In article <vafeh71r2ae2jmo8p...@4ax.com
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net
>On 18 Jan 2012 21:38:23 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com
>>>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>>>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>>Well, IMHO, to be a sequel, it has to depend on the first one somehow.
>>If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
>>isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
>>Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
>Disney planned to do a series of Fantasia movies, updating pieces. The
>setting of showing the orchestra and talking about movies is the same.
>I would change "Of course", with "IMHO" in your first line quoted
Well, where's the fun in making a non-categorical, non-sweeping statement?
But, to scope-down, then of course "IMHO"..
A "series" of anything does not make later elements of the series "sequels".
For instance, "The Twilight Zone" was a series but very few (zero?) episodes
were "sequels". If I wanted to tax claim my travel expenses for my
hypothetical murder mysteries, I might make them into a series like:
_Mean Streets: Toronto_
_Mean Streets: Prague_
_Mean Streets: Poughkeepsie_
etc, but assuming they still had no common characters, they still wouldn't