Which movie sequel that won the Best Picture Oscar is your favorite: The Godfather: Part II or The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King or The Silence of the Lambs?
See the list of Oscar winning movie sequels here: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033184328/
Poll: http://www.imdb.com/poll/u8cYGiAzMAI/
See the list of Oscar winning movie sequels here: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033184328/
Poll: http://www.imdb.com/poll/u8cYGiAzMAI/
Posted 3 years ago
I'd probably vote Return of the King. I'm not a huge fan of any of the three.
Different strokes for different folks, I think all three are outstanding.
That's ABSOLUTELY NOT what I said. I know English isn't my mother tongue and sometimes I write so fast I don't make myself clear but here, you make my argument sounds completely silly by over-simplifying it. You know we're in a more complex case than an apple being an apple or a banana not being a coconut.P.S. Your logic is flawed, its like saying just because you decide not call an apple by its name it no longer ceases to be apple. An apple remains an apple regardless whether you arbitrarily decide call it an orange.
OK so...
Manhunter is an adaptation of book A
TSOTL is an adaptation of book B
B is a sequel to A.
But that doesn't make TSOTL a sequel to Manhunter in our usual terms of reference of a sequel. I'm sorry but a sequel is a movie generally from the same director, if not from the same director, then featuring the same actors or being at least, a continuation to events established in a first opus, to which the sequel will make a few references. If TSOTL made references to Manhunter that I missed then I stand corrected.
You know pretty well that the vast majority of viewers saw The Silence of the Lambs first, you know pretty well that only a small minority has seen Manhunter, the second movie's success wasn't dependent on the first, so you might call it a second installment of a franchise, no problem, you might even call it a reboot (I think it's actually a reboot), but it's as much a sequel to Manhunter as Nolan's Batman Begins is a sequel to Burton's Batman.
Of course, you can be very rational and then demonstrate your opinion by a flawless logic but I'm just calling your common sense. You know when we think of sequels, we think of "Back to the Future Part II", "Shrek III", "Lethal Weapon II" etc. etc. If you asked anyone (not me with my flawed logic), but any average movie lover of his Top 20 favorite sequels, I doubt "The Silence of the Lambs" will come to mind because no one ever considers it a sequel.
Let's hear from the others... I know I won't convince you anyway...
It's not a matter of convincing me or language for that matter. It is simply a difference between the facts and truth, as opposed to, opinions and suppositions.The two groups are completely different and I am solely interested in using the facts to find the truth. I remain unconvinced of your case, because you choose never to address the points that refute yours and the facts pointed out to you, instead reverting back to stating your original points. For instance, I gave you five independent sources that corroborate that your "opinion" is a minority one. You seem to ignore any point of view that doesn't fit into how what you already think, rather than revising or updating your views.
Are you challenging the definition of the word of sequel? The requirements of what constitutes a sequel are pretty clear and straight-forward. Sequel: a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work. Silence of the Lambs continues the narrative of characters Jack Crawford and Hannibal Lecter, started in the Manhunter film (aka novel Red Dragon) while introducing a third character Clarice Starling to the franchise narrative. Will Graham is skipped in this installment, but returns in later franchise films. It does fit your own requirements of "a continuation to events established in a first opus". Granted, the film to its credit may distance itself a bit from the first film; since 'Manhunter' was a box office bomb and wasn't necessary to the story line other than some backstory elements and the tense relationship between Jack Crawford and Hannibal Lecter.
Also, many film franchises have changed course by recasting the main character and had different directors. Both, the James Bond franchise and Jack Ryan franchise come to mind. Yet, I don't hear anyone making the argument that the films that followed weren't sequels. Someone, may like to think of Sean Connery as the only true Bond, but that is an opinion rather than fact. Just like you choose to think of Anthony Hopkins as the only true Lecter, it is is an opinion rather than a fact.
What you are saying is like saying the Earth is flat and that the Sun circles the Earth. Just because everyone 600 years ago, thought it was "common sense" didn't make them right. I certainly will concede a lot people do not think of Silence as sequel. either due to which film they saw first, lack of awareness that another film preceded it, both in release date and story-telling chronology or even have awareness that Manhunter exists at all. Both this absence of knowledge or belief in it, doesn't change the facts.The Earth is not flat, nor is the Earth the center of the Universe and The Silence of the Lambs is not anything but a sequel to Manhunter.
If your arguments sound completely silly when they are repeated back to you, maybe it is time you should re-evaluate them.
