sleepyhead55

Just sent in my set of crappy answers.

Count Dooku

I am not sending answers, but I am looking forward to the reveals. Sheep games are always fun.

Crocker Jarmen

Okay, we've got 32 players, a good place to close off for entries.

Kgrogers1979
Shannon Nutt
Brainee
Rocket1312
Lord Zarak
Wishbone
Wazootyman
Fumanstan
Decker
Cnicholls44
Drexl
Sauce07
Kel-El
JJcool
Orangecrush
Ivelostr2
Obi-Wan Jabroni
Super X
AaronHernandez
Sleepyhead55
NORML54601
Damfino
A-aron
devilshalo
Cdollaz
Palaver
T-bone22
Davidh777
Dave Ninja
Bradler
Abob Teff
Cardsfan111


Before the game starts, I thought I'd throw a question out to the players I'm having difficulty deciding on:

For the purpose of question 11:
Is Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace a sequel or is it the start of a whole new series? Is a prequel the same as a sequel?

Is Out of Sight a sequel to Jackie Brown because the Micheal Keaton DEA officer appears in both?

kgrogers1979

I would say no. The prequel trilogy and original trilogy are all part of the same franchise, but Episode I is not actually a sequel to anything. Episodes II and III are both prequels and sequels, but Episode I is only a prequel.

Super X

I would say neither are a sequel. A sequel is a continuation of the story of an earlier work. Episode 1 is not a continuation, but a visitation of events leading up to the original films. Out of Sight is a little trickier, but as Michael Keaton's character wasn't a major character in the film, I wouldn't classify it as a sequel, anymore than I would classify Ant-Man as a sequel to "Avengers: Age of Ultron" or "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" due to the presence of Falcon.

davidh777

Agree

kgrogers1979

Just because the same character appears in both movies doesn't mean they are directly related. The Frighteners is not a sequel to Full Metal Jacket even though R. Lee Ermey plays a ghost version of his Full Metal Jacket character in The Frighteners.

sleepyhead55

My answer would be no on both questions. On the second question, though if a major character appears in both films, I'd consider it a sequel but if it is only a minor character making an appearance, then no.

fumanstan

I'd actually call Episode 1 a sequel, but I seem to be in the minority. Prequel/Sequel in this case feel interchangeable to me, but I wouldn't argue against those that disagree.

Out of Sight/Jackie Brown definitely don't count.

ivelostr2

I agree that neither are a sequel

cdollaz

For movies, I think a sequel is any later installment other than the first-released movie in a series or franchise. Where it falls chronologically in the overall narrative doesn't matter.

kgrogers1979

That argument falls apart when you consider reboots though. Franchises are deliberately rebooted to purposefully create a new movie that is NOT considered a sequel to the previous movies in the same franchise.

Cardsfan111

I agree with others who have said those examples aren't sequels.

ivelostr2

I agree...However, i consider the new star trek movies sequels.

cnicholls44

i would say neither are sequels.

fumanstan

Seems easy enough to exclude full on reboots that don't have ties to the previous series in that explanation. There's been other series of movies that have entries that take place prior to the events of the first movies, and i'd consider say... Temple of Doom or more recently X-Men First Class as sequels still. But I guess it depends on how literal and picky you want to take the definition; not that Wikipedia is the end all, but it's entry makes the case too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prequel

For the record, the Episode 1 answer wasn't mine, so i'm not fighting for my own answer to be correct

ivelostr2

cnicholls44

when do you think this will start? I don't want to work today.

kgrogers1979

True, but Abram's Star Trek was never supposed to be a full reboot. It was a "soft" reboot.

Lord Zarak

I would say Episode I is a sequel to Star Wars, even though it takes place before. A prequel is a form of sequel, only distinguished by chronology.

Also, I would say the first Avengers movie is not a sequel to anything despite picking up plot points from other movies.

And my response here has no bearing on the answers I provided to the sheep question.

kgrogers1979

That's odd because I view both Episode I and Avengers as being in the same situation.

Both are part of a large movie franchise.
Both are not the first movie in the franchise.
Both pick up plot points from earlier movies in the franchise.

So either both or them are sequels or neither of them are. It doesn't make sense for one to be a sequel but not the other.

It's like I said earlier in the thread, just because two movies are in the same franchise does not mean one is the sequel to another. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a good example of that. Avengers is not a sequel to Iron Man, for example. Similarly Episode I is not a sequel to any other Star Wars movie. I view the original trilogy and prequel trilogy as two entirely different trilogies within the same franchise. Just like how Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor all have separate trilogies within the overall MCU franchise.

Lord Zarak

I think Avengers is more of a "crossover event" movie, not a direct continuation of any of the movies before (though a strong argument could be made for Captain America). I see Episode 1 as continuing a saga that already established it had three missing chapters.

devilshalo

Crocker Jarmen

01. S: Name a super-hero movie released this summer

Crocker Jarmen