MovieChat Forums > Flatliners (2017) Discussion > Why it's not a sequel.

Why it's not a sequel.

posted 7 years ago by SnagsWolf (1172)
7 replies | jump to latest

Just saw the movie today, and it's not a sequel. First of all, while Kiefer Sutherland is in both movies, he's playing a different character in each, with different names.

I went into the theater thinking it was a sequel, and because of that, I expected Sutherland's character to somehow be more involved in the plot. Like, "I've been through this before, so here's what you have to do." But there was nothing like that. He was just the students' teacher and provided no link at all to the previous movie.

Secondly, there was NOTHING to link it to the previous movie. They didn't mention this had happened before, nor did then imply it. It had basically the same plot as the first, with changes in characters. That makes it a remake, not a sequel.

[–] [email protected] (383) 7 years ago

Sutherland himself confirmed it was a sequel, and i;m quoting from a website:

“I play a professor at the medical university,” the actor told the site. “It is never stated but it will probably be very clearly understood that I’m the same character I was in the original Flatliners but that I have changed my name and I’ve done some things to move on from the experiments that we were doing in the original film.”

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 7 years ago

And I just saw the movie, and I can say with 100% certainty that it wasn't 'clearly understood' that he was the same character. That may have been filmed, and he may have been under the impression that would be in the movie, but it wasn't.

It's not a sequel.

[–] [email protected] (383) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] (383) 7 years ago

You're 100% wrong. It is a sequel

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 7 years ago

No, it isn't.

[–] [email protected] (383) 7 years ago

Yes it is.

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 7 years ago

I just saw it. There was NOTHING in the movie that made it a sequel. No reference to the previous story. Not a single one. Sutherland made that comment a year ago, while the movie was still being made. It's obvious they changed their minds about making him the same character.

Here's a review that discusses it: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16390530/flatliners-review-2017-remake-sequel-kiefer-sutherland-ellen-page-diego-luna-niels-arden-oplev

"Bringing Sutherland in as a mentor figure — one experienced in the dangers of flatlining, and with advice about how to survive — raised the possibility of a Flatliners sequel that would acknowledge the past and push the franchise into the future. It could have helped move the plot along faster, leaving more time for new territory and new developments. And with an experienced older character on hand to draw out the protagonists’ motives and question their purpose, Flatliners could have focused on character development and conflict past the most basic, obvious first steps.
Instead, Oplev and screenwriter Ben Ripley (who also wrote Duncan Jones’ Source Code) opt for the laziest, most predictable route — an almost blow-by-blow remake that runs a new crew of flatliners through the exact same beats as the old ones, but with less energy and creativity. Sutherland’s character is a near-nonentity, a cameo who turns up in a few scenes as a generic cranky medical-center administrator. The character doesn’t do anything specific or interesting to justify Sutherland’s presence."

And this review: http://nerdist.com/flatliners-remake-review-horror/

"And for the record: I reject that this is a sequel. The only apparent tie is Sutherland, who has a small role as doctor who doesn’t even share a name with his original Flatliners character. It’s pure PR because horror sequels get a smidge more respect than remakes."

Also, can you name any other sequel that has the same name as its original? And have you actually seen this movie?