Best movie sequel

[evil_twin]

[ 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 ]
Batman Returns. Har Har.

Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to be as fair as possible with the nominations thread. It's my first poll and I realize I should have kept the thread open for a bit longer before I made the poll. No one mentioned Harry Potter, I mentioned Lord of the Rings but didn't get a second, and no one mentioned Superman 2. But for future polls I'll be doing things differently and hopefully it'll work out better. Any complaints are welcomed. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[SL__72]

Technically Temple of Doom and Last Crusade aren't sequals, are they? Don't the movies have to happen sequentially for them to be sequals? If they are sequals then so is every James Bond movie that came out after whatever was the first one.

[namknils]

Back to the Future II

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Technically Temple of Doom and Last Crusade aren't sequals, are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Noun
sequel
1. A narrative that is written after another narrative set in the same universe, especially a narrative that is chronologically set after its predecessors.

They are sequels.

[ QUOTE ]
Technically Temple of Doom and Last Crusade aren't sequals, are they? Don't the movies have to happen sequentially for them to be sequals? If they are sequals then so is every James Bond movie that came out after whatever was the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say they are sequels. I could see the argument for calling the Bond films a series and not sequels, but whatever.

Oooooooh. Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn! Definately better than Star Trek 1.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Oooooooh. Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn! Definately better than Star Trek 1.


[/ QUOTE ]

The best of all of them.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are sequals then so is every James Bond movie that came out after whatever was the first one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are! Why don't people think they're all sequels except Dr No, the first one? I don't get it.


Oh, it's too late now, but I want to add Pink Panther Strikes Back.


Oh, and Star Trek 2 is an awesome sequel.

KHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!

[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.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]

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.)



[/ QUOTE ]
I've already commented on this earlier in the thread. I believe the Clinet Eastwood character is the same character in all three films, as he wears the distinctive poncho in all three films.

But there's lots of arguments about this, and I'm aware that this is still argued over, so really it's not a matter of fact either way, but a matter of opinion.