Which ways better?

[Delta4Embassy]

Thinking of Harry Potter and Star Wars, which way's better? Star at the beginning and have actual sequels wrapping up the story with the finaly movie, or as with Star Wars, start in the middle, then have prequels, then resume the linear story with the upcoming 3 post-Jedi sequels?

Not true comparisons I suppose. Harry Potter felt more like something intended to be done like it was instead of sequels just because they could, whereas Star Wars has that kind of feel. Original trilogy but the prequels and next 3 were an afterthought.

I think both have strengths, but wonder if either's decisvely better overall.

 

[Auld Phart]

Potter had to be done in sequence.

The storyline was about a group of children advancing through school.

Suppose you could look at Chamber of Secrets as the original movie, and the rest as sequels.

 

[Indeependent]

Harry Potter is based on novels.
Star Wars scripts written on a napkin.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Harry Potter is based on novels.
Star Wars scripts written on a napkin.

Star Wars episode 4 was basicly a 'whole story.' Empire came along like an afterthought but ended in anticipation of a sequel. But then Jedi too ended things. While you can always do more via prequel, or invent a new storyline to paste onto the end the Star Wars movies really aren't done in such a way that they flow like a linear sequential chapters story. Like the Star Trek: TNG series which was a lot of individual stories with a few multi-part ones, but where Babylon 5 was one big massive continuing storyline beginning to end.