'Independence Day' sequel: We know the cast – is there still an appetite for disaster movies?

We now know which 'Independence Day' cast members will be returning and which new stars have signed on, but do audiences still want to see landmark-destroying movies?

Joel Ryan/Invision/AP
Jeff Goldblum arrives on the red carpet for the screening of the film 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' at the 64th Berlinale International Film Festival in Berlin.

We now know some of the stars who will appear in the sequel to the 1996 movie “Independence Day.” 

According to director Roland Emmerich, original star Jeff Goldblum will be appearing in the sequel. Emmerich tweeted that both Goldblum and Liam Hemsworth of the “Hunger Games” films will be starring in the movie. 

Actor Jessie Usher, who has appeared in “Survivor’s Remorse” and “When the Game Stands Tall,” among other work, will appear in the movie as the son of Will Smith’s character from the original movie, Captain Steven Hiller, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The “Independence Day" sequel is set to be released in 2016. 

“Independence” centers on aliens attacking Earth. The film followed a large ensemble cast that included President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman), pilot Steven Hiller (Will Smith), and tech expert David Levinson (Goldblum), among others. The movie became the highest-grossing film of the year and Emmerich went on to direct such movies as the 2013 film “White House Down,” the 2009 movie “2012,” 2004’s “The Day After Tomorrow,” and the 2000 movie “The Patriot.”

So will an “Independence Day" sequel do well when it comes out? The power of nostalgia should never be underestimated – many audience members who remember the first movie will probably seek out the sequel just out of curiosity.

It will be interesting to see how the movie does at the box office, however. Emmerich’s movie “White House” grossed less than the film “Olympus Has Fallen,” a movie released months earlier which featured a very similar premise (man protects president when White House is attacked). And “Independence” is still Emmerich’s highest-grossing movie, according to the website Box Office Mojo. The movie “2012,” which was based on the premise that various geological disasters occurred in the year of the title, included similar sequences to “Independence” and “Tomorrow” in which well-known landmarks are destroyed and various natural disasters occur. Neither “Tomorrow” nor “2012” grossed as much as “Independence,” with ticket costs adjusted for inflation, and in contrast to the triumph of "Independence," "2012" was the 15th-highest-grossing movie of the year, while "Tomorrow" was seventh-highest.

Whether audiences will enjoy a new movie in a similar vein comes down to whether they need a good story to go along with those special effects. Some critics enjoyed "2012," Emmerich's most recent disaster movie, with Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times calling the movie “fun," Variety critic Todd McCarthy writing that the effects are "sensational," and Stephen Farber of the Hollywood Reporter called the visual effects "eye-popping." But even most of those who gave the movie a positive review said the film's script was silly. McCarthy wrote that "on any level other than as sheer visual sensation, '2012' is a joke," while Farber noted that "the cheesy script fails to live up to the grandeur of the physical production." Monitor film critic Peter Rainer agreed, writing, "Every cliché, every bad idea, every thudding line of dialogue, is redolent of other earlier epic clinkers."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.