When is it a sequel?

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sophiamcl" <sophiamcl at h...> wrote:
> ... can I just say: CoS was NOT a sequel, any more than PoA will. 
>
> ...edited...
>
> Hence I dislike calling CoS a sequel. To me it has very little in 
> common with the movies usually referred to as sequels. Am I making 
> sense to anyone?
> 
> Sophia


bboy_mn:

Oh yes indeed, you are making sense.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Although by technical definition each
story after the first is a sequel, I wouldn't call them sequels the
way the word is commonly implied or applied. 

The difference between the common applied use of 'sequel' and it's
true definition is that Harry Potter is one continuous story in seven
parts. We know this from the very beginning. It is one continuous
story about the same characters striving toward the same primary
objective for the full seven segements of the tale.

Most sequels, as you pointed out, are simply a rehash of the same
premise with new characters and new settings. The same story with the
same gimmicks and usually with an ambiguous ending in case they decide
to remake the same movie one more time. 

I don't think anyone would call 'Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers' a
sequel to 'Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring'; it's a
continuation of one story.

That's why it is important for the creators of the movie to made
present judgments giving due consideration to future story lines. If
Cedric is left out of PoA they can probably work around it and
introduce him in GoF, but there are some plot elements that are
crucial to the future stories that need to be established in the
current story. Cho Chang is probably a better example. I can't believe
that she exists in the story just to fill up space and give us a few
laughs; she is a little to noticable. I firmly believe Cho Chang will
become a very significant character in future books, so failure to
develop her character makes it very difficult to bring her into those
later movies. Neville is another good example. Is there anyone who
believe that Neville will not have a very significant role in the
future? Failure to devolop him now makes it much harder to establish
his future significants. 

Also, within a given story there are plot elements that establish
important aspects of the story; elements that are important to
understanding relationships, and important to understanding character
motivation. How are they going to establish Ron as a hero at some
point in the future movies when they continue to portray him as a clown? 

In another post I listed all the intertwining subplots in PoA, and
based on all those complex intertwining plots, I said then and I say
now that I'm glad it's not my job to figure out how to write a
screenplay that can resolve all these subplots and at the same time
not lose anything that will be important to the continuing story.
That's got to be an extremely difficult task.

While I don't envy the difficult task that the movie creators have, as
a fan, a reader, and a view, I view the movies as a series just like
the books, and one screwed up movie can spoil the whole series if the
creators are not careful.

So while I'm inclined to trust the movie makes and wait and see, I
can't help but worry, because I see more  at stake that just this one
movie.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn