Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Movies Media

Kevin Smith set for Clerks sequel 406

bckrispi writes "Director Kevin Smith has announced an official sequel to his indie cult classic, Clerks. Currently titled "The Passion of the Clerks", the film will pick up with Dante and Randal ten years after the original as our two heroes trudge through the malaise of their thirties. Jason Mewes, now out of rehab, is back on deck to play Jay across Smith's Silent Bob."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kevin Smith set for Clerks sequel

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, come on! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ALeavitt ( 636946 ) * <aleavitt@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:48PM (#10110317)
    To me, this represents Kevin Smith taking the final plunge into sheer hackdom. None of his movies lived up to the expectations that naturally came about as a result of the edginess of the original Clerks, so Kevin Smith is kowtowing to his fans' demands rather than making good movies. Jersey Girl both sucked and bombed. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was just a series of in-jokes for the rabid Kevin Smith fans. And wasn't that supposed to be the last movie set in the "View Askewniverse" that contained movies like Clerks and Mallrats? To me, this just makes Smith sound a lot like George Lucas. "I'll never make another sequel in this series. Wait, what? Money? Oh, yeah, I'll do it for money. What do you guys want to see? More Jay, more Randall, and the origins of Boba Fett? Ok, here's exactly what you want! Now pay me!"
    • Budget (Score:5, Informative)

      by mfh ( 56 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#10110353) Homepage Journal
      > None of his movies lived up to the expectations that naturally came about as a result of the edginess of the original Clerks

      I think the budget is the reason. Clerks made it so the talent had to shine through because they had no money. Fans of Kevin Smith [viewaskew.com] will rejoice at this news. If you aren't a Kevin Smith fan, you could quickly become one if you happen to see An Evening With Kevin Smith [yahoo.com], where Kevin does hours of Q&A at universities, covering a multitude of topics including his dealings with the religious nut Prince (~Symbol~). Another topic is the strange dealings Kevin had with the creator of one of the Batman movies who kept talking about a huge mechanical spider (who went on to make WWW).

      It would be likely much funnier to see "The Passion of the Clerks" stay within the same budget as the first one ($27 k), rather than use up a large studio budget. It's not going to happen, but it would be pretty awesome if they kept the budget low enough to let the talent and quirkiness shine through.
      • Re:Budget (Score:4, Informative)

        by MrP- ( 45616 ) * <jessica AT supjessica DOT com> on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:14PM (#10110564)
        "It would be likely much funnier to see "The Passion of the Clerks" stay within the same budget as the first one ($27 k), rather than use up a large studio budget. It's not going to happen, but it would be pretty awesome if they kept the budget low enough to let the talent and quirkiness shine through."

        From the AP article:

        ""I'm sure there will be naysayers who say, 'Oh my God, it's an opportunistic grab at a buck,' but it's not. We're doing it for nothing," Smith said. "We're going to do it insanely inexpensively. The budget will be somewhere between 250 grand and $5 million.""
        • Re:Budget (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sunking2 ( 521698 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @03:16PM (#10111164)
          Eh? So let me get this straight. We're supposed to respect him more because he's going to make more money off of a probably mediocre movie because he's spending less to make it?

          He probably knows he'll take in around X amount of money whether he spends $250k or $50 million. But somehow we're supposed to like him more because he's going to low ball the production and increase his profits. At least high production movies typically put more people to work creating them. If he really cared he'd take all the production money he's saving and offer half price rebates to see his movie in the cinemas.
          • Re:Budget (Score:4, Funny)

            by Dr. Evil ( 3501 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @04:12PM (#10111699)

            Hmmm... he could alternatively put $50M in the production of trailers. Then people could think they're getting a big-budget film.

          • Re:Budget (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30, 2004 @05:05PM (#10112214)
            Look, making movies involves risk. The more money you spend, the less risk you are allowed. When the studio puts lots of money on the line, they MAKE you do things a certain way because they want to lessen the risk to their money.

            If he does Clerks 2 the low-budget way he wants to, the studios will leave him alone and let him do whatever he wants. He can do any damn thing and its okay. This is a good thing.

            As for whether we are supposed to respect him or not, I don't remember him saying "respect me now because of my l337 l0w-budget skillz." He just announced the movie.

            And he doesn't really "know" he will make any particular amount of money. If he spends peanuts on this movie he has lessened the risk, not guaranteed huge profits.
          • Re:Budget (Score:4, Insightful)

            by lowe0 ( 136140 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @05:48PM (#10112580) Homepage
            Perhaps he just wants the challenge/experience of making another low-budget movie?

            Look at the Indiana Jones 4 project (or what's left of it at the moment). Spielberg has already stated that they'll be minimizing CGI and using old-fashioned stuntwork to make the next Jones film. Why? They specifically want to have to work around stunt apparatus - something about how it makes them more creative.

