/sdarko/petition.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17584171631
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 3:24PM
Astin said...
No doubt they'll have Samantha follow a rabbit back in time and relive Donnie's sacrifice, finally understanding why her family had to go through what it did. This will be seen via the first movie being replayed between an opening and closing sequence.
Whatever... it'll suck. It will have the same feel as a bad Americanization of a bad Japanese horror movie, and a direct-t-dvd production value. This will be followed by years of people saying "but the first one was great!"
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 5:50PM
Cesaria (MKW:2621-2994-1376) said...
People on the nets are so fucking critical. Yeah, it's more than likely a bad idea, but the premise sounds kind of 'cool.' Hold your damn judgments until it comes out. Peace.
Reply
5-09-2008 @ 9:51PM
Ray said...
No, it doesn't sound cool. It sounds fucking idiotic. Can a writer produce a script that involves another writer's characters? Isn't that copyright infringement?
Also, it wasn't a damned meteorite that killed Donnie. It was a jet engine. Anyone who had simply watched the movie and stayed conscious would know that. Won't someone "think of the children" and kill this project?
Reply
5-10-2008 @ 12:36AM
Jaden said...
This is going to ruin my memories of the first film, because they're going to introduce a bunch of wacky concepts in the 2'nd film to try and keep up with the thought patterns of the first. Thus, the sequel will make things incredibly complicated and we'll find out that Donnie is actually his own dad, or Frank was really a reincarnated chicken.
It's a mad world.
- Jaden
Reply
5-10-2008 @ 1:00AM
Aaron said...
I think this sounds ok and I just have to say this:
SOuthland Tales AND DONNIE DARKO SUCK ASS! Those movies are downright fuckin terrible, I have no idea how that douchebag Richard Kelly got to make movies with big budgets maybe he sucks good dick I don't know.
Reply
5-10-2008 @ 11:35AM
Metome said...
Aaron that comment is laughable.
Jaden, don't let some crap mistake of a remake ruin the original.
Personally I loved the original more but had no issues with the Directors cut.
Anyway, horrible, horrible news. Why would anyone want to mess with the greatness of DD by making a fucking sequel?!? WTF...NO?!?!? DD can only work with the great work of Jake G. and Richard Kelly. Not to mention the original cast who were all really good. Huge mistake, huge. The only hope is that this doesn't get made.
Reply
5-11-2008 @ 9:28PM
Lusk said...
if you don't like it don't watch it, that seems pretty strait forward no?
Reply
5-11-2008 @ 9:32PM
Lusk said...
also... releasing a second film isn't going to make the first one worse. sheesh.
Reply
5-12-2008 @ 5:22AM
SPECTORAL said...
I think this is a sacraligious money-making dumb idea.
But unfortunatley I will probably still end up seeing the damn movie out of sheer curiosity at how much they will fuck it up.
Which is really the problem. I admit, that if there weren't so many people like me who will see it anyway, then bad sequels wouldn't be made.
I mean really - Chris Fisher and the new production company know they don't have to even try to live up to Donnie Darko. They can just cum on the lens and people will still go see it. We're sheep.
Reply