Are this and 'Women in trouble' two different movies?

If you are a filmmaker and believe in a project you will get a budget for a film. The filmmaker could have actually financed it himself or just got investors for the film. Not all movies get the funding from the big Hollywood distribution companies but sometimes it is a lot of little people. If you ever wait until the end of the film in the credits there is a list of these people. The people under the Special Thanks listing are people that donate money, time, or space towards a film. There may not be anything listed on the page but some one probably helped it out if not the actors themselves could have gotten money thrown at the project from friends.

In all honest he could have done this film on almost no budget and asked some of his actors to help him recruit locations, the crew could have worked for experience, something to go on their resume and/or a piece of the back end (percent of profits), the actors could have worked for a piece of the back end or a low salary and he provided food. It may sound funny and unrealistic but there are enough people that want to work on films out there that some will work for experience, a credit on their resume, food and a way to make contacts for future projects. I mean not everyday can some average Jo say that he got to work on set with Carla Gugino, Malin Akerman and Joseph Gordon Levitt. Also now that the film was on the festival circuit crew that worked the film are able to point that out it appeared in what ever festival it went to. (Can you tell I am way to into film)

Your argument that it's a spin-off not a sequel is pretty much worthless, as you provide neither definitions of either term, nor any supporting evidence whatsoever. Right or wrong, there is no reason why anyone should agree with you at all because you give them no reason to, and you're hardly established as an expert in the field to where people should just be willing to take your word for it.