The thought of the first Garfield live-action movie made me want to barf, and from all the reviews I saw, it supposedly sucked hard. Why are they putting out a second movie when the first was a complete bust? I haven't seen them, but I can't see how they'd be any worse than either Scooby-Doo movie. (pause for vomit) Is it just me, or does Hollywood not wait until they see the results from a movie before deciding on a sequel.
I didn't see it, and given the reviews, I just can't figure it out. I mean, why don't they make another Battlefield Earth movie? (insert scientology joke)
Don't they need money to make a sequel? What the hell is going on here!? There should be an investigation as to why movies like Basic Instinct and Garfield get sequels....ughhHhh..The makers of Garfield should have just invested whatever money they spent on making the sequel into sMcDonald stock or something, probably would have made more money and spared the actors their dignity.
It was pretty much a given that they would make a sequel as the first movie despite bad reviews made a fairly nice profit. Production budget was about $50 million and it brought in $198,602,095. So everyone can probably expect a third movie if this one even makes half the profit the first did.