Are you challenging the definition of the word of sequel? The requirements of what constitutes a sequel are pretty clear and straight-forward. Sequel: a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work. Silence of the Lambs continues the narrative of characters Jack Crawford and Hannibal Lecter, started in the Manhunter film (aka novel Red Dragon) while introducing a third character Clarice Starling to the franchise narrative. Will Graham is skipped in this installment, but returns in later franchise films. It does fit your own requirements of "a continuation to events established in a first opus". Granted, the film to its credit may distance itself a bit from the first film; since 'Manhunter' was a box office bomb and wasn't necessary to the story line other than some backstory elements and the tense relationship between Jack Crawford and Hannibal Lecter.
Also, many film franchises have changed course by recasting the main character and had different directors. Both, the James Bond franchise and Jack Ryan franchise come to mind. Yet, I don't hear anyone making the argument that the films that followed weren't sequels. Someone, may like to think of Sean Connery as the only true Bond, but that is an opinion rather than fact. Just like you choose to think of Anthony Hopkins as the only true Lecter, it is is an opinion rather than a fact.
What you are saying is like saying the Earth is flat and that the Sun circles the Earth. Just because everyone 600 years ago, thought it was "common sense" didn't make them right. I certainly will concede a lot people do not think of Silence as sequel. either due to which film they saw first, lack of awareness that another film preceded it, both in release date and story-telling chronology or even have awareness that Manhunter exists at all. Both this absence of knowledge or belief in it, doesn't change the facts.The Earth is not flat, nor is the Earth the center of the Universe and The Silence of the Lambs is not anything but a sequel to Manhunter.
If your arguments sound completely silly when they are repeated back to you, maybe it is time you should re-evaluate them.
(Edited)
I still remain convinced it is a sequel, either in a broader or stricter sense. But your observations on how different it is from the original got me thinking. Your calling it a reboot and likening it Tim Burton's Batman vs. Christopher Nolan's Dark knight trilogy might be apt. I think a case can it is indirect sequel, as well as, a case for calling it a direct sequel. It also think it is possible to be both a reboot and a sequel at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel While the narrative story remains unchanged from one movie to another and I don't recall any factual elements being changed. The tone and portrayals by the recast actors does make it difficult to connect the two, beyond some shared themes and the character's names. I think your Batman comparison is fair, because just like the two Batman series were very different film series, so were Silence and Manhunter. I can't help the feeling we are in agreement on a lot of this, except for what qualifies as a sequel and a few conclusions that are drawn from the facts.
(Edited)
If your arguments sound completely silly when they are repeated back to you, maybe it is time you should re-evaluate them.If I should re-evaluate my opinions, you should at least re-evaluate the way you express yours, man. That was out-of-line. I'm certainly not calling your "apple" and "Earth" metaphors, "repeating my opinions back to me", more of a way to discredit them by using off-topic parallels. It's not a "let's call a spade, a spade" case.
Please, read my 1st post again, what did I say?
We've been through this many times during the old format days and I think we came to a reasonable consensus [...]And a little joke at the end, not to sound so damn serious about it. I know when I express contradictory opinions, I try not to make them sound as absolute certitudes. But I can't say the same about you, you immediately retorted that I chose to ignore your arguments in the past (how am I supposed to remember that anyway?) then that my logic is flawed and that I should re-evaluate my opinions etc. etc.
Unless I'm wrong:
[...]
- no one ever called it a sequel [so it's not just about me]...
I don't think we can accept the fact that [...] In my humble opinion, there has to be an element of 'officiality' in the decision, of continuity regarding a specific narrative, [...] it wasn't meant as a sequel.
Boy, do I sound like a broken record! Did I say it wasn't a sequel :).?
If I recall correctly, last time we debated over this was when I made this poll, but I don't think there was a heated debate about it:
http://www.imdb.com/poll/FkijIxsOt6Y/
As for your links, mental floss and wikipedia only said that The Silence of the Lambs was based on the sequel's novel, mental floss referred to it as an indirect sequel. As for denofgeek, they said it was the second time Hannibal Lecter was portrayed. I never denied any of these points, and I actually like this idea of "indirect sequel", something that can apply to non-narrative series like James Bond, where each 'chapter' creates its own canon (a specific look for Bond, a specific era etc.)
I'm not saying that there are no elements of continuity between the two movies, simply that the idea of Silence being a flat-out sequel isn't undeniable. I'm not even saying you shouldn't add it in your poll but you can't just state that it is a sequel as if it was the most obvious thing in the world. You can add a descriptive text explaining that it's an indirect sequel or based on a sequel's movie and feature elements of basic continuity that can justify a 'sequel' label, but it's not obvious. That's all.
