The film industry in the last three decades or so has a "sequel" system: when a
film makes money, it is more likely than not to have a sequel, often with a
roman numeral in the title, and often as a cheap re-hash of the original.

Some modern-day movie sequels include: "Airplane II", "Weekend At Bernie's II",
"Home Alone 2", and "Sister Act 2." Often a film's original director refuses to
do a sequel, and the studio simply hires a second-rate hack to do the sequel
instead.

If Hollywood worked the same way in the 1930's and 1940's as it does today, here
are some movies sequels we would have been subjected to:

"Return to the Sons of the Desert"
"Another Night at the Opera"
"Way Out West II: Return to Brushwood Gulch"
"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein Again"

When a film becomes a hit, the best thing to do is to produce a second adventure
with the same characters, in a completely different story. I for one am glad
that L&H made "Our Relations", "Way Out West" and "Blockheads" as opposed to
"Sons of the Desert" 2, 3, and 4.

Eric Perlin wrote:

For the most part, I agree. Unless you have a killer script. Then
it's okay to make "Bride of Frankenstein" and "Buck Privates Come
Home," two sequels from the '30s and '40s that actually work
splendidly, in my opinion.

But yes, I prefer "additional adventures" (known as "series" films in
the golden age of cinema) - Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Blondie, and the
like... modern day equivelent being James Bond - over sequels. And
over the years, some films that have been numbered as if they were
sequels (best example - the Star Trek films) are really "series" films.

paul.castiglia wrote:

} For the most part, I agree. Unless you have
} a killer script. Then it's okay to make
} "Bride of Frankenstein" and "Buck Privates
} Come Home," two sequels from the '30s and '40s
} that actually work splendidly, in my opinion.

I agree, but "Buck Privates Come Home" is not the kind of sequel that is the
norm today. If movie sequels were done the same way in the 1940's, "Buck
Privates" would have been followed by "Buck Privates II" and "Buck Privates
III", with A&C's characters remaining in the army and getting into in similar
antics in each film. (And if the "Buck Privates" sequels kept making money, A&C
would never make "Hold That Ghost" or "Pardon My "sarong.") I am totally okay
with sequels that have fresh storylines and take the characters in a whole
different direction, as is the case with "Buck Privates Come Home."

I also think remakes are a good idea _only_ when they largely re-interpret the
original. There is no point in remakes that are almost exact duplicates of the
original films, as has been the case with several made-for-TV remakes through
the years, such as "The Miracle Worker" and "The Defiant Ones."

Eric Perlin wrote:

Here's my take on remakes: if something was perfect the first time
around, why bother? On the other hand, there are a large number of
"near misses" out there - films that had some interesting ideas in them
that just weren't fully realized into satisfying films once executed.
I'm talking about all those 2&1/2 star movies out there that somehow
fell short of being 3 star movies. Remake something that had
potential, but the potential was unrealized the first time around...
and this time, realize that potential!

On 21 Nov 2006 06:29:55 -0800, paul.castiglia@verizon.net wrote:

| Eric Perlin wrote:
|
| > I also think remakes are a good idea _only_ when they largely re-interpret the
| > original. There is no point in remakes that are almost exact duplicates of the
| > original...

When it comes to Laurel and Hardy sequels, the best is "Revenge of The
Sons Of The Desert", directed by Sandy Marshall....

I'll always remember back in 1979 how many people thought "Rocky II"
was such a stupid title for a sequel--it was probably the "Friday the
13th" and "Police Academy" movies that made the chapter numbers so much
part of the titles, and with the exception of say x-rated movies nobody
uses it anymore ("Star Trek" dropped them from 'VI' onwards, and "Rocky
Balboa" is out this Christmas). The fashion these days is to 'reboot'
franchises completely from the to

But L&H did make a sequel to one of their films... and there's at least
one re-make that comes to mind.

Kimba W. Lion wrote:

True. Them Thar Hills begat Tit for Tat.

The Music Box is a remake (or at least a "reimagining") of Hats Off.

Flying Deuces is a remake (or at least a "reimagining") of Beau Hunks.

The last third of

...and several of the '40s films (The Dancing Masters, The Big Noise
and The Bullfighters most noticeably) recycled scenarios or at least
gags from earlier films. Not to mention several Roach films doing the
same (Sons of the Desert, Blockheads).

The main difference: Stan & Ollie always did it with panache! :)

Kimba W. Lion wrote:

There's more than one remake:

Duck Soup was remade very closely as Another Fine Mess.

Angora Love was remade as Laughing Gravy.

Unaccustomed As We Are was basically remade as the second half of
Blockheads.

I think there are some others, but that's all that comes to mind at the
moment.

See ya!
Joe L.

paul.castiglia@verizon.net wrote:

Indeed. Scott Darling certainly did his homework. Part of the plot of
The Dancing Masters is our only clue to how some of the missing footage
from Battle of the Century plays. And The Bullfighters incorporates the
basic plotline of Going Bye-Bye.

See ya!
Joe L.