[amphibian]

I agree that Casino Royale and Batman Begins are not prequels. They are reboots/movies in their own universe.

Mallrats is a prequel, although Kevin Smith isn't a particularly gifted filmmaker.

As problematic as the representation of Nepali/Indians are in Temple of Doom, it's the best prequel in this discussion by a country mile.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 20 November 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

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.

As I've already stated, my view is that the waters between prequel and reboot (especially because one is a recently invented portmanteau) are muddy and not clearly defined.

Everyone is welcome to call me an idiot for that view, but it is what it is. I posted what I view as a list of prequels...apparently I'm wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm okay with that.

amphibian, on 20 November 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

Mallrats is a prequel, although Kevin Smith isn't a particularly gifted filmmaker.

What is this little jab about? What does that have to do with what's being discussed?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 November 2015 - 03:58 PM

[Macros]

I think its a piss poor prequel (although I enjoy the film) if someone has watched both films and makes no connection beyond jay and silent bob, where's the storyline here that makes them an interconnected story that would (if publishing order were reversed) suggest Clerks could e marketed as a sequel to mallrats, clerks 2 has a very clear and obvious follow on, at best you could say mallrats is in the same universe as clerks, in the same way ICE and SE share the malazan universe, or dan abnett shares the 40K universe with 1,00,000 other authors.

An d there is no ground to suggest CR is a prequel to Dr. No, as I said earlier, its farcical to consider it, as it is clearly tied to the rest of the Crond films and as such NONE of the previous bond offerings fit in that particular branch of Canon, I would go as far as to suggest the very LACK of canon in the Bond universe makes a "prequel" virtually an impossibility in that franchise, unless they reboot with a new bond, as kickass 007, then throw us a SECOND film with that actor, set BEFORE that actors first Bond film with a storyline that CLEARLY leads into his first one.

All the rest is waffly bullshit, shared universe does not equal prequel. SW does, its Darth vader as a youth (SPOILER ALERT!!) and basically the origin tale of how he became who he is.

Hobbit, not a prequel, was written first, LotR was, if you wanted, the hobbits sequel, filming order doesn't change that. at best I'd give that shared universe, as tolkien had many works set in that environ.

and isnt my name is earl in mallrats AND in clerks 2, playing quite different characters, which again, muddys the continuity further. I'll admit i've seen mallrats like 3 times and the clerks films once each, but still, from an outsiders casual viewers eyes, you may aswell say the clerks1 & 2, mallrats, dogma and jay and silent bob strike back are all part of a series and should be watched in a sequential order as they have jay and silent bob in them.
its how Casino Royale can't be a prequel, you CAN say, theres a veiwing order for the Crond film, CR, QoS (shit film), SF, SP. end of. you wouldn't every give out a chron view list for ALL of bond, saying, start with CR, then go Dr. No, hmmm then jump to FRWL, then go GF, then bla bla bla, and finish up at Spectre. not in the slightest, Crond can be taken as a quadralogy, but not as part of sequence in the entire bond universe, there is no such sequence in the whole bond universe

[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

I think its a piss poor prequel (although I enjoy the film) if someone has watched both films and makes no connection beyond jay and silent bob, where's the storyline here that makes them an interconnected story that would (if publishing order were reversed) suggest Clerks could e marketed as a sequel to mallrats, clerks 2 has a very clear and obvious follow on, at best you could say mallrats is in the same universe as clerks, in the same way ICE and SE share the malazan universe, or dan abnett shares the 40K universe with 1,00,000 other authors.

There is a lot of in-film dialogue that shows MALLRATS to be a prequel. Events that are spoken of in CLERKS are referenced in MALLRATS an are obviously earlier in the timeline. For example: In CLERKS, Dante and Randal close the store to attend Julie Dwyer's wake the day after she died in a YMCA pool. They talk about this. In MALLRATS, T.S. and Brandi break up due to Julie Dwyers death, which just happened. CLERKS basically occurs the day after MALLRATS.

When it comes to the View Askewniverse, I'm taking Kevin Smith's word (since it's his universe), and he calls it a prequel. *shrugs*

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

An d there is no ground to suggest CR is a prequel to Dr. No, as I said earlier, its farcical to consider it, as it is clearly tied to the rest of the Crond films and as such NONE of the previous bond offerings fit in that particular branch of Canon, I would go as far as to suggest the very LACK of canon in the Bond universe makes a "prequel" virtually an impossibility in that franchise, unless they reboot with a new bond, as kickass 007, then throw us a SECOND film with that actor, set BEFORE that actors first Bond film with a storyline that CLEARLY leads into his first one.

Yep. I got that. I differ in my opinion. My rules of what denotes a prequel are looser than yours. I'm cool with that.

