Author Topic: Sequels made long after the original  (Read 2052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11446
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2017, 05:00:05 PM »
(click to show/hide)
Oh I see its only stuff that YOU think is good, yea that will be harder, I love every film I listed including Star Trek the Motion Picture.
Not really, I was being overly critical because it amuses me, except for Star Trek, I've long been confused by the love of that movies in some quarters and I consider myself a Trek fan, but that conversation has been held elsewhere. 

Truth be told, I'm surprise at how quickly and how many examples have been listed.

Offline Simon Jester

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1952
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2017, 05:08:44 PM »
(click to show/hide)
Oh I see its only stuff that YOU think is good, yea that will be harder, I love every film I listed including Star Trek the Motion Picture.
Not really, I was being overly critical because it amuses me, except for Star Trek, I've long been confused by the love of that movies in some quarters and I consider myself a Trek fan, but that conversation has been held elsewhere. 

Truth be told, I'm surprise at how quickly and how many examples have been listed.

I was just teasing anyway, check this out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_longest_gaps_between_film_sequels
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9814
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2017, 08:10:58 PM »
(click to show/hide)
Oh I see its only stuff that YOU think is good, yea that will be harder, I love every film I listed including Star Trek the Motion Picture.
Not really, I was being overly critical because it amuses me, except for Star Trek, I've long been confused by the love of that movies in some quarters and I consider myself a Trek fan, but that conversation has been held elsewhere. 

Truth be told, I'm surprise at how quickly and how many examples have been listed.

I was just teasing anyway, check this out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_longest_gaps_between_film_sequels

Oh thats a good pair from this list:

The Hustler & The Color of Money

And I loved the Naverone series - perhaps why I cottoned onto Rogue One.  YMMV on that one tho
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Offline Simon Jester

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1952
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2017, 10:00:13 PM »
Looking over that list Factotum was a fantastic film but I dont consider it to be a sequel to Barfly, (in the same way that Rum Diary is not a sequel to Fear and Loathing) Both versions of Bukowski were really well done, hard to say which I like more.

I also enjoy 2010
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline Simon Jester

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1952
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2017, 10:51:29 PM »
Aliens comes close with a 9 year gap

and then there is this yet to come



Just to reiterate I look forward to this more than I looked forward to Star Wars



I could watch Gordon eating that doughnut for at least 10 more minutes, did you notice how they slowed down the song just teasing and adding to my suspense.
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline stonesean

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7406
  • Dumb sailor on the Sea of Awesome
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2017, 08:29:57 AM »
Boy.

Blade Runner II.

I just don't know.

The director is good.  The cast is good.

So much of what made Blade Runner good for me was the sheer believability of the 1980's vision of 2019 Los Angeles and the strength of that cast.  Everyone in the first movie is great.  Even the supporting cast....James Hong, M. Emmett Walsh, Brion James, Edward James Olmos.....everyone.....that vision of the future was so influential that we've seen that world a million times now....

Which version of the movie is this a sequel for?

Well.  There it is.

Offline superdave

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5196
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2017, 08:36:46 AM »
made a comment on facebook earlier in the week, eventually we will be so over run by sequels, prequels, and remakes, that browsing IMDB will become impossible.

I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Offline drproximo

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • fnord
    • blaugh
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2017, 10:49:14 AM »
I'm not sure I'd count the Harry Potter series, was there a 10 year gap in their publication or filming?

Exactly 10.   >:D

I think the criteria is too loose then, because the HP series was an ongoing series with no significant gap between any two consecutive entries, so it's hard to call it a 10-year "gap" when there was a regular stream of material the entire time.
"Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life."

 - Jack Kerouac, On The Road

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11446
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2017, 11:18:25 AM »
I'm not sure I'd count the Harry Potter series, was there a 10 year gap in their publication or filming?

