Badmovies.org Forum

This is something that has always bugged be for a while, make a sequel to a film but it has nothing to do with the previous films that came before it.  Some examples are:

Bloodfist 3-8.  Each sequel has nothing to do with the previous films, and in my opinion are not needed. 

Kickboxer 3 - Has nothing to do with Kickboxer 1 or 2 and is never metioned in 4 to 5, so I consider Kickboxer 3 to be non canon.

No retreat, no surrender 2-5 - This films have nothing to do with the first film.

I know there are other ones, but I can't think of them right now.

If it has nothing to do with the previous film, then I don't consider it a sequel.

One that comes to mind right away...Halloween 3....what the hell were they thinking?

They were thinking "we can make a lot more money off this if it rides on the coattails of those other two movies."

I don't mind if a series of movies has a single title and common theme, but no other connection, as long as it was the intention to begin with. That works under the right circumstances, much like an anthology. But don't continue your story for a couple of movies, then change. That's sloppy at best, and at its worst it borders on fraud.

Halloween 3 is not that bad standing on its own, and if the Halloween films had been a series of stand-alone stories, it wouldn't get trashed quite so much. It sucks because we wanted more Michael.

I technically don't call it a true sequel if that is the case.  I ususally call it a non canon sequel.

I think you mean House 3 :buggedout:, wasn't Halloween 3 actually brought up by John Carpenter and the producers' decision to not turn Halloween into a yearly anthology thing what made him leave further films?

I never saw House 3...I stopped mid way through the second one.

I am not sure about the circumstances around Halloween 3 and as AndyC said...it's not really a bad movie overall...but man...to stick it in that series...ridiculous.

This one immediately leaped to mind:  Flesh Gordon 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097365/).  (Full Disclosure:  I only watched part of it once; I ripped it out of the VCR when Flesh started having sex with the chicken.)

All four Deathstalker (I (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087127/), II (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0092860/), III (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0097174/), IV (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0099388/)) movies were produced by Roger Corman (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000339/), but other than that (and the name of the main character) they really have nothing to do with each other.

What about all the Invisible Man movies that came after the original? They wernt related at all! And how about THIS doozie?!

(http://www.shocktreatment.net/images/st-cd.jpg)

Do the Xtro sequels have anything to do with the first one? I never could sit through all of the second one and didn't see anything that had anything to do with the first one, confusing and odd as it is.

I haven't seen one in a while, but are the soft-core/horror Witchcraft films connected at all after the first couple?

Troll 2

According to IMDb, House 3 was originally released as The Horror Show and retitled to House 3 for non-U.S. markets. I remember that quite confusing me when I saw House IV (a terrible movie) on the shelf with no recollection of House 3.

I am curious about watching Flesh Gordon 2, only because Vince Murdocco is in it.


I forgot about Troll 2, since seeing it, I think some of my memory has gone away.

The deal with Halloween 3:

The Halloween movies were originally supposed to be standalone features, connected only by their occurrence on Halloween.  Then the first one was SUCH a huge success, single-handedly spawning the American slasher film, that the producers insisted that the next one be a direct sequel.  Carpenter acquiesced.  By the time they got to Halloween 3 and Carpenter tried to bring the series back to his "anthology" idea, the name "Halloween" had become so associated with Michael Myers that it confused the hell out of the public, and so the idea of an anthology series was dropped in favor of the continuing adventures of a guy in a William Shatner mask.

Thats really a shame. I wouldve really like to have seen an anthology style movie franchise instead of a franchise in which they whore the original idea to its limit until each sequel becomes crappier than the last.

The worst offender ever IMO was HIGHLANDER 2.  I was never so offended by a sequel.

And that's because it WASN'T wholly unrelated to the original -- instead, it tried to retcon it into a stupid space opera-cum-halfbaked environmental parable.

Something like that...

BEASTMASTER 2 was pretty bad too.

I always thought that the reason John Carpenter distanced himself from Hollywood was because of Big Trouble In Little China. I seem to remember that he felt that the studio had dropped the ball on promoting it because they didn't think it would make any money.

The Sandlot sequels.

future ones also--and I can say that because in an interview the creator said he wanted to make several sequels set in different time periods.---though I guess Sandlot three gets a free pass seeing as it had one of the original characters as an adult in it's time travel story.....

I think worse than this is when they actually RENAME completely unrelated (usually foreign, particularly italian) movies for certain releases to try and sell them. There's DEMONS 3: THE OGRE, which is basically, well, THE OGRE, renamed to get sales, which has nothing at all to do with the story, the feel, the idea, the cast, or anything at all, of DEMONS.

