Talk:Sequel

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stand-Alone Sequel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Midquel" needs a better citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk from 2003 

message: 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)
replies: text: wouldn't that technically be more like a spinoff rather than a sequel? ;) --Krsont 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first sequel? 

message: Godfather Part II and not Quatermass 2? Tomsalinsky 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First numbered sequel 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  GoF to replace PoA? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  distant sequels 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harry Potter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Midquel" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What would you call this? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pirates of the Caribbean 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Triquel'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does this belong here at all? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Every Section Using Unofficial Names Such as Midquel Should be Re-Worked 

message: 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)
thread_title:  list Midnight Sun as parallel? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  excessive examples of interquel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nothing, not even a mention of music albums 

message: The article uses two conflicting sense of "sequel", one broader and one narrower. (Underlining added.)
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Definition; ambiguity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should "Remake" be listed? 

message: 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  — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate WikiProjects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fanfiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  im bothered about stand-alones 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Severe lack of citations in Chronologies section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reboot and soft reboot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples and lists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Direct sequels most common? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Side-story" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

message: "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)
replies: text: Removed, clearly an incorrect statement that mistakenly used chronological order instead of release order. —El Millo (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars IV isn't a sequel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Back to the Future III a prequel?