Ask You Anything? Okay, four questions:

1. When you write "Another terrible sequel that's 30 years too late", which are some other sequels that are, in your opinion, terrible, and 30 years too late? 2 I'm getting the impression you are simply not in this movie's target audience. What do you think?
2. Did you enjoy watching the first installment 30 years ago, or during a recent viewing?
3. What made you even bother to watch this one at all?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

1- When you write "Another terrible sequel that's 30 years too late", which are some other sequels that are, in your opinion, terrible, and 30 years too late?

This particular movie was 30 years too late but there are plenty that have been 20-30 years too late like Independence Day 2, Coming to America 2, Bill & Ted 3, Ghostbusters (2016) (though technically a reboot), Matrix 4, Indiana Jones 4, Dumb And Dumber 2, Candyman.

Sure there have been a few good ones like Top Gun 2 (so I hear, still haven't seen it yet), Blade Runner 2 (though the reviews were very mixed), Ghostbusters Afterlife, etc but generally a sequel coming out this far from the previous movies is almost always awful.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I'm getting the impression you are simply not in this movie's target audience. What do you think?

You're right, I'm not the target audience, but a good movie should still be able to shine through despite that. Many Pixar films are largely for kids but manage to appeal to adults because they're so good, Wall-E being one of my personal favorites. Hocus Pocus 2 is a crappy kids film but that should not absolve it of criticism, otherwise this would apply to Rob Zombie's Munsters film as well.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

2- Did you enjoy watching the first installment 30 years ago, or during a recent viewing?

Yes and yes, it's still a funny movie with interesting characters and fun musical sequences, all things this sequel lacked. I've even watched behind the scenes footage of the original and you could tell they put way more work and care into crafting that film than they did with this lazy sequel.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

3- What made you even bother to watch this one at all?

Because I honestly do love the original one from when I was a kid and even though I had low hopes for this one there was still a part of me that hoped maybe it would be an ok movie, and boy was I wrong. And although I wouldn't have made a sequel, there was potential to make a decent sequel with the parts they had but it's just lazy. Whoever wrote this or approved of the script did not give a damn about it. They just pooped it out without any care. There's a lot of that going around with Disney content.

First, my apologies for the messed-up numbering of my questions.

Hey, I appreciate your thoughtful answers, regardless to whatever extent I may agree or disagree. The most important thing, to me, is that your comments come from an emotional stake in the original and were not just a hasty dismissal that a troll might foist on us and then run and hide when challenged.

Cheers!

@acontributor said:

If any movie is remade or a sequel is made, the target audience implicitly includes the target audience of earlier movies.

Sure, that's true; but not everyone who watches a movie is in the target market - and those who are not in the target market are less likely to "get" what the actual fans like about it.

Also to say that someone isn't a member of the target audience doesn't exempt the movie makers of making hateful propaganda or material that is inappropriate

Again, I agree; but, again, that is less about the movie maker and more about the reviewer.

It is arguable that young people are automatically included in the target audience of anything that is available over the big streaming services since they are the ones most likely to watch them whether or not it is suitable for them.

Yes, it is arguable, although I wouldn't try to argue that position.

That includes platforms like HBOMax and its inappropriate cartoons.

I know nothing about HBOMax, or what (you think) makes its cartoons inappropriate. If you're right, splendid.

I haven't watched this movie yet but I will let you know when I do.

Please do, looking forward!

I haven't seen this but I'll probably give it a whirl someday, keeping rock bottom expectations. One thing we have to keep in mind is that these direct-to-video sequels are by nature much smaller productions, basically like comparing a made-for-TV movie to a theatrical one. And a lot of these are labors of love spearheaded by the original cast (which is the case here I think). It's a lot like a band reunion after 30 years, it's never gonna come close but we'd be crazy to expect the girls in ABBA to hit those high notes and look as hot in tights as they did in their heyday. We go to their show for nostalgia's sake. One that I'm really looking forward to, as well as dreading, is Spinal Tap 2. But I'll be there front center.

@rooprect said:

I haven't seen this but I'll probably give it a whirl someday, keeping rock bottom expectations. One thing we have to keep in mind is that these direct-to-video sequels

Interesting that you refer to this as a "direct-to-video" - makes me question what I thought I understood about that distribution approach. Movies like Red Notice (I know, not a sequel) and Coming 2 America (yes, a sequel) were released on streaming platforms only, but I wouldn't consider these releases to be on par with, say, Hellraiser: Judgment.

are by nature much smaller productions, basically like comparing a made-for-TV movie to a theatrical one.

Another difference - those two movies I mentioned had decent budgets ($160M and $60M, respectively), while Hellraiser: Judgment's budget was a paltry $500K).

And a lot of these are labors of love spearheaded by the original cast (which is the case here I think).

Also, low-budget sequels that do get released direct-to-video tend to not get the original cast back, as they typically don't want anything to do with the half-baked sequel idea anyway.

