Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:10 PM   
 By:   dogplant   (Member)

You mean Aliens (which follows the original very well) or Alien 2: On Earth (which I've never seen)?

Wow, I was just about to write a big long reply to Greg, discussing the merits of "Alien and "Aliens", but then I saw your post, Buscemi, and dug up the following link -- not for the squeamish, so I won't embed it here. Yikes!

Alien 2: (What) On Earth trailer
http://youtu.be/KRYbS4AypxE

Greg, if you are remotely interested in science fiction, or action films, and have not seen Cameron's "Alien" sequel you should check out "Aliens". It's terrific fun. Interesting website all about the "Alien" films here: http://alienseries.wordpress.com

P.S. Back on topic: I seem to recall the "Planet of the Apes" films had some shaky story logic continuity from film to film, although I remain fond of most of those. Except perhaps the second.

 
 Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:13 PM   
 By:   dogplant   (Member)

Oops.

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:15 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

Years ago of course with many genre films this was common, titles that used SON'S AND DAUGHTER'S , REVENGE ETC ETC were often not story related , yet used to sell a popular title like SON OF DRACULA, SON OF DR JEKYLL, DAUGHTER OF DR JEKYLL[nothing to do with MARCH OR TRACY].ETC ETC .

 
 Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:23 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Sorry - yes - should have clarified that I meant "Alien 2: On Earth". Aliens knits into the original a little cornily on occasion but is extremely faithful and remains one of the best Sci-Fi/Action/Horror (pick your genre) films of all time - especially on Bu-Ray!!l (The Alien Anthology set alone is worth the extra price of investing in a Blu-Ray player - I can not recommend it enough).

Apes stuff kinda gets there....in a roundabout way....there are inconsistencies but they are forgivable.

How about - just to throw a curveball - "Looper"? No sequels involved, but the last 5 minutes completely ignores the fact that the first hour-and-a-half happened! Mind you - I have yet to come across a perfectly logical time-travel story (though the BTTF movies came damn close) - but the ending to Looper bugs the hell out of me.

 
 Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 8:02 PM   
 By:   Buscemi   (Member)

I consider Looper nothing more than a modern-day remake of Timecop (except instead of the camp that made Timecop fun, it becomes a $30 million art school project).

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 11:25 PM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

HALLOWEEN NO 3-83- had nothing to do with the first two films.

The story behind this one was that Halloween was intended to feature a different story and villain every installment. However, John Carpenter and Debra Hill made the mistake to let the second film be a continuation of the first.


The anthology concept came up after Halloween 2. Carpenter felt there was no way to continue with a third Michael Myers story, so he wanted Halloween 3 and subsequent sequels to tell new and completely unrelated stories built around the imagery and myths of Halloween. (Carpenter even reportedly wrote a proposed Halloween 3 script with Myers and Loomis that was deliberately over-the-top, as a way to convince the studio to abandon the storyline and go the anthology route.) When it didn't do that well, he and Debra Hill sold off their shares of the franchise to Akkad, who brought back Myers.

 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 4:22 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

The Paranormal Entity films have nothing in common with eachother, apart from a central conceit regarding ghosts/possession. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend the first film and avoiding the sequels at all cost (though I haven't seen the fourth one yet...I'll get round to it....when I can pick it up for a few pennies on Amazon).

I think White Noise 2: The Light ignores the original completely, and is a far better film for it I feel.

I seem to remember Grease 2 being a poor rehash rather than a sequel?

Going back to the Universal Soldier films - I seem to remember that there are actually two completely seperate franchises...the JCVD/Dolph ones being sequels to the original, but completely unrelated to the other sequels. I really must catch up with the JCVD/Dolph ones - I gather they are OK and I love the original.

 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 5:03 PM   
 By:   Buscemi   (Member)

I think Universal Soldiers 2 & 3 may have been intended to be part of a TV series (seeing how they were shot back to back and all) but USA didn't pick it up (seeing how they already had adaptations of La Femme Nikita and The Big Easy going at the time).

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 5:11 PM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

According to various sources, they were originally supposed to air as a mini-series that would also serve as a pilot for a potential series.

Going back to the Universal Soldier films - I seem to remember that there are actually two completely seperate franchises...the JCVD/Dolph ones being sequels to the original, but completely unrelated to the other sequels.

The two most recent entries (Regeneration and Day of Reckoning) ignore not only the two TV movie sequels, but also apparently retcons The Return (even though it starred Van Damme) right out of existence in the series.

What about the Highlander movies? I've only ever seen the first one, but I've always heard that's another series that is completely messed up in terms of continuity, which each subsequent film seemingly contradicting the previous one, and sometimes even the original!

 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 5:41 PM   
 By:   The Projectionist   (Member)

Yes Hightlander. The sequel ignored the unknown origins of the immortals and turn them into Aliens from planet Ziest sent to earth as punishment blah blah blah. Also it ignored the fact that McCloud won "The Prize" by being the last immortal. That was supposed to be the primary rule "There Can Be Only One".

 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 8:01 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

The Paranormal Entity films have nothing in common with eachother, apart from a central conceit regarding ghosts/possession. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend the first film and avoiding the sequels at all cost (though I haven't seen the fourth one yet...I'll get round to it....when I can pick it up for a few pennies on Amazon).

Do you mean Paranormal Activity?

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 8:06 PM   
 By:   TPC   (Member)

I'm not sure if they're official sequels, but Airport 1975 makes no reference to Airport. Likewise, Airport '77 makes no reference to either of its predecessors, except for the fact that George Kennedy's character is in all three.