            It's already proven that Smith gets more creative when he's got less money to spend. And, as someone else already pointed out, when you're spending less money, you're guaranteed to make it back on Kevin Smith's name alone. If he keeps it on the cheap, Miramax is going to let him do whatever he wants. And that's exactly what I want to see.
      • Re:Budget (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @03:28PM (#10111283) Homepage
        It is strange, but the less budget his films have, the better they seem to do. My favorite film of his major films (Clerks, Mall Rats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back) was his second lowest budget one - Chasing Amy. I love that movie. It's budget was only 250k$. And while budget-wise it's no Clerks (28,000$), it is anything but a Lord of the Rings trilogy (190m$), Star Wars Ep 1 (115m$), Titanic (200m$), etc.
        • Re:Budget (Score:3, Interesting)

          by King_TJ ( 85913 )
          IMHO, that's neither "strange" nor is it uncommon in the film industry, overall.

          One of the big reasons the second round of Star Wars films sucked so bad compared to the original 3 is the huge budgets they were allowed to spend on them. Lucas dumped it all into computer graphics and effects, expecting that would be enough to "Wow!" everyone -- and in reality, fans just wanted a good, well acted-out story. (Consider the sets in the original Star Wars movie, compared to the extravagant worlds depicted in th
      • Re:Budget (Score:5, Informative)

        by weslocke ( 240386 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @03:46PM (#10111478)
        Actually just as a nitpick, it wasn't Batman. It was when he was talking about his involvement with the then-soon-to-be-file-13'ed 'Superman' effort. The producer of the movie was all excited about doing the picture, but could we have Superman in shorts fighting a huge spider?

        Kevin talked about how he was like, "uh, yeah... sure... it's your movie, man" and the guy was just all freaky over getting this huge spider into the flick.

        Then they brought Tim Burton in to direct it, who turned around and shredded Smith's screenplay. Burton got his own stable of writers in to re-write it until (apparently) it sucked so bad that the entire project got shelved.

        Smith said that what really freaked him out was a couple of years later he went to see another movie that was produced by the same guy. It was The Wild, Wild West (I don't think he ever said who it was, but it sounded like it might've been Barry Sonnenfeld)... and what did he see in there? "A huge f!@#ing mechanical spider!"

        An Evening With Kevin Smith... don't just watch it... go out and buy it. Unseen. Just buy it. You'll be glad you did.

    • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Stevyn ( 691306 )
      I don't think his films were ever put up on a pedestal by him. He's got a bunch of die hard fans who propped his reputation up. I love his movies and I think he's a great writer and director when it comes to comedy. But you're right, "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" was all inside jokes. If I hadn't seen the 4 previous movies he did, I doubt I'd get half the jokes in that movie.
      • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Informative)

        by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:24PM (#10110654)
        And in the interviews and press he did leading up to Jay and Silent Bob he stressed that fact *repeatedly*. I remember him saying on several occasions that he expected the film to completely tank because he "made it for (himself) and the twelve people who obsess over all the minutiae in (his) other movies."

    • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Informative)

      by falcon5768 ( 629591 ) <Falcon5768@comca ... t minus caffeine> on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:54PM (#10110390) Journal
      Actually if you knew ANYTHING.... the movie is more something for Jay.... Smith promiced him one last Jay and Silent Bob movie if he cleaned up his act and straightened up... a year later, hes delivering. Hes not really doing it for the money (the guy is loaded you know, not just cause of his moives, but from his stores and from his comic books) hes doing it more for himself, Jay, and the other original players who are all on board to do it.... Hes ALSO been dropping hints about it for over a year now, ever since the 10th aniversary edition of Clerks was planned.... so hes not just jumping into this.
      • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dubiousmike ( 558126 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:45PM (#10110875) Homepage Journal
        I wouldn't say that Jay has had his act cleaned up for a year now. There were many of us who saw him in Jerky's in Providence, RI as little as 9 months ago going out to the parking lot to do heroin and then coming back in all fucked up.

        That said, he wasn't as much of a jerk as I expected. He had plenty of hot bitches milling around, but looking at him, it was all about "star power" and nothing about presenting himself in a way that someone who didn't know him would give the junkie a second look.
    • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jhon ( 241832 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:03PM (#10110470) Homepage Journal
      Hey! I liked Jersey Girl! Sure it was sappy, but hey -- I'm about the same age as Smith. I was able to relate to what he thought was important/funny way-back when, and I was able to relate to what he thought was important/funny some 10 years later with Jesery Girl.

      The idea of a Clerks sequal is both cool and scary at the same time.
    • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:10PM (#10110533) Journal
      To me, this represents Kevin Smith taking the final plunge into sheer hackdom.

