In other words, is this statement true? -- "The Godfather: Part II" is the only sequel ever to have won Best Picture in the Academy Awards (as of March 2005). I know it won Best Picture in the 2004 Academy Awards, but is it technically a sequel? Or does a sequel need the words, "(same title), part II"?

Well technically it is a sequel...in the movie sense.
But if you look at it from Tolkien's view he wanted the three novels to be combined into one big book but they were seperated.
But since Return of the King continues the story that was occuring in the other two movies it is a sequel...thus making your statement false.


frodobeh

<Quote>er: Part II" is the only sequel ever to have won Best Picture in the Academy Awards (as of March 2005)
</quote>

I believe that the record is actually in the fact that 'Godfather' is the only movie where the original and the sequel (II) has won best movie awards

Yes it can be considered a sequel,even though it is only a part of one story,and frodobeh,when Tolkien wrote Lord Of the rings,it wasnt meant to be 3 books,it was actually 6 books

I meant that the editors and people split The Lord of the Rings into 3 novels. But Tolkien wanted them to be all together in one big volume.

There is actually 2 books per novel. But the editors only split them into 3 novels instead of 6.

(i like your avatar stargate2005)


frodobeh

yeah thats what i was getting at and thanks,its one of my favorite avatars

Well technically it is, but only because it was more advantageous all-around to release the movies separately. I mean they were made at the same time, and the story carries through each film; unlike, say, Shrek 2 or Toy Story 2 or Miss Congeniality 2 or whatever which were simply made after the first one succeeded. (some better than others, of course...)