Collections are only for true movie sequels.

This movie is not a sequel but a remake of the original story. I quote : "A second adaptation of the 1986 novella The Hellbound Heart by Clive Barker, which served as the basis for his 1987 film Hellraiser" and "Plans for a Hellraiser remake commenced in October 2007".

You may not be able to do anything since that's how it's officially billed, but I've seen it and can confirm that it's neither a remake of the original, nor an adaptation of the book. It's very much another sequel. I don't know why it's being promoted that way.

@superboy97 said:

Collections are only for true movie sequels.

This movie is not a sequel but a remake of the original story. I quote : "A second adaptation of the 1986 novella The Hellbound Heart by Clive Barker, which served as the basis for his 1987 film Hellraiser" and "Plans for a Hellraiser remake commenced in October 2007".

Here's one article backing up what I just said. https://www.slashfilm.com/990924/the-hellraiser-reboot-is-not-a-remake-and-is-set-the-original-franchises-universe/

And even the director says it isn't a remake, but another film set in the universe. https://movieweb.com/hellraiser-not-a-remake-director-says/

Your articles confirm that it shouldn't be included in the collection. They indicate that it is, for the first, "a reboot not a remake", and for the second, "a new story in the Hellraiser universe."

In either case, it is not a true sequel of the previous movies.

Yes, it's a new story the same way a sequel is a new story.

@hill89 said:

Yes, it's a new story the same way a sequel is a new story.

A sequel is not a new story, its the continuation of the current story.

Honestly, if this doesn't fit criteria to be on the collection then neither do most of the sequels already in there. You're really just looking at the marketing and not what the movie actually is.

I get that you guys have the final say, that's fine. But trust me, this fits the series just as much as any of the sequels after 2.

@superboy97 said:

@hill89 said:

Yes, it's a new story the same way a sequel is a new story.

A sequel is not a new story, its the continuation of the current story.

Also, if that's how you guys define a sequel here, most collections on the site need a rework.

As per our rules, we have 2 definitions of the sequels:

• The first one is "As a general rule, a sequel is a film which centers around the same main characters and continues the story of an earlier film. The protagonists evolve and are aware of the events that happened in the earlier films." This is the one I have indicated above.
• The second one is "Series of stand-alone films and mixed series marketed as proper sequels are also allowed as collections. These sequels are usually numbered and share a similar theme and/or an universe." This case is based on the marketing and the marketing of this movie goes clearly against its inclusion.

The rules also indicate what is not a collection:

• "While sometimes controversial, collections are not intended to be a way of grouping movies of the same universe, person, character or theme, or imitating box sets."
• "Remakes, reboots or spin-offs are usually not grouped with their predecessors. They typically are stand-alone films or the beginning of a new film series."