      Whatever. It's not like Kevin Smith (or most of the other folks that get this criticism) ever pretended to anything other than hackdom. He wanted to make movies that entertained people, & he wants to get paid. I swear, someday someone's going to say that Adam Sandler, or Affleck & Damon "sold out" and I'm going to spontaneously combust in frustration. It can't be "selling out" if their original goal was popular success & money.
      • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mateito ( 746185 )
        someday someone's ging to say that Adam Sandler, or Affleck & Damon "sold out"

        Adam Sandler sold out!

        (happy now?)

        Seriously, I hated Adam Sandler until I saw his performance in Punch Drunk Love [imdb.com]. Everything else I've ever seen him: Waterboy, Big Daddy, Little Nicky; make me feel like gnawing off my own limbs.

        Maybe he's made other good movies, but I'm not going to invest a huge amount of time trying to find out what they are.

    • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by asoap ( 740625 )
      How was Clerks edgey? Watch it again, it is pure toilet humor.

      "Are you wanting to make fuck... BERZERKER!!!!"

      Common.. Kevin Smith's work is toilet humor and mixed in with social commentary. Jersey Girl was different. It was meant to be a cute movie. It's a bloody romantic comedy/drama. Don't be bitter because you watched the movie expecting mall rats, and got a "cute" movie.

      I get annoyed when people bitch about how people like George Lucas keeps on peddeling old shit over and over again, but whe

    • by krog ( 25663 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:16PM (#10110582) Homepage
      "All you motherfuckers are gonna pay, You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches. Once we get to Slashdot and find those karma-whore fucks who are talking shit, we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all fucking next."
    • Snoogins (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BRock97 ( 17460 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:23PM (#10110643) Homepage
      Dude, seriously.

      It is hard to take your comments seriously when you are so obviously biased against Smith and his films. It's too bad you don't like his work, but give the man credit. He is one of the few responsible for revitalizing the independent movie seen in the early to mid 90's (if you don't believe me, give Down and Dirty Pictures [amazon.com] a read, good stuff).

      But, to take some of your comments to point:
      • "None of his movies lived up to the expectations that naturally came about as a result of the edginess of the original Clerks..."

        I have to say you are wrong here. Chasing Amy was even more edgy than Clerks could have hoped to be. The story line was much better defined, the characters had more depth, and the ending was a great punch in the face. Fantastic story. Dogma, besides having a sh!t monster that really didn't belong, was a great look at faith. Not quite as edgy as Clerks, but great characters and story. In both of these examples, Smith excels in two areas: being able to get his point across and great dialog.
      • "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was just a series of in-jokes for the rabid Kevin Smith fans."

        So the hell what? Smith never said it was going to be his most brilliant work (but it was his funniest, IMHO). In fact, he always said it was going to be for the fans, nothing more. How can you hold that against the movie when even the writer/director said it wasn't going to be any more than somethign for the fans?
      • "And wasn't that supposed to be the last movie set in the "View Askewniverse""

        Yes, it was. But, something occurred that Smith didn't expect. Jersey Girl was a failure. It did OK in the box office, but I expect he was hoping it would be his transition from "dick and fart" movies to something more sophisticated. That didn't happen; the audience didn't show up. For anyone that would be a huge blow, mentally. So, he decides to go back to what he knows he can do best. Most people would do the same in his place. I, for one, won't have a problem with that, either. As for the comparison between him and Lucas, that analogy doesn't fit. Lucas is making huge bucks from the Star Wars franchise, and he will continue to do so even if VII, VIII, and IX aren't made. The fact that he probably will, though, indicates a want to milk his creation. In what I have read from the above book, I believe that Smith isn't like that, he makes the movies to make movies, cause he loves doing it.
      As you can imagine, I am a huge Smith fan and my posting was just as biased as yours. But, I think both sides needed to be stated.
      • Chasing Amy that is. I thought it was trite, badly done and badly acted. I keep wondering if it didn't have a lesbian getting laid, would it be as popular as it is.
    • Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:30PM (#10110716) Homepage
      None of his movies lived up to the expectations that naturally came about as a result of the edginess of the original Clerks

      That's because the hype around Clerks was insane. The reason why Clerks worked was because we were sitting around a low-point in movie-making. Everything was big-budget and no one bothered to write a script. Clerks, on the other hand, was nothing but a script. The movie had no budget and the acting stank. Part of the charm was specifically that the poor production values lead to a feeling of sincerity and fun.

      So you take the guy who made that movie, throw him in a spotlight, and give him a huge budget, and, what?... you think the goodness of his movies is supposed to be proportionate to his budget?

      Clerks was never a filmmaking masterpiece. It's more of a fun footnote in filmmaking history than a chapter unto itself. So he goes from making a charming funny little movie that's kinda crappy but pretty funny to making bigger-budget movies that are still only pretty funny, and you complain like he's a sellout because he didn't stick to what he was good at. He tries to go back to his roots, to do something that he might actually be good at, and you complain that he's a sellout again, because he's just trying to recreate his earlier success.

      Get over it. He's just a regular guy trying to make movies, and if you had the opportunity, you'd do it too. Clerks was not Star Wars, so even if he destroys the legacy of Clerks, he hasn't done the cultural damage Lucas has. I doubt he even thinks he's making masterpieces, so I'm not sure what the bellyaching is about.

  • by romper ( 47937 ) * on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:48PM (#10110318)
    "Try not to suck any dick on the way out of the parking lot!"

    More quotes [prolix.nu].

  • Barely Clerkin? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andyrut ( 300890 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:48PM (#10110323) Homepage Journal
    Currently titled "The Passion of the Clerks"

    At the end of one of Kevin Smith's movies, it stated that the title of the Clerks sequel would be Clerks 2: Barely Clerkin'. Guess they decided not to stick with that.

    I really enjoyed the format and bad acting in the original Clerks ("You ever notice that all the prices end in nine? Damn, that's eerie."). I hope the sequel returns to Smith's roots a bit, instead of being some highly-produced lets-see-how-many-stars-we-can-put-in-this-flick movie like his recent ones.
    • Re:Barely Clerkin? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kid-noodle ( 669957 )
      He's on the low budget bit of his cycle again, he makes a low budget hit (Clerks), then a huge budget flop (Mallrats), then gets busted down to a low budget again (Amy), so on ad infinitum. So he's back to doing this one on about $500,000 (he says), after mistakenly casting J-lo and Affleck.

      And I thought it was Clerks 2: Hardly Clerkin'?

      I feel a bit sorry for him really - he will never escape Jay & Bob. Just look what happens when he tries (and after he swore to never make another one in the Jersey
    • Clerks 2: Electric Boogaloo
    • Re:Barely Clerkin? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FCAdcock ( 531678 )
      They didn't put huge stars in the movies. They put Kevin Smith's friends who all got their start in his movies in them.
      • Re:Barely Clerkin? (Score:3, Informative)

        by andyrut ( 300890 )
        They didn't put huge stars in the movies. They put Kevin Smith's friends who all got their start in his movies in them.

        Shannen Doherty (Beverly Hills 90210)
        Janeane Garofalo (SNL, a number of movies before Dogma)
        Chris Rock (standup)
        George Carlin (standup)
        Will Ferrell (SNL, more than a dozen movies)
        Jon Stewart (Daily Show)
        Tracy Morgan (SNL)
        James van der Beek (Dawson's Creek)
        Jason Biggs (American Pie)
        Carrie Fisher (Star Wars, etc.)
        Mark Hamill (Star Wars)
        Wes Craven (director)
        Alanis Morissette (singer)
        Salma H
  • Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:49PM (#10110327) Homepage Journal
    Just don't accidentally suck any dick on the way to the theater! :)
    • Re:Awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by applemasker ( 694059 )
      If you haven't integrated Clerks into your personal lexicon, you have no business moderating here. Parent is not offtopic if you've seen the movie.

      In a row?

  • Never say Never... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slusich ( 684826 ) * <slusichNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#10110341)
    Kevin Smith had said that he'd never revisit the world of Jay and Silent Bob after he finished shooting "Strike Back". I'm really glad he reconsidered. This'll be a movie worth seeing. Hopefully Mewes can stay out of rehab/jail long enough to shoot it.
    • I thought he said they would never play Jay and Silent Bob again, not that they'd never visit that world.

      But I haven't had any coffee today, so I may be remembering wrong.
      • by MrP- ( 45616 ) * <jessica AT supjessica DOT com> on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#10110490)
        He said that.

        In fact, after the credits for Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, God (alanis morissette) closes the jersey "trilogy" book

        I think what happened is Jersey Girl didn't do so well, so he's scared to do big budget movies now. He's thinking of dropping out as director of The Green Hornet for example.

        At the end of Dogma he said there would a Clerks 2 (called "Hardly Clerkin"), but that turned into J&SB:SB.

        All I know is, I could care less for the reasons, I'm just so happy there will be a Clerks 2

        I wonder if it'll continue some plot threads from the animated series, that would be cool.
    • His non-J&SB movie pretty much flopped, and well, he hasn't had much luck with anything except Clerks being positively received by the public. Why not?

      It's a shame, he's got a good sense of humor and a novel approach to movie making. Here's hoping he can get back into the groove.
  • Man... (Score:3, Funny)

    by kjones692 ( 805101 ) <the.cyborganizerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#10110344)
    Watching this movie is gonna be like having sex with a dead guy. (kidding, Clerks is awesome)
  • by sexygirl.jpg.vbs ( 777027 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#10110350)
    ten years later and still a clerk....must be nice to have that kind of job security
  • What role is Ramzi (Hacking with Ramzi) gonna play???
  • by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:51PM (#10110358)
    I've always been a huge fan of Kevin Smith's movies. I read that "Jersey Girl" was going to be his first "real" movie that he hoped would be spectacular and wow the critics. It wasn't, however, so I guess this means he's going back to what he knows best and everybody loves...dick and fart jokes.

