GeezerVison

"When a work is set in the same universe, yet has very little if any narrative connection to its predecessor, and can stand on its own without a thorough understanding of the series, the work can be referred to as a standalone sequel."

Then what is a sequel with no connection at all to the original series? Halloween 3 for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:38E8:FDB8:55F1:1785 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Very late response, but I'd call that an anthology entry. Halloween 3 is perhaps a unique case, in that it was intended to convert an existing series into an anthology, but then the concept was abandoned and the franchise returned to the original narrative. --DavidK93 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

As has been discussed further down on this page, the term "midquel" seems to be a neologism invented here on Wikipedia. There is now a cite in this article for the definition of a midquel: Margarete Rubik; Elke Mettinger-Schartmann (2007). A Breath of Fresh Eyre: Intertextual and Intermedial Reworkings of Jane Eyre. However, in the text of that book (conveniently searchable on Google Books, the part where it defines "midquel" cites Wikipedia as its source!

So we still need a different term to prove that midquel is not a bit of original research. --101.98.144.68 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Moved from inline comments:

Did the movie industry invent the word or was it used in publishing first? (04:08, 13 Jul 2003 . . User:Lee M)

The OED and other dictionaries date it to 1972 when used in the Britannica Book of the Year for 1972/73; someone can look there for the first credited use... (19:08, 12 Dec 2003 . . User:66.167.49.35)

- IMSoP 22:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can the word sequel only apply to films and books? Can't computer and video games have sequels? Vanky 19:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I'd say any "work of fiction" can have a sequel really, which in my book would include video games. I've added a fudge to that effect to the introductory paragraph, but a more thorough rewording would probably be sensible. - IMSoP 20:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RPG video games follow story-lines and plots just like any other book/movie/play/ect. So why not? - 07:29, 07 Oct 2010

when was the first true sequel written? By "true" I mean a work of fiction which follows on from a previous work, not one that was split up into multiple "parts" merely for practical reasons (such as Shakespeare's Henry VI parts 1, 2 and 3; or the Lord of the Rings trilogy). www.etymonline.com dates sequel meaning "story that follows and continues another" to 1513. Does anyone know what work of fiction this might refer to?

Given that the play was (supposedly) written to accommodate Queen Elizabeth who wanted to see Shakespeare's fictional creation Falstaff "in Love", one could make an argument for The Merry Wives of Windsor, although that's aroun 1600. Tomsalinsky 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

wouldn't that technically be more like a spinoff rather than a sequel? ;) --Krsont 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wasn't the Odyssey a sequel to the Iliad? Exodus a sequel to Genesis? EamonnPKeane 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oedipus Rex by Sophocles was part of a trilogy. 14 August 2007 (ALB)

The Iliad was a sequel to the (sadly lost) Cypria. EamonnPKeane 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Godfather Part II and not Quatermass 2? Tomsalinsky 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I am also a person who spent an hour of research on this topic just now and want this fact recognized. Meanwhile I will simultaneously debate with myself on whether this counts, as it does not take the full title of its predecessor, and also it would seem that there are even older titles. I think Alladin II is a sequel to Alladin and the Wonderful Lamp (Indian spellings or something? I'm simply citing the IMDb). There are possibly even older ones. Furthermore, it appears to be mostly an evolution to things using "No. 2". While some stuff is hard to sort through, particularly pre-planned sequels, possibly in production before the release of the original, I can say fairly safely that while French Connection II is probably the earliest example with modern mainstream recognition, there are earlier examples. Like Hyeong 2 from 1971. Or Breast Orgy 2 in 1972. Eclipsed Moon 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the term "threequel" that re-directs here supposed to mean?? Georgia guy 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I've just added in a modified version of that article in the prequel section which hopefully answers your question. Turnstep 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't class Bourne Ultimatum as a threequel but a trilogy. All three films tell one story and the books they are based on was a trilogy as well. Nightjim 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm biased, because Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite film in the Harry Potter series. But I gather that it's widely believed, and rightly so, that Goblet of Fire is more generally regarded as the greatest Potter film yet. Anybody mind if I edit this? - Caleb Osment 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the Terminator sequels are distant sequels. Parodoxicaly, they are also prequels because of the time travel apsect of the movie.whicky1978 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've changed a sentance in the second last paragraph at the end of the "Titling of sequels" section, it originally said that Raiders of the Lost Ark had sequels, but that's not true, Temple of Doom was in fact a prequel. All I did was change the wording from "to better align it with its sequels." to "to better align it with its prequel and sequel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's me It's me (talk • contribs)

I have merged quasi-sequel (now a redirect) as per suggestion. I also added redirect articles for midquel and interquel. All of these redirects point to sequel, but could be changed to redirect to Sequel#Other terms. mwazzap 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe that interquel and midquel are actually the same thing (after one work, but before another). The Lion King 1 1/2 is actually the events of the original film from Timon and Pumbaa's point of view. That isn't the same.