While D3:TO was the only phoney DEMONS sequel to exist on DVD, on VHS in various places, there's a grand total of FOUR different movies released with the name DEMONS 3,  (only one of which, THE CHURCH (originally planned as DEMONS 3), having any connections with DEMONS), one ORIGINALLY named DEMONS 3 (though unrelated anyway!!) then renamed to BLACK DEMONS, then there's about 3 movies called DEMONS 4, and DEMONS 6: ARMEGEDON (Yes, Armageddon is incorrectly spelled in the name). Some are zombie movies, some demon movies, one a movie about some random satanic sect (!)... I don't think anybody has seen DEMONS 5, but it's renamed from another unrelated movie which is apparently a REMAKE of an unrelated movie from 1960.......

ITS BLOODY INSANE.

Basically, there are two Demons movies and there is a semi-prequel with a different name (The Church). Then there are about 10 random Italian unrelated movies renamed to have Demons in the title to make sales. And they didn't even bother to look for some of the many movies which even resembled Demons, just so long as they were horror movies, and they were Italian... I heard once that even Suspiria and Phenomena have been packaged with the Demons title on them.

Absolutely barking mad.

As much as I hate it, Shock Treatment is still technically a sequel to Rocky Horror because it's written by Richard O'Brien, follows Brad and Janet, and takes place in their hometown of Denton, which of course has now been turned into one huge TV station. And Nell Campbell is so damn hot as the nurse! :twirl:

Silent Night Deadly Night Pt. 4 and 5 come to mind.

Does American Pie 4-6 count as sequels, considering basically they're just ripoffs, and the only recurring character is a cameo of sorts by Eugene Levy, even though Jason Biggs isn't even in them?

And we could make all the same complaints about the Italian "Zombie" pseudo-series -- especially the installments that include NO zombies.

I think that those would be the ones my wife would like: zombie movies with no zombies.  Katie has been on some sort of crusade against me watching them ever since I sat down to view the "Blind Dead" collection one night.  It was pretty amusing when I put in "Planet Terror" and told her that it was the second half of "Grindhouse."  After a little bit Katie asked me, "Is this another damn zombie movie?" and I said, "No.  It's a mutant invasion film."  She wasn't buying it.

XTRO 2:  Instead of having anything to do with the bizarre British film that preceded it, they decided to make this one into a horrible ripoff of Aliens starring Jan Michael Vincent.

I don't count them as sequels.  IMO they are just using the name of it, just like some of the National Lampoon movies (Which I love some of them btw).

Yeah, I agree on the American Pie movies. Any follow-up movie that doesn't feature the return of the main character (that being Jason Biggs, since his wandering wang was the whole point of the title to begin with) from the previous installments, but insists on using the same title to help market it, isn't really a sequel so much as it is a spin-off... if you really want to split hairs... in which case you can take some from my beard, as there are many.  :teddyr:

How about the Howling movies?  I don't think any of those atrocities have anything to do with any of the others in the series other than the presence of werewolves (or in one's case, were-marsupials). 

Spiders 2 - there are giant spiders, but other than that it has absoloutely no connection to the first movie.

Slumber Party Massacre 3 - there's a slumber party and a massacre, but no connection to the previous films.

Sorority House Massacre 2 - same thing, no connection to previous movie.

Jim Wynorski's movies are kind of funny, he uses flashbacks to other movies yet he uses them in movies that aren't sequels.  For instance, Sorority House Massacre 2, Hard to Die and Cheerleader Massacre all use flashback scenes taken from Slumber Party Massacre.  I think the technical term is "padding the run time".

Oh...Prom Night 2: Hello Mary Lou (or something like that) -a bad sequel that didn't have anything to do (or much to do) with the crappy original.

True.  Never really thought about it.  I think the fourth they passed as a spinoff/sequel, with the rest being spinoffs.

It kinda irks me, but at the same time, eh.  I like the National Lampoon movies.  But American Pie is American Pie.

At least Eugene Levy's working.  He's hilarious.

GOOD! that means that the lame Sandlot sequels they made and all the ones yet to come count as well! I mean for anyone who hasn't seen any of these movies just take a moment and look below....

The Sandlot:Set in the sixties it's a drama/comedy about a new kid who makes friends with other boys in his neighborhood. Wackiness ensues when they knock a baseball with a baseball legend's name on it over the fence where a mean junkyard dog lives,and they try to get it back.



Sandlot 2: All new characters are in this movie. Set in the seventies The "little brother" of the main character from the first movie plays ball with his friends on the same "sandlot" his older brother used to--they then band together when they accidentally send a toy rocket over the fence--of course there is no dog or scary neighbor or such--just a tall fence.They even manage to ruin one of the funniest and best jokes from the first movie in this crappy sequel.



It gets worse


Sandlot 3 : In this sequel, an obnoxious self-absorbed pro baseball player accidentally goes back in time after getting beaned on thew noggin to the "late seventies" and possesses his childhood body. 






Sandlot certainly counts if American Pie does!

Wynorski did the same thing with Ghoulies 4. Clips of the first film, midgets in bad monster costumes, and a hot baddie babe running around cheap dominatrix gear. Yet, it still sucked.

ghoulies 4 is f**kin hilarious if you ask me. its so ludicrous its retarded, your telling me the guy from the first one, a semi-nerdy dude who inheirets his black magic dabbling fathers mansion, who ultimately studies and uses the same magic his father did, becomes a reckless hard boiled cop. WHO THE f**k COMES UP WITH THIS s**t? god, i love it.

