Your Favourite Belated Sequels?

Tools    





Sparked today by listening to Daft Punk's music for Tron: Legacy, a sequel made nearly 30 years after the original film.

It would definitely be one of my favourite belated sequels because it really surprised and enthralled me in various ways. I couldn't believe the success of the photoreal, younger Jeff Bridges for instance; loved the idea of Clu as the baddie; and I thought Olivia Wilde was the best thing in it, looking perfect – and so slightly unreal – and playing Quorra with an open, inquisitive nature.

I suppose another important one would be the Doctor Who minisode The Night of the Doctor, in which Paul McGann finally got to return to the character on screen 16 years after his single appearance in Doctor Who: The Movie and a wealth (and I mean wealth ) of audio dramas. Nearly everything about the episode was perfect, but it firmly demonstrated what had been lost by McGann never having been able to play the Doctor in a full TV series.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would be one of my least favourites. What particularly bothered me was that the methodology espoused by Spielberg in the infancy of the production, i.e. doing things the old-fashioned way, seemed to get kicked into touch by the time he was making it, and it became a CGI playground and therefore less satisfying and tangible than the other films.



Welcome to the human race...
The first title to come into my mind was Clerks II, but I haven't watched it in ages and I'm not sure that it'll hold up if I ever revisit it.

Just so we have an idea, how much time has to pass by before a sequel qualifies as "belated"? I was thinking at least seven years myself.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Well, my fellow MoFo pal, Citizen Rules, recently viewed and reviewed 2001 A Space Odyssey and its sequel that came out 16 years later: 2010 The Year We Make Contact. Which is probably why it popped into my head when viewing this thread.

Hate to call it a favorite sequel, but is the only sequel to a classic.



Then there's Star Wars: The Force Awakens - which is a sequel to Return of the Jedi.
There's a 32 year difference between those two films! Talk about "belated."



2010 the year we made contact, a solid sci fi continuation to the first film.



The first title to come into my mind was Clerks II, but I haven't watched it in ages and I'm not sure that it'll hold up if I ever revisit it.

Just so we have an idea, how much time has to pass by before a sequel qualifies as "belated"? I was thinking at least seven years myself.
Well, on that subject, I also thought about Aliens, which wouldn't be one of my favourite sequels necessarily, although I do like it. The time between that and Alien was the same: 7 years, so I think it's long enough to count. GoldenEye could also be added, being 6 years after Licence to Kill.



2010 the year we made contact, a solid sci fi continuation to the first film.
Haven't seen that in at least 20 years – actually the spacewalk was mentioned on another thread and that sticks out in my mind more than anything.



Welcome to the human race...
Well, on that subject, I also thought about Aliens, which wouldn't be one of my favourite sequels necessarily, although I do like it. The time between that and Alien was the same: 7 years, so I think it's long enough to count. GoldenEye could also be added, being 6 years after Licence to Kill.
I think at this point I might just have to make a list of sequels that are progressively further away from their originals - one that came out a year later, one from two years later, etc. - and then see at what point the sequels start to feel like they can be described as belated. I'm starting to think that eight years might be my personal cut-off point, but we'll see who wants to do this with a degree of scientific method.



I think at this point I might just have to make a list of sequels that are progressively further away from their originals - one that came out a year later, one from two years later, etc. - and then see at what point the sequels start to feel like they can be described as belated. I'm starting to think that eight years might be my personal cut-off point, but we'll see who wants to do this with a degree of scientific method.
With franchises like the Bond films, and also things like Star Wars, it's usually 2–3 years between films isn't it? Anything past that would be unusual I think but we're talking about periods of inactivity that drag on forever. Blade Runner's sequel will be another case in point. 7–8 years in between seems a reasonable cut-off point though.

The Swedish films The Hunters (1996) and False Trail (2011) were made 15 years apart, and both are great.



Rocky Balboa came out in 2006 and is a sequel to Rocky V from 1990 - so that's a 16 year gap between sequels.
And then Creed came out in 2015, nine years after Rocky Balboa.



Rocky Balboa came out in 2006 and is a sequel to Rocky V from 1990 - so that's a 16 year gap between sequels.
And then Creed came out in 2015, nine years after Rocky Balboa.
And don't forget Rambo (2008), made 20 years after Rambo III. Now that is a favourite delayed sequel of mine .



And don't forget Rambo (2008), made 20 years after Rambo III. Now that is a favourite delayed sequel of mine .
yes you are right, nic addition i would say to the one man army action movie genre, sly is badass in this



yes you are right, nic addition i would say to the one man army action movie genre, sly is badass in this
Talking of which, Riddick was made an incredible 9 years after The Chronicles of Riddick.



Another one that I really like is The Return of the Musketeers (1989) – and isn't it nice when you can say you saw an older film at the pictures ? Made 15 years after The Four Musketeers (1974), which I saw the end of yesterday; it's still brilliant.



I'd agree with Fury Road and Tron Legacy, the latter I think caught a lot of the fallout from Avatar as the next 3D tentpole film despite being vastly superior.

Jackie Chan's Drunken Master 2 perhaps, 16 years after the original and obviously very different in style but still highly entertaining.



The "Two Jakes". 16 years after "Chinatown". Supposedly the troublesome production put Jack off directing ever again but I really liked it.



Welcome to the human race...
An unpopular opinion, to be sure, but I would say Escape From L.A.

I also thought of the Universal Soldier sequels - there's an 11-year gap between The Return and Regeneration. The former is a theatrically-released dud, the latter is a surprisingly decent direct-to-video piece.



Then there's Star Wars: The Force Awakens - which is a sequel to Return of the Jedi.
There's a 32 year difference between those two films! Talk about "belated."
And Rogue One is a prequel to A New Hope. So I believe that makes A New Hope a negative 39 year sequel. Thats gotta be a record of some sort if not completely confusing.

But how do people define "sequel". Are we talking the next movie in a series of movies that depict a linear time line? Like chapters? If so, then as much as I love Fury Road, Im not sure that one could count. I dont see it as along the same time line necessarily. All those movies (except the first) seemed to me to be fire side legends outside of an ongoing story line and handled as such by George Miller. Especially this last one. But if you consider a sequel to be simply the next release of a general movie theme (post apocalyptic films featuring the character Mad Max) then it works of course but then you have to include reboots as well.

But Im probably being too pedantic for the underlying meaning of this question so just ignore that.

I would submit The Hustler and The Color of Money as a pretty good gap between original and sequel. 25 years I believe.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



I would submit The Hustler and The Color of Money as a pretty good gap between original and sequel. 25 years I believe.[/quote]

That's a great shout, I liked The Hustler but loved The Color of Money. Scorsese did a great job there.