Well...

Posted by The Autumn Kid from 64-23-194-162.nasdsl.com (64.23.194.162) on Monday, November 05, 2001 at 4:46pm :

In Reply to: Serious question, mind-straining, please help! posted by Shawnkara from spider-wj063.proxy.aol.com (205.188.198.48) on Monday, November 05, 2001 at 10:57am :

Goofy is a disagreeable cartoon canine. ;)

For me a sequel is any movie (or book!) that picks up a story line or brings back characters from a previous movie, but only, if that second (third, or prequel, etc) movie expands on the existing story line and/or the character(s). It doesn't matter if there is a total of one, two, three, or even more movies.

More than three parts don't necessarily make a saga. An epic approach (following a continuing story over a long time (family saga like 'Legends of the Fall')) makes a saga. 'Lord of the Rings' is certainly a saga.

SW was a saga to begin with (Although 'A New Hope' can stand on its own, Lucas intended to make six or nine SW movies altogether). It's especially obvious with SW V and VI that they are sequels. If you didn't see Episode IV, you would miss part of the story.

Star Trek III is another example of a sequel. It continues an unresolved story line form the previouys movie (As James has mentioned).
The Omen Trilogy contains sequels, as the story continually develops (more or less successfully).
Alien and its two sequels keep going with the story of Ripley.

Other movies have not sequels, but they have elements of sequels.
Bond movies have recurring characters and organizations (Moneypenny, Blofeld, Felix Leiter, M, Q, S.M.E.R.S.H, etc), but they are not really sequels. They are more or less remakes of each other, as they follow a fairly strict formula. There is no significant expansion on a continuing story line.

As for the Indy films, ToD is not a sequel. It's a prequel. However, LC is a sequel to Raiders, since it does pick up characters from Raiders, and since there is the attempt of expanding on the character and background of Indiana Jones. Apart from this (in my opinion pretty much failed) attempt, LC is almost a remake of Raiders.
It seems to me that Indy movies are more like Bond films in this regard.

Anything that constitutes a follow-up is a sequel. But what constutes a follow-up? I think it has to do with the before-mentioned significant expansion on a continuing story line and/or previously established characters as the decisive factor. And that is up to individual interpretation!

-The Autumn Kid

: Do you recall in 'Stand By Me' when the boys are discussing Disney characters and they nearly have a seizure because they can't de cide what Goofy is? That has happened to me and I need help! I was watching the making of 'Hannibal' last night. There's a part where Dino DeLaurentis says, "Hannibal is not a sequel to 'Silence of the Lambs'. It's a sequel to the characters, but not 'Silence of the Lambs'." This got me thinking because it's true, of ALL movies. Let me explain.....
: To me a sequel is a second film that continues to tell the same story. At least that's what I thought. Each of the three Indy films stands alone without the other two. The stories are not at all related. This is the case with most so-called "sequels". If more than two are made then it's a trilogy. Over three? A saga. 'Star Wars' and 'Scream' are trilogies. Well, I guess SW is a saga now. The Indy films are just films, each unto their own. I've thought and thought and can't think of any stories that continue through only two films. My conclusion? There is, by its definition, no such thing as a sequel. What do you guys think?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: Goofy is a disagreeable cartoon canine. ;) : For me a sequel is any movie (or book!) that picks up a story line or brings back characters from a previous movie, but only, if that second (third, or prequel, etc) movie expands on the existing story line and/or the character(s). It doesn't matter if there is a total of one, two, three, or even more movies. : More than three parts don't necessarily make a saga. An epic approach (following a continuing story over a long time (family saga like 'Legends of the Fall')) makes a saga. 'Lord of the Rings' is certainly a saga. : SW was a saga to begin with (Although 'A New Hope' can stand on its own, Lucas intended to make six or nine SW movies altogether). It's especially obvious with SW V and VI that they are sequels. If you didn't see Episode IV, you would miss part of the story. : Star Trek III is another example of a sequel. It continues an unresolved story line form the previouys movie (As James has mentioned). : The Omen Trilogy contains sequels, as the story continually develops (more or less successfully). : Alien and its two sequels keep going with the story of Ripley. : Other movies have not sequels, but they have elements of sequels. : Bond movies have recurring characters and organizations (Moneypenny, Blofeld, Felix Leiter, M, Q, S.M.E.R.S.H, etc), but they are not really sequels. They are more or less remakes of each other, as they follow a fairly strict formula. There is no significant expansion on a continuing story line. : As for the Indy films, ToD is not a sequel. It's a prequel. However, LC is a sequel to Raiders, since it does pick up characters from Raiders, and since there is the attempt of expanding on the character and background of Indiana Jones. Apart from this (in my opinion pretty much failed) attempt, LC is almost a remake of Raiders. : It seems to me that Indy movies are more like Bond films in this regard. : Anything that constitutes a follow-up is a sequel. But what constutes a follow-up? I think it has to do with the before-mentioned significant expansion on a continuing story line and/or previously established characters as the decisive factor. And that is up to individual interpretation! : -The Autumn Kid : : Do you recall in 'Stand By Me' when the boys are discussing Disney characters and they nearly have a seizure because they can't de cide what Goofy is? That has happened to me and I need help! I was watching the making of 'Hannibal' last night. There's a part where Dino DeLaurentis says, "Hannibal is not a sequel to 'Silence of the Lambs'. It's a sequel to the characters, but not 'Silence of the Lambs'." This got me thinking because it's true, of ALL movies. Let me explain..... : : To me a sequel is a second film that continues to tell the same story. At least that's what I thought. Each of the three Indy films stands alone without the other two. The stories are not at all related. This is the case with most so-called "sequels". If more than two are made then it's a trilogy. Over three? A saga. 'Star Wars' and 'Scream' are trilogies. Well, I guess SW is a saga now. The Indy films are just films, each unto their own. I've thought and thought and can't think of any stories that continue through only two films. My conclusion? There is, by its definition, no such thing as a sequel. What do you guys think?

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com