h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Sequel Phenomena - A1078328
Author: Daniel - U231080

My first entry to the guide.

Thanks for writing for the guide. This seems to be very much an opinion piece, which is not what we are looking for in the Edited Guide. The place for opinion pieces is in The Post, h2g2's weekly newspaper.

If you think there is a valid point in the piece which is not just your opinion of which films are good and bad, then you'll have to rewrite the entry so that it doesn't mention yourself. You can't have I or me in an Edited Entry.

And rename if "The Sequel Phenomenon", please! You have not described two phenomena, you have only described one phenomenon.

This has the makings of a good entry. Remove any "I" or "me" references. "You" are OK.

I'd be temped to expand this entry. It's good, but a bit short. Also use the for headings or for subheadings. Scouts realy hate user made headings.

Maybe a small table showing some films and their sequels. Particularly useful if there's more than one sequel. Also look up a popular film rating site and get some info about whether popular opinion though a seqel was better/worse/same as the original. Then it's not an opinion piece, but more factual.

Keep up the good work.

It could really benefit from either narrowing its field to look specifically at just a couple of sequels in more depth, or else open it out by looking at older sequels.

Sequels are by no means a new thing - and indeed the idea of limiting a series to a trilogy isn't either. Plenty of sequels are as good - if not better than - the originals. Godfather II is the best of that trilogy by miles. Superman II works well (though not either of the others). Hammer's Dracula Prince of Darkness is more popular among fans than Dracula, while the company's Frankensteins tend to work on a ratio of two steps forward / one step back.

The Thin Man series, the Tarzan series (in its many forms), Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes series...

Thankyou.

I'll keep working on it.

I'd agree this is an opinion piece and therefore not necessarily suitable for the EG in its current form - it'd make a good Post column I expect.

Worse, however, are a couple of specific problems I have with it:

1. It seems to suggest that sequels are only now getting any good after an ignominious history. Jimster's mentioned Godfather Part II (the first sequel to have a part number in the title), but I'd also bring the audiences attention to:

Aliens
The Empire Strikes Back
The Colour of Money
Every Bond movie since Dr. No.

2. It says that most people would say Reloaded is as good as the Matrix. Now, I'm about as rabid a fanboy as they come (Animatrix on DVD - check; finished the game with both characters before seeing the movie - check; original movie always in my DVD player in case someone comes to my house for the first time and I need to show them the lobby shootout in 5.1 surround and make their ears bleed - check), but even I have to say that "The Matrix" was utterly, unbelievably, groundbreakingly fantastic and "Reloaded" is 'only' very good indeed. I've yet to meet (online or IRL) a single person who thinks Reloaded is "at least as good" as the original. Are you the One?

H.

I think this is always going to remain opinion, and as such unsuitable for the edited Guide.

I don't think its reasonable to call The Two Towers a sequel, its a film of the second book. (Mainly)

Perhaps the piece could be developed into something about the re-hashing of existing media into a new vehicle due to fear of originality attacking profits, perhaps extend it to cover books, music, and computer games ????

Bung it in The Post and start a row.

i second that! i think this might have a little bit of reworking problem as a potential eg; however, it would get all the attention it *deserves* if it were to go to the post. it *is* a highly interesting discussion, what you call the 'sequel phenomenon'. i agree that lately the quality of sequals has been improving EXCEPT for jurassic park sequels, which seemed to get worse with each movie. (first one was great because it was based on the book; second was bad - supposedly based on the book, but deviated far from it, and reeked of godzilla; third - which was based on nothing - stunk to high heaven)

however, if you still really want this to be an eg, you could try approaching the topic from a slightly different angle. like maybe - did the creators of the first movie intend on a second movie to begin with, or did they look at the box office records and think ,'hey, this did really good, let's do another' or something, if the makers of the first did the second, or if they quit and somebody else took over (thomas harris' 'silence of the lambs' and 'hannibal' is a good example)... of course, that would require quite a bit of research. plus it really wouldn't give you much room to rant and voice your opinions, so i'd still say... the post is best

Have you looked into getting this into the Post, Daniel?

Daniel last posted on August 3, but as the last posting to this entry was in June, it looks Flea Market material to me. Or should it be back to entry?

I'd say flea market- if it was heavily rewritten it could be guide-worthy.

there goes another one...

Propose a move to flea market then.

Seconded

And I'll box off the e-mail as well...