|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:54 PM
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
I was thinking about this today. For instance, the latest Universal Soldier movie has been getting acclaim, of all things, from art-house cinephiles, so I decided to take a look at the franchise. It started as a mediocre Roland Emmerich action flick in 1992, which was followed by two TV movies (without JCVD), and then a theatrical sequel (with JCVD) that ignored the TV movies, and then a couple years ago by a direct-to-video sequel (still with JCVD) that ignored both the TV movies and the theatrical sequel, and finally by this latest, acclaimed sequel that is in continuity with the previous one but apparently doesn't really have much to do with it. And I started thinking about other franchises that this kind of thing has happened to. There's Highlander, which should have been a standalone film but was successful enough to warrant a sequel that was ignored by the second sequel. It also spawned a TV series which is kind of in the same continuity as the original (they like to throw the characters from the movie and the TV show together when possible) even though you have to fudge the details a bit to make that work. RoboCop has two theatrical sequels in continuity, and then as I recall the Prime Directives TV miniseries that ignored the sequels and only followed the original. Wasn't there an animated TV series, too? Terminator has branching continuity after T2, with T3 and Salvation following one line and The Sarah Connor Chronicles following another. (More if you count the S.M. Stirling novels. . .) But given the nature of that franchise such branching makes more sense here than it usually does. Why in some franchises does continuity/canon cause such a big stink, and in others not so much? Is it merely a function of the size and dedication of the fanbase or the belovedness of the original property?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i posted about this before (""Worst sequels...") THEY CALL ME MISTER TIBBS has nothing common with IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT except Poiter's last name!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was this crappy TV movie called "Phenomenon 2", which was nothing more than a REMAKE of the first film! And they had the nerve to refer to it as a sequel in the title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|