Interquel and midquel are not the same thing. An interquel takes place between two previously completed works, and a midquel takes place during a previously completed work.

For example, the video game Metroid Prime was released after Metroid and Metroid II, but it takes place between them and is therefore an interquel.

On the other hand, in the video game Jak II, there's a two-year gap between the moments when the character of Jak is taken prisoner and when the character of Daxter rescues him. A later game titled Daxter takes place during this two-year gap, and is therefore a midquel.

I've never seen The Lion King 1½, but if it's simply a retelling of the events of The Lion King from another point of view, it's not an interquel or midquel or even a sidequel, but a parallel. This is similar to the novel Ender's Shadow, which retells the events of Ender's Game from another perspective. DT29 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

HP was actually planned with 8 books, but Rowling made the decision to just make 7 instead.

Reply to unsigned comment: No, Hagrid says in book 1 that Hogwarts education lasts 7 years. EamonnPKeane 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not exactly sure, but I believe the word "midquel" was invented on Wikipedia, or at least made up one day by a bored person. Whereas "interquel" at least has an entry on some Webster's editions, "midquel" seems to only exist as a result of Wikipedia, and just barely at that. Axem Titanium 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I agree, a lot of this seems made up 141.151.79.241 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The upcoming Paul of Dune by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert will reportedly feature a section detailing the childhood of Paul Muad'Dib Atreides (therefore another prequel to Dune) and a section describing his Fremen Jihad (a sequel to Dune and prequel to Dune Messiah). The original Dune will, as a result, be sandwiched between the two sections of the new book. Anyone have a term for this one?

I'd like to suggest amphiquel..."a -quel on both sides". --SandChigger 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the article it's stated that PotC is an example of a pre-planned franchise for the purpose of franchise titles, but this is not technically the case. Pirates was developed without any sequels planned, and it was only after the success of the first film that they decided to expand it into a franchise. Perhaps another franchise should be used as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Test0zero (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Though I'm familiar with the concept, I've never heard this word used before, and it seems very much like a neologism to me. Can someone provide reliable sources to show that this word is, in fact, really in use to describe second sequels? If not, I'd suggest replacing it with 'threequel' (which is also a neologism, but a considerably more common one) or just 'second sequel'. Terraxos (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I've never heard the term "Triquel", but "Threequel" is a very common (albeit relatively new) term. Hell, the People's Choice Awards even uses "threequel" in the name of one of their awards. Also, a Google search brings up about 8K hits for "Triquel" and almost 29K for "Threequel". TJ Spyke 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be more appropriate, in its current form, for a series of definitions in an "urban dictionary", rather than an encyclopedia. Sinneed (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I feel the same way. This seems more appropriate content for Wiktionary or some other site. This article feels like an unfortunate endorsement of jargon that writers should be trying to avoid if they are serious about writing encyclopedia quality articles that are understandable and accessible without requiring knowledge of the English language most native speakers don't even have. Move to Wiktionary? -- Horkana (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would love to delete the "Midquel" section (and a few others) but there's a note pointing out that an article with that name exists and redirects here. ("Midquel" redirects to this section; do not change this title without changing the redirect point as well) I suggest someone nominate that article for speedy deletion.

Additionally, I'd add a cleanup tag or two but don't know the format. --70.128.121.235 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, Midquel is not a word. Any section that is not a real word (e.g. does not have an official entry in a dictionary or at least is a well known and accepted colloquialism) has no place in an encyclopedic article.

Midquel and Sidequel are the ones that stand out. Interquel and Threequel do in fact have entries with Websters so they can stay. 'Midquels' as the article puts it are already covered in concept with Interquels and Parallels. Sidquels are just called Side Stories. Other languages do have official worlds for this (i.e. Japanese uses Gaiden), but I do not think English does. Sidequel isn't a word.

