MovieChat Forums > Stardust (2007) Discussion > Should have had a Sequel.

Should have had a Sequel.

posted 13 years ago by h-oates
12 replies | jump to latest

I have only just seen this film and it was fantastic.
It had everything Action Adventure Comedy Drama and Romance.
It also had a great cast Michelle Pfeiffer was a great Villain
Robert De Nero was hilarious and Claire Danes was perfect.

So why has this film never had a Sequel because these days they are making Sequels of really terrible movies for example Clash of the Titans 2010 it was pretty poor yet the Sequel Wrath of the Titans is set to come out next year.

Its not as if Stardust did poor at the Box Office it did very well so I don't
understand why they have never made one because to be honest as long as it rakes in the cash they will make anything and Stardust was well received by Critics and the Audience and would make a lot of money and at the same time would be a good film.

Then again maybe they still could make one but the film has been out nearly
4 years now and no announcement has been made about a Sequel so I doubt it.

[–] phasing 13 years ago

With $70 million budget, it didn't do well, only $38,634,938 in the US and $135 million worldwide.
If I remember correctly, they don't get the whole $96 million, they have to share it with the international theaters. I think they barely made it.
And really, what would the sequel be about? Everything was resolved. They all lived happily ever after. A sequel only ruins this great piece. Besides, Stardust doesn't seem to be very popular (only a few of my friends ever heard about it), I don't think people will go to the theater for a sequel. Stardust wasn't hyped up enough.
---------
You just can't win with these people!

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

It was not a big hit in the UK and I guess Gaiman would not be too keen on a sequel.

Its that man again!!

[–] moveguy 13 years ago

thats a terrible idea making a sequel to a wrapped up and great story.

[–] xthe_shiznitx 13 years ago

Wrapped up? What about their children? Will they too fight for the crown like their ancestors did for generations? What about the town of Wall, did it change for the worse or better after he became king?

There is so much content you can use to create a sequel, plus this movie was too great to not have a sequel.

[–] bigmovieman 13 years ago

"What about their children? Will they too fight for the crown like their ancestors did for generations? "

That is explained in a deleted scene on the dvd. They all grow up without killing each other and live peacefully yada yada...

[–] xthe_shiznitx 13 years ago

They live peacefully until their parents go up into the stars, what happens after is what I was referring to. Like will their kids try to go after the crown.

[–] Scotswedebrit 13 years ago

Why not resolve your questions from either rewatching film and seeing if there are any hints or clues deliberately sprinkled in the dialogue or scenes; sometimes the future becomes obvious simply by observing the ambitions or lack thereof of the children's parents. A bit of reflection on the film and working in your own mind you can spin fantastic futures for characters in a film such as Stardust.

Be sure you're right, then go ahead

[–] xthe_shiznitx 13 years ago

I can't make any logical conclusions about the children because they aren't shown once, so I can't tell if one of them is a little annoying prankster that will most likely grow up to be worse and probably power hungry.
Therefore only a sequel would answer my particular questions about the characters.

[–] LilRed_RoRo 13 years ago

I'm guessing if they had made a sequel it would have probably been with different characters because, as everyone else has said, Tristan's story was wrapped up. I think a sequel or sequels (making it a series) would have been cool just because the world it was set it was so interesting and unique it would have been nice to see more of it. But obviously it would have only worked if any sequels had been as well written as the frist.

[–] chuutugopootu 12 years ago

I have to agree w/ other posters here: no sequel! It was done & done. Evil witch-queens of Stormhold obliterated: check. Power-mad, malevolent history of how past royalty ascended to the throne dies w/ the 7 princes: check. Benevolent king & true love reign for 80 years, pass throne to (assumed) correctly, lovingly brought up to continue this manner of rule after Ivayne & Tristan ascend to the stars: check.
Plus, to good old Hollywood, this film had disappointing returns (I blame the studio--the marketing was nearly non-existent, trailer poor & a bit confusing, etc.), & Hollywood never risks such a big-budget sequel unless they're reasonably secure all is in place to do so, which in this case, I think would be a very bad idea. We're a bit of an elite club of cinephiles (a large one, perhaps, but few I know have seen it) who have seen & loved this spectacular film, which deserved to be a much more successful (in its theatre run) than it was. Shame on you, Paramount. But no sequel....PLEASE! lol

[–] ArliDarko 12 years ago

Maybe not a sequel, but it will be fun to see more about the pirates and witches

"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers."

[–] TheProjectionista 10 years ago

If you watch the deleted scenes, there's one where Tristan is on his deathbed with Yvaine (her looking the same age as in the main storyline) and their kids gathered around... he says something like "this time, we'll do it my way" and simpl makes the condition of the one to find it, rather than being the sole survivor too (and just before he throws it out of the window, Yvaine tells him to "throw lower this time").

Thing is, it seems almost too much like a forced setup for a sequel rather than a wrapping up of this story, so I'm glad they removed it, allowing this film to stand alone without being cheapened by that.