[paran falcon]

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 05:10 PM, said:

Apt, on 19 November 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 19 November 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

I expect Apt to trott out his deluded theory that the prequels are reviled only because of nostalgia, but at the end of the day ep. 1 is a poorly paced, poorly written and poorly directed mess.

No, no, it's the other way around. The prequels are neither great nor awful, they're entertaining at times, disappointing at other times and generally mediochre as soon as the action ends.

It's the original trilogy that I think is no where near as good as people pretend it is. Nostalgia is the one strong suit that series has.

As someone who grew up with Star Wars and idolized it...when I ACTUALLY look at the OT in hindsight objectively, I fully agree that they aren't nearly what we all assume them to be. Maybe it's because of their simplicity? I mean there's not much meat to them. I truly believe that Nostalgia is a STRONG, STRONG factor in people's love of the OT. I mean ANH is a very basic tale with minimal simplistic dialogue and cool fights and ideas. That's really it. They are not the second coming....but to a child version of me they were incredible.

I agree almost completely with this. There's no doubt that the original trilogy and especially ANH is basic fantasy with a futuristic setting. Little if any complexity to any of it. But the effects were groundbreaking and what young boy/teen wouldn't have loved firing off blasters or hacking things up with an "electrified sword", essentially? (I don't exclude girls from that statement for any reason other than I didn't know any that were into those things at that time.) I know that's what got me interested. It's the same reason I love Tron so much, to this day. (Light cycles and the power disc, C'MON!) Plus the Millennium Falcon and the X-wing fighter both really appealed to me.

Now, my kids have grown up with the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy, to them, is much less of a big deal. My son LOVES Boba and Jango and Grevious and that's all that really matters to him. My daughter likes Padme and Ahsoka, after she was introduced. My daughter seems to have more excitement than my son for the new movie but we'll all be going...

[QuickTidal]

paran falcon, on 19 November 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

Now, my kids have grown up with the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy, to them, is much less of a big deal. My son LOVES Boba and Jango and Grevious and that's all that really matters to him. My daughter likes Padme and Ahsoka, after she was introduced. My daughter seems to have more excitement than my son for the new movie but we'll all be going...

This is me too. My nieces and nephews have ALL grown up with the prequels and love them unequivocally, and find the OT to be "just okay" in comparison.

It's funny because it's basically the exact SAME situation, just 35+ years removed. WE saw the OT as kids and we love it and think it's the best, the generation who grew up with the prequels feel the same about those. And there is nothing wrong with either of those POV's...but it would be silly for me to insult the prequels without realizing that the OT is no roaring hell either. It's all just Saturday afternoon Matinee B-movies...have fun and eat popcorn.

[paran falcon]

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

paran falcon, on 19 November 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

Now, my kids have grown up with the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy, to them, is much less of a big deal. My son LOVES Boba and Jango and Grevious and that's all that really matters to him. My daughter likes Padme and Ahsoka, after she was introduced. My daughter seems to have more excitement than my son for the new movie but we'll all be going...

This is me too. My nieces and nephews have ALL grown up with the prequels and love them unequivocally, and find the OT to be "just okay" in comparison.

It's funny because it's basically the exact SAME situation, just 35+ years removed. WE saw the OT as kids and we love it and think it's the best, the generation who grew up with the prequels feel the same about those. And there is nothing wrong with either of those POV's...but it would be silly for me to insult the prequels without realizing that the OT is no roaring hell either. It's all just Saturday afternoon Matinee B-movies...have fun and eat popcorn.

Exactly! I've had a half-baked theory for a while now that we tend to do the same thing with our favorite books/book series. For example: I know full well that Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara is a rip off of Tolkien yet I still have a soft spot for it and the two books that followed it because they were essentially my break in to the fantasy genre. I've read plenty of books/series that are quite superior to Shannara but I will always enjoy the memory of what it felt like reading Shannara all those years ago...

[QuickTidal]

paran falcon, on 19 November 2015 - 06:15 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

paran falcon, on 19 November 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

Now, my kids have grown up with the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy, to them, is much less of a big deal. My son LOVES Boba and Jango and Grevious and that's all that really matters to him. My daughter likes Padme and Ahsoka, after she was introduced. My daughter seems to have more excitement than my son for the new movie but we'll all be going...

This is me too. My nieces and nephews have ALL grown up with the prequels and love them unequivocally, and find the OT to be "just okay" in comparison.

It's funny because it's basically the exact SAME situation, just 35+ years removed. WE saw the OT as kids and we love it and think it's the best, the generation who grew up with the prequels feel the same about those. And there is nothing wrong with either of those POV's...but it would be silly for me to insult the prequels without realizing that the OT is no roaring hell either. It's all just Saturday afternoon Matinee B-movies...have fun and eat popcorn.

