@Benton12 said:

Been over 25 years since the original. I discussed on this website how like 25 years is the maximum you can have between one film and the very next one in a film series.

You don't make the rules though.

Officially no. Of course not. That is not news in the slightest. But I speak sensibility as a rule. After all these decades a sequel!?! Let's see that would be like making a sequel to a 1948 movie starring say Humphrey Bogart and others in 1986. Would have been considered totally ridiculous back then. This should be considered equally totally ridiculous and not cannon. And there is such a thing as unofficial rules. (Anymore than Doctor Sleep after 39 years can be considered a cannon sequel to the 1980 film The Shining. BTW.)

There is also the solid point of book and movie or TV connections or lack of connections. A viewer to the Shining of 1980 at YT said he was about to read the book to learn more but he was very dissuaded fast and very heavy by others telling him the King book was not any connection to the Kubrick movie.

I will add one more. I got a Star Trek :TOS book that was sort of continuing the adventures of the Korby droids from 'What are little girls made of'. It is not canon to the TV show episode that was fun and starred the great and beautiful Sherry Jackson. Just fan fiction. ( I only picked up the book myself when I went to a thrift store to get an old Encyclopedia set!)

More examples. 1960's 'The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse' by the Great director Fritz Lang is too long by one or two years to be a sequel from the last Mabuse film before it in 1933 and created a false sequel film status.

'Fury Road' comes three whole decades after 'Mad Max Beyond the Thunder Dome' and also has big, insurmountable sequel qualification troubles.

It's like a recent "sequel" to the book 'A Christmas Carol' where Scrooge is established as having been a genuine crook illegal and all. Imagine some shnook reading 'A Christmas Carol' now and saying "Turns out this Scrooge is an illegal crook." Another person says"I read that book. Where is it ever mentioned Scrooge is illegal". The first person replies "A new sequel book to this just written has Scrooge illegal". The first person replies "A new book is a sequel to that 1843 book!?! Are you out of your brain!?!"

Got a great loony and disqualifying sequel idea intermediate between those examples. A sequel to Charlie Chaplin's 1925 silent film 'Gold Rush'!You know the film where Chaplin and Georgia Hale are at a party and Charlie ( with silverware) turns sweet potatoes (?) into something dancing.

Let's see. A viewer at a college watching the old 'Gold Rush' says" This prospector is really with the federal government". "Huh?" asks the professor who is showing the class the very old film. The student explains in a new sequel just released to this 1925 film it turns out the prospector was with the Bureau of Investigation ( later FBI).The professor also asks if the student is out of brain.

PS Georgia Hale looked really attractive for decades after she did 'Gold Rush'. I saw her in 1970 -- on a 1970 film at YT that is. Still a youthful appearing looker she was!

I will second what Spike64 said above:

YOU DO NOT MAKE THE RULES! 😏🙄

Bratface, I do not want you in this.

People and their values and society change too much over decades. Another reason why a sequel after 25 with nothing in between that and the original show is a really terrible idea.

@Benton12 said:

Bratface, I do not want you in this.

Too bad Benton, this is a public forum where YOU DO NOT MAKE THE RULES.

Half the time you come around, Bratty, it is trouble! Aka your moniker!

Sounds like it's a good thing @Benton12 doesn't make the rules.

@sTyLeS said:

Sounds like it's a good thing @Benton12 doesn't make the rules.

You think so. Well, let me tell you something that is really idiotic in sequels. Robert Carradine played Clarence the Angel in a "sequel" to "It's a Wonderful Life" on a film that was shown on a cable network in 1990. Yeah. A lot of people viewing were really going to think that mere cable film was a genuine sequel to a theatrical film made eons (44 years) earlier. That was the dumbest sequel attempt of all!

The thing is, this movie actually fits in with the timeline. The number of years passed is the same as what passed in the movie. And it works because many of the characters are the same and so the age progression is exact.

@sTyLeS said:

The thing is, this movie actually fits in with the timeline. The number of years passed is the same as what passed in the movie. And it works because many of the characters are the same and so the age progression is exact.

What is all that mumbo jumbo? Carradine is so Al Pacinoesq and he is replacing an almost WC Fieldseque type. He was a rotten fit. But what's worse it was just a cable film. 44 years later is pathetic. How you figured what you just figured shows total lunacy! First class!

All they could have made by 1990 realistically was a not in character actor reunion. Between like surviving original film stars Jimmy Stewart and his surviving co-stars like Jimmy Hawkins.

The cable network that called that dud TV movie a sequel should have been up on charges of false advertising!

@Benton12 said: How you figured what you just figured shows total lunacy!

You do realize this is a thread about "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice", right? Here you are talking about 44 years later and Carradine and Jimmy Stewart...