I'd also go as far to say that the section Distant should be converted to a sub section of Sequel or Companion Piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should that Twilight book that hasn't been written yet, Midnight Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Sun_(novel)) be added under "parallel"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. Excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.180.70 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

We don't need so many examples of what an interquel is.. how about fixing it so that it's just like two or three examples.. star wars, metroid and godfather maybe.. by the time you get to street fighter it's just like, "I GET IT".. y'know? besides that, street fighter is a poor example because it's so idiotically numbered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.180.70 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are plenty of albums that are sequels. There should be as many albums mentioned in this article as there are films and games. I can't be certain, since I'm not into reading novels much, but there must be a lot of books that have sequels too. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Books, yes, but albums don't usually have plots and chronology, so the connection is a lot harder to describe and lot more open to PoV issues. -- Thnidu (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Album sequels, like Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... Pt. II, actually do exist. They may not have a cohesive "story" to connect with its predecessor, but they often follow common themes and topics. Enter Movie (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article uses two conflicting sense of "sequel", one broader and one narrower. (Underlining added.)

1. The first sentence says

   A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.

2. But when we get to the first level-2 section, Chronologies, we read

   There are a number of ways that subsequent works can be related to the chronology of the original.

   Sequel

   The most common approach is for the events of the second work to directly follow the events of the first, either picking up dangling plot threads or introducing a new conflict to drive the events of a second story. [This is the definition given in the opening as the only meaning.]

   Prequel

   A sequel that portrays events which precede those of the original work is called a "prequel." [Note the use of "sequel" here, contradicting the opening def.]

(followed by a slew of other terms).

Wiktionary provides both these senses, plus a deprecated third:

• A narrative that is written after another narrative set in the same universe, [this is sense #1],
• especially a narrative that is chronologically set after its predecessors, [sense #2]
• or (perhaps improper usage) any narrative that has a preceding narrative of its own. [not used in this article]

I've borrowed from that wording to modify the opening sentence, with a link to Fictional universe.

--Thnidu (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why not add a heading for requels -- remakes/reboots that act as sequels. For eg, The Incredible Hulk was a requel to Hulk and Terminator Salvation which was supposed to be a reboot later became a sequel. There are many more examples. Why not give a few and write a heading??? Someone please reply as soon as possible.

Jinjanjaa (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2011 (IST)

In the section on "Parallel" it says "citation needed", which I take to mean that there isn't really a consensus that this word is confirmed as the correct term for works of fiction that are chronologically concurrent but involve different, though related, circumstances from the original story. I would like to change this entry to be "paraquel" instead. Whereas I haven't really found "parallel" used much (especially since it's hard to make a Google search that disambiguates from the usual meanings of "parallel"), I've found various references to "paraquel": http://thestorytellersscroll.blogspot.jp/2011/03/what-is-paraquel.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paraquel http://jimhenry.conlang.org/review/paraquel.htm Also, I edited out part that described an example referring to a "Back To The Future" movie and took out the word "parallel". Parallel means "two things that run side by side but never touch". This seems inappropriate for describing characters and events that intertwine to some degree (even if one side only observes the other, they change their actions based on their observations.) I hope these edits are acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebisumartin (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

None of those sources for "paraquel" are WP:RS. Anybody can edit Urban Dictioanary. The first cite is a blog, as is the third: http://jimhenry.conlang.org/review/paraquel.htm, and that says he coined it. So it was made up by "Jim Henry" in 2008. Not really a great pedigree. Parallel is a real word and the meaning is obvious. So I have reverted that. It doesn't have to be a mathematically perfect analogy to use the word. Barsoomian (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes the examples linked to can be "edited by anybody" (just like this site), but at least they are examples. Whereas "parallel" remains completely unsupported. I think marginal support for a term should beat no support for a term, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebisudave (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The word "parallel" is a real word. Here for example part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition in the sense used here.

parallel
2b. Concurrent or contemporary; existing in the same period of time.
1859 C. Darwin Origin of Species x. 325 This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world, is explicable on the theory of natural selection.
1878 W. Stubbs Constit. Hist. III. xviii. 131 The parallel lines of war and negotiation run on for three years more.

There are 110,000 hits for "parallel novel". There are zero for "paraquel novel". Barsoomian (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative about this and belabour the point. However, after some thought, I realized that making a heading for "Parallel" is being just as prescriptivist as my suggestion for "paraquel". The reason being that "sequel" and "prequel" are nouns. In this instance of usage, "parallel" is an adjective. People say "that is a parallel story". "Parallel" modifies "story", it does not stand in for it. I do not doubt you that there are more instances of people saying "a parallel novel", but that is representative of the adjectival usage, not evidence that "parallel" stands on its own as a noun in this context.