    Clerks is a great movie for anyone who hasn't already seen it. If you've ever worked in a convenience or video store, you'll laugh your ass off.
    • Essentially this happened [fact-index.com]

      It did make $25,266,129 source [the-numbers.com], which is better than Gigli (US Gross, $6,087,542, Production Budget $54,000,000). Sure it's not a Kevin Smith movie, but it's got the same goofy actors. source [the-numbers.com]

    • by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#10110491) Homepage
      Wait wait, I thought it wasn't for critics [penny-arcade.com].
    • Just not if you were a critic. It lost major critic points for being "formulaic", but for young people, it really was a romantic comedy that was superior to most romantic comedies. Better dialogue, more depth of character, and J Lo dies. What more could you ask for?

      The problem Kevin has is that he can't possibly be as "successful" dealing with fare other people have dealt with before (Mallrats (teen mall movie)/J&SBSB(road trip movie)/Jersey Girl(romantic comedy)) as he can be with dealing with stuff no one has done before. There was no other movie like Clerks when Clerks was made, as there was no movie like Dogma or Chasing Amy either. It's not that some of the movies are "better" than the others, they're just more "successful" because they're not compared to other similar successful movies that happened to have come first.

      People like me, in their 20's to early 30's, appreciate what Kevin makes, "unique" or not, as being more appropriate for our age group. That's not good for box office success, and it's often not good for great critical acclaim, but it's nice to have generation-specific fare for those of us in that age range.

      It's not like the video clerk would give a customer a pity screw in a romantic comedy your parents would go see, is it?

      Great movies can be quite "unsuccessful", especially if you're not trying to make a movie that is only going to be great for a certain group of people. It's sad that so many people only measure a movie's success against the opinion of the general population.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:51PM (#10110361)
    You know, Kevin Smith *was* a great movie masterpiece creator until recently. I don't know if it is because of his direct link to Bennifer, or that he has just decided to sell out after 10 years, or that Jay and Silent Bob made the jerk-off teens thrilled with his work, but I am overly disappointed with the news of this movie being made.

    It's bad enough that we have 5 or 6 different DVDs for every movie ever made (Digitally Enhanced, Collectors Edition, Gold Edition, Platinum Edition, Boxed Platinum, ad nauseum) but do we really need to make a fucking sequel of every god damn movie that found even partial success either in the theatre or cult/home markets? Baby Geniuses 2 (I didn't even know this movie had a first installment but I was informed that the first one was terrible) comes out and they wonder why a movie shelved for two years (Hero) rakes in unexpected dollars and a lame fucking sequel sucks it up with 3.3 million total?

    Let me guess the pirates are to blame for the theft of money AND decent movies. They are the reasons we have to make duplicate copies of everything playing off the same old lines that the first one had and only adding jokes relating to their ages in the next? Baby Geniuses 4, BG's Grandchildren go to Montessori?

    I loved Clerks and it was the first movie I seriously remember being sore from laughter after seeing. I think I have watched it more than any other movie I don't own. Do we really need its status as a cult classic scarred by some overpriced, overhyped, overaged wannabe sequel? If he really loves the fanbase he created he would listen to us on this one. It's a bad idea for all those involved, seriously.
    • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:10PM (#10110536)
      From this [viewaskew.com] forum post by Kevin:

      There are gonna be lots of folks expressing disappointment or downright hostility with the idea of this movie. Let 'em vent. If it's all that bad, Xtian will just sweep it off the board. But the last thing I'm interested in is opinions on what I'm doing this early in the process, if at all. The beauty of making that first flick was being able to do it in a vacuum. Granted, I could've kept my mouth shut about it 'til we were done shooting; but with "Clerks X" coming out, it just felt right to share. Regardless - I don't want folks running here with reports of what's being said about the idea of this film at other boards. Don't waste your/my time with the braying of the jackasses. There's not even a movie to bray about yet. Once there is, if you still still feel the need to tell me what some random, knuckle-headed Talk Backer has to say about the finished product, then God bless. But until then, leave it in the locker room.

      Well since there are no girls on Slashdot I'll consider this the "locker room".

      If it's not terribly related to Clerks other than the cast why can't you come up with some other completely different name for it? Why must it hang on the success of the first one?

      How about you do it on a shoestring budget again? You know the studios will pick it up and they will be especially thrilled if they don't have to shell out millions to the pirates.

