According to Randy in Scream 2, by definition sequels are inferior.
Websters Dictionary says that a sequel is 'the next installment of a literary or cinematic continuing the story begun in a previous one.
Liza Schwarzbaum from Entertaniment Weekly says: "sequels (i.e. Lord of the Ring, The Matrix, Star Wars) are planned conclusions, more suitable called "chapters." A sequel is what happens when a self-contained movie makes money and then a studio executive proposes a sequel (i.e. 2 Fast 2 Furious, all horror franchises)'
Which one do you agree with? Or do you have one of your own?
1. is definately wrong not all sequels are inferior LOTR comes to mind
2. sounds about right, but also sequels are not always continuations, like Matrix 2 it was a little different then the first,
3.closest one but still not right
For me a sequel is a telling of what is left in the story, a tying together of lose ends and questions answered that no one expected to have answered in the first one.
Well the dictionary says nothing about characters. In my opinion the story might be completly different but the characters are the same so its a sequel
Except for Bond. The same actor makes it a sequel, actor changes it stops being a sequel. Well its a saga now
in my mind a sequel is a movie that keeps the ball rolling, wheather they keep the characters or keep a continuing of the story (example: the dead serie)
KMC Community Forums
Feb 18th, 2004 10:54 PM
not all sequels are inferior 
LOTR comes to mind
