Is there a sequel to Stagecoach?

No. No need.

No sequel, but they did a crappy remake in 1966.

Apart from two remakes - one in 1966 with Ann-Margret as Dallas and Bing Crosby as Doc Boone and one in 198 with Kris Kristofferson as Ringo Kid [sic] plus Johnny Cash as Sheriff Wilcox, Waylon Jennings as Hatfield and Willie Nelson as Doc Boone; actually quite enjoyable - there is one "conversion" of the topic: Martin Ritt's "Hombre" (1966) hardly is a sequel, but it is chronologically set about 20 years later than "Stagecoach", takes up the original idea and broadens it. This time the Indian (Russell, played by Paul Newman) is inside the vehicle and the baddies trying to stop the stagecoach are white outlaws. Though not as classic as the Ford movie, a classy movie as well.

I know this thread is a year-and-a-half old, but the idea of sequels is something that has been around for only about 40 years or so. Aside from serial westerns of the 40s and 50s which were merely the predecessors of television series (before television was available in most homes), films were more "standalone."

It's obvious that Hollywood is more and more bereft of ideas, and has to recycle old movies, and even old TV series. Aside from quality "sequels" like the Bond films (which really weren't sequels anyway), this fact is becoming more obvious every year.


.. and unfortunately, there will never be another screen legend like "The Duke."

What need is there of a sequel? This is a character study of a group of people and the interaction between them during a crisis, and a stunning action scene. The story is complete. Making a sequel would be like making a sequel of 12 Angry Men.

Yes, the sequel is Billy the Kid vs Dracula. Hatfield is the vampire, played by the same actor and battles the famous gunman, who has changed his ways. It takes place almost 30 years later. And they made sure to include a stagecoach attack by indians in a very well done scene