      As for the rest of his comment I will keep quiet (as he asks) until I see the final result.
      • From the same post that you take your quote from you can see that:

        - The characters are the same- not just the cast. It won't be a rehash, it will be a new storyline for the same characters.

        -He is doing it on a shoestring budget, under 5mil. The first was cheap because he didn't have to pay salary. Now he feels like being nice to these people.
      • Now THAT'S cool. When was the last time you saw George Lucas hanging out with a bunch of Star Wars fanboys answering their annoying questions about "Episode 3: How I Shat On Your Childhood Memories" or whatever other piece of junk he's making these days?

        I guess if he had, he might have actually made a movie people wanted to see.

    • Darth Vader being Luke's father traumatized you pretty bad, huh?

      Or was it the death of Spock?

      Some second installments are really good.
    • by Bullet-Dodger ( 630107 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @07:16PM (#10113142)
      Jay and Silent Bob are terrible, one-note jokes that only stoners laugh at. They're fucking clown shoes. If they were real, I'd beat the shit out of them for being so stupid. I can't believe Miramax would have anything to do with this shit. I, for one, will be boycotting this movie. Who's with me?
  • Again? (Score:5, Funny)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:51PM (#10110364)
    Am I missing something? I thought I already saw the sequel. It was called Mall Rats . . . No, Chasing Amy . . . No, wait, it was called Dogma. Maybe Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back? I'm so confused.
    • Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)

      by falcon5768 ( 629591 ) <Falcon5768@comca ... t minus caffeine> on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:01PM (#10110449) Journal
      no they where all in the same universe, but not sequals per se. Clerks always advertised a clerks two... as did Mallrats advertise Dogma as its sequal (which infact it wasnt, chaising amy cam after) what it boiled down to was Smith wrote a lot of the screenplays at the same time, but had to build up a rep to put out the one he really wanted to (Dogma) due to its religious nature
  • by dnaboy ( 569188 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:52PM (#10110367)
    From the movie... People say crazy shit during sex. One time I called this girl "Mom."

    Or, among slashdot readers, I once called this computer "girlfriend"...

  • by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:52PM (#10110369) Journal
    Apart from the "parking lot" quote, my favorite line was:

    Dante (furious): 37! My girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!

    Customer: In a row?

    I still chuckle at that bit ten years later.
  • I thought Kevin Smith stated the "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" was to be the last time those characters (Jay and Silent Bob) where to be seen in a film. I guess money will make you do funny things. I wonder if this film will be in black and white as well.
    • Things change, but I think this is more about a good story or at least a potetially thought provoking topic.

      I think when you get attached to a character, you wonder what happens next.

      The other thing is lots of people around 30 (like me) are wondering what have I done with my life and where am I going. This is a good way to talk about the question, with existing characters in the same situation.
  • by sane? ( 179855 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:52PM (#10110379)
    Why not go to the source [viewaskew.com], rather than CNN, on this one.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Jay: All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches. Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax fucks who are making that movie, we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you motherfucks are next. Love, Jay and Silent Bob.
  • watch? (Score:2, Funny)

    by diottam ( 442530 )
    I assure you, I will watch this film.
  • Aramaic (Score:4, Funny)

    by MikeMacK ( 788889 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:53PM (#10110384)
    "The Passion of the Clerks"

    And I understand it will be filmed entirely in Aramaic.

  • by puto ( 533470 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:54PM (#10110397) Homepage
    When I first saw this I was going to think he was trying to make a quick buck.

    Then I thought about Kevin Smith. And I think he just going to make a movie with some friends, and have a good time. You never can go home, but you can sure as hell visit.

    Things I would like to see in the movie.

    1. Jays cussing Olaf with his Berserker song become a star.
    2. Randall come out of the closet.
    3. Randall as Dantes boss.
    4. Silent Bob having a love Child with Kaitleen bree.
    5. Another Hockey game on the roof" any balls down there, BOUT THE BIGGEST PAIR YOU WILL EVER SEE"
    6. What number of dicks Dantes ex is actually on now.

  • by tendram ( 772505 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @01:55PM (#10110401)
    How long are Daredevil: Target and Spider-Man and Black Cat overdue now? 2 Years?
    • At the Chicago Comic-Con he was very apologetic about both. And the mini-posters for J&SSB... He's AWARE of all those things but freely admitted that they aren't at the top of his priority list. As we in the audience for his Q&A reminded him of the old stuff he hadn't finished, he ran off his list of priorities.

      What he *DID* say was at the top of his priority list - and I'm not making this shit up - was a two-part guest starring role in "Degrassi: The Next Generation". He said he wanted to direct a
      • I'll take Joey Jeremiah and the Zit Remedy over Jay and Silent Bob any frickin day of the week.

