FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4      Non-Film Score Discussion: Movies with sequels that ignore each other. . .     1 2 3    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 2:54 PM     By:   mastadge   (Member) I was thinking about this today. For instance, the latest Universal Soldier movie has been getting acclaim, of all things, from art-house cinephiles, so I decided to take a look at the franchise. It started as a mediocre Roland Emmerich action flick in 1992, which was followed by two TV movies (without JCVD), and then a theatrical sequel (with JCVD) that ignored the TV movies, and then a couple years ago by a direct-to-video sequel (still with JCVD) that ignored both the TV movies and the theatrical sequel, and finally by this latest, acclaimed sequel that is in continuity with the previous one but apparently doesn't really have much to do with it. And I started thinking about other franchises that this kind of thing has happened to. There's Highlander, which should have been a standalone film but was successful enough to warrant a sequel that was ignored by the second sequel. It also spawned a TV series which is kind of in the same continuity as the original (they like to throw the characters from the movie and the TV show together when possible) even though you have to fudge the details a bit to make that work. RoboCop has two theatrical sequels in continuity, and then as I recall the Prime Directives TV miniseries that ignored the sequels and only followed the original. Wasn't there an animated TV series, too? Terminator has branching continuity after T2, with T3 and Salvation following one line and The Sarah Connor Chronicles following another. (More if you count the S.M. Stirling novels. . .) But given the nature of that franchise such branching makes more sense here than it usually does. Why in some franchises does continuity/canon cause such a big stink, and in others not so much? Is it merely a function of the size and dedication of the fanbase or the belovedness of the original property?    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 3:04 PM     By:   Adam.   (Member) Star Trek VI TUC pretends Trek V TFF never happened. I'm sure all concerned wanted the original cast to go out with a bang rather than the whimper Trek V gave us. Exorcist III also ignores the second film, The Heretic. Possibly for the same reasons.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 3:16 PM     By:   Michael24   (Member) Jaws 4 ignores the third film. There are no references to Mike and Sean Brody's involvement with the water park in that film. Halloween H20 ignores the previous three films entirely by directly stating that Michael Myers has not been seen since the night depicted in the first two films. RoboCop has two theatrical sequels in continuity, and then as I recall the Prime Directives TV miniseries that ignored the sequels and only followed the original. Wasn't there an animated TV series, too? There have been two very short-lived cartoons (one in the '80s and I think the second was in the '90s), and a live-action television series that aired for one season in the early-90s. 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.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 3:38 PM     By:   Buscemi   (Member) The Fast and the Furious had a strange case with this. Fast and Furious was supposed to ignore Tokyo Drift but instead became a prequel to that film since Justin Lin (the director of both films) always features Sung Kang in his films. Some people claim that The Incredible Hulk ignores the events of The Hulk but there are a few lines in The Incredible Hulk that directly reference The Hulk (in fact, remove the opening credits of The Incredible Hulk and the two could easily play as one long film).    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 3:46 PM     By:   Mr Greg   (Member) Texas Chain Saw massacre....each film seems to be a sequel to the original - including the latest.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 3:53 PM     By:   mastadge   (Member) The Fast and the Furious had a strange case with this. Fast and Furious was supposed to ignore Tokyo Drift but instead became a prequel to that film since Justin Lin (the director of both films) always features Sung Kang in his films. Yeah, I've thought of the F&F franchise as having a sort of comics-style "rolling continuity" rather than a lack of continuity. Some people claim that The Incredible Hulk ignores the events of The Hulk but there are a few lines in The Incredible Hulk that directly reference The Hulk (in fact, remove the opening credits of The Incredible Hulk and the two could easily play as one long film). Similarly, the impression I get here is of what might be called a "soft reboot" -- there are some details that are different, and one is part of the Marvel continuity while the other technically is not, but the later one definitely made some effort to not confuse people who saw it as a sequel to the earlier one.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 4:02 PM     By:   Mr Greg   (Member) Indeed...I like the way that Ang Lee's (superior) film was given some healthy respect.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 4:31 PM     By:   'Lenny Bruce' Marshall   (Member) i posted about this before (""Worst sequels...") THEY CALL ME MISTER TIBBS has nothing common with IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT except Poiter's last name!    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 6:46 PM     By:   Matt S.   (Member) I'm thinking of the Superman movies, where Superman Returns was intended to be a direct sequel to Richard Donner's Superman & Superman II, and completely ignored III & IV as if they never happened.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 6:58 PM     By:   Zooba   (Member) Indeed...I like the way that Ang Lee's (superior) film was given some healthy respect. Speaking of Ang Lee the Sequel to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, BUTTCRACK HILL didn't even have Cowboys in it!    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:00 PM     By:   Buscemi   (Member) I hear they've got a sequel to Life of Pi in the works called Life of Pie. No tigers but plenty of cherry and apple to go around.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:07 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) HALLOWEEN NO 3-83- had nothing to do with the first two films.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:08 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE -44- had nothing to do with CAT PEOPLE-42.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:18 PM     By:   Buscemi   (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.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:21 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) RETURN OF DR X-39- Had nothing to do with DOCTOR X-32.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:22 PM     By:   Justin Boggan   (Member) This was this crappy TV movie called "Phenomenon 2", which was nothing more than a REMAKE of the first film! And they had the nerve to refer to it as a sequel in the title.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:23 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) RETURN OF THE APE MAN-47- had nothing to do i believe with THE APE MAN-43.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:24 PM     By:   Adam.   (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.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:43 PM     By:   Mr Greg   (Member) I've never seen it, but I gather "Alien 2" pretty much ignores the original.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2013 - 7:57 PM     By:   Buscemi   (Member) You mean Aliens (which follows the original very well) or Alien 2: On Earth (which I've never seen)?     Non-Film Score Discussion: Movies with sequels that ignore each other. . .    < 1 2 3  > >>  Go to page:  1 2 3 4   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.