It should also be noted that your search is flawed in that not only did you use the word parallel as an adjective, you restrained yourself to novels. Looking up the term "paraquel" on its own reveals more than zero results, such as this movie review, which uses "paraquel" as a matter of course, not simply as a proposal for the word.

No one says "that is a parallel" the same way they say "that is a prequel" or "that is a "sequel". To describe the adjective "parallel" in the same level of category as "prequel" or "sequel" or even "interquel" is being prescriptivist. Whereas the argument being made against "paraquel" is that Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptivist.

Therefor, it seems to me the most objective solution which is representative of the reality of the situation is to simply state that fact: that there is a slight lexical gap, that the common usage is to *describe* stories as "parallel" (as opposed to *naming* them "parallel"), and that people have proposed ways of closing the lexical gap. I see that someone edited the entry to say "It's hard to know what to call it", but that's not right either. We know what to call it - we call it a parallel story. We just don't have an agreed upon one-word for it.

I have been bold enough to propose an edit that takes these considerations into account, and I hope this will be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebisumartin (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Reply

1) Please learn how to sign your name with ~~~~ 2) Parallel is also a noun, and regardless, the whole article is about "stories", we don't need to state it in every heading. 3) None of the other wacky words has any reliable source, and any currency outside a few blogs. Enshrining them in Wikipedia will give them an appearance of authority; WP is just supposed to record accepted knowledge, not help to promulgate new words. And what do you think you were doing by removing the quote from Card where he explains the use of "parallel", which was the whole point of the citation? -- your first post here was about the "citation needed" which is why I went to the trouble to document it.

And see this book cover "Ender's Shadow: A parallel novel to Ender's Game" on the cover. Barsoomian (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Splendid, an example in the wild of parallel as an adjective. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article has a section for Reboot all ready, should Remake be listed as well, perhaps as a subsection to the "Reboot" section?

I admit that I'm a little unclear as to the difference between the two, but there does appear to be one. Furthermore, if one is listed, I think that the other has just as much merit. 97.124.72.24 (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

^ reboot is a re imagining like the new spider man films, whereas a remake is a new version of and old movie like willy wonka or evil dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.250.32 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking to add templates to rate this article as 'C' class (due to lack of supporting materials) at least 'mid' importance for the following WikiProjects (based on the article lead):

• WikiProject Literature,
• WikiProject Film,
• WikiProject Theatre,
• WikiProject Television,
• WikiProject Music,
• WikiProject Video Games,

but was looking for comment or consensus before I did so (since it is quite an extensive list, and there are no current templates and no discussion). This would be wrapped in {{WikiProjectBanners}} — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should there be some discussion of fanfiction on this page? Possibly under the heading "Unofficial sequels"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.117.103 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added unofficial sequels which should be a section, with about a dozen notable examples dated spread across history in chronological order which should be appropriate and sufficient. Darrelljon (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

so Toy Story 4 will be released in a standalone format...and most of the films ive watched that are standalones have low ratings

is every standalone sequels have low ratings?if no,give examples.if yes,why?

John kaiser (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Midquel", "Sidequel", "paraquel", "macroquel", and "pseudosequel" all seem like complete neologisms, intended to replace the word "spinoff". While I understand these words are intended to further clarify the timing of spinoffs, they seem incredibly superfluous. The examples seem to rely heavily on direct-to-dvd cartoons. It honestly looks like some child invented a word during a Scrabble game and edited this article in order to win. These entries have been contested several times throughout this talk page. None of the above listed words have any entries in any valid lexicon currently in use by speakers of the English language. I move, once and for all, that these entries be deleted outright. 73.150.219.101 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see that some discussions on these labels go back to 2007 on this talk page. Since nobody's provided any reliable sources for these, I think you should be bold, remove the content, and see what happens. I suspect that you're right about them being neologisms. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I brought this up in the talk section, because deleting all of it looks like vandalism. If there are no credible objections in the next 24 hours, I'll remove it. 73.150.219.101 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

A good choice. It's always nice to see anonymous IP users engaging in discussions, so thank you for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is regarding this edit and this discussion on another talk page. It appears the reboot section includes some weaker sources used to explain a term which doesn't necessarily have a consistent definition. This introduces a contradiction in the article, since it says that some reboots restart continuity and some retcon it, while the "soft" paragraph says that reboots always restart unless they are "soft". I would rephrase this section to be less awkward, but the sources aren't really sufficient for any further detail. It also says a reboot "is similar to a remake", but that's really unhelpful. How, exactly, is it different from a remake? Are these really new terms, or just buzzwords for existing concepts?

