Is RUMBLE FISH a prequel to BLUE VELVET?

Last night I had a rare experience while watching "Rumble Fish" (1983), Francis Ford Coppola and S.E. Hinton's follow-up to "The Outsiders" (1983):

As this movie unfolds before me, I believe I am watching one of my favorite movies - and for the first time.

It was a great experience. Kinda like watching Fellini or Bergman as a tween, but this time I wasn't taking it for granted - I was savoring the experience as each masterful shot dissolved into the next urban vision of juvenile wunderlust.

Coppola's "Rumble Fish" is in black and white and that is why it is forgotten.
That is also why it is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.

Mickey Rourke is at his best as the ghost-like older brother/doppelganger of Matt Dillon, who has never been more beautiful. And speaking of beautiful, Diane Lane is the personification of the animas in this film. In fact, the whole film unfolds like a psycho-analytical fable, gliding to its liberating and painful conclusion.

But it is subtle. Which is interesting. Because you wouldn't really think of the word subtle to describe an art house teen '80s film that has been forgotten in the sea of throwbacks such as George Lucas' "American Graffiti" (1973) or Barry Levinson's "Diner" (1982).

As the flick begins, I thought we were in the '50s, but as we progress through the narrative I thought, maybe this is the '70s, and by the end I was certain this dream-fable was taking place in 1983.

And from it's opening frames, do ya know what movie we, the small living room audience, kept thinking of?

David Lynch's 1986 return to the weird, "Blue Velvet."

Yes, "Elephant Man" (1980) and "Dune" (1984) are weird but not as visionary as "Eraserhead" (1977) which was a nearly decade-long labor of passion from Lynch and his small crew of family and friends.

Yet even "Eraserhead" does not include the sprinkles of 1950s sockhop festishes that would show up in "Blue Velvet," "Wild At Heart" (1990), and "Mulholland Drive" (2001).

It would seem that Lynch composed the screenplay for "Blue Velvet" around 1984 as it was in production by '85. And it would seem that Lynch must have seen Coppola's "Rumble Fish" and was inspired by its timeless world, executed in monochrome German Expressionism with lush dream-visions that leak into the reality of the protagonist's waking moments.

I know I'm not alone, because the pop-cultural sponges I was watching the film with were having the same revelations. And as my fellow viewers pointed out, the film seems to hold a powerful influence over late '80s / early '90s cinema (think Neo-Noir, where people and cars look like an amalgamation of the 1940s through the '80s).

The Coen Brothers arguably took cues from this film as well, and their first feature, "Blood Simple" would be released the year following "Rumble Fish."

So here's my question: About half-way into the movie I had to break out my phone and google:

BLUE VELVET A SEQUEL TO RUMBLE FISH

And to my surprise there was not one hit. I thought for sure there'd be a Cracked article talking about the two films sharing a universe, but somehow there was not.

You see, both films feature Dennis Hopper in very memorable roles. You know the image of a leering Hopper with a face full nitrate gas in "Blue Velvet" - he's a hood that uses his menace and rage to manipulate those around him. In "Rumble Fish" he is the drunken father of Rusty James (Dillon) and the Motor Cycle Boy (Rourke).

While in "Blue Velvet" Hopper is terrifying, he is pitiful in "Rumble Fish." Despite being a very sweaty drunk, you feel sorry for him. He doesn't seem to beat or yell at his sons, although he neglects them for sure. It's not until the film's conclusion that we really see his cowardice and are left to wonder if he'll continue being the lovable drunk or will his demeanor grow darker and dangerous.

So, with Coppola's vision that took Film Noir back to its German Expressionist roots we get a pseudo prequel to "Blue Velvet." It's not real. Just speculation and syncronicity. But why has this never been brought up before?

I'll tell ya why:

NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE HAVE SEEN RUMBLE FISH.

And that's a damn shame.