It appears if Mr. De Niro had his way The Good Shepherd would have two follow up films. We get wind of his desire thanks to an interview excerpt from our friends at ropeofsilicon:
De Niro said he would like to make two sequels to CIA Cold War drama “The Good Shepherd” — one bringing the action forward from 1961 to 1989, the other following its hero, Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), up to the present day.
Although he is not working on research for the concluding parts of the hoped-for trilogy, De Niro said being in central Europe offered a good opportunity to begin thinking about the material. “I had not been planning to do research on that while here, but it is a good idea,” he said.
Just after I commended Rogen for turning away a Superbad sequel, we have De Niro pitching a Good Shepherd trilogy. Now I must come clean and announce that I haven’t seen The Good Shepherd so I have no idea if it’ s suited for a trilogy. For those of you that have seen the film; is this a trilogy that you would like to see, or should they leave well enough alone?
The source article goes on to mention that no writers were mentioned, and no one else seems to know about follow up films other that De Niro. This very well could just be wishful thinking on his part. When wishful thinking is announced in front of the press in this day and age – it now circles the globe tenfold.
Eventually it will get to the point where a celebrity will say “I hate sandwiches” and there will be a round table discussion on CNN.
I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good. The film although didn’t really have much of a conclusion. You kind of feel that things are just getting started with the CIA, and I for one would love to see more of the CIA being started. So I am for the sequals and I trust Mr. Deniro with directing because so far, he is two for two (A Bronx Tale and The Good Shepherd).
this movie sucked lame. if it’s made into a trilogy, there needs to be more action. i didn’t feel the weight or magnitude of the characters and their particular situations and the skull cult could have had so much more mystique instead they just bamboozled through everyone here’s one scene now the next and next and so on
these characters need to be badasses for what they do. and what they do is supposed to be more important than anything. the dual identities these people have should emphasize their silent suffering from coming to terms with their actions stemming from their past, present, and future.
if you fall asleep at a movie, you’re either really tired or the movie is really lame. chances are you’re not an idiot and have spent money on something you will be awake for. with that in mind this movie is awful.
Done right, there could be a sequel or two IMO without completely ruining the first and it might even work. I mean, the CIA has no shortage of interesting history to tap into and so there is plenty of source material to make for some interesting cinema.
On the flip side of the same token, I think it would be a better idea for De Niro to just make those movies without directly linking them to The Good Shepard. Just three separate movies dealing with different periods in the history of the CIA. As Paul said, The Good Shepard was a nicely contained story that really tied up everything with the Matt Damon character pretty well by the end.
As for the pace, I didn’t mind it a bit. As long as a movie remains interesting, I don’t think lots of explosions or quick pacing is required.
I think that the first film is a pretty complete look at Matt Damon’s character, and the film ends pretty late in the guys life, after a tragic event on the order of magnitude befitting a Greek tragedy. I don’t know what can top it, unless it gets into Matrix sized events, and that would just make the original look small in its quiet realism. And frankly, what I liked about the film is that it doesn’t insult your intelligence, it was a movie that didn’t bonk you over you head with its message. Also, I like that De Niro had the courage to make a thoughtful, deep and, yes, slow but nevertheless correctly paced film that demanded you pay attention. I wish more films, and more filmmakers were like that.
But then I really like the old russian version of Solaris. The new Clooney version was too shallow and glitzy. :)
A Trilogy? He could have made a Trilogy out of the entire movie and just explained things better. I swear, I watched it three times and I still don’t get it. Granted, I’m not that bright to begin with.
Yeah Doug, I have this on dvd but I still havnt watched it yet.
Along with about 20 other films. ;-(
I could see how they could do a film franchise on the cia.
Will it be acurate NO, but maybe entertaining.
i thought the movie was ok. it’s something that i can’t fault for not having alot of action because it’s supposed to be a true story, but i was really bored watching this, if i can remember it was 3hrs or so. i wouldn’t be mad if he made another one. i prolly wouldn’t watch it