Airport '79 does make a quick one-line reference to Airport 1975 (and it's Kennedy who says it).

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 9:06 PM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

Do you mean Paranormal Activity?

Paranormal Entity is actually a series of "mockbusters" that The Asylum has released to coincide with the Paranormal Activity movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_Entity

 
 Posted:   Jan 19, 2013 - 9:21 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Ah - good grief - Highlander!!!! Yes, of course....Highlander II shat all over the first one, didn't it? If you can though, track down the "Renegade Edition" of it - it's a vast improvement, even if it doesn't go all the way in restoring continuity, Highlander III actually did try, and was really a direct sequel to the first one. The rest just got desperately silly.

Yes - I meant "....Entity"...the first one is a half-way decent film (for an Asylum film)...it's just such a shame that the script is so absolutely appalling.

 
 Posted:   Jan 20, 2013 - 6:15 AM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

Do you mean Paranormal Activity?

Paranormal Entity is actually a series of "mockbusters" that The Asylum has released to coincide with the Paranormal Activity movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_Entity


Ah, I should have known. razz

 
 Posted:   Jan 20, 2013 - 11:15 AM   
 By:   The Projectionist   (Member)

Ah - good grief - Highlander!!!! Yes, of course....Highlander II shat all over the first one, didn't it? If you can though, track down the "Renegade Edition" of it - it's a vast improvement, even if it doesn't go all the way in restoring continuity, Highlander III actually did try, and was really a direct sequel to the first one. The rest just got desperately silly.

Highlander II Directors Cut removed all references of planet Ziest. I thought Renegade was a spin off between 3 & 4?
Highlander The Source is an F.U. to the entire franchise and shall not be discussed!

 
 Posted:   Jan 20, 2013 - 12:14 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Highlander II Directors Cut removed all references of planet Ziest. I thought Renegade was a spin off between 3 & 4?

Highlander II - The Renegade Version is what Mulcahy dubbed his Director's cut. There was a further version - the "Special Edition" - which was basically the renegade version with touched up effects work.

Highlander: The Source...? A real "What were they thinking?" moment...


Paranormal Entity is actually a series of "mockbusters" that The Asylum has released to coincide with the Paranormal Activity movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_Entity


...the first of which is - by quite some distance - the best film they have put out so far. I have time for Asylum...I remember how Nu Image started and Asylum are on the same track...they turn out some shite (their Sherlock Holmes film was truly, truly awful) but it's usually entertaining.

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 21, 2013 - 2:38 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

Star Trek VI TUC pretends Trek V TFF never happened.

Really? I've never gotten the impression that it pretends V never happened. It certainly doesn't go out of its way to say it's ignoring it.


No mention or reference to any of the events that happened in film 5 is what I'm basically saying. Several of the characters in TUC have dialogue recalling events in films 2, 3 and 4 but not 5. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm forgetting something.


Well, there are also dozens and dozens of episodes of the TV series that aren't directly and specifically referenced in dialogue in the movies, but that doesn't mean they're pretending they don't exist, either.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier may indeed be an installment that most concerned parties would just as soon pretend doesn't exist, but it's also a pretty self-contained little adventure that wouldn't really do all that much to impact other adventures, anyway. II, III & IV have significant events like major character deaths (and a resurrection), as well as events with political ramifications. The only characters killed off in V are ones we'd never seen or heard of before anyway, and the political events seen there could actually be seen as kind of a prelude to the more extended peace talks between the Federation and the Klingons seen in VI.

The makers of Trek VI may not have specifically gone out of their way to reference the events of Trek V, but they didn't really make a point of conflicting with it, either (if anything, Trek V all by itself arguably does more to contradict itself and/or previously-established Trek canon than subsequent productions did to contradict it).

 
 Posted:   Jan 21, 2013 - 8:39 AM   
 By:   jackfu   (Member)

I've lost count of the different Godzilla (Gojira) non-contiguous films.

 
 Posted:   Jan 21, 2013 - 9:48 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Speaking of which, Star Trek 2 TWOK pretends Star Trek The Motion Picture never existed. There are no references to the previous film at all not to mention a redesign of clothing and sets. Also at the end of TMP Kirk got his "chair" back. In the beginning of WOK Kirk obviously had a desk job.

Star Trek VI TUC pretends Trek V TFF never happened.

Really? I've never gotten the impression that it pretends V never happened. It certainly doesn't go out of its way to say it's ignoring it.


No mention or reference to any of the events that happened in film 5 is what I'm basically saying. Several of the characters in TUC have dialogue recalling events in films 2, 3 and 4 but not 5. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm forgetting something.


Well, there are also dozens and dozens of episodes of the TV series that aren't directly and specifically referenced in dialogue in the movies, but that doesn't mean they're pretending they don't exist, either.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier may indeed be an installment that most concerned parties would just as soon pretend doesn't exist, but it's also a pretty self-contained little adventure that wouldn't really do all that much to impact other adventures, anyway. II, III & IV have significant events like major character deaths (and a resurrection), as well as events with political ramifications. The only characters killed off in V are ones we'd never seen or heard of before anyway, and the political events seen there could actually be seen as kind of a prelude to the more extended peace talks between the Federation and the Klingons seen in VI.

The makers of Trek VI may not have specifically gone out of their way to reference the events of Trek V, but they didn't really make a point of conflicting with it, either (if anything, Trek V all by itself arguably does more to contradict itself and/or previously-established Trek canon than subsequent productions did to contradict it).

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.