A 'Sixteen Candles' sequel? It's not happenin', hot stuff While some fans may have been thrilled to hear Molly Ringwald hint at a Sixteen Candles sequel this week, I think the film could be as disappointing as, well, your family forgetting your 16th birthday.
"I've turned it down for years. I couldn't see how it would work," the '80s teen-movie queen said at Saturday's MTV Movie Awards. But now that she's read a a decent script, Ringwald says she's changed her tune and "it seems right" to bring back the movie. (Related item: Chat with Whitney at 1 p.m. ET)
Sure, I adore the original film, which follows a girl whose family and friends forget her birthday. I also adore Molly Ringwald, who helped me get through several years of stringy hair, skinny legs and awful gym-class experiences. So why is Sixteen Candles 2 a bad idea? Consider the case against it:
1. It's just too late. Sequels don't often fly when they're released too long after the originals: Just look at Hannibal (made 10 years after Silence of the Lambs), The Godfather Part III (it came along 16 years after Part II), Son of the Mask (11 years after The Mask), The Two Jakes (16 years after Chinatown) and Return to Oz, which holds the Guinness World Record for hitting theaters a whopping 46 years after the Judy Garland classic. Didn't see 'em? Don't bother.
2. The hype could get Sith-like. After a 21-year wait, I'm predicting diehard fans would camp out for seats, dress up as their favorite character, throw Candles parties on opening night and have impossibly high expectations of a sequel. Nothing can live up to that sort of hype. Even if critics compared Sixteen Candles 2 to Citizen Kane, some moviegoers would go home disappointed.
3. It's Hughes or lose. Writer-director John Hughes is as much of a character in Sixteen Candles as Jake Ryan. Judging from Ringwald's brief comments, it doesn't sound like he penned the new script. If Hughes passes on directing, a sequel would be pointless.
4. Sam's grandparents are dead! And so is her bus driver, for that matter. Who knows where a Candles sequel would go with Samantha Baker's life story, but I'm not ready to face the reality that dear Grandpa Fred was buried five years ago, Caroline's hair is probably no longer naturally blond and Long Duk Dong (insert crash of cymbals here) turns 50 this month. Ponder that for a moment, won't you?
5. There's no such thing as a teen-movie sequel. There's a reason no one bothered to make Ferris Bueller's Second Day Off, Brunch Club, Fast Times at Ridgemont College, Still Pretty in Pink or License to Drive Commercial Vehicles. We don't want to know what happened to these characters down the road, because that defeats their purpose: We look to them for hope and the promise that there is light at the end of the tunnel. For me, seeing Sam Baker blow out her birthday candles with the boy she liked was all that I needed to feel satisfied.
6. Molly deserves better. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Molly Ringwald return to the spotlight; I just don't think another Sixteen Candles is the way to do it. Instead of reheating an old role, what if she teamed up with someone who could show her in a different light, like Donnie Darko's Richard Kelly or, if she dared, Quentin Tarantino? (After all, he did it for Travolta ...)
7. The geeks are gone. In the likely event that the movie's original stars turn down another stab at Sixteen, the casting could get ugly. Picture that Big Fat Greek lady as Sam's best friend. Ben Affleck as Jake Ryan. Dakota Fanning as Sam's daughter. ... Oh, it's too painful for me to go on.
8. Truth is better than fiction. The fact that Michael Schoeffling, the actor who played heartthrob Jake Ryan, now lives a virtually anonymous life making furniture in Pennsylvania is better than anything a screenwriter, even John Hughes, could come up with. Molly, perhaps we could compromise with a Candles "Where are they now?" documentary instead?
9. But wait — we're still not done with the first one ... Before sequels come into the picture, how about a decent DVD version of the original film? Gimme some commentary, deleted scenes and insight into that painful-looking headgear, and then we'll talk. Maybe.
10. It'll ruin everything. Simply put, Sixteen Candles is a classic. Any gains that could be made from a sequel aren't worth the risks of tainting the original for new and future fans.
Come on, Molly: This new script may have seemed promising and all, but don't do it! I still get teary-eyed when I see that final scene of Candles fade to black. Don't take that away from me.
Posted by Valley (Member # 1322) on :
The Donger need food. You can't relive the past....stuff like this never works out the way that you hope that it will. Those are all excellent points on why not to make it.