        Snake, Wheels, Joey.. The madcap adventures. Remember when they bought that case of beer? (One case for a party with about 50 people at it). Of course, they got busted and learned a valuable lesson.

        Or when Joey sold the fake drugs to that chick who then ran around pretending to be high? "Degrassi Grass". Heh, classic. Yick Yew the disorganized. So many good times, and so many well-deserved naps in "social
  • I'm not particularly a fan, but I say kudos to Kevin Smith for returning to his roots. Let's hope he hasn't forgotten them. I did like Clerks, but his movies got (IMHO) substanially worse as they went along. Probably in direct proportion to the budget, star power and expectations he was given.

    But then, he's not the only director recently to have a great first movie and then never live up to the promise again (though at least Smith's retain his trademark style, love it or don't... Others are all to quic
  • by Mateito ( 746185 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:02PM (#10110461) Homepage
    In the new version, Dante shoots first.

    (If this makes no sense, look for the original "alternate" ending to Clerks.)
  • "Quick buck"?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:02PM (#10110463) Homepage
    How exactly do you make quick money on a sequel to a movie that barely made any money?!

    A good example of making quick money in movies is the new AvP movie. You start with a movie that made lots of money. You then create a cheap sequel. Fans of the first will see it even though they know it'll be crap. And because it was made cheaply, it will profit regardless.

    Making a sequel out of Clerks is a HUGE monetary risk. Considering that hardly anyone has seen the original, the sequel will have to make money on is own merit.
    • Re:"Quick buck"?! (Score:3, Informative)

      by dswensen ( 252552 ) *
      I think not.

      Box office data for Clerks [imdb.com]

      The movie made over 10 times its budget at the box office. Very few movies can say that. Plus, the movie has to do huge bank on video, as where I live I haven't been able to rent it for ten years, as it's always sold out of every rental joint.
  • come on..
    you can't top that...

  • Huh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:06PM (#10110500) Journal
    I thought Mall Rats, Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob strike back were all "sequels" to Clerks.

    Kevin Smith is a one-trick pony whos films get less and less impressive each time out.

    Clerks wasn't a great movie, IMO, it just sort of struck one of those cult chords. I know a lot of my friends were going on about it like it was genious or something, myself I thought it was just a cheap indy film with a handful of funny moments.

    I'd imagine those who were so in love with it 10 years ago feelings have faded somewhat. Kind of like the Star Wars movies. The fans grew up, got too old to give a shit about SW anymore, and the younger kids couldn't give a shit or get into it at all.

    I wouldn't call Rocky Horror Picture Show a great movie either, but it's obviously a cult hit with a lot of legs left in it. But going to the show in drag on Hallowe'en and throwing toast at the bride is one thing. Paying 10 bucks to see the 10-year-delayed (cash grab) sequel is another.

    I dunno. Smith, Damon and Affleck, these guys are supposed to be so young and hip and scary talented that they're going to take over Hollywood and change cinema forever. I really don't see where all the talent is, myself. Throw Tarantino on that list too. Pulp Fiction was his only flick I can say I really enjoyed watching.
    • Re:Huh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MisterSquid ( 231834 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:56PM (#10111004)

      Throw Tarantino on that list too.

      This is a bit OT, but not if we're talking about overhyped, super "macho," directors. Tarantino is a directorial null device. The only film of his worth a damn is Reservoir Dogs. The writing, the acting, and the grit of the film come together in a way they do not in any of Tarantino's other films. The recent Kill Bill films are a travesty, though mildly interesting from a cinematic perspective (i.e. millions of dollars jettisoned on the whims of an undertalented first-film-was-a-hit director). Tarantino's single virute (and not one to be sneeze at) is that despite being unable to write and direct a proper film, he has perfect cinematic taste.

      He understands John Woo like no other American director. He knows that violence can be ultra sexy in a way that only the Wachowski brothers did in The Matrix (forget Reloaded and Revolutions which are interesting for different reasons). Tarantino did something amazing with Reservoir Dogs and has since been unable to equal that effort. Pulp Fiction is somewhat interesting, ending as it does with an superb and enigmatic subplot. Pure narrative beauty, reminiscent of the Coen Brothers (at their best) and Lynch. (My big question is whatever happened to Atom Egoyan? Soderbergh lost his edge.)

      Swerving somewhat back on topic. Smith's work is somewhat a one-trick pony, sure. His stuff feels the same, but he is much more skilled a story-teller than Tarantino has proven himself to be.

