Gotta love the Hollywood casting process. Last week we were all here talking about the possibility of Chris Pine and secretly hoping for Jensen Ackles. Now, it looks like neither of them is really in the running if the report from Deadline Hollywood can be believed.

Marvel Studios and Joe Johnston have released their target list for the role of Captain America, and we are talking an almost entirely new set of names from the ones we saw before. Here’s the revamped collection of contenders:

Chace Crawford (GOSSIP GIRL)
John Krasinski (THE OFFICE)
Scott Porter (FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS)
Mike Vogel (CLOVERFIELD)
Michael Cassidy (PRIVELDGED)
Patrick Flueger (BROTHERS)
Garrett Hedlund (TRON LEGACY)

For the most part this is in keeping withJohnston’s desire not to have a big star name in the lead. Krasinski is the one exception here, but of course, he’s also the one name thats there to give this list some credibility. Otherwise, you’d just have a bunch of confused faces scratching their heads and trying to recall the guys from Cloverfield and Friday Night Lights. Chace Crawford may be the other exception, but I’ve not seen Gossip Girl so I can’t comment.

Actually, Krasinski could be a good choice. He’s got some height, some charisma and it would be interesting to seem him pushed in a direction that wasn’t Jim from the Office or the background wallpaper in romantic comedies. He may also be the least likely candidate because of his schedule and potential asking price. I wish I could comment on the rest of these guys, but the only one I’ve seen more than once in something is Scott Porter. Garrett Hedlund is an unknown, but that may change by the time Tron Legacy rolls out. Who knows?

I’d like to put more stock in the list, and I’m pulling for Krasinski, but it seems entirely possible next week that we might learn they just said screw it and have decided that Ryan Reynolds can play every character in the movie.

How long is too long for a sequel? Really, how long do you think is too long for a sequel before it becomes something it shouldn’t be? 5 years? 10years? 15 years? 20 years or more?

Let me start off with the definition of what a Sequel truly is:

A sequel is a work of fiction in literature, film, and other creative media, that is produced after a completed work, and set in the same “universe”, usually following the events of the original. It continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings. A sequel is similar to a series, in which the same character appears in a number of stories, although the distinction is arbitrary, and some media franchises have enough sequels to effectively become a series, whether originally planned as such or not.

In the last couple of months we have seen a few sequels to well known films pop up. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Lost Boys 2, are just a few of the films being brought back from the dead. Lost Boys 2 is coming to a theater almost 20 years after its first debut. “Indiana Jones” is strapping on his hat one more time after a vacation of 19 years. And how can we not forget about “Terminator” making a come back in 2003 after a hiatus of over 12 years. These are just some of the sequels that make me wonder why?

Stallone has become the king of sequels with 2 films bringing in over 7 sequels all while creating two of the most likeable characters on film in Rocky and John Rambo. We can’t forget Rocky and his latest try for a belt almost 30 years after we first saw him in the ring in 1976.

Should “Rambo” stop killing hundreds of people in a few minutes time? Should “Rocky” stop getting punched so much? It looks like Rambo is coming back around for number 5!!

In my opinion yes! And a resounding “yes!” at that. After Rocky 4 it went downhill. Rambo should of been left alone after the second film.I hate to see a film made just to bring someone back from the “dead” for the sake of money. I know that is what the Studio’s do day in and day out but come on folks!

For all of you “Star Wars” fans out there… dare I say how bad the last three films were? The first three films recently given to us by Mr Lucas in my eyes ruined the franchise. The filming, acting, special effects etc all ruined the original experience after all of those years of loving something for what it was. The gap in between was too big and too long ago for it to be a success.

With actors such as Arnold, Harrison, Bruce (can’t forget the Die Hard series) and Sylvester growing older every second, is this a ploy to bring us the best in entertainment or just to make some extra cash on a name for the big studios?

Pros:

• Name: The name could bring back an audience.
• Story: If the writing was done well and the movie was a hit, why not try and bring back us more.

I think overall a sequel is a sure thing if done correctly with the same people involved as the 1st.

Cons:

• Sequels always have the possibility of going wrong. An actor doesn’t sign back on, the directing and or writing crew is no longer interested or time constraints wont allow for it.
• Lapse in audience. The audience may of outgrown their love or interest of the film or lost touch with it over time.

So when is enough, really enough? After 5 years? After 10 years? I understand there will always be the exception to the rule such as the production schedule or special effects etc, but when has enough time passed when we consider a film “dead” in the best sense of the word?

I know I have forgotten many classic sequels, horror sequels, films that should have not been made in the 1st place, but I have captured some of the characters in my mind that actually have places in the hearts of most movie addicts.
Questions to you, the readers:

What is the ultimate motive of folks involved with a sequel? Do we need a sequel after 30 years? Am I a horrible movie fan?

What are your thoughts? I would love to hear them!