@rooprect said:

One thing we have to keep in mind is that these direct-to-video sequels are by nature much smaller productions, basically like comparing a made-for-TV movie to a theatrical one.

There have been plenty of low budget movies that had good scripts that shined through the lack of money. This isn't one of those cases. Although it does certainly look cheap compared to the original, the script is trash. The story is largely recycled from the first one. The jokes mostly fall flat. The new characters they introduce are not interesting or memorable.

And while the dynamic between the male and female characters in the first one was pretty balance, because it's 2022, all the men in the new one are either bumbling idiots or bad guys. As a young boy I had no problem liking the first one. The new one is very clearly womanist leaning, and thus, writes its male characters like they're all retarded.

@cswood said:

And while the dynamic between the male and female characters in the first one was pretty balance, because it's 2022, all the men in the new one are either bumbling idiots or bad guys. As a young boy I had no problem liking the first one. The new one is very clearly womanist leaning, and thus, writes its male characters like they're all retarded.

Just curious, why do you feel threatened by women?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

I haven't seen this but I'll probably give it a whirl someday, keeping rock bottom expectations. One thing we have to keep in mind is that these direct-to-video sequels

Interesting that you refer to this as a "direct-to-video" - makes me question what I thought I understood about that distribution approach. Movies like Red Notice (I know, not a sequel) and Coming 2 America (yes, a sequel) were released on streaming platforms only, but I wouldn't consider these releases to be on par with, say, Hellraiser: Judgment.

Hm, I'm not sure about the way streaming releases work these days, so maybe my label "direct-to-video" wasn't accurate. What I meant was "not a theatrical release". To be fair, I don't watch many (if any) streaming releases.

are by nature much smaller productions, basically like comparing a made-for-TV movie to a theatrical one.

Another difference - those two movies I mentioned had decent budgets ($160M and $60M, respectively), while Hellraiser: Judgment's budget was a paltry $500K).

Now that is a surprise! I'll have to check out Hellraiser: Judgment

And a lot of these are labors of love spearheaded by the original cast (which is the case here I think).

Also, low-budget sequels that do get released direct-to-video tend to not get the original cast back, as they typically don't want anything to do with the half-baked sequel idea anyway.

True. But I read an article about how much Bette Midler pushed to make this production happen, and it reminded me of a bunch of other cult faves that had the same story. Like Eddie & the Cruisers 2 (a horrible but fun movie), or Richard Hatch who shopped his Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming idea for years (it never happened, but at least they gave him a role in the 2004 reboot). I think Hocus Pocus 2 was really Bette Midler's pet project since she hadn't been very active in the last 10 years. Not saying the movie deserves any pity points, but I have a soft spot for movies where the actors are really invested in the production.

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

I haven't seen this but I'll probably give it a whirl someday, keeping rock bottom expectations. One thing we have to keep in mind is that these direct-to-video sequels

Interesting that you refer to this as a "direct-to-video" - makes me question what I thought I understood about that distribution approach. Movies like Red Notice (I know, not a sequel) and Coming 2 America (yes, a sequel) were released on streaming platforms only, but I wouldn't consider these releases to be on par with, say, Hellraiser: Judgment.

Hm, I'm not sure about the way streaming releases work these days, so maybe my label "direct-to-video" wasn't accurate. What I meant was "not a theatrical release". To be fair, I don't watch many (if any) streaming releases.

Gotcha. We're in the throes of a paradigm shift. Back in the day, "not theatrical release" meant a less-than-ideal distribution; today, streaming is competitive in terms of quality and reach, so it's not really an apt equivalent of "not theatrical".

are by nature much smaller productions, basically like comparing a made-for-TV movie to a theatrical one.

Another difference - those two movies I mentioned had decent budgets ($160M and $60M, respectively), while Hellraiser: Judgment's budget was a paltry $500K).

Now that is a surprise! I'll have to check out Hellraiser: Judgment

I'm not a fan of the franchise, so I'll have to leave you to it :-) I only mentioned it to talk numbers.

And a lot of these are labors of love spearheaded by the original cast (which is the case here I think).

Also, low-budget sequels that do get released direct-to-video tend to not get the original cast back, as they typically don't want anything to do with the half-baked sequel idea anyway.

True. But I read an article about how much Bette Midler pushed to make this production happen, and it reminded me of a bunch of other cult faves that had the same story. Like Eddie & the Cruisers 2 (a horrible but fun movie), or Richard Hatch who shopped his Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming idea for years (it never happened, but at least they gave him a role in the 2004 reboot). I think Hocus Pocus 2 was really Bette Midler's pet project since she hadn't been very active in the last 10 years. Not saying the movie deserves any pity points, but I have a soft spot for movies where the actors are really invested in the production.

Cool - glad she did! I mean, to be clear, I didn't see the first one. But I like her, and I too like actors fighting for passion projects, box office be damned - and, isn't that a cool thing about streaming? No one's counting ticket sales anymore, and no clear, objective, cross-platform measure of viewership has emerged.