Exactly! I've had a half-baked theory for a while now that we tend to do the same thing with our favorite books/book series. For example: I know full well that Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara is a rip off of Tolkien yet I still have a soft spot for it and the two books that followed it because they were essentially my break in to the fantasy genre. I've read plenty of books/series that are quite superior to Shannara but I will always enjoy the memory of what it felt like reading Shannara all those years ago...

I have the same experience with the Dragonlance Chronicles. Not great books by any stretch...but they were my entry into fantasy and I have hardcore nostalgia for them. Hell, I even remember how joyful I felt reading them the first time.

[Gnaw]

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 02:20 PM, said:

and I would have put PROMETHEUS on this list (because I enjoy it)...but I'm well aware that next to no one here likes it, so it would work against my point.

Fuck'em. Damn good movie.

[QuickTidal]

Gnaw, on 19 November 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 02:20 PM, said:

and I would have put PROMETHEUS on this list (because I enjoy it)...but I'm well aware that next to no one here likes it, so it would work against my point.

Fuck'em. Damn good movie.

Huh, I've not many people who agree with me. Nice to know I'm not alone!

[Mezla PigDog]

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 08:03 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 19 November 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 November 2015 - 02:20 PM, said:

and I would have put PROMETHEUS on this list (because I enjoy it)...but I'm well aware that next to no one here likes it, so it would work against my point.

Fuck'em. Damn good movie.

Huh, I've not many people who agree with me. Nice to know I'm not alone!

BURN THEM! BURN THEM!!

[worry]

Paranormal Activity 3 is a great prequel. Now you might say to yourself, but the first PA wasn't exactly a masterpiece, and its protagonists were annoying and unsympathetic. I personally liked it well enough (saw it with the "good" ending), but wouldn't disagree with that overall assessment. So sure, it's a low bar, esp compared to The Godfather or RotLA. But PA2 is quite a good movie with strong characters and genuine tension, and PA3 is a prequel to both and the best in the series.

[Tiste Simeon]

Cut Jar Jar out of Ep 1? But he is The most badass Sith Lord ever!

[Morgoth]

Yeah, QT, several of those on your list are good movies, you're right. Though I fundamentally disagree with Star Trek and Batman are prequels, I don't see how that would work at all. How do you define a prequel? What are they prequels to?

I also don't think the Godfather 2 can be considered a prequel. The Movie follows two parallell stories, the current development of the plot from the Godfather 1, and the background of Vito Corleone. To call that a prequel would be to water down the term beyond what is reasonable I think.

[Macros]

There's quite a few on the list I wouldn't define as prequels.
Casino Royale, is not a prequel. At best you could call it a reboot, it does not take part before any bond films that came before. Events are not linked.
The hobbit is not a prequel, the hobbit was written and released before lotr, its a separate trilogy (and its a load of old pants)
Star trek and batman are reboots.

In my mind a prequel is something that is clearly, and definably set in the exact same universe, and canon of a set film, only at an earlier date. Nothing from, say Batman and Robin, ties remotely to batman begins or the rest of Nolans trilogy.

Eta - Mallrats?
A prequel?
Give me a link beyond the tenuous jay and silent bobs involvement?

This post has been edited by Macros: 20 November 2015 - 07:39 AM

[Aptorian]

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

There's quite a few on the list I wouldn't define as prequels.
Casino Royale, is not a prequel. At best you could call it a reboot, it does not take part before any bond films that came before. Events are not linked.

Are you sure? My early bond film knowledge is pretty poor but the 3 Daniel Craig films seem to be Origin stories to me. I haven't seen Spectre yet but I thought this was going to be the film that takes the film back into the established Bond mythology. Q, M, Moneypenny, Spectre are all introduced in the last films.

Oh boy, what if they reintroduce Jaws?

I imagine he would be a crazy hacker who instead of a metal jaw had all his teeth replaced with USB ports and now he can hack the worlds communication lines by biting into an Ethernet cable.

[Macros]

Its a reboot at best, the 4 films could almost be described as a self contained arc purely for Crond. The Bond franchise is not one that goes for continuity, bar the 2 appearances of old metal mouth in moonraker and....the spy who loved me?/from Russia with love (been a while since I've seen them) Bond films are in the main disconnected serialisations, the Crond quad is the first time we've really seen continuity through an actors tenure in the part, and as it ends the way it ends portraying Casino Royale as a prequel to, say Dr. No, or indeed basically any earlier films is farcical to say the least, if casino Royale is a prequel, where does On Her Majesty's Secret Service fit in, with (Spoiler for 30 year old film alert) dead wife, shot by duh duh duh, blofelt, who Crond has never heard of/ met. Oh, actually there's a continuity link beyond Jaw, apologies, spectre appears in a few of the older films, and Blofelt in....2?
But yah, its not a prequel in any shape or form.
An excellent film though

Eta- apt, a super hacker jaws would be amusing yes

This post has been edited by Macros: 20 November 2015 - 09:17 AM

[Morgoth]

I also found the Hobbit Movies, all three of them but the first especially, to be terrible.

