logo Sign In

Irregular sequels and spiritual sequels?

Author
Time

Excuse the title, but I was trying to make a list of sequels that either follow the story but change genres?  Or the reverse, I guess, would be a spiritual sequel that has no literal connection to the previous one, but carries on the themes and ideas.

The best example I can think of for the first type is Alien -> Aliens.  Alien is your typical horror film with a medium sized cast being picked off one-by-one by the slasher.  Aliens is an action flick with horror elements.  Also of use here would be the Evil Dead --> Army of Darkness movies.  Evil Dead 1 was a fairly straight, if a little quirky, horror flick.  Evil Dead 2 was a reboot with a lot more silly thrown in.  And Army of Darkness was pretty much a comedy first and a horror (?  Mideavil fantasy?) film last.

Can you help me come up with others?

Irregular
----------------
Alien -> Aliens
Evil Dead -> Army of Darkness
Flash Back -> Fade to Black (video game)

Spiritual Sequels
-----------------------
Final Fantasy Series
System Shock -> BioShock
Blade Runner -> Soldier (screenwriters called it a "Sidequel")

 

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Pitch Black- Smal scale, interesting, low-budget Sci-fi horror/thriller with a cool anti-hero and a low-tech sci-fi universe.

Chronicles of Riddick- Sprawling epic set in a high-tech sci-fi universe with legions of generic baddies, superpowered aliens, and the former anti-hero now a prophesised savior of the universe with a complete retcon origin.

Author
Time

Spiritual Trilogy-

The Orphanage, The Devil's Backbone, Pan's Labrytnth.

All thematically similar, scary, oddly lovely, with two set in orphanages and two set during recent civil wars. No recurring plots or characters, but they would make a perfect boxed set.

Author
Time

Caddyshack- A comedy.

Caddyshack 2- I don't know what it was, but it wasn't a comedy.

Author
Time

Yeah, I had forgotten about Riddick.  That's a good example of what I'm looking for.  And I guess along those lines... Hobbit -> LotR.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

xhonzi said:

Also of use here would be the Evil Dead --> Army of Darkness movies.  Evil Dead 1 was a fairly straight, if a little quirky, horror flick.  Evil Dead 2 was a reboot with a lot more silly thrown in.  And Army of Darkness was pretty much a comedy first and a horror (?  Mideavil fantasy?) film last.

Can you help me come up with others?

Irregular
----------------
Alien -> Aliens
Evil Dead -> Army of Darkness
Flash Back -> Fade to Black (video game)

Spiritual Sequels
-----------------------
Final Fantasy Series
System Shock -> BioShock
Blade Runner -> Soldier (screenwriters called it a "Sidequel")

 

Evil Dead II was more of a full on sequel with a very long recap, than it was an actual reboot. They didn't have rights to footage from the first film, so they refilmed the whole story in extremely abridged form and with fewer actors to save money. In one of the commentaries, Sam Raimi said that you could technically cut the recaps out of each film and edit them together into one long unbroken story. I have often thought about doing this, the only jarring thing would be how quickly Ash would age over that one night that takes place before he gets sent back in time. But yeah, the genre definitely changes.

Another one to add to the video games part are the PS2 games Ico and The Shadow of the Colossus, the later being a spiritual sequel of the former.

 

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time

On the games side

Super Mario RPG (almost straight JRPG with a few Mario elements)>(spiritual sequel)Paper Mario (Many more platforming and action elements thrown in)>(quirky sequel)Super Paper Mario (2D Platformer with heavy RPG elements)

 

That doesnt include PM: TTYD which was pretty much a straight sequel of Paper Mario and the Mario and Luigi games, which are like spiritual sidequels to the Paper Mario games....weird

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Star Trek 2009, spiritual sequel and prequel and reboot all at the same time,lol.

Its a reboot yet it has Leonard Nimoy in it, lol.  Like they wanted a new audience but wanted the old to stay too to make double the money, did not work in any case original series fans are boycotting the jj franchise.

Man sometimes they just can't decide if its a continuation or a reboot Superman Returns comes to mind.

Then you have film like Casino Royale which is supposed to be a prequel yet you have the female M from brosnan bonds, cellphones and a mention of 911 and it is very clearly not set in the 1950's or 1960's whenever the novel happened.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Its a reboot yet it has Leonard Nimoy in it, lol.  Like they wanted a new audience but wanted the old to stay too to make double the money, did not work in any case original series fans are boycotting the jj franchise.

 It must be a pretty intense boycott. I bet that TOS fans refusing to see it (or at least admit to seeing it) are the reason that flick made slightly less than $400 million.

Author
Time

I work in an industry with a high percentage of Star Trek geeks.  As far as I know, they all loved it.  I am a casual fan... and it turns out I picked more nits than they did.

