WE MIGHT HAVE

 A SEQUEL HERE, TOO.

What might it be a sequel to?

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Is it?

Yes.

John Turturro wrote, directed and starred in this remake of the 1974 French comedy “Les Valseuses” aka “Going Places”… and chose to do so while reprising his infamous “… Lebowski” role: Jesus! Why he thought this was a good fit, I do not know. In addition to obtaining legal rights to the character, he (apparently) got the Coen Brothers’ blessing, as well - although they remain totally uncredited on the final product. But it is indeed the same character. There’s no mistaking that. So this is an official spin-off, folks… which is just a softer, friendlier term for ‘sequel’.

What might it be a sequel to?

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Is it?

No.

You could absolutely make the argument that it’s a sequel, through and through. It’s got the structure of a sequel, the title of a sequel - hell, even the ruby slippers return, which were an invention (their colour, at least) of the original. But there are too many reasons why this isn’t a sequel to ignore. For one, it never directly references the events in the Garland-led musical. Which brings us to point number two: it isn’t a musical. Case closed. And don’t get me started on Dorothy being, like, ten years younger despite all the time that’s supposedly passed since her first trip to Oz. Plus, this one was produced by Disney, not MGM (… although, to be fair, Disney did own the Oz rights by this point and, as referenced, had to write MGM a cheque to use the slippers, which are silver in the books). Ultimately, the deciding factor should lay in the artist’s intention - and I just don’t believe that director and co-writer Walter Murch intended this to be an official sequel to the ’39 classic. Even calling it an “unofficial” sequel is projecting your own agenda onto his vision, if you ask me.

What might it be a sequel to?

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

Is it?

Yes.

Wikipedia defines it as a “spin-off/follow-up”. Again, just fancy language for “sequel”. Russell Brand returns as Aldous Snow, who was very memorably introduced in the first movie. They even go so far as to have Snow spot Sarah Marshall (again played by Kristen Bell) on TV and crack a crass joke about their prior relationship.

What might it be a sequel to?

The French Connection (1971)

Is it?

No.

So Philip D’Antoni produced “The French Connection”, right? Right. And in it Roy Scheider plays a character based on Sonny Grosso, right? Right. Then D’Antoni directed this, also starring Scheider as a character based on Sonny Grosso - but not the same one from “The French Connection”. The two movies actually have nothing to do with each other beyond the people involved and the Grosso basis. There was a legit sequel to “The French Connection”, though. It was called “French Connection II”… and Scheider wasn’t in it. He was in this. Playing a different role. Based on the same guy. Yeesh.

What might it be a sequel to?

the Spy Kids trilogy

Is it?

Yes.

Long before that fake Grindhouse trailer captured everyone’s hearts and imaginations, Danny Trejo originated the role of Isador “Machete” Cortez in the “Spy Kids” franchise - technically making all these Rodriguez movies one wild, sprawling saga.

What might it be a sequel to?

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Is it?

No.

Although both adapted from the same book series that stars the Tom Ripley character, the two movies are entirely unconnected (despite the suggestive tagline). There have been a few Ripley movies over the years, before and after Minghella’s, but no official franchise. Barry Pepper played Ripley once. So did Dennis Hopper.

What might it be a sequel to?

Donnie Darko (2001)

Is it?

Yes.

No one wants it to be true, least of all Richard Kelly, but the simple fact is that Daveigh Chase reprises her role from the first, making this an official sequel. Even IMDb says so. I know. It hurts. I’m sorry.

What might it be a sequel to?

Raging Bull (1980)

Is it?

No.

Someone(s) made it their mission in life to produce an equal parts sequel and prequel to the Scorsese classic. Then some lawyers got on the phone. So it went from being titled “Raging Bull II: Continuing the Story of Jake LaMotta” to “The Bronx Bull”. They even dragged Sorvino into the fray to look like they had Marty cred’. Apparently this movie is an official adaptation of some “sequel novel”… but I’m not even sure what that means.

… ok, I looked it up. Turns out there was a second LaMotta autobiography published six years after the original movie. Check it out:

What might it be a sequel to?

Get Shorty (1995)

Is it?

Yes.

Just because you don’t want something to be a sequel, doesn’t mean it’s not a sequel. We’re just gonna have to accept that this movie actually happened, kids.

What might it be a sequel to?

Flatliners (1990)

Is it?

No.

We simply thought they were remaking “Flatliners”. Then we were told Kiefer Sutherland had joined the cast. So we all assumed this was a sequel, with him reprising his original role. As for it having the exact same title as the first one…? Well, they do that a lot lately. Just ask “Halloween” & “Scream”. But then, upon its release, it was revealed that Sutherland was playing a new role, making his casting a mere homage. Either that or there was no one else on the planet who could have played that role as well as Kiefer and they just had to have him no matter what. Anyway, this thing is a flat-out (ha) remake. End of story.

What might it be a sequel to?

Halloween (1978)

Halloween II (1981)

Is it?

Yes.

Well, yeah. It’s called “Halloween III…”, dude. Kinda obvious. Except! Michael Meyers isn’t in this (well, ok, you see him on a TV for two seconds - long story). Nor does it have any connection to the first two whatsoever. Which kinda makes it an in-name-only sequel. Carpenter famously stated that he originally intended to close the book on the Strode story with the second movie, but keep the franchise going - each instalment telling a new scary ‘Halloween night’ story. Like an anthology. But Michael’s absence mostly just confused people. This probably should have just been a stand-alone movie called “Season of the Witch”. That way fans wouldn’t have to be constantly clarifying and defending their love for it. But, alas - it remains an official entry in the “Halloween” series.