[Macros]

Hmm, they were all massively disappointing but the 3rd was the worst for me, my issues with the final battle have been well documented elsewhere, I don't want to rile myself up on a Friday thinking about all the ways he fucked that up

[QuickTidal]

First the definition of prequel: a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work.

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

In my mind a prequel is something that is clearly, and definably set in the exact same universe, and canon of a set film, only at an earlier date. Nothing from, say Batman and Robin, ties remotely to batman begins or the rest of Nolans trilogy.

Eta - Mallrats?
A prequel?
Give me a link beyond the tenuous jay and silent bobs involvement?

It would seem you and the internet differ slightly in what you call prequel?

I'm okay with differentiatiing between prequel and reboot...but the list I grabbed had alll those listed as prequels.


RE: Mallrats...Really?

http://viewaskew.com...s/kevintro.html

Scroll down. Kevin Smith himself explains it.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 November 2015 - 12:21 PM

[Morgoth]

A reboot and a prequel is not the same. The words mean entirely different things. If someone on the internet disagree, that someone is wrong.

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 20 November 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

A reboot and a prequel is not the same. The words mean entirely different things. If someone on the internet disagree, that someone is wrong.

I said the internet disagreed with what Marcos called a "reboot" when it called those films prequels as opposed to reboots.

CASINO ROYALE (for example) takes place earlier in the Bond continuity than DR. NO. It is before Bond gets his 00 status, he's yet to meet Spectre and Bloefeld. You can call that a reboot if you like...but it also qualifies as a prequel. A prequel can have the same roles played by new actors...unless The Star Wars Prequels AREN'T actually prequels?

THE HOBBIT trilogy are films. They are prequels to the existing films not books. I'm well aware that the Hobbit book came first, but the film versions ARE prequels to the film versions of LOTR.

But when you really break it all down it's tiny semantics.

To me a reboot is something that completely overwrites an existing piece of canon. So THE DARK KNIGHT is a largely a reboot of the original BATMAN film since it deals with the same major event (Batman VS the Joker for the first time)...you can't call it a prequel since it concerns the same characters and some of the same events. But BATMAN BEGINS doesn't trod on BATMAN (1989) narrativdely at all...so it can be prequel from that POV.

It's muddy waters though. Because if you have to say "a prequel follows all these specific rules to be a prequel"....then you've cornered it into a place where it can't be a carte blanche term like that. Because what happens when you run into a film that IS a prequel but doesn't follow some of those rules?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 November 2015 - 02:27 PM

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 20 November 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

CASINO ROYALE (for example) takes place earlier in the Bond continuity than DR. NO. It is before Bond gets his 00 status, he's yet to meet Spectre and Bloefeld. You can call that a reboot if you like...but it also qualifies as a prequel. A prequel can have the same roles played by new actors...unless The Star Wars Prequels AREN'T actually prequels?

Casino Royale in some ways purports itself to be a prequel but it doesn't actually work. There's no way you can watch Casino Royale and then watch Dr No, and think that the story logically progressed in that fashion, unless you add a humongous fan theory about a secret Y2K-esque robot uprising and the shadowy world government regressing all human technology, culture, fashion, etc backwards by 50 years plus wiping everyone's memories so they forgot about it.


Star Wars does have a canonical reasoning (and lots of easy other explanations that fans could think up) for why the ships, troops, etc, are fancier in the earlier chronological time, and it can pull it off because it's a fantasy world not trying to be our own.

But Bond is set in "the real world" so it doesn't get that suspension of disbelief, and it doesn't have any reasoning to explain why Dr No looks like it is set in 1960ish and Casino Royale is set in 2010ish other than that that is indeed when they are set. Therefore, it's a reboot and not a prequel.

QuickTidal, on 20 November 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

To me a reboot is something that completely overwrites an existing piece of canon. So THE DARK KNIGHT is a largely a reboot of the original BATMAN film since it deals with the same major event (Batman VS the Joker for the first time)...you can't call it a prequel since it concerns the same characters and some of the same events. But BATMAN BEGINS doesn't trod on BATMAN (1989) narrativdely at all...so it can be prequel from that POV.

I agree that "a reboot is something that completely overwrites an existing piece of canon" but I don't feel that that piece of canon needs to be on-screen. So Batman Begins is overwriting the 'Batman origin canon' of the original Batman movies with a new canon, hence it is a reboot.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

Hmm, they were all massively disappointing but the 3rd was the worst for me, my issues with the final battle have been well documented elsewhere, I don't want to rile myself up on a Friday thinking about all the ways he fucked that up

Did you see the recent articles quoting Jackson as saying that he had no idea what he was doing and he winged much of it? That he'd film scenes without storyboarding them? Such a disappointment.