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

All the rest is waffly bullshit, shared universe does not equal prequel. SW does, its Darth vader as a youth (SPOILER ALERT!!) and basically the origin tale of how he became who he is.

And CR isn't the origin tale of how Bond became who HE is? ...interesting. Okay.

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

Hobbit, not a prequel, was written first, LotR was, if you wanted, the hobbits sequel, filming order doesn't change that. at best I'd give that shared universe, as tolkien had many works set in that environ.

Nope. Sorry, I'm not budging on this one. What appeared on the movie screen was NOT Tolkien's book. It was Peter Jackson's adaptation of that book. It's is its own entity. And since it was WRITTEN and made AFTER Peter Jackson's film adaptation of the LOTR trilogy. It is a prequel, full stop. The books do not equal the movie.

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

and isnt my name is earl in mallrats AND in clerks 2, playing quite different characters, which again, muddys the continuity further. I'll admit i've seen mallrats like 3 times and the clerks films once each, but still, from an outsiders casual viewers eyes, you may aswell say the clerks1 & 2, mallrats, dogma and jay and silent bob strike back are all part of a series and should be watched in a sequential order as they have jay and silent bob in them.

Again, I have to defer to the guy who wrote those films in how he calls them chronologically. I'm not pulling the 'prequel" word out of my ass on MALLRATS. That word came from Smith himself. You disagree, that's fine...but you're not disagreeing with me.

And yes Jason Lee played more than one role in the View Askewniverse...he played a bunch, in one he was a demon...what's your point? Actors can't have different roles in one movie universe? or that somehow negates the fact that MALLRATS is a prequel?

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

its how Casino Royale can't be a prequel, you CAN say, theres a veiwing order for the Crond film, CR, QoS (shit film), SF, SP. end of. you wouldn't every give out a chron view list for ALL of bond, saying, start with CR, then go Dr. No, hmmm then jump to FRWL, then go GF, then bla bla bla, and finish up at Spectre. not in the slightest, Crond can be taken as a quadralogy, but not as part of sequence in the entire bond universe, there is no such sequence in the whole bond universe

I covered my thoughts about Bond. It's how I see it. You don't. Methinks that's an impasse no?

[Gnaw]

*popcorn*

[Mezla PigDog]

Does anyone else remember the days when loads of movies were based on original screenplays?

[Macros]

I'll pass on the mallrats one, I caught none of the references that are apparently there, and accept I don't know this smiths universe sufficiently to argue the point, but to my eyes there's no continuation of storyline, plot or involvement from anything major (take your people dying in pools and shove it, that's a nonsensical plot point) character wise to link these films more than a loose association of being set in the same town/ town near by. a sequel continues a story, a prequel precludes one, how, in any RELEVANT way does mallrats lead into clerks? to me, in no shape what so ever.

Comparing the vader origins to CR is farcical and you know it, jar jar binks aside, phantom menace, and its 2 follow ons lead CLEARLY AND DEFINABLY into a new hope. There is NO, carry on from CR into ANY other Bond film OTHER than its immediate followers, the rest of the Crond films, and as they were all made after CR its not a prequel, at best i'll give you quantum as a sequel. CR is no more a prequel for the same reasons Batman Begins isn't, they're set in the same universe, with the same leads, but each is part of a tightly focused, 3(4), film arc that relates to none of the rest of the universe directly. IE - you couldn't bodge batman or batman forever in between dark knight and rising.
you're being obtuse on that point and you know it.


The hobbit will have to be an agree to disagree, they were absolute dross films, and in the argument of a continuation of story (from a release date perspective) they could be construed as prequels, (as I would argue at BEST lotr is the hobbits sequel but I still argue same universe.)

This post has been edited by Macros: 20 November 2015 - 05:42 PM

[Macros]

Mezla PigDog, on 20 November 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

Does anyone else remember the days when loads of movies were based on original screenplays?

i'm not as old as you Mez, sorry

[amphibian]

Those auteurs write comic books now - or make video games.

The "standard" movies have gotten so expensive that genuinely original stories from new or new-ish writers/directors is too risky for the bankrollers. Thus we get tons of recycled properties and adaptations of best-selling books.

[QuickTidal]

Mezla PigDog, on 20 November 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

Does anyone else remember the days when loads of movies were based on original screenplays?

I think they still do, you just hear more about those that aren't because the studio marketing machines are larger and louder about them.

[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

I'll pass on the mallrats one, I caught none of the references that are apparently there, and accept I don't know this smiths universe sufficiently to argue the point, but to my eyes there's no continuation of storyline, plot or involvement from anything major (take your people dying in pools and shove it, that's a nonsensical plot point) character wise to link these films more than a loose association of being set in the same town/ town near by. a sequel continues a story, a prequel precludes one, how, in any RELEVANT way does mallrats lead into clerks? to me, in no shape what so ever.

