Anybody supporting Van Helsing 2?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Initialy, Universal Studios was going to make two sequels and an animated series, but they quited. I know Van Helsing wasn`t perfect, but the overall story wasn`t a catastrophy! (plot was cool--three classic monsters fitting in the story like puzzle pieces, Vatican leading a secreft organization), lines were entertaning, action sequences were thrilling and diverse(from ancient castles to ballroom scenes).

So, if you share my thoughts, please sign a petition at

You might also try to contact Universal Studios.

If any of you has any better ideas on getting this movie done, please share!

It was a pretty good flick


Please, the first one was enough mediocre and bad to made another one. That movie is an insult for the terror mithos.

i didnt think to much of the first film.

and i fail to see how signing a petition is going to persuade people to make a sequel

Not a chance in hell.


the first one was somewhat entertaining but a bad film

Even if the film WAS commercialized as the most expensive and useless B movie, i still would have not appreciated this movie in any way shape or form. Just a useless...useless peice of film.

O yes lets use another 50 billion dollars and make another shite movie which is filled with CGI, crap actng, good looking women who think they can fight, ugly looking men who think they can fight, ripping off all the historic monsters and legends from myths and comic books and have aload of people who don't know jack crap about films go see it and say WOW it was amazing when it was a CGI infested piece of crap!!!!

(As you can probably tell, i don't like this film. For more insults about the first film see the post about Van Helsing)

evil face

It's no worse than "Blade: Trinity", IMO.

Pretty Cat
you saw that already?

ive seen blade trinity

Major Knight
Personally i think van helsing did what i thought it would, by letting me see all my fav old monster's and gave some cool fighting scenes. all and all it was entertaining, it was no Oscar winner but i liked it.

The only thing that i saw on screen was a crap imitation of the old classic monsters, specially dracula turned into a drag queen ala rocky horror picture show. It was pathetic.

Whats wrong with people? Blade 3 is well good. Why is it not good? Anyone got a good reason why Blade 3 is not a good film? Its so amazing, the only criticism is that the ending fight scene was abit short but it was epic anough.

O yeah and never compare any film to Van Helsing, thats like the worst insult ever!!! Although maybe League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I will accept

I've got a scathing review posted in the reviews section, as well as a revised version I'd be glad to share.

It's far, far from epic, even from cinematic standards, and opinion withstanding.

I agree

Save it for the "Blade" threads, I made a generalized comment. Lets get back on topic.

It's not hard to find correlations in the two movies, anyway.

I think if Hugh Jackman continues to find success with the X-Men films which he probably will in the coming years with X-Men 3 and a spin-off film based on his character of Wolverine, then they will probably visit the possibilities of a sequel to Van Helsing.

There shouldn't be such a thing as an "X-Men" spinoff, just because none of the X-Men actors are lead role material. Wolverine a cool character, but doesn't work outside of the collective. There's also a Magneto spinoff in the works, which would subsequently bomb, just because he's a rather boring character.

That's like suggesting a "LOTR" spinoff with Frodo only. No sense in that, because it would be filled with other characters anyway.

Red Superfly
Lol, it's almost as stupid as giving Elektra from Daredevil her own film.....

errr, hang on..........

Actually Wolverine does have enough background in the comics to warrant a spin-off, but a Magneto spin-off personally isn't something I would have done.

What? "Origin(s)"? A 3 year old comic? Casual movie goers, being the ones that fueled the "X-Men" profits don't want to watch Logan grow up. They want to watch him shred people to bits. That's why so few prequel ideas make it to the big screen.

Wolverine/Logan could be as old as 100 because he does not age like normal people in the movies and comics which is why the people would not be watching him grow up, they would be watching his past before joining the X-Men. There is ALOT of story for them to use for the prequel, Weapon X, background in the war, etc. Plus there is countless enemies involved in his past that they could use on the big screen like Sabertooth, Wendigo, Yuriko, and more.

Who cares about X-Men we all watch it, like it and think its cheesy.

Red Superfly
Wolverines an X-Man.

Why do people think that if a character has a brilliant origin/background story, they should star on their own?

That defeats the idea of the X-Men in the first place.

The likes of Iceman could easily be in their own comic. Iceman seems like a standalone character when you think about it. But he's not, he's part of a team, and his powers are used to accenuate their differences.

Wolverine has a HUGE role in the X-Men. He is one of the very few melee fighters. A lot of X-Men use range attacks. Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Gambit, Storm, X-Man, Prof X and so on. Wolverine HAS to get up close every time. That's his appeal. He's the IN YOUR FACE character. He's a pawn in a grander picture, and having him on his own makes his weakness as a character stand out like a sore thumb.

Red Superfly
And to steer back on topic - Van Helsing sucks.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.