Sequels that ignore their predecessors

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

tb86
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,831
Location: South Wales

18 Jun 2017, 9:32 am

I haven't seen Cars 3 yet but from what I hear it doesn't reference anything that happened in Cars 2 and I find that interesting considering that Pixar has most likely been listening to the criticisms towards Cars 2 and it got me thinking that there are actually other sequels out there that totally ignore their predecessors too and that they could possibly be watched without watching the one before it.

Some of the Star Trek Movies - Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, possibly First Contact and Beyond. Wrath of Khan completely ignores The Motion Picture not making a single reference. Undiscovered Country doesn't talk about The Final Frontier because it was so bad I guess. First Contact doesn't really bring up anything that happened in Generations though there is the whole Data having his emotion chip, not to mention a completely new Enterprise that even they mentioned they only just got so I'm not so sure. Beyond definitely doesn't reference Into Darkness as far as I remember. Non of the characters from that film e.g. Carol Markus, Khan.

Logan - I only saw the movie once and I don't recall any references or call backs to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Deadpool kinda did but that was only to slam it. The Wolverine doesn't really get referenced, heck I don't think it even referenced Origins. Although I think there was a samurai sword hanging up somewhere.

Superman Returns - The film takes place 5 years after Superman II and literally ignores Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Granted it is better than those two but it's kinda dull though visually good looking, the music is wonderful and I did like Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Frank Lagella as Perry White.

Can you think of anymore?

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,174
Location: Portland, Oregon

18 Jun 2017, 4:42 pm

The Incredible Hulk {2008 version}

This ignored everything that happened in Ang Lee's Hulk film that was released five years prior. However imo, this film tried way too hard to be like the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno TV series.

Ed Norton was great as Bruce Banner and what is interesting is that Ang Lee wanted Norton to star in the 2003 film, but Norton turned down the role citing prior commitments.

_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!

tb86
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,831
Location: South Wales

19 Jun 2017, 5:51 am

AnonymousAnonymous wrote

Quote:

The Incredible Hulk

I agree that film is better than the 2003 one though it's not all entirely a great film but it's not a sequel to the 2003 movie. It's a reboot.

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,174
Location: Portland, Oregon

19 Jun 2017, 6:45 pm

tb86 wrote:

AnonymousAnonymous wrote

Quote:

The Incredible Hulk

I agree that film is better than the 2003 one though it's not all entirely a great film but it's not a sequel to the 2003 movie. It's a reboot.

I know that the 2008 film was a reboot, but do you think Universal Pictures should give the Hulk film rights back to Marvel or make a deal with Marvel in a similar manner Sony did with the Spider-Man film rights?

_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!

KyleTheGhost
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 70,217
Location: Luna, Imagination Isle

01 Aug 2017, 5:00 am

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors and beyond all ignore the second movie.

Evil Dead 2 seems to do that to the original.

_________________
I am Ashley. My pronouns are female.

Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,079
Location: Hagerstown, MD

01 Aug 2017, 11:15 am

KyleTheGhost wrote:

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors and beyond all ignore the second movie.

Evil Dead 2 seems to do that to the original.

Yeah, the second Nightmare on Elm Street was kinda gay.

_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.

If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.

I will not apologize for being me.

thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

01 Aug 2017, 10:37 pm

Aspiegaming wrote:

KyleTheGhost wrote:

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors and beyond all ignore the second movie.

Evil Dead 2 seems to do that to the original.

Yeah, the second Nightmare on Elm Street was kinda gay.

How was it gay? Were there gay people in the movie?

_________________
WRLL

Jory
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,520
Location: Tornado Alley

01 Aug 2017, 10:53 pm

thewrll wrote:

How was it gay? Were there gay people in the movie?

There are homoerotic undertones to the movie. That's one of the reasons it's been re-revaluated over the years and has a better reputation now than it did when it was released. It had a bit more intelligence and depth than anyone gave it credit for at the time. This section on the film's Wikipedia article sums it up pretty well.

thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

01 Aug 2017, 11:31 pm

I was asking why someone would call it gay. That is an extremely offensive thing to say. Calling something you think is stupid gay is something I hope gets shoved into a leaking toilet, blown up, and the s**t rains down on the homophobic losers.

_________________
WRLL

Drake
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

02 Aug 2017, 10:45 am

Saying something is gay is the same as saying something is lame. No one thinks you've got something against someone who is lame when you say lame. Manufactured controversy. Don't be fooled by it. There are many others. ret*d doesn't mean you're against the mentally ill. p**** / b***h / c**t, etc. doesn't mean you're against women. Dick / prick / bastard, etc. doesn't mean you're against men. The list goes on and on.

thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

03 Aug 2017, 11:26 pm

Drake wrote:

Saying something is gay is extremely offensive. Saying something is restarted is extremely offensive. Don't do it. Calling the offense manufactured is BS. I hope you learn how not to sound juvenile.

_________________
WRLL

Drake
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

04 Aug 2017, 9:13 am

thewrll wrote:

Drake wrote:

Saying something is gay is extremely offensive. Saying something is restarted is extremely offensive. Don't do it. Calling the offense manufactured is BS. I hope you learn how not to sound juvenile.

It really, really isn't. I don't use the word personally, and I'd say it's advisable not to as it can cause honest misunderstandings and there are other suitable words. But you can't infer homophobia just from someone using it. I do use ret*d, but it's rare I do. It only comes out of my mouth when something is just so unbelievably stupid that other words just don't convey the strength of feeling I require.

thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

04 Aug 2017, 10:09 pm

Drake wrote:

thewrll wrote:

Drake wrote:

Saying something is gay is extremely offensive. Saying something is restarted is extremely offensive. Don't do it. Calling the offense manufactured is BS. I hope you learn how not to sound juvenile.

Whether or not it comes from a homophobic viewpoint, it is extremely offensive. Hillary Duff starred in a psa about why using it to describe something that is lame shows your lack of intelligence. Also there are zero instances where the word restarted should be used. Never use either.

_________________
WRLL

Drake
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

05 Aug 2017, 7:33 am

thewrll wrote:

Drake wrote:

thewrll wrote:

Drake wrote:

Saying something is gay is extremely offensive. Saying something is restarted is extremely offensive. Don't do it. Calling the offense manufactured is BS. I hope you learn how not to sound juvenile.

Well I watched it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0l2z-K5OzA

It's s**t. It doesn't explain anything, I reckon my own argument about why I recommend not using it is much stronger than her excuse for one. Have a look at the comments section.

Why do you say restarted? That's twice now. Are you so afraid of it that you won't even type it out? That's unhealthy if so.

Imo it's a strong word to be used at the appropriate time when the other words are inadequate.

DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

07 Aug 2017, 11:55 pm

The New Testament

_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/

JustFoundHere
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jan 2018
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,142
Location: California

30 Jan 2018, 4:04 pm

That (rare) sequel that acknowledged its predecessor (quite well) is Al Gore's 2017 documentary 'An Inconvenient Sequel' (LINK); that Al Gore's sequel to his 2006 film 'An Inconvenient Truth' provided excellent updates.

(LINK) An Inconvenient Sequel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconv ... h_to_Power

The 'Similar Topics' section of WP at the bottom of the discussions page offers discussions on sequels.

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Sequels that ignore their predecessors Post Reply New Topic

Sequels that ignore their predecessors