You'll pass and then go on to reiterate your point? Okaaaay. Again, your argument is with Kevin Smith, not with me. Take it up with him.

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

Comparing the vader origins to CR is farcical and you know it, jar jar binks aside, phantom menace, and its 2 follow ons lead CLEARLY AND DEFINABLY into a new hope. There is NO, carry on from CR into ANY other Bond film OTHER than its immediate followers, the rest of the Crond films, and as they were all made after CR its not a prequel, at best i'll give you quantum as a sequel. CR is no more a prequel for the same reasons Batman Begins isn't, they're set in the same universe, with the same leads, but each is part of a tightly focused, 3(4), film arc that relates to none of the rest of the universe directly. IE - you couldn't bodge batman or batman forever in between dark knight and rising.
you're being obtuse on that point and you know it.

What part of "I've said my piece about Bond" is getting miscommunicated? You can't FORCE me to have your point of view about it. I'm not being deliberately anything thank you. This is my opinion, you needn't see it my way to see it your way Here, have a comic.

 Dontlike.jpg (85.84K)
Number of downloads: 0

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

The hobbit will have to be an agree to disagree, they were absolute dross films, and in the argument of a continuation of story (from a release date perspective) they could be construed as prequels, (as I would argue at BEST lotr is the hobbits sequel but I still argue same universe.)

The films quality or lack thereof doesn't enter into a discussion of their placement in the chronology, as far as I know.

[Macros]

given that we're discussing if there are any good prequels it think its quite relevant, (started by sw I think, not good prequels, the discussions there of)
you've sighted CR as a good prequel, its not a prequel.

[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

given that we're discussing if there are any good prequels it think its quite relevant

But then you moved things on to what exactly a prequel is...so no, it's not relevant to what we've been discussing for a while.

Whether or not a prequel is a good prequel is subjective and we established that a number of posts back (I posted a list of ones I like). You decided to take me to task on what I called prequels...not if they are good films or not.

What you or I think of the Hobbit as a film is irrelevant to the discussion you started about what a reboot is and what a prequel is.

[Mezla PigDog]

Macros, on 20 November 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 20 November 2015 - 05:32 PM, said:

Does anyone else remember the days when loads of movies were based on original screenplays?

i'm not as old as you Mez, sorry

You fuck shit.

Now get back to discussing prequels because it's REALLY interesting.

[Illuyankas]

Kevin Smith retconned a cool scene where Batman intimidates a bunch of gangsters into an abomination where Batman is too close to the explosive he uses to blast his way into their meeting and the shockwave makes him involuntarily wet himself

fuck Kevin Smith

[HoosierDaddy]

Looks good. Looks disturbing.

Edit: Whelp, looks like I missed an entire page or 5.

The prequels are what they are and they certainly aren't better than the OT. You fucking savages. Han Solo is a wise-cracking mercenary, not an idiot.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 21 November 2015 - 03:35 AM

[QuickTidal]

Saw MOCKINGJAY PART II and enjoyed. I didn't quite enjoy it as much as I did the first part...but the ending makes up for it. Part of the issue is that it's split into 2 parts. In the book the events in the middle which slow down for a bunch of expositionary scenes, but they've just followed not one but two major action sequences...so you're ready to sit back an rest a bit, before we head off on all the action in the final quarter of the story...but because the book was split into 2 films, the 2nd part starts off with all that expostionary stuff, and basically goes at a crawl for the first 25 minutes or so. It's not bad, it just leaves you wanting them to ramp shit up.

Could they have adequately made a one-film MOCKINGJAY? I think they could have, but it would have probably come in at about 3 1/2 - 4 hours...still I feel like it might flow better that way. I feel that this will be less of a concern on BluRay since you can just put on on and then the next one after the other leaving the narrative ebb and flow intact.

[worry]

Just saw it too. I think they stuck the landing. The only goofs, and this might be a taste issue, were the occasional lingering shots. I just don't think that kind of punctuation is necessary most of the time. I dunno, maybe most people like that kind of thing. This director, much more than the guy who did the first one, at least seemed to get that the love triangle didn't actually have all three corners, though he was stuck with the first film's overemphasis of it and had to see it through. I think he did the best he could though.

[worry]

Forgot to mention they showed the trailer for Gods of Egypt (?) and it was maybe even worse than Exodus. I almost could not believe what I was seeing, but then again, how could it possibly have been otherwise? It's the same world.

[Tiste Simeon]

Saw Spectre. I'm in the "that was a jolly enjoyable film" camp. Though I do agree that the song was terrible.