Thursday, December 29, 2005
Sequel!
Let it begin...
Okay, here's my take on sequels. First of all, I agree that Temple of Doom is not a sequel. It's a prequel. I should have used The Last Crusade as an example.
Secondly, I know you hate it when I pick apart your arguments word for word, but there's something I wanted to point out in the definitions you mentioned. You wrote that a serial is "Of, forming, or arranged in a series: Published or produced in installments, as a novel or television drama."
The word "series" is the key here. It has an arrangement, a specific order. A series is defined as "A number of things that follow on one after the other or are connected one after the other." In other words, I'd say that the Star Wars trilogy is a series, because it's episodic. That's why they call TV shows "series" because they are episodic. The old serials that Lucas loved as a kid were serials because this week's Flash Gordon continued the adventures of last week.
In my mind, you have it backwards. A sequel doesn't have to continue the overall story of a character, event, etc. For example, the Star Wars trilogy tells the story of the Rebellion against the Galactic Empire. It's divided into episodes, which are lined up in a chronological series that tell the overall story. Therefore, it is a serial.
On the other hand, Superman 3 is not a serial. It does not continue the overall story of Superman 2. It continues his adventures, but the events of Superman 2 would not change what happens in Superman 3.
Let's put it to another test. Superman 3 could have come after Superman 1, and no one would have been confused because the story was out of order. On the other hand, Return of the Jedi could not have come after A New Hope. It wouldn't make sense. Star Wars relies on being in it's chronological series in order to work.
The Indiana Jones movies do not rely on their order of release or their chronological order to make sense. They aren't a series because you could watch them in any order and you'd get what was happening.
To sum it all up, a sequel is like you said, "a work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting one." I simply submit that while it continues a preexisting narrative, it is not dependent on it. A serial is. That said, all serials are therefore sequels, but not all sequels are serials.
