I myself won't be seeing this movie.  How can you make a sequel to a movie that has become a Christmas Classic when there is almost 30 years in between?  I guess it takes place just a few years later in the story line and Ralphie wants a car for Christmas.  I don't remember the preview I read about it and I don't care to.

Several of the original cast members are deceased and even the great Bob Clark who Directed the movie had a Cameo in the original is sadly deceased.  It might have made sense if they did a sequel a few years later and this way could have used the same cast members, but now they are all grown up or deceased.  It's just not going to be the same.  They are bringing the leg lamp back too and we know from the original movie that "The Old Man" buried it in the back yard because the glue didn't hold it together.  And since it was a one of a kind in the movie, how can they resurrect it?

I have heard a lot of people expressing disdain for them making a sequel.  It would be like trying to make "The Santa Clause 4"  Too many years have passed now.  Sometimes it's better left alone.  Let us have our Classic Movie and leave the sequel alone.

Even remakes aren't anywhere near as good as the original because they don't stick to the original script word for word.  An example is the 1973 remake of "Miracle on 34th. Street" with David Hartman and Sebastian Cabot.  In the original, the Post Office decided it would be a great way of getting rid of all the dead letters to Santa Claus, but in the remake, the attorney, David Hartman went to the Post Office looking to see if they had any letters.

Also, the house that Kris got for Susan in the original didn't have a 4-sale sign on it if my memory is correct, and the 1973 version the house was for sale.  Even the 1994 remake, the house that was in the movie was owned my Cole's Department Store and it wasn't Macy's in the movie.  And it was given to Susan's mom for making the store such a success.  I only saw this version once and didn't like it so I might not have the facts exactly right.  But the 1973 version I have seen several times as well as the original 1947 version.

I'm sure there are people here looking forward to seeing the sequel, but this is just my opinion and I hope I haven't offended anyone.  We are all entitled to our opinions, and I just feel remakes don't do the original justice and then for a sequel that takes place only a few years after the original, but is done basically 30 years later, just doesn't make sense.  People like to see the same actors in the sequels and they are usually done fairly quickly after the initial movie was made.

Actually, in the original 1947 movie, there is a "SALE" sign on the lawn outside the house that you see after an excited Susan (Natalie Wood) jumps out of the car and begins her run up towards the house.

Later, as they are hugging each other during the closing scene inside the house, John Payne reminds Maureen O'Hara that "the sign outside says it's for sale" and that they can't disappoint her daughter Susan.

Chip,

Sorry about that edited post...I actually answered my own question about that 1955 TV version right after I mentioned it. However, I didn't know about the other 1959 TV version which has peaked my interest!

Susan,

I admit that I've thought about those very same things over the years. But I've also come to realize that I don't think we're supposed to know the answers to those questions in MIRACLE ON 34th STREET. Without leaving us to wonder for ourselves, the story fails on so many levels. Not knowing for sure, but still believing, seems to be the real premise behind the story feom start to finish. I also recall a very important line in the film which suggests that faith is believing in something when common sense tells us otherwise! Ultimately, it is up to us to either believe or not believe without the help of any defintive answers.

But the fantasy element is not uncommon to holiday stories, films, or music since it seems to be a truly integral element in the holiday itself! After all, a large part of the magic of Christmas IS choosing to believe in things that seem either fantastic and miraculous, whether it's the miracle of the Nativity, angels, Santa Claus and his elves, flying reindeer, snowmen with magic hats, the North Pole, ghosts of Christmas, the Island of Misfit Toys, or an old man who believes himself to be the on-and-only Santa Claus!

Of course this is only my opiinion.

Anthony,

You are correct on so many levels.  And, it really is about Faith and believing it something when common sense tells you not to.  Just like in "The Santa Clause" when Charlie is pretending he is driving Santa's sleigh and has the chairs all tied together and is using branches for the Reindeer antlers.  Then when Neil is trying to convince Charlie that there is no such thing as Santa Claus and he is asking "How can one man fly all around the world in one night and deliver all the presents?" Paraphrasing.  Then he ask Charlie if he's ever seen a reindeer fly and Charlie answers "Yes" then Neil says "Well I haven't" and Charlie asks him if he's ever seen a million dollars and Neil says "No" Charlie tells him that just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Paraphrasing again, because I don't have the movie on to listen to the exact dialogue.

Though this is a different movie, I always get teary-eyed when Santa's sleigh crashes in Central Park and after  Buddy fixes the engine and it gets knocked off by the statue and it won't fly right, then Michael tells his father that he isn't singing and he says that he is, and then Michael says "DAD!!!" and his father starts singing and the Clausometer goes to 100% and the sleigh flies over everyones head and I also get shivers of joy going through by body.  It the magic of it all that brings back our youth if only for a moment, but what a great feeling.

There are other Christmas movies that do the same thing to me physically and emotionally.  But too numerous to mention here.