<![CDATA[This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks!]]>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/220280/this-was-a-worthy-sequel-it-should-have-been-released-in-theaters-oh-well-it-still-rocksRSS for NodeFri, 15 May 2026 16:15:14 GMTSat, 02 May 2026 08:58:43 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:54 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/1848211https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848211Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:53 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/1848210https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848210Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:52 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/1848209https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848209Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:50 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/1848208https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848208Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:49 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848207https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848207Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:48 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848206https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848206Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:47 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/1848205https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848205Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:46 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/1848204https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848204Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:45 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/1848203https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848203Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to This was a worthy sequel. It should have been released in theaters. Oh well, it still rocks! on Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:44 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/1848202https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1848202Sat, 02 May 2026 08:58:44 GMT