@rooprect said:

Just curious, why do you feel threatened by women?

I think that's your internal misandry being projected. If this were a movie where all the men were written normally and all the women were morons I'd be saying the exact same thing, but if a woman pointed that out she would not be accused of being "threatened" by men because shaming women is wrong while we all know shaming men for pointing out objective reality works. At least it used to.

The same way women don't like seeing oversexualized female characters, I do not like the "idiot dad" stereotype we see in sitcoms where husbands or men in general are bumbling idiots who can't tie their own shoes while women are the only rational ones who are always right. It's detrimental to the notion of equality people you claim to support and it conditions boys and young impressionable men into thinking it's acceptable to portray men as morons while the reverse is automatic misogyny.

Either you're for misandry or you're for equality, you can't be for both.

@cswood said:

@rooprect said:

Just curious, why do you feel threatened by women?

I think that's your internal misandry being projected. If this were a movie where all the men were written normally and all the women were morons I'd be saying the exact same thing,

But would you, really? Obviously, I'm not the only one who noticed you beating this drum repeatedly right here within this one thread. If we noticed you calling out the damsel in distress trope or the older leading man with the 20 something wife trope with the same persistence, you might have a hook upon which to hang this hat.

Either you're for misandry or you're for equality, you can't be for both.

I'd like to say "I hear you" on this...but, I'm not a fan of false equivalence. These conversations cannot pretend there is no wider context of power structure, or that that power structure is not the bigger issue with respect to who decides how any group is portrayed, or how groups of people are enfranchised or disenfranchised based on that power structure. It's not a one-to-one issue of "if this is bad, that is bad" because the "this and that" in this conversation have different stakes in the power structure. And that power structure still disproportionately give advantage to men and disadvantage to women.

@cswood said:

@rooprect said:

Just curious, why do you feel threatened by women?

I think that's your internal misandry being projected. If this were a movie where all the men were written normally and all the women were morons I'd be saying the exact same thing, but if a woman pointed that out she would not be accused of being "threatened" by men because shaming women is wrong while we all know shaming men for pointing out objective reality works. At least it used to.

The same way women don't like seeing oversexualized female characters, I do not like the "idiot dad" stereotype we see in sitcoms where husbands or men in general are bumbling idiots who can't tie their own shoes while women are the only rational ones who are always right. It's detrimental to the notion of equality people you claim to support and it conditions boys and young impressionable men into thinking it's acceptable to portray men as morons while the reverse is automatic misogyny.

Either you're for misandry or you're for equality, you can't be for both.

I figured on a response like this (1 attempt to insult the person asking the question, 2 attempt to excuse your hatred of women without answering the question), but I had to ask because I was genuinely curious why so many men are threatened by women, like maybe women beat you up in gym class who knows. Good luck to all you incels or whatever you call yourselves.

@rooprect said:

I figured on a response like this (1 attempt to insult the person asking the question, 2 attempt to excuse your hatred of women without answering the question), but I had to ask because I was genuinely curious why so many men are threatened by women, like maybe women beat you up in gym class who knows.

Define "threatened", because you can apply that word to any objective criticism of anything. There are plenty of things I simply don't like that I do not feel threatened by. And I actually like women quite a lot, but I don't kiss their asses. I hold them to the same standard as men, as per their request. When a woman does something stupid or wrong I have no problem pointing it out just like I would a dude (or something good, but no one cares about that).

But I specifically pointed to the positive gender balance of the first Hocus Pocus (both males and females of equal merit fighting to stop the witches), while the sequel has competent females fighting to stop the witches in spite of the incompetent idiot male characters. That's called a bias. I do not like bias, and tolerating bias is something weak people do.

@rooprect said:

Good luck to all you incels or whatever you call yourselves.

Dudes with wives and children get called incels, that's just a shaming word for a man whose opinion you disagree with or argument you can't counter. It's really no different from calling a woman a whore because she turned you down or corrected you.

Besides, my problem is not with women, it's with men. I respect women for having the guts to stand up and say "we don't like the way we are being portrayed and want it to stop" when it comes to media. It's men that are too much of a pussy to not only not notice how terrible men are being portrayed, but shame other men for pointing it out. When did men become such pushovers? Why do women seem to have bigger balls and testosterone than your average man these days?

@cswood said:

It's men that are too much of a pussy to not only not notice how terrible men are being portrayed, but shame other men for pointing it out. When did men become such pushovers? Why do women seem to have bigger balls and testosterone than your average man these days?

Of all the problems men have, nothing here is near the top of any meaningful list. "Being too much of a pussy", not having "big balls and testosterone" are not our problem and, if that's the angle from which you're approaching it, you are part of the problem, and clearly have some learning to do before you're informed sufficiently to engage this kind of conversation constructively.

Go do some homework.