Has there ever been a GOOD film Prequel?

[OmegaXzors]

I FUCKING loved all three prequel Star Wars movies. Anyone who hates them because of Jar Jar or romance are a waste of human life.

 

[Canid117]

I FUCKING loved all three prequel Star Wars movies. Anyone who hates them because of Jar Jar or romance are a waste of human life.

I thought we disliked those movies because of Jar Jar Binks and medi Chloriens?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Except you forget that in the original future, Judgment Day was supposed to occur on Aug. 5 1997. If T4 was a prequel, we would be looking at the future where it did occur on Aug 5 1997. Kyle Reese's perspective is irrelevant. The only thing that still casts doubt on any of this is the fact that there's a temporal paradox involved. This is why time travel is a very delicate story telling mechanic and must be handled as such; and I think the Terminator people let it get away from them.

Ok, you're right, they did let the story get away from them. Except it happened back in #2. However, consider you have both the humans and the machines time travelling, there's no telling how many aborted missions/timelines there could have been, and paradox is the least of your issues.

That being said, Kyle Reese is still John Conner's genetic father. Perspective can be more than just viewpoint. Imagine a manifold of possible timelines. Some actualize, some don't. Some un-actualize as others push them out of the way. Some overlap. Etc. etc. etc. There is still a thread through those timelines, from Reese to Conner. How that thread started? I'm guessing the machines, because time travelling aware machines is just a fractured reality waiting to happen.

Which brings us to the heart of the thesis: Fry, through his past nastification, is his own prequel.

Ok I think there's a general lack of understanding in this thread as to what exactly a "prequel" is so here's the dictionary definition according to Webster's New World Dictionary,

pre-quel
n.
a film, novel, etc. about events that preceded and, often, led up to those of another novel, film, etc. that was produced or published earlier

So saying Fry is his own prequel is a gross misuse of the word. We all know that he became his own Great Grandfather, but that's just another example of a temporal paradox. Besides that's on Futurama which isn't meant to be taken seriously anyway.

As for the Terminator, I see only two timelines that are particularly relevant, 1. the timeline where Judgment Day occurred on Aug. 5 1997 presumably because it remained unaffected by the events in Terminator 2 and beyond. Presumably this is the "normal" timeline, ie the way events were "supposed" to play out, temporal paradox not with standing. 2. the timeline where Judgment Day didn't occur until sometime around 2003 (I'm guessing T3 takes place in the same year it was released, since they never actually say in the movie). This timeline presumably resulted from the events in Terminator 2. So Terminator 4 could only be a prequel if it were following the first one.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I disagree, a prequel is made after the already started point of a story. Batman Begins is not a prequel, due to the fact it begins a new story.

Just because it's in a franchise does not change this fact, otherwise by that logic, anything started in a franchise is technically a prequel.

It supplements a previous completed one if that is its intent, but Batman Begins follows a separate time line to the Burton ones etc. It doesn't happen the same, his parents killer was a different person, that already told us it wasn't a prequel.

"Batman Begins" is the movie rendition of a graphic novel that is a prequel. This has nothing to do with Burton's work. Go back and re-read everything I posted

Ok I think there's a general lack of understanding in this thread as to what exactly a "prequel" is so here's the dictionary definition according to Webster's New World Dictionary,

pre-quel
n.
a film, novel, etc. about events that preceded and, often, led up