<![CDATA[This should have been released in theaters!]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Tremors II: Aftershocks

Studman_Productions — 18 years ago(May 17, 2007 04:12 PM)

This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks!

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/220279/this-should-have-been-released-in-theatersRSS for NodeThu, 14 May 2026 09:53:19 GMTSat, 02 May 2026 08:58:31 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:42 GMT]]>TheSonomaDude_Returns — 10 years ago(March 19, 2016 04:41 PM)

It's funny because Wilson and Maddock rewrote their original Tremors 2 screenplay to better accommodate a small budget, specifically for direct-to-video. After the final product was presented, Wilson and Maddock thought it looked surprisingly well made and campaigned for it to get a theatrical release. Although unsuccessful, Universal managed to give it a very limited screening run in like 20 theaters, including the TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood before being released to VHS and Laserdisc a week later.
I do agree the film should've been released in theaters. For a film with $4 million, it's a sequel that manages to come off as both original and entertaining, and it's funny that this low budget, straight-to-video sequel is better than most big budget, theatrical sequels.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848200https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848200Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:41 GMT]]>RADinaRy — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 06:06 PM)

As good as I think
Aftershocks
managed to be considering its circumstances, I can't help but imagine the possibilities of the original intended theatrical sequel. It would've been a far different continuation with the likes of Bacon & Reba involved, that's for sure.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848199https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848199Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:40 GMT]]>Father_Anthonis — 16 years ago(December 23, 2009 07:01 PM)

hell this movie has better cgi then all the trash in star wars episode one.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848198https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848198Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:38 GMT]]>Studman_Productions — 16 years ago(December 10, 2009 08:28 AM)

there have been lots of dodgy effects in theatrically released movies. i think this one had the right story and acting to warrant a cinema release. oh well even though it went straight to video its still a great movie.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848197https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848197Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:37 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848196https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848196Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:36 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848195https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848195Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:35 GMT]]>Studman_Productions — 18 years ago(October 30, 2007 11:31 AM)

I concur! Some good films like this one get the shaft while other crapfests like "Epic Movie" get wide releases. Ah, such is life.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848194https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848194Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:34 GMT]]>DeAd_MiKe_187 — 18 years ago(October 30, 2007 03:10 AM)

I just watched this movie again last night for the first time in years. I would never know by watching it that it was a straight-to-video movie. The quality was pretty good, the direction wasn't bad, and there were a lot of nice professional details in the movie that made it seem well made. It's a lot more well made than a bunch of the crap horror-type movies that have been released lately.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848193https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848193Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:33 GMT]]>JannTosh — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 04:34 PM)

I agree. The special effects and sets looked great considering its budget. Imagine if they just added a few more million to the budget.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848192https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848192Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This should have been released in theaters! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:32 GMT]]>Dutch90 — 18 years ago(August 05, 2007 07:51 AM)

Agreed, it had enough technical quality for the cinema.
Please sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/IMDBKEEP/petition.html

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848191https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848191Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:32 GMT