I had no problem whatever with the concept of a "Thirty Days of Night" sequel, else-wise I never would have rented it, but the people who approved it, never mind those who "wrote" it, must've been towering idiots. How the *bleep* do you title a movie "Thirty Days of Night" and then set it in Los Angeles? There's not even 24 hours worth of night in L.A. for *bleep*'s sake, never mind thirty days.
I understand they were capitalizing on a title that already had some mojo, which I do not have an issue with in principle, but if you call the picture "Thirty Days of Night" you have to be capable of supplying THIRTY...DAYS...OF...NIGHT. If you're incapable of maintaining the premise you, yourself, have set in the title of the movie you need to either not write the movie or change the title, end of sentence!
I understand they were capitalizing on a title that already had some mojo, which I do not have an issue with in principle, but if you call the picture "Thirty Days of Night" you have to be capable of supplying THIRTY...DAYS...OF...NIGHT. If you're incapable of maintaining the premise you, yourself, have set in the title of the movie you need to either not write the movie or change the title, end of sentence!