I guess I'm just a nit-picker.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

I liked the new Star Trek, and I am a casual Trekkie. Albeit, more of a TNG kind if guys. That Counselor Troi was just too damn hot!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I've been a more-than-casual Trek fan for decades. I enjoyed the latest film. For me, it was better than most of the previous films and it fit in just fine with the history of the series. In fact, it got back to the more cerebral aspects of Science Fiction - altered realities, internal struggles, spacetime, etc.

Those types of "we're taking a stand against the franchise" boycotts are funny. They just come across as selfish tantrums. The movie-going public is a hell of a lot bigger than the voice a period-specific segment of a 44-year-old franchise consisting of six TV series, 11 films, and hundreds of novels.

It's no different than us here (even though we're trying to get something as opposed to stopping something). I signed the petition years ago in good faith, but I never expected it to amount to anything - and as it turns out, it didn't. Not really anyway. We finally got a DVD version of the theatrical release, but it was substandard quality, given away as an extra, on a disc with a childrens game. It was a bitch slap to our segment of the fan base.

We changed nothing. While we were being placated, the franchise is continuing on in the direction Lucas wants it to go. The revisionist lies are still being published as though they were fact, history still being erased, the cheese still being produced, and by all indications we're no closer to getting what we want.

The TOS fans taking a stand against the 11th film has about as much impact as me starting a website called - theresonlyonestarwarsfilmanditcameoutin1977.com

For me, what has always worked and always kept my angst & heartburn down to manageable levels, has been my method for most of my life......If you don't dig the idea of a certain film - don't go see it. Hating it doesn't change anything and seeing it only puts the images in your head.

[/off-topic rant]

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

2001: A Space Odyssey -> 2010.

A lot of people hate 2010, which saddens me.  It's a very good film with very good ideas, it's just so radically different from 2001 that people immediately compare the two, and, of course, 2010 is inferior.  But it's still a good film!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

"Cat People"

A brilliant, noirishish, thriller/horror film with ambiguous supernatural elements, and psycho-sexual undertones. And lots of cats.

"Curse of the Cat People"

A brilliant, fantastical, beautiful childs fantasy about lonliness and imagination. And no cats.

Both masterpeices, and "Curse" is a direct chronological sequal with returning characters, but the films are as different as they can be in every respect.

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

And I guess along those lines... Hobbit -> LotR.

 I guess I can see your point, but LOTR grows from and deepens the Hobbit in a thematically similar (although admitedly wildly different in tone and style) story in the same setting.

"Riddick" is hardly recognizable as the same fictional universe as "Pitch Black."

Its like if the 1960s Batman show and "The Dark Knight"were seen as sequals. Same characters, and they seem to have some relation, but the connection is extremely hard to follow.

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

2001: A Space Odyssey -> 2010.

A lot of people hate 2010, which saddens me.  It's a very good film with very good ideas, it's just so radically different from 2001 that people immediately compare the two, and, of course, 2010 is inferior.  But it's still a good film!

 I agree. 2010 is underratted by comparison to 2001.

2010 is plot driven and fairly linear. I think it succeeds admirably at what it attempts.

Author
Time
2001 is one of my all-time favorites (listening to the soundtrack as I type), but I've never seen the sequel. And this time, it's only because I never got around to it, not because I'm opposed to the idea the way I am with some other films. May have to give it a look.
Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Anchorhead, perhaps you'd like the site I started: theresoneandonlyone2001movieanditcameoutin1968.com

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

xhonzi said:

And I guess along those lines... Hobbit -> LotR.

 I guess I can see your point, but LOTR grows from and deepens the Hobbit in a thematically similar (although admitedly wildly different in tone and style) story in the same setting.

"Riddick" is hardly recognizable as the same fictional universe as "Pitch Black."

Its like if the 1960s Batman show and "The Dark Knight"were seen as sequals. Same characters, and they seem to have some relation, but the connection is extremely hard to follow.

Yeah, what I mostly meant there is that the target audience of Hobbit was youngish kids.  The target audience of the LotR was considerably older.  And, as you said, different in tone and style.

Riddick goes from a smallish one-off story on a single planet to a full fledged space opera with various cultures, prophecies, and magic.  So it's a little more extreme, but I was hoping the cancelled sequels would make for an interesting trilogy.  Then the Hobbit -> LotR and Pitch Black -> Riddick Trilogy comparison would hold more weight.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

Anchorhead, perhaps you'd like the site I started: theresoneandonlyone2001movieanditcameoutin1968.com

 

;-)

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Anchorhead said:

I've been a more-than-casual Trek fan for decades. I enjoyed the latest film. For me, it was better than most of the previous films and it fit in just fine with the history of the series. In fact, it got back to the more cerebral aspects of Science Fiction - altered realities, internal struggles, spacetime, etc.

Those types of "we're taking a stand against the franchise" boycotts are funny. They just come across as selfish tantrums. The movie-going public is a hell of a lot bigger than the voice a period-specific segment of a 44-year-old franchise consisting of six TV series, 11 films, and hundreds of novels.