Broad comments like these are implying things that are not supported by solid sources. These sources are pretty fluffy journalism which, if they are usable at all, do not agree with each other on where these boundaries lie, and the examples listed do not really clarify this. This would especially be a problem to someone who isn't already familiar with the Star Wars and Jurassic Park franchises. We cannot impose a movie viewing prerequisite on our definition of the term. If Inverse (website) is reliable in general, that article is not particularly good for this purpose. It's an opinion-piece about two specific films being contrasted in a pop-culture sense with a lot of vague, unsupportable opinions as a framework. As discussed at the other talk page, weak sources are not sufficient to present the term as something more substantial than it is, so better sources should be used before expanding this section any further. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The term "soft reboot" should not be used in an encyclopedia. It is a trendy marketing buzzword that has unfortunately developed a fanbase on WP. I started a discussion on this at Talk:Once Upon a Time (season 7)#Use of the term soft reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Even if someone considers these terms to be encyclopedic... this is an encyclopedia article about sequels. The reboot/remake/etc sections define these terms as being not sequels. Therefore, these sections do not belong in this article. I have added these terms to See Also, and will remove the sections from the article. 107.77.204.111 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't aware until now that my edit was questioned. I stand by what I said about this -- if the only RS defining the term (and Den of Geek, Screen Rant, etc. aren't exactly Pulitzer prize material) keep contradicting each other, then there can't really be a definition for Wikipedia's purposes. Maybe "soft reboot" has become big enough of a term to warrant a mention, but in that case we should qualify it as in, say, "Such films are sometimes being marketed under the term 'soft reboot'", and I think this would still attract more edit warring than it's worth. Daß Wölf 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added examples of sequels to very well known works of lasting impact. Examples should be included to better illustrate the topic without the article being saturated with references to particular sequels. Dozens of sequels in a long list would be better suited to another article or category. Especially where the list was merely listing any sort of sequel unsorted by medium, date etc. Darrelljon (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the article says "The most common approach is for the events of the second work to directly follow the events of the first one". I am not sure if these is true - many sequels don't follow directly from the last work: talking only about cinema, look to 007, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones, Terminator, Rambo, Rocky, Jumanji, Batman, Superman, etc., etc. These talk about being the "most common" seems a bit of recentism - in the 21th century have been indeed many direct sequels (Lord of the Rings, Divergent, Hunger Games, perhaps Harry Potter), but I think that this is a recent devolopment. And, talking about other mediuns, the non-direct sequels seems even more common - look, for example, for the detective story genre in literature, where is very common the same author to write sequels (books in the same universe with the same hero) almost his entire life, but with independent stories.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Side-story. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 4#Side-story until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 7 February 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ss801 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Idp2024.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Star Wars: Episode IV - The New Hope (1977), ..etc.. are examples of "fourth installment" sequels"

I disagree with this - Star Wars (A New Hope) is no more a sequel to Episode 3 than it is a prequel to Empire Strikes Back. It's the original film, it can't properly be called a sequel or a prequel IMO. 2A00:23C5:D1BB:DC01:14D0:4379:2259:9A68 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Removed, clearly an incorrect statement that mistakenly used chronological order instead of release order. —El Millo (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The only rationale I can think of for this is that the main character travels the farthest back in time in the third film... but i think the important thing is the chronology for said main character and the narrative flow of the story. It's an unusual case because of the time travel, but I really don't think this could be considered a prequel. 1.127.106.16 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, and it looks like somebody already deleted this. The problem is that the definition the page offers for prequel is "an installment that is made following the original product which portrays events occurring chronologically before those of the original work." That definition as written encompasses 'Back to the Future Part III' fairly unambiguously -- the film was made following the original product and portrays events before the original. It certainly shows the origins of the setting (the town of Hill Valley) and the McFly family. Anyway, my point is not that "Back to the Future Part III" should be listed, but that I think the definition of prequel should be re-worded in some way which would not include it.

Images of a lot of well known sequels are unlikely to be allowed to illustrate the lead section here so I've restored to there The Return of Tarzan. This is a public domain image with simple bold elements, in color, of what was a well-known book from a well-known franchise with a title alluding to it being a sequel, and also adapted into several films. See MOS:LEAD. The section covering sequels to novels already has an image to illustrate the section. Darrelljon (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply