A Note on Sequels

A lot of people seem to assign the word “sequel” with the definition of, “A continuation of the first story.” But recently I’ve come across substantial evidence to indicate otherwise. While this new definition desperately tries to hold onto the connotation that the previous definition carries, the literal definition is quite different.

It now goes something like this:

A second, completely separate and much lamer movie that intends to juice all possible revenue out of a previous movie’s name and/or stars. It may or may not have any relation to the previous film, and oftentimes within the last 10 minutes a movie will introduce a completely new issue that will take another 3 hours to explain so that they may produce a sequel. Several sequels may be made, turning a specific group of films into a “series.” This series will normally go on until it becomes clear that nobody cares anymore.

I’d like to thank Hollywood for making this post possible.

6 thoughts on “A Note on Sequels”

  1. Sounds like it makes sense to me, though I haven’t seen any lame sequels. Or the good prequels, either, come to think of it…

    (we don’t have a TV and we don’t watch movies)

  2. The Two Towers wasn’t a sequel. All the books were written as one, but it was too long to publish that way. So, all the movies did was turn the middle of a book into a film–big difference there.

  3. Well then, the worst series of movies has to be the Friday the 13th movies. How many did they eventually make? Oh yeah, way too many to care to remember.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *