know the words, over time, are changing in meaning. It's nothing new the famous semantic change. But as experts warn (and the occasional nosy, like the undersigned), this change occurs slowly, so as not to impede the communication between one generation and another. Perhaps grandparents to grandchildren do not understand, but parents definitely do understand the children. At least in the use of words. Or at least in theory. What does the practice?
Practice, ladies and gentlemen, we are told otherwise. My children, for example, speak of a movie sequel. Now, I understand and sequel "consequence", especially of a disease. Thus, the sequelae of polio forced several of my classmates from elementary to use braces for walking. What may be a movie sequel? Only the bad taste to leave us a Churrito or admiration of knowing before a work of art.
But no. For the next generation sequel is what for me were the "second party" (or third, fourth, etc., as), of which it was said, to deter counterfeiting, which "were never good." The semantic change to return to our subject, is produced by social needs: facing a new phenomenon, people grab a little-used word and gives it new meaning. That was, famously, with the word static , shoved it on the dictionary meaning of "stationary" and "part of mechanics that studies the laws of balance of forces" until the required development of radio a term for the noise occurs in communication because of the electrical activity in the atmosphere.
Does this mean that the sequels are a new phenomenon and that, therefore, needed to grab a word more or less into disuse? I think not. Serial the movies were good. And movies with the same character in different stories and situations, even more so. I will not get to make the list of films Ghost and Tarzan, of pure respect for the reader's patience. But not just quit, and addressing those already holding a credential INSEN, I should mention the trilogy about the Empress Elizabeth of Austria, starring Romy Schneider of Austria in 1955, 1956 and 1957: "Sissi", "Empress Sissi" and "Sissi and her fate."
One of the characteristics of new sequels is that the title of the film repeats the original, adding a number and, sometimes, something that would be the subtitle. Thus, we would be tempted to attribute to "Jaws" (1975) sponsorship of the phenomenon of sequels in 1978 had "Jaws 2" in 1983 we prescribed a three-dimensional version, and finally, in 1987, "Jaws: The revenge. " Then came the Rocky, number six, the Rambo, an original and three sequels, and Halloween, Friday the thirteenth, Nightmare on Elm Street and other commercial operations whose number and no one cares to specify. Since then
here, the number of movies with sequel is legion. Moreover, since the release of any of them talk about the second half and maybe a third. I release in this category for films such as Harry Potter, the "Lord of the Rings" and others, based on works that obviously hoping to reach the big screen intact. Here we would do better to speak of "parts" rather than consequences, since the entire work is so abundant that goes beyond the commercial possibilities of a single film. The consequences are themselves movie such as "X-Men" and "Transformers" were not yet successful at the box office when producers were looking for and how to perform the respective second parties (and third and even fourth, why not, right Wolverine?).
Indeed, this paper inspired me to read an interview with Megan Fox (Figure 1, for the reader and awakens advised readers to judge for themselves), whom I call the "new Angelina Jolie (who I do not think you fall into the grace to tell him the "old Megan Fox," because it takes only eleven years old), star of the series of "Transformers" and says he would love to be in all the sequels. Why, how many expected to go to be?