It's no different than us here (even though we're trying to get something as opposed to stopping something). I signed the petition years ago in good faith, but I never expected it to amount to anything - and as it turns out, it didn't. Not really anyway. We finally got a DVD version of the theatrical release, but it was substandard quality, given away as an extra, on a disc with a childrens game. It was a bitch slap to our segment of the fan base.

We changed nothing. While we were being placated, the franchise is continuing on in the direction Lucas wants it to go. The revisionist lies are still being published as though they were fact, history still being erased, the cheese still being produced, and by all indications we're no closer to getting what we want.

The TOS fans taking a stand against the 11th film has about as much impact as me starting a website called - theresonlyonestarwarsfilmanditcameoutin1977.com

For me, what has always worked and always kept my angst & heartburn down to manageable levels, has been my method for most of my life......If you don't dig the idea of a certain film - don't go see it. Hating it doesn't change anything and seeing it only puts the images in your head.

[/off-topic rant]

while I'm not boycotting the new film, I can sympathize with those that do.   I'm sure many who do, understand that they will have no real impact and just doing it for the principle of it.  I'm still refusing to give Lucas any of my money.  I know it won't have an impact, but I'm doing it anyway. 

As for the new Trek,  the only real problem I have with it is the romance between Spock and Uhura.  That is just wrong unvulcan-like.   Whatever happened to being totally logical and unemotional?

 

Author
Time

Warbler said:

while I'm not boycotting the new film, I can sympathize with those that do.   I'm sure many who do, understand that they will have no real impact and just doing it for the principle of it.  I'm still refusing to give Lucas any of my money.  I know it won't have an impact, but I'm doing it anyway. 

As for the new Trek,  the only real problem I have with it is the romance between Spock and Uhura.  That is just wrong unvulcan-like.   Whatever happened to being totally logical and unemotional?

 

 Not attacking you, but I really loathe the use of the word 'boycott' in this light.

One cannot boycott an entertainment property based on the percieved quality of that product. That is just chosing not to see it based on personal opinion. The entertainment industry is built on people making that choice every day about every product. No one boycotted "Beethoven 4," most just chose not to see it.

If "Star Trek" the movie appealed to certain TOS fans, but they refused to see it because Chris Pine was a Nazi war criminal, that could be termed a 'boycott.'

"I'm refusing to see a movie I don't want to see!" is not a boycott.

Author
Time

I wasn't first person in this thread to use the term boycott in this thread.  

According to Wikipedia a boycott is

a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.

This seems to fit what the Trek people are doing.  It does not say that lack of quality can't be used as the reason for the boycott.  It doesn't limit the reasons behind a boycott at all.

I think they are refusing to see it for more than just because they don't like the movie.   I think its because of how it messes with the original Trek Universe or maybe they can't stand the Spock/Uhura romance.  But you'd really have to ask them for their reasons for the "boycott". 

As for my boycott of Lucas,  it is definitely more just perceived lack of quality.   The PT wasn't that great, but I'd still buy the DVD's if it wasn't for how Lucas was treating the OOT and its fans.   I'd also get myself the soundtracks of all the movies.  I like the soundtracks.  correction: I love the soundtracks.  Yet, I refuse to buy them because of Lucas.   If it weren't for how Lucas was treating OOT, I might even buy the SE, just to have both versions.   So, even under your definition, what I'm doing fits.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If the reason for a boycott is based on the perception that they would not enjoy the entertainment offered, then it is not a boycott. Whether it be because they are so in love with TOS they couldn't handle the reboot, of if they think the Spock/Uhura romance ruins the film.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was not based on the lack of bus-quality, or the readilly available better options. Any so-called "Star Trek" boycott is.

Some people chose not to see "Star Trek" and some people chose not to see "Meet Dave" with Eddie Murphy. If the reason is because they don't think the movie is worth seeing (which, expressed at great length, is what most TOS 'boycotters' seem to say), then calling it a boycott renders the term completely menaningless.

If you would otherwise purchase the PT, but aren't out of protest for Lucas's actions, that might be called a boycott. If you don't want to purchase the PT and don't, that's not a boycott.

One might organize a boycott of Twilight because it promotes violence against women.

One cannot organize a boycott of Twilight because it's not worth seeing. Although one might try to persuade people to your opinion, if they joined you they still would not be boycotters.

People not seeing movies they don't want to see is how the entertainment industry works. A boycott as a political tool is by definition a purposeful change from the normal working of that industry.

Author
Time

But wouldn't those who boycott Twilight due to violence against women potentially also say and try to convince others that it's not worth watching as part of their boycott?

It wouldn't work very well to say, "Don't see it because it promotes violence against women... however... it is AWESOME!"

When you could say, "Don't see it because it promotes violence against women.  And don't worry on missing out on anything cool, because it is TEH SUCK!"

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!