[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it's not a sequel any more than For A Few Dollars More is. The characters are different. This seems somewhat akin to calling "Snatch" a sequel to "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels."

[/ QUOTE ]

It was billed as a sequel at the time. It's sold as a trilogy of all three now. If you check the various Serigo Leone fan sites they all call it "The Fist Full of Dollars" trilogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care how a studio chooses to market a package. I know Leone's three films with Eastwood are often referred to as "The Dollars Trilogy," because it's simple. I've seen all three films about a thousand times each. They are often looked upon as being part of a package because they share so much thematically and stylistically. They are not a continuation of the same story or characters from previous films.

se·quel (skwl) KEY

NOUN:

Something that follows; a continuation.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.
A result or consequence. See Synonyms at effect.

I'm not trying to nit-pick here; for example, someone else mentioned that prequels are not technically sequels, and while that's true, I would include prequels in a poll like this (tho not Temple of Doom, as that movie doesn't hold a candle to Raiders). I don't see any reason why James Bond movies since Dr No couldn't be included.

But I don't see how you can just throw in movies by the same director with the same stars that don't share any common characters (except for Eastwood's abstract character, and there is no reason to believe he's playing the same character in all the films.)

Not that it matters, as Godfather II should win this in a walk.