Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with sequel

Help me find bad movie franchises!

cheap paper — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:48:52 -0800

Help us find bad movie franchises! My friends and I deeply enjoy bad movies- not yuck-yuck National Lampoon type crap that's trying (I assume, I hope) to be intentionally bad. I refer, of course, to the movies that everyone on the production side thought were Really Good Ideas- WishMaster, RoboCop 3, Nick Fury staring David Hasselhoff, etc.

Lately, we've been having ourselves mini bad movie marathons featuring movies that have one or more sequels. Sadly tho', we're running out of ideas for these horrible franchises (which should be self explanatory on mentioning we just finished up the Policy Academy... oeuvre).

Please help us demean our remaining life. Give us some more bad franchise fodder.

Sequels That Didn't Start Out As Sequels

Ian A.T. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:39:13 -0800

Are We Done Yet? was the sequel to an original film, but was weirdly also a remake of the classic Cary Grant comedy Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Along the same lines, Ocean's Twelve was based on an unrelated script first intended as a John Woo project. Can we think of any other examples of a sequel to an original movie starting life as an unconnected film? I know that everyone loves to participate in movie threads, but be careful:

I'm NOT asking about films like 102 Dalmations or Stuart Little II...those are original sequels to existing works, and is the opposite of what I'm looking for.

I also not asking about Evil Dead II or Drunken Master II, which aren't sequels so much as remakes of their first films.

And I'm certainly not looking for "sequels in name only," where the sequels have little to do with the originals. No matter how tenuously the sequel connects to the first film, if it's an original script it's not what we're trying to find.

Again, I'm ONLY curious about sequels to original works, where the sequel was originally an unconnected film. It's okay to not answer.

Dune or Dune-Not?

sprocket87 — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:02:31 -0800

I just finished reading Frank Herbert's "Dune", and I am in love with it. Should I continue reading the series and/or see the movie adaptations, or will it ruin my fascination with the original book? I can't believe what an incredible book "Dune" is! I first started reading it as a young teen, and got about 2/3 of the way through the book (literally; when I got to "The Prophet" I got distracted and didn't finish it). Now, years later, I've started fresh and read it in its entirety - and I'm in love!

I just finished reading it about an hour ago and I'm still worked up about it. I researched the other books and the movie and miniseries based on it, and I'm intrigued. However, I'm wondering whether I should read or see them, as I fear they will detract from my love for the original.

I should explain that I get very immersed in books and I have very clear views of the characters and environments based on the author's description (as do most people). We all know that rarely does a sequel, and more rarely does a movie, live up to the original work. In fact, seeing most movie-adaptations of books taints my perception of the original work, because now I can only see the actors and environments that the movie portrayed.

Similarly (though to a lesser extent), reading the sequels could alter my perception of the characters and events. I am very satisfied with the book, with the characters and the resolution, and I can't decide whether I want to risk altering my perception of said elements. I suppose that reading the sequels that were written by Frank Herbert himself could only improve upon my knowledge and appreciation for his universe, but I'm just afraid that suddenly I'll dislike Paul-Maud'Dib because of something revealed about him in the next book (just an example, it could be any number of things).

I suspect I should at least read the next book in the series but skip out on the movies, lest I corrupt my view of the written work. If I did see a film version, I would probably go for the Sci-Fi miniseries, as it seems to be regarded as a more accurate depiction of Dune.

What are your thoughts and recommendations on the subject? Sorry this is a lame question, but I'm just curious (and trying to keep my Dune fervor alive somehow ;))

What's the longest time separating a movie from its sequel?

ORthey — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:40:31 -0800

What is the longest time elapsed between a movie and a sequel/prequel? This was brought to mind because I saw (incredulously) a poster for Basic Instinct 2 at the movies. Friends and I discussed the matter but couldn't come up with anything longer than the Star Wars gap. But also, we're not movie experts.

I know you get into complications over what really constitutes a sequel... for the sake of this I'd rule out long-running series like James Bond. Remakes of old movies that are very different from the original don't count either. Otherwise, I'd say the definition should be pretty loose.