Timeline for Is the ThanksKilling franchise the only franchise to skip its sequel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2018 at 8:54 | history | protected | Napoleon Wilson | ||
| Aug 3, 2018 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMovies/status/1025260221072113666 | ||
| Aug 2, 2018 at 19:21 | answer | added | Ava | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 2, 2018 at 14:38 | answer | added | m1gp0z | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 20:52 | comment | added | Pants | @Walt I'm thinking less inconsistencies and more they intentionally skipped a sequel - they did everything but make and release the movie. I'll look into the House films though. A quick glance is kinda promising because House III wasn't even called that when it was released. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 20:49 | history | edited | Pants | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added more examples of how the film acted like it was a real movie, just without making a movie
|
| Nov 11, 2016 at 20:30 | comment | added | Walt | Horror franchises are prone to such inconsistencies. The House films are really House I, II & IV, with House III not considered a real sequel. The Eye 2 was followed by The Eye 10, but it's just a name. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 20:15 | answer | added | Carl Fink | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 19:08 | comment | added | John | I was always under the impression that a sequel referred to its prior production of that name, and not to a book series or to a subject script that was deemed as not worthy of production. I think a lot of people will simply say a sequel is the next movie, period. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 19:07 | comment | added | Gustavo Gabriel | Oh, I get it, in that case I don't think there is any movie that did that. Googled a lot and didn't find any anyways. =( | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 19:01 | history | edited | Pants | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
hopefully clarifying and removing confusing points
|
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | Pants | @AnkitSharma Thanks. If you have a suggestion for how to make the wording clearer, let me know or edit. I've been thinking circles in my head about this for a couple hours and I think that is starting to show up in my writing. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:55 | comment | added | Pants | @GustavoGabriel I saw it before, but didn't read it (I did glance at it now though). That seems to be more talking about retconning the story to exclude certain prequels, opposed to the sequels simply not existing. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:55 | comment | added | Ankit Sharma♦ | @GustavoGabriel Asker is after the franchise where one of the sequel is missing, like there was no ThanksKilling 2. | |
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | Gustavo Gabriel | Have you read this article: denofgeek.com/movies/ignored/34325/…, I dind't understand the situation you are not looking for. If this article helps you I can add it as an answer =) | |
| S Nov 11, 2016 at 18:51 | history | suggested | akr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added tag and clarified.
|
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:51 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 11, 2016 at 19:08 | |||||
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:51 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 11, 2016 at 18:51 | |||||
| Nov 11, 2016 at 18:48 | history | asked | Pants | CC BY-SA 3.0 |