Originally Posted by DrCosmic
Wait, what world is it that you live in where prequels are sequels??? On the planet I live on no one refers to any prequel as a sequel, and for good reason, the word sequel comes form the latin "sequi" meaning "to follow." And this "bizzare" method is called natural numbers. You may have forgotten it since you learned integers. The question is a valid one, and it highlights how none of the modern CBMs has ever continued the story forward after a Trilogy, and no CBM has done it with a movie that was not hated. (Thanks Quest for Peace and Batman & Robin!) That's an interesting observation.
on grammar and usage. Ooooh, that's rich.
Son: "prequel" is a portmanteau. It *combines* the prefix "pre-" with, uh, what's that word again? Oh, yeah: "sequel."
It matters precisely not one iota that a prequel precedes an existing story chronologically; it matters only that *sequentially,* the prequel was created AFTER the original. Ergo: it is still a type of *sequel.*
And since there's no way in hell you're ever going to take my word for anything or ever agree with me on anything, then allow me to present to you a more objective definition from Wiki:
Cappice? Regardless of what order the movies were released, there are SIX movies in the Star Wars series. Just as there are FOUR movies in the X-Men series (XMOW notwithstanding, since it's about a solo character instead of the team).
Ergo: X-Men already has four movies in sequence. By your/Psylocke's definition, the "#4 movie" was X-Men: The Last Stand.
Also: "bizarre" is still the proper spelling, not "bizzare." But thanks for trying to spell-check me. Nice try.