agreed...Like, I have seen CAddyshack 2 one time...doesn't take any of the shine off the first movie, and I will watch it any time I come across it on cable or whatever...I doubt it would be as good, but I'd definitely watch it. Even if it sucked, that wouldn't ruin the first one for me.
I feel like you'd get some great cameos...think of all the guys on tour who grew up loving this flick. Lot of personable guys on tour now...JT, Fowler, etc, etc. Get a Mickelson cameo. Have Shooter get stuck playing with Barkley at a Pro-Am and Shooter has a meltdown due to Barkley sucking so bad....so many people would be interested in cameos here, I think.I think it's all about the actor buy-in and legit cameos. Lee Trevino, Bob Barker, and Verne Lundquist playing themselves added just enough legitimacy to the movie that golfers could get into while ignoring the continuity errors and rule stretching from the golf itself.
I find the biggest issue of the comedy reboot is trying to capture the magic of the first one. There's a fine line between goofy, funny, and stupid. It seems like originals get the benefit of the doubt, while a similar joke in a sequel usually gets a "stupid" designation...perhaps due 20 year old fans now being 45 and having different senses of humor?
I'm not defending all sequels by any means - some (Caddyshack 2) are just pure garbage.
I say no. Its neve going to be as good as the original and you risk ruining the legacy of the movie. Besides, how would Happy's swing work with someone who is supposed to be on the senior tour?Shooter and Happy were on with Dan Patrick and talked about HG2 being about them on the senior tour.
Do you want it to happen? Or leave a classic alone?
Let's not forget that Happy Gilmore was NOT an Adam Sandler film. He was a writer on the project, but did not direct nor produce it.Yes. As long as Adam Sandler has creative control I’d be all for it.