This movie cries out for a sequel...
I wonder why Newman never did one? Perhaps he was ashamed of playing such a rat!
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Hud (1963) Discussion > This movie cries out for a sequel...
I think this movie ended on the perfect note. No sequel necessary.
By the way, I don't think Newman was bothered by playing a scoundrel like Hud. However by most accounts he was dismayed by how many people admired and looked up to Hud as someone to emulate.
"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."
By the way, I don't think Newman was bothered by playing a scoundrel like Hud. However by most accounts he was dismayed by how many people admired and looked up to Hud as someone to emulate.
He should hardly be surprised when Hud was portrayed as the kind of scoundrel who could have any woman he wanted. Even Alma said he would have given into him eventually had he not gotten drunk and tried to rape her.
Problem is, people mix up Newman's physical charms with his character. Many people see women go for a scoundrel like Hud, and come to the conclusion that they go for him because he is a scoundrel. Homer even alludes to something along these lines when he talks about how women like to get close to danger.
It's really kind of half and half. Women go for Hud because of his physical charms. But the fact that he is a scoundrel plays a part, too. If he wasn't a scoundrel, he never would have been seeing that guy's wife, for instance. share
After watching this again the other day I started wondering what might have happened to Hud and Lon.
Obviously Hud got into oil and made a bunch of money. I see him becoming a businessman with his money in many different investments, some of which would naturally be shady. It would make sense for Hud to invest in two of his favorite hobbies: Owning a bar or strip club. I could even see him getting involved in politics.
Lon might have joined the army, in which case he might have gone to Vietnam. Lots of story possibilities there, with Lonnie coming back from the war to reclaim his half of the ranch. Or maybe he got married, or he might have become a flower child. Who knows?
Not sure a sequel would be worthwile now that all the original cast is gone. Fun to speculate, though.
"Push the button, Max!"
Unless you personally wanted to see Hud redeem himself in some way, I can't think of a reason why a sequel would be necessary.
What do you think the teacher's gonna look like this year?
Some films should never have sequels; Hud is one of them. At movie's end, the viewer already realizes that the main character will become a lonely,nasty, old man. Most likely no writer can make the bastard any worse so it doesn't seem fair to mankind to reinvent his persona and redeem him.
The Last Picture Show had a sequel Texasville, both from novels by Hud’s Larry McMurtry, with the same characters being thirty years older. The amazing thing here is that the films, one released in 1971 and the other in 1990 retained most of the original cast: Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepherd, Eileen Brennan, etc. Even the same director. That should have created circumstances for a perfect sequel. Although The Last Picture Show was an excellent film, Texasville was far from it. The sequel was only interesting to see how the characters aged.
Even if Paul Newman were alive to star as a dying sympathetic Hud, I would scream that there is no justice in the world.
I don't think we need a sequel.
share