(Originally published on
The Rec ) Few films in the last twenty years have equalled the social impact of 1994's "Forrest Gump." It was a melancholy love letter to baby boomers, simultaneously cautioning, wistful, and reassuring. I remember seeing it in the theaters and thinking of how cleverly the plot wove so many disparate elements together into a tight framework. The center of this wonderful story is the performance of Tom Hanks as Gump. When you first see him onscreen , your initial reaction is to laugh; the performance is so mannered that you almost cannot believe Hanks will portray him this way. But after a few minutes, Hanks manages to win over viewers with Gump's intrinsic goodness and decency. By the end of the film, Gump has become as believable and lovable as the rubber puppet in "E.T." That is, of course, the magic of film and its possibilities in the hands of talented people. And magic very rarely strikes twice. Which is why it's disturbing to hear
reports today that Paramount is seriously moving ahead with "Forrest Gump 2: Electric Bugaloo." Well, no ... it's not called that ... but it might as well be. Here's what Cinema Blend had to say:
An absolutely reliable, unfortunately anonymous source, contacted me tonight with the latest scoop on Forrests impending return. It seems that old 2001 Eric Roth screenplay is being dragged out of development hell for another look by Gumpproducers Steve Tisch and Wendy Finerman. Remember that the first Forrest Gump movie was based on a novel by Winston Groom. Roths sequel script was based on Grooms followup novel, Gump & Co. Gump & Co takes place several years after Forrest Gump and finds Forrests shrimping business failed and Jenny dead, leaving Forrest a single unemployed father. As youd expect, Gump still stumbles through more important historical events. In this case its a cavalcade of history from the 80s and 90s. He even meets Tom Hanks.
Of course, Tom Hanks himself has not weighed in on such an idea, and his vote is the only one that really counts. Unequivocally,
if Hanks does not do this film, it should not be made. What a disaster it would be if William H. Macy, or Tom Cruise, or - heaven forbid! - Nicholas Cage stepped into the role. Obviously, the film should not be made at all, and hopefully Hanks does the right thing and shoots this Old Yeller right in the head. Magic happens only so often, and going back to the well often proves disastrous, tarnishing the brilliance of the original. Do we really look at "Silence of the Lambs" the same way after three Lecter-raping sequels/prequels?? Don't the myriad of sequels to "Halloween" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" only turn those films into something of a joke? Weren't the wonders of Eddie Murphy's talents in "Nutty Professor" less spectacular and amazing the second time around? "Forrest Gump" hit the right chord at the right time with the right cast. Time to move on.