  • by mcguyver ( 589810 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:10PM (#10110531) Homepage
    Usually people will go back to a guaranteed success after a failure. Kevin Smith does Jersey Girl, comes out with Clerks 2. I'm not a big enough movie buff to comment on other examples but I'm sure they exist in movies such as Jurassic Park 3 and the Batman series. This type of thinking is bringing us such greats as the Star Wars prequals and Indiana Jones 4.
  • by DumbWhiteGuy777 ( 654327 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:10PM (#10110535)
    Surely you jest. No way would he would indulge in illegal goods.
  • by mconeone ( 765767 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:12PM (#10110553)
    Will it still be in black & white?
  • So, um (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:13PM (#10110554) Homepage
    Not to give any spoilers or anything, but does this mean that the Clerks "original ending" (it's provided on the DVD as a deleted scene) is now officially non-canon?

  • by psyconaut ( 228947 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:20PM (#10110615)
    Here... [viewaskew.com] -psy
  • uh-oh (Score:4, Funny)

    by bman08 ( 239376 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @02:26PM (#10110670)
    This story calls for me to summon the mighty and unstoppable might of the all powerful Who Cares.

    Also, didn't he promise to retire jay and sbob after their terrible solo movie?

  • Ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dswensen ( 252552 ) * on Monday August 30, 2004 @04:58PM (#10112148) Homepage
    "It's about what happens when that lazy, 20-something malaise lasts into your 30s. Those dudes are kind of still mired, not in that same exact situation, but in a place where it's time to actually grow up and do something more than just sit around and dissect pop culture and talk about sex," Smith said during an interview at his Hollywood office.

    I find this supremely funny. Kevin Smith, God bless him, has done nothing but revisit the same characters, gags, and environments for the past 10 years. So is this movie about "growing up" supposed to be prescient in some fashion? Because I see no evidence of Smith doing anything of the sort in his body of work thus far.

    Dissecting pop culture and talking about sex is what's made Kevin Smith his fortune, and now, apparently, he's too good for it? What did I miss?

    Don't get me wrong. I love Kevin Smith's movies, and Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, arguably his worst film, is actually my favorite. I have no quarrel with being preoccupied with sex, drugs, pop culture, and extremely over-tired Star Wars jokes. But at least be honest about your tastes.

    It will be interesting to see what he does with this material -- I don't care if he makes a buck off it or not (more power too him), but Smith could come off as something of a hypocritical ass if he's not careful. (Not that he will care what critics have to say about him, of course -- another thing I like about Smith.)
  • by Darth RadaR ( 221648 ) on Monday August 30, 2004 @05:07PM (#10112223) Journal
    I think it'd be interesting if Randall and Dante somehow ended up in IT doing hell-desk or Systems Administration. Just picture Randall, the BOFH.

    Randall: This job would be great if it wasn't for the fscking (l)users.

    Randall: I'm firm believer in a ruling class, especially since I have root.

    Randall: (yelling at retreating luser) You're not allowed on my network here anymore.
  • Okay, here's how I see it. See the problem everyone has with some of his work. However, I then jump to the fan boards (which I decided to visit because I was interested in their reaction) and they all love the idea.

    This is typically slashdot critique. Pan something you don't like because there's nothing more pleasing to a slashdotter than laying down some negative criticism because the topic doesn't mean your vaunted ideals of what the topic should be all about.

    Compared to a lot of directors, Kevin is poor. The man was doing DVD writer commercials for crissake. Did Spielberg ever do a commercial? EVER? I saw Steven pop up in some charity work, but the man doesn't need to do commercials to make money. So you can't say Kevin is doing this for money.

    Second, Kevin's flicks don't appeal to everyone. He's writing what he wants and what he loves, and he recognizes not everything he writes is perfect. Lucas is an ego maniac driving himself to this one vision that no one can stop him. Kevin isn't writing epics. He's writing a story he feel he needs to tell. No huge gaping plot holes that don't make sense, no timeline gafs. I can't say any movie, good or bad, that kevin has done has had the same kind of cheesy dialog that episode I or II had of star wars (and I'm a star wars fan saying that!)

    Finally, to get some of the stuff, that has to be your in crowd. People are expecting some kind of meaning in all of his movies the way dogma did. That's horseshit. The meaning in most of his movies has to do with the area he grew up in, that small section of north jersey. If that's your thing you are into it and you like it. I personally identify with all this spacey Star wars/trek/babylon 5/farscape/Stargate stuff because sci fi and fantasy are my thing. I only liked Dogma, Jay and silent bob strike back, and Chasing amy, but that's because I couldn't identify with the other flicks. They couldn't keep my interest. Chasing Amy would have made a brillant indie film, Dogma made a huge universal religious statement, with lots of great jabs at the institution, and strike back was just fun, even if it was kinda corny. None of those really had a need to be into the culture Kevin and his fans are so deeply into.

    I think Kevin is just making things that appeal to him and thanks to the great capitalistic system he's finding a way to get those films released. They are not all run away successes, yet some people truly love them because they identify with those flicks.

    I started taking offense when the slashdot hounds started comparing Kevin to the hollywood ego directors like Lucas and Tarantino. These people need to get some perspective.

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.