When a Stranger Calls/When a Stranger Calls Back Questions

[The_Driller_Killer]

Did anyone else notice this? It’s always bugged me about these movies. And be warned, some SPOILERS lay ahead.

After the incidents Carol Kane’s character, Jill, endures in the original film, she is seen years later, married with two children and living in a very suburban, picket fences-type neighborhood. She has made a very successful career for herself working in something along the lines of charity. So successful, in fact, that her picture is even seen in the newspaper.

When the character of Jill returns in the sequel, she lives alone in an apartment (possibly in a different city), there is no mention of any children, and she is head of women’s services at a local college. She even teaches a self-defense class as well. I know her husband is killed in the end of the first film, which would explain why she is living alone, but why wasn’t there any mention of her children? And how could her career and life have changed so dramatically over the years? It just never made sense to me. Not for a horror film anyways.

[Romero&Juliet]

"Not for a horror film, anyways"?


That's a good question.. its been so long since I've seen the original that I forget about her husband dying..

Her children, though.. wierd..

Maybe she...uhhh... just forgot to check them? :D








sorry

[The_Driller_Killer]

Well, what I meant by "not for a horror film" was that whenever a film has a sequel and an original character returns, he/she is pretty much the same as they were in the previous film.

[Romero&Juliet]

Originally posted by The_Driller_Killer
Well, what I meant by "not for a horror film" was that whenever a film has a sequel and an original character returns, he/she is pretty much the same as they were in the previous film.

oh, yeah, I know what you mean.. I just thought the statement funny, is all.. considering the plain ol' BIZARRE plot holes that we've come upon.


Its actually kinda cool to see the heroine come back all transformed, though.. like the chick in the first friday coming back as a hermit-y old artist..

[Antonio]

First of all, I remember Jill's husband surviving the killer's attack in the first STRANGER flick. When he falls out of the closet, Charles Durning's cop character informs Jill that he's still alive. I think he even moved his head.

The first 20 minutes in the first film obviously occurred in the early-to-mid 70's. The final act was set in 1979, the year of the film's release. In 1993, 14 years later, Jill was probably divorced from her husband (due to her obsession with her career), and her children either lived with him, or were away at a boarding school or college, depending on their ages in the first film.

[The_Driller_Killer]

Originally posted by Antonio
First of all, I remember Jill's husband surviving the killer's attack in the first STRANGER flick. When he falls out of the closet, Charles Durning's cop character informs Jill that he's still alive. I think he even moved his head.

The first 20 minutes in the first film obviously occurred in the early-to-mid 70's. The final act was set in 1979, the year of the film's release. In 1993, 14 years later, Jill was probably divorced from her husband (due to her obsession with her career), and her children either lived with him, or were away at a boarding school or college, depending on their ages in the first film.

That's way too convenient. And anyways, if that was the case, why wasn't it ever mentioned in the sequel?

[Antonio]

Originally posted by The_Driller_Killer
That's way too convenient. And anyways, if that was the case, why wasn't it ever mentioned in the sequel?

I was trying to come up with the most logical, practical, convenient possibility out there! Maybe Jill just decided one day that her career was more important than a family, and deserted them all! Now that would be a more interesting motive for her single woman status!

[The_Driller_Killer]

The ironic thing is with all of these plotholes, both films were written and directed by the same guys. You'd think they would've realized....

[Could Be Worse]

I think that that theory works pretty well. In the first film, her kids looked to be between 5 and 7, so 14 years later. they would be in college. On the original, I'm pretty sure the husband lives (you can hear him groaning and he moves Ithink), but maybe Jill's fascination and obsession with what happened drove him away (it would also explain why her name is Jill Johnson, Johnson being her maiden name.)

[Antonio]

Originally posted by Could Be Worse
I think that that theory works pretty well. In the first film, her kids looked to be between 5 and 7, so 14 years later. they would be in college. On the original, I'm pretty sure the husband lives (you can hear him groaning and he moves Ithink), but maybe Jill's fascination and obsession with what happened drove him away (it would also explain why her name is Jill Johnson, Johnson being her maiden name.)

Thanks for proving my original theory to be correct! Great minds really do think alike!

[Could Be Worse]

While we're on the topic, I was talking with my friend who said she preferred Calls Back to Calls. I personally prefer the original. What do you guys think?

[The_Driller_Killer]

The opening of the original is incredibly tense, moreso than the sequel. However, the middle is filled with so much dragged-out, boring bullshit, it puts me to sleep everytime I watch it. So, I'm going to have to say I prefer the sequel.