What might it be a sequel to?

Jackie Brown (1997)

Is it?

No.

Elmore Leonard wrote a book called “The Switch”. It featured the characters Ordell, Louis and Melanie. Many years later, he wrote another book, with those characters returning, called “Rum Punch”. Tarantino turned the latter into “Jackie Brown” and this is based on the former. Each movie features those three characters, played, naturally, by different actors. The two movies are entirely unrelated, despite their sources. There’s no shared universe happening here. Trust me. There was, when Michael Keaton reprised his role from “Jackie Brown” in the also-Leonard-adapted “Out of Sight”, but that was just a too-good-to-be-true one-off that all of us still can’t believe happened.

What might it be a sequel to?

The Graduate (1967)

Is it?

No.

What if you found out that your family’s scandalous past inspired “The Graduate”? That’s what happens to Jennifer Aniston’s character in this awful movie. Kevin Costner plays the pseudo Benjamin role and Shirley McClain is basically Mrs. Robinson. Oh, and Aniston quickly falls for Costner, causing history to repeat itself. Who knows if this is true or not, but I always assumed this project started out as an actual sequel to “The Graduate”, much like the one Buck Henry is pitching in the opening of “The Player”.

What might it be a sequel to?

Where the Buffalo Roam (1980)

Is it?

No.

Both movies are indeed semi-autobiographical, with Bill Murray and Johnny Depp giving their respective takes on Hunter S. Thompson. But it’s far-fetched to suggest the two movies are related beyond that. Besides, Murray’s character is actually named Hunter S. Thompson and Depp’s is Raoul Duke. As small of a detail as that may seem, it should be enough to squelch any confusion or uncertainty. Another Hunter S. movie was just made recently, actually, called “Fear and Loathing in Aspen”. It proudly billed itself as a prequel to “… Las Vegas”. It is not.

What might it be a sequel to?

Blade Runner (1982)

Is it?

No.

This movie likes to call itself a spin-off sidequel/spiritual successor to “Blade Runner”. Wow. The justification is that writer David Peoples, who also co-wrote “Blade Runner”, peppered in elements from that classic into this movie. If you look fast you’ll spot a Spinner (flying car thingy). And battles that Roy Batty merely referenced as he died are actually shown here. To me, that sounds a lot more like a writer having fun than this being an actual sequel to “Blade Runner”. And I’m not wrong.

What might it be a sequel to?

Happiness (1998)

Is it?

Yes.

Here are some terms for you: pseudosequel, loose sequel, semi-sequel. I’ve heard/read people use each to describe this movie. However - just the facts, ma’am: the same characters and world brought back to us by the same writer/director? Sequel! Even if said characters are played by different actors.

What might it be a sequel to?

American Psycho (2000)

Is it?

No.

Yes, both movies are based on Bret Easton Ellis novels, resulting in lots of fan theories about these two movies existing in the same movie-verse. But there’s little evidence to suggest this. Alright, fine… there is a little - Casper Van Dien filmed scenes for this as Patrick Bateman, who was played by Christian Bale in “American Psycho”. But the scenes were cut altogether, taking down anything resembling a bridge between the two movies in the process.

What might it be a sequel to?

Bad Lieutenant (1992)

Is it?

I honestly don’t know.

When this project was announced, director Werner Herzog was asked if it was a remake or a sequel. He said it was neither… and we were all like, “But… wait - what?” Yet he's doubled down on that stance ever since. So we still don’t know what the hell this thing is. All I know is how good Eva Mendes is in it.

What might it be a sequel to?

Dogville (2003)

Is it?

Yes.

It’s definitely a sequel. It’s just a little confusing at first because some of the characters are recast, most notably Grace - Bryce Dallas Howard replaces Nicole Kidman in the lead role.

What might it be a sequel to?

Cloverfield (2008)

Is it?

Yes.

The story goes that J.J. Abrams was nearly finished producing this movie when he realized it might make a nice companion piece to Matt Reeves’ “Cloverfield”, which J.J. also produced. So they threw in a few additional shots (nothing a mailbox can’t solve) that tangentially connected the two. But that connection was vague (and flimsy) at best. It was left up in the air how the two movies were directly linked. Any questions we had were answered in the franchises’ third offering, “The Cloverfield Paradox”… although the initial mystery of this saga provided most of the suspense and tension. So by definitively and plainly explaining everything - the fun of these movies was pretty much spoiled.

What might it be a sequel to?

Troll (1986)

Is it?

No.

Many movies have been marketed as “Troll” sequels (also see: “The Crawlers” aka “Contamination .7” aka “Troll 3”), but none of them actually are. “Troll” has no sequel. This movie has no relation to it whatsoever. In fact, it’s not even about a troll. It’s about goblins.

What might it be a sequel to?

Octopussy (1983)

Is it?

No.

In the midst of Roger Moore’s career as 007, Sean Connery returned to the role as well - much to everyone’s confusion. This movie is not an entry in the official MGM Bond franchise we all know so well. I have no idea how (I’m sure it’s a long boring story), but Warner Bros. was legally allowed to make this movie. It was Connery’s seventh and final time playing the character. The title is a cheeky reference to him saying, years prior, that he’d never do so again. And as if matters weren’t confusing enough - this movie is technically a remake of “Thunderball”…?!