The problem is the core audience that loves this movie are all older now and the premise of the film won't work for them now. Is it Sam & Jake as parents of a 16 year-old daughter? I would go see it, but teen movies today are all about "Mean Girls" and "Napoleon Dynamite", not "Can I borrow your underpants for 10 minutes?"...though actually that sounds like a new movie today.
Posted by Brode (Member # 3732) on :
I haven't seen another movie like Napoleon Dynamite, and Mean Girls was maybe first intelligent and truthful teen movie to come out since the Hughes movies.
At the end of the day, all that matters is if the script is funny, and if the director knows what he's doing. I wouldn't even be so sure about the Hughes-or-lose idea, because the last movies Hughes has been writing are STV kids movies. Not to mention he hasn't directed a movie in 15 years. I'd rather see a competant and funny screenwriter who has love for the original material do it, I'd rather see Kevin Smith or someone do it.
Posted by Devolution (Member # 1731) on :
Devolution here,
Remaking a horror movie is one thing, you can make it gorier or a bit more cleaned up, but the problem is that with making a sequel to a comedy comes the notion that the original has the ability to have a sequel. I mean, if you want Bill Murray to be the grandfather now, it's a suitable replacement because the original one was his Dad, but otherwise, I couldn't think of any actors to make it even close to the same.
I agree with most of Jessie's points except for the Sith excitement comparison.
Note to Jessie, Sixteen Candles didn't make 400 million+ dollars when it was in the movies. John Hughes directed it, not George Lucas. Anyone that would stay out for days to line up to see this movie would need there head examined.
WE are DEVO
Posted by ISIS (Member # 1780) on :
I saw her comment on the sequel on the MTV Movie Awards, and she seemed all excited. I think it would be a mess too....remember when she got felt up by the grandparents and the grandma says "look Fred, she's gotten her boobies"...and he says" wait, let me go get my magnifying glass... well nobody needed a magnifying glass at the movie awards...that was fer shur...and then some.
It has been long enough, that "Samantha" could definately have a 16 year old kid- that would be the way to relive the forgetting of the birthday part...but I bet ya they have her married to Farmer Ted , and not Jake Ryan...cause they will never find Michael Schoeffling...and Anthony Michael Hall would probably say yes to it.
Probably Ally Sheedy would be her next door neighbor.
Who knows...they need to get a good writer that's for sure.
Posted by Valley (Member # 1322) on :
I saw the interview too, but I think the sequel is all just wishful thinking by Molly. She said early stages, so that means it's not a go yet. Scripts are out there for every movie imagineable, so just the fact an actor wants to make a sequel usually doesn't mean it will happen. Good Luck Samantha! Posted by Jessie the Sunflower Goddess (Member # 1877) on :
You are right DEVO it didn't make over 400 million, but I wouldn't stand in line one second to see Sith, has absolutely no appeal to me. I would choose a repeat of an 80s classic over that stuff any day.
Posted by ISIS (Member # 1780) on :
Me too Jessie, I'll stand in line with you when they rerelease Fire with Fire...as if, right??
Posted by Devolution (Member # 1731) on :
Devolution here,
I didn't stand in line, but I did get tickets early.
We are DEVO
Posted by Riptide (Member # 457) on :
As you know I love the original film to death, and my first reaction to a sequel was skeptical,it seemed to me too little too late, but if a talented writer comes along and can inject the story with enough chemistry and fun snd get all us people who grew up in the 80's all mistyeyed then that can't be a bad thing.
Been out of the loop on Rewind in a big way, I need a new computer or something. I have to use my brother's PC to write this. Anyway seeing Billy Idol in April was major cool moment. Have to play some catch up on old messages.
Posted by rocksteadyflamethrower (Member # 1065) on :
I wouldn't watch MTV if you put a gun to my head and threatened to pull the trigger, so I decided just to check out the press photos from the MTV Movie Awards instead.
This relates to a sequel for "16 Candles". If one ever is made, Molly Ringwald must do at least one nude scene...Body doubles not allowed. She's a scalding hot babe now. She's gone from plain-Jane teenager to brick house.
That's the only way you could get me to see a sequel to "16 Candles".
![[Cool]](cool.gif)