Exactly 10.   >:D

I think the criteria is too loose then, because the HP series was an ongoing series with no significant gap between any two consecutive entries, so it's hard to call it a 10-year "gap" when there was a regular stream of material the entire time.
I'd argue that just means Pants just doesn't understand what "Gap" means. 
gap: an unfilled space or interval; a break in continuity. 

There wasn't a 10 year gap, it was a 10 year span of Harry Potter and so, Harry Potter doesn't count.

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11446
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2017, 11:22:02 AM »
Boy.

Blade Runner II.

I just don't know.

The director is good.  The cast is good.

So much of what made Blade Runner good for me was the sheer believability of the 1980's vision of 2019 Los Angeles and the strength of that cast.  Everyone in the first movie is great.  Even the supporting cast....James Hong, M. Emmett Walsh, Brion James, Edward James Olmos.....everyone.....that vision of the future was so influential that we've seen that world a million times now....

Which version of the movie is this a sequel for?
Doesn't really matter I suppose, but one where Decker isn't a replicant or at least a replicant without an expiration date.
I agree that the original was a tremendous cast but for me its all about tone and vision.  Hard to imagine how they can replicate that without....coming up short.  I'm cautiously pessimistic. 

Online brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4661
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
    • Valuum
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2017, 11:23:51 AM »
Boy.

Blade Runner II.

I just don't know.

The director is good.  The cast is good.

So much of what made Blade Runner good for me was the sheer believability of the 1980's vision of 2019 Los Angeles and the strength of that cast.  Everyone in the first movie is great.  Even the supporting cast....James Hong, M. Emmett Walsh, Brion James, Edward James Olmos.....everyone.....that vision of the future was so influential that we've seen that world a million times now....

Which version of the movie is this a sequel for?

Good question - what counts as the canonical Blade Runner?

And remember, we still have two years to achieve most of the Blade Runner distopia. :)
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6277
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2017, 11:32:41 AM »
(click to show/hide)
Oh I see its only stuff that YOU think is good, yea that will be harder, I love every film I listed including Star Trek the Motion Picture.
Not really, I was being overly critical because it amuses me, except for Star Trek, I've long been confused by the love of that movies in some quarters and I consider myself a Trek fan, but that conversation has been held elsewhere. 

Truth be told, I'm surprise at how quickly and how many examples have been listed.

I was just teasing anyway, check this out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_longest_gaps_between_film_sequels
Well TIL there were more shitty sequels in 2016 than I knew. Hard Target II and Kindergarten Cop II?
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9814
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2017, 12:10:14 PM »
I think the criteria is too loose then, because the HP series was an ongoing series with no significant gap between any two consecutive entries, so it's hard to call it a 10-year "gap" when there was a regular stream of material the entire time.
I'd argue that just means Pants just doesn't understand what "Gap" means. 
gap: an unfilled space or interval; a break in continuity. 

There wasn't a 10 year gap, it was a 10 year span of Harry Potter and so, Harry Potter doesn't count.

There was a Gap between novel one and novel seven.  It's the Potter of the Gaps.

Well TIL there were more shitty sequels in 2016 than I knew. Hard Target II and Kindergarten Cop II?

They are not a tumor.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11446
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2017, 12:23:55 PM »
Well TIL there were more shitty sequels in 2016 than I knew. Hard Target II and Kindergarten Cop II?
Its not so much that they're shitty sequels but that they're sequels to shitty movies.  Who was asking for Hard Target II and Kindergarten Cop II?  For KCII, the answer is obvious, Dolph Lundgren, but other than Dolph Lundgren?

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5732
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Sequels made long after the original
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2017, 05:02:44 PM »
Are we limited to TV and movies? There are some long-after book series (Foundation, for example) that could be discussed.

If we are counting books, the novel Cyteen was written by CJ Cherryh and published in 1988. The sequel Regenesis was published in 2009. The most impressive thing is that Regenesis picks up right where Cyteen leaves off, which is (basically) in the middle of an action scene, with no suggestion of a break. You could chain-read them and not even notice where one left off and the other picked up.

 

personate-rain