(Edited)
El, I don't disagree with what you have said on these most recent posts. I certainly can agree, if your three posts here are saying The Silence of the Lambs is some type sequel rather than a pure sequel. As opposed to the almost dozen posts you made about the same poll suggestion on the old message board thread, in which you emphatically claimed "The Silence of the Lambs is not a sequel." with no wiggle room. However, I never posted on your poll suggestion: http://www.imdb.com/poll/FkijIxsOt6Y/. I don't recall any heated debate, either. Honestly, this conversation seems to be wearing thin covering the same ground with double digit postings. I meant no offense by the directness of my statement of the facts and illustration of examples to view the topic from an alternative perspective. Thanks, for your feedback.
It is possible that in my previous exchanges, I didn't have all the data you just provided me. I'm not the stubborn type, I can't count how many times I rephrased my own suggestions or considered adding or removing some options because someone talked me to it.
When I say "The Silence of the Lambs" is not a sequel, the emphasis isn't on the "not" but on the term "sequel". There's a general consensus about the sequel being a continuation of a previous film, a continuation on a narrative/characterization/directing level especially. "General" doesn't mean "right" but it just means that in the specific case of "Silence of the Lambs", the film was such a huge phenomenon it totally overshadowed the fact that a Lecter film was made before.
The 'historical' magnitude of the film, providing such a larger-than-life character as Lecter, (check today's polls result: Hannibal leads the show) made it even harder to consider the film a 'sequel'. It's like the Lord of the Ring trilogy, forever associated with Peter Jackson's version although Tolkien had been adapted before. But I'm not saying that a great film should be immune to that terminology, simply that you can't ignore parameters like reputation and success.
I would consider "The Silence of the Lambs" a reboot, the term is even more relevant because it aknowledges the fact that it wasn't the first film about Hannibal Lecter and give its proper credit to "Manhunter". Now, there's no problem if you call it a sequel, but what bothers me (if you pardon the expression) is that you call it a sequel without any explanation as if it went without saying. You could just add a little text in the option explaining why it's a sequel according to you.
I accept that there are some elements of a sequel that can fit for "Silence of the Lambs", but it's not that obvious.
When I say "The Silence of the Lambs" is not a sequel, the emphasis isn't on the "not" but on the term "sequel". There's a general consensus about the sequel being a continuation of a previous film, a continuation on a narrative/characterization/directing level especially. "General" doesn't mean "right" but it just means that in the specific case of "Silence of the Lambs", the film was such a huge phenomenon it totally overshadowed the fact that a Lecter film was made before.
The 'historical' magnitude of the film, providing such a larger-than-life character as Lecter, (check today's polls result: Hannibal leads the show) made it even harder to consider the film a 'sequel'. It's like the Lord of the Ring trilogy, forever associated with Peter Jackson's version although Tolkien had been adapted before. But I'm not saying that a great film should be immune to that terminology, simply that you can't ignore parameters like reputation and success.
I would consider "The Silence of the Lambs" a reboot, the term is even more relevant because it aknowledges the fact that it wasn't the first film about Hannibal Lecter and give its proper credit to "Manhunter". Now, there's no problem if you call it a sequel, but what bothers me (if you pardon the expression) is that you call it a sequel without any explanation as if it went without saying. You could just add a little text in the option explaining why it's a sequel according to you.
I accept that there are some elements of a sequel that can fit for "Silence of the Lambs", but it's not that obvious.
(Edited)
I have heard your feedback. I have decided to leave it as is for the
following reasons. I think polls that are simplistic and not overly
complicated are preferred. I think I have a track record for clarity in
my polls ("infamous asterisk"). Many of my polls spell out the
parameters and guide poll takers in defining those parameters and terms.
In this case, I think it is unnecessary to create an issue for the
majority of poll takers, where it not an issue with most. Those who feel
Silence of the Lambs is not a sequel can simply consider it an invalid option in their opinion, can just vote for for one of the other options instead. But by leaving it as an option, it doesn't deny the option to those who feel otherwise and enables them to vote for it.
I have hyperlinked the word sequel for those that need help with defining what a sequel is. This includes prequels, reboots retcons, remakes, spiritual successors, companion pieces, standalone sequels, unofficial sequels and media shifting Also, for those who passionately take issue with it's inclusion. There is an extensive discussion on the topic available by clicking Discuss the topic. to comfort them that the issue was fully vetted.
I have hyperlinked the word sequel for those that need help with defining what a sequel is. This includes prequels, reboots retcons, remakes, spiritual successors, companion pieces, standalone sequels, unofficial sequels and media shifting Also, for those who passionately take issue with it's inclusion. There is an extensive discussion on the topic available by clicking Discuss the topic. to comfort them that the issue was fully vetted.
(Edited)
Okay, no problem.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King has the most Oscars and highest Meta critic score of the three movies.
rubyfruit76, Champion
rubyfruit76, Champion
Dan Dassow, Champion
Aaron Burman
Based on how many times I've seen it, Silence of the Lambs (which I didn't realize was a sequel for an embarrassingly long time after I first saw it).