I HATE the Sandlot sequels.  They took a perfectly good movie and just pimped it out.  Disney does that quite often.  I mean honestly, do we need Cinderella 3? Peter Pan 3: Return to Neverland?  Why'd he leave Neverland to begin with?  Aladdin 3?

Disney has some good movies, but that doesn't mean we need sequel upon sequel.  Only Disney sequel I can say I liked was Toy Story 2.

What bugs me most about Disney is that they pump out crappy sequels of stories that aren't even Disney stories. They're monkeying around with beloved fairy tales that have been around for generations, just to make a quick buck off a DVD. Because Uncle Walt made a classic animated feature of a given story 50 or 60 years ago, the company has been able to co-opt that story and its characters as their own, right out of the public domain.

For that matter, they have just as little respect for the material they own. Disney's classic animated features were created over a span of many years. Multiple generations have enjoyed some of them, and the Disney company is still riding on that success, and milking it for all they can get. Churning out new features for theatrical and DVD release as quickly as possible, plus making highly profitable sequels to successful titles, without nearly the care or investment of time and money.

It's just sickening.

Agreed.

Sadly the guy responsible for the original and It's lousy sequels has stated he wants to keep making more sequels to Sandlot for years to come.

Actually I think the first two Howling movies tried to have some connection to each other, then 3, 4, 5, and 6 were their own stories that only had connection as you say with there being werewolves (sorta as some of the movies hardly showed them) then the HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE last Howling movie they did tried to somehow connect all the movies together and failed miserably.

Torture someone you hate with that last Howling movie they did as it is bad...not bad in a good way either. It killed the Howling frachise for good though it seems as well.

Another franchise which has died, but not been forgotten...Carnosaur. The second movie tried to loosely tie itself in with the first one. The third one REALLY loosely connected to the other two Carnosaur movies. And then there's the movie Raptor..which uses TONS of footage from all three Carnosaur movies for its movie.

Howling 4 was supposed to be a more faithful adaptation of Gary Brandner's novel that inspired the first movie (thus 4's subtitle, "The Original Nightmare").  But a stilted script, bad acting, cheap production, and not-quite-right South African locations doomed it.

An american werewolf in PARIS is DOOK-MACHINE. :thumbdown:

Not to get off-topic but I just wanted to chime in on Disney.

I totally agree here. Disney was a great talent that totally went downhill in a bad way. The early Disney animations were great because they honored the subject material that they were using. Yes, they were Disneyfied (ie. dumbed down) but they were still good. As decades passed Disney's quality of animation totally went into the crapper.

I would say that the Little Mermaid was probably the last good Disney film. It wasn't long after that the abomination known as Disney's Hercules came out. The animation was as grotesque as the plot. I understand it's for kids but I do believe that's possible to insult a six year old.

As for the Lion King don't even call that a classic. That was a total ripoff of Tezuka's Jungle Emperor, released in the U.S. as Kimba The White Lion. Walt Disney has to rolling over in his grave for modern Disney has become. I understand that Tezuka and Walt had some early dealings, but Eisner's Disney's theft is just sad especially after the early cross-cultural animation exchanges that Walt and Tezuka had.

You wait Disney's Caligula is right around the corner.

I just read this and my brain exploded.  It was like reading a quantum equation.   :buggedout:

On a side note, I liked "The Church" however, I don't think that it should be a sequel to Demons and Demons 2 though.  I thought it was a good enough movie to stand a lone.  I sold my DVD copy of it.  I plan on buying it again.

Later,

John

Are you thinking of Zombie 4?

I watched that and said WTF???  I had some brain damage  :bouncegiggle:  trying to relate this movie to the other Zombie movies.

John

I am shocked at all of you!!!! JK.  Why has no one mentioned "From Dusk To Dawn 2 or 3"  Both are trash that just use the name of the orginal.  Which I thought was pretty darn good.

One thing that made me mad about "From Dusk To Dawn 2" was that Bruce Campbell and Tiffany Amber Thiesen were listed as the main characters, I watched it off of satelite, and they died in the first five minutes and never made another appearance.  I was heart broken, I thought that Bruce was going to be the head vampire and Tiffany was going to be his mistress.  Oh well.

John

Well the third one is a prequel since the bar is supposed to be grafted onto the same temple, and kind of a remake in a historical western setting. I liked it for playing with the set up of the first film and for working the mystery of Ambrose Bierce's disappearance during the Mexican Revolution into its storyline. Some pretty clever dialogue too.

The second is stupid and cheap, and gets points off for that teaser beginning. I would have rather seen that fake movie than the real one that followed.

Yeah, Zombie Flesh Eaters, as they call it here... I was going to bring those up, but I decided my post was too long and that nobody would bother to read it if I added any more!