No, the problem was that the first film was shit.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:15, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

It wasn't brilliant...the actor who played Scorsby had a right old rant about the church and why a sequel had been canned

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:16, Reply)

The church thing is just an excuse for a bad film
If they had made it a good film (which they should) it would have made money and they would have made the sequels.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:20, Reply)

It made money, twice the budget I believe

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:20, Reply)

It was critically panned
And they were clearly hoping for a lot more return.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:23, Reply)

I did hear once that due to the balance of flops V successes

most Hollywood film studios could make more money investing their film budgets in relatively safe financial bets.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:25, Reply)

it didn't do very well
commercially or critically. For the main reason that it was shit. The books would be hard to translate to screen because so much of it requires actual thought
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:24, Reply)

You know what, I'm just going to blame Nicole Kidman
She's awful in everything
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 10 May 2010, 15:33, Reply)