MovieChat Forums > The Born Losers (1967) Discussion > Born Losers + Billy Jack: different worl...

Born Losers + Billy Jack: different worlds?


Before seeing Born Losers and Billy Jack tonight, the only time I ever saw a sequel to a film veer in a completely different direction than the original was Rob Zombie's Devil's Reject. Whereas House of 1000 Corpses was pure supernatural horror, Reject's was a straight serial killer movie. To me, switching genres mid-stream is kinda mindblowing, especially when done right. Zombie did that with his flicks, and now Tom Laughlin (who obviously did it first) has, too. Born Losers is your typical 60's biker movie, while Billy Jack is a message-laden drama. Both are supremely entertaining for their respective genres.

But is there any continuity, aside from the Billy Jack character himself? Is the Billy Jack from Born Losers the same guy in the following three films? I only ask because there's no mention of the events in Losers in the follow-up, Billy Jack. No word on where Vicky Barrington disappeared to. For the sake of the fans of the first one, shouldn't Laughlin have briefly touched upon it? Even two lines of dialogue would have sufficed. That is, unless it's a new take on the Billy Jack character we're watching later. I haven't seen the other two films in the franchise yet, so maybe there is some mention of his encounters with the motorcycle gang.

Anyway, if anyone has an answer, or theory, I'd love to hear it. I'll post this on the Billy Jack page, too.

reply

I actually purchased the entire Billy Jack Box Set at Best Buy the other week. I had never seen the movies but had heard about them and love the old genre laden drive-in flicks from the 60's and 70's and it is a pretty good bargain if you can still find it (20 bucks for four movies is always a good deal to me). I can't give an indepth response to your query yet because I have only watched The Born Losers so far, but I think I may be able to provide some insight just off of general movie knowledge.

First off, in response to the Rob Zombie reference, if you look up some of the things he said regarding HOATC and TDR, he pretty much said he did it in the thread of movies like this. Particularly, he referencs the deleted scene in TDR where Dr. Satan was in the hospital after the raid as having too much connection with HOATC and how TDR was meant to be a different type of movie, but only using the same characters.

That being said, the correlation with that and Billy Jack is a lot like other movies of the time (e.g. the Burt Reynolds drive-in classics "White Ligthening and "Gator") where a poplular character would be used in another movie just for appeal. Where Billy Jack was a martial arts/vigilante type fighting for the people when the law can't or won't, he's used much like a cowboy gunslinger character was used in the old western serials where they would appear in other movies with no particular reference to their back story in previous movies, much like Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name from the Sergio Leone westerns. Though it is supposed to be the same character so to speak, they just move on to new adventures that aren't necessarily sequels to the previous films.

It seems like a bit of a stretch and goes outside of the modern cinematic need for continuity, but appears to be a common device of the movies from those times. Hope that helps you a bit. Let me know if it does or just confuses the situatoin more so. lol

reply

No, that actually makes sense. I'm just a continuity freak, haha. Besides, I really wanted to see Elizabeth James again. How hot was she in Born Losers? But the truth is, when you see Billy Jack and how serious it is, you realize her character would be out of place in that film.

reply

By the way, I'm also a huge grindhouse/exploitation film fan. I found out about Born Losers from volume two of the 42nd Street Forever trailer compilation DVD's. Don't know if you've seen it--the trailer, I mean--but it's all kinds of awesome. But they trick you in it! Remember that scene where Vicky's in the Losers lair, and she takes off her blouse and says, "Who's got the acid?" In the trailer it makes it seem like she's all aboard with the gang rape, but in reality, as you know, she was only tricking them to let her go back to her motorcycle. Very cool stuff, man. You should get those trailer DVD's, I found out about alot of movies that way.

And if you're a real enthusiast, you should get a book called Sleazoid Express, which chronicles the old grindhouses of NYC. TONS of movies are mentioned there. Five stars...a must for any collection.

reply

I've been a fan of ''Born Losers'' for years. In the 70's I spoke with Elizabeth James many times. She wrote this film (on speculation) and was to be in ''Billy Jack'' as well, but he replaced her with his wife Delores Taylor. Elizabeth made a brief appearance in ''Dirty Mary And Crazy Larry'' as a favor to the director who liked her work in ''Born Losers''. But, she preferred writing to acting, and she made a success of it.Incidentally, she's really a lovely lady.And, yes, I have the trailer on the ''42nd Street'' collection. It's great, and it should have been included on the ''Billy Jack DVD sets.

reply

Was the Vicky Barrington character supposed to take on the Jean role as the head of the Freedom School, or were they planning on having her changed roles and *be* the character of Jean.

reply

I really don't know that-just that she worked on the script for a year with Laughlin, and was then replaced with his wife, Delores Taylor. Stranger things have happened in the movies, I guess, but I just cant picture Vicky Barrington in charge of a ''Freedom School'' or any other school, for that matter.

reply

Yeah, me neither...it would have been too incongruous. Barrington was perfect for the exploitation Born Losers.

reply

Yea, saw that trailer online. She is very hot in the movie, but a bit too contrived of a character for me. Billy Jack actually has a certain amount of depth and dimensions as a character in the movie, but he is surrounded by one dimensional stereotype characters. This seems to incumber his possible development.

reply

Elizabeth James broke my manhood. May a lot errors trying to find a gal like that, never did. Made errors thinking I could treat the one marriage gal like that. Eventually fell apart. Oh well. Dreams.

reply

Haha, let me get this straight, you treated your wife/potential wife like the Born Losers treated Vickie?! Please clarify.

reply

LMAO, i'm curious too, Afterward.

reply

Actually the only difference that I could find was in the beginning, when Delores Taylor is narrating the back story, she says Billy Jack was a ranger. Later in the film, one of the bikers refers to him as a Green Beret, and that is what he is in the next film, Billy Jack. Aside from that, the two characters in Born Losers and Billy Jack are virtually the same, only in Billy Jack he's moved from California to Arizona and Delores Taylor is his girlfriend. Vicky is out of the picture. No explanation there. He's also described as being half indian in both movies. So as far as I can tell, the continuity was pretty close all things considered.

reply

That was NOT Delores Taylor narrating the film. It was Elizabeth James herself, reminiscing about her time with ''Billy Jack''. And she DOES refer to him as ''one of those Green Beret Rangers'' in the beginning.

reply

Remember when Billy Jack and Vicky encountered the kooky astrology guy in the restaurant? We can probably draw from that part of the narrative to safely enough assume that, per the astrology nerd's "fortune telling," Billy Jack and Vicky weren't suited for each other on any permanent basis, hence, no Vicky in the subsequent Billy Jack entries.

reply

While Billy Jack isn't exactly a direct sequel to Born Losers as the rest of the films are there is nothing contradictory in the films. I always look at it as Billy Jack first returned home to California after Vietnam were Losers took place, sometime after that film finding he couldn't find peace he moved to Arizona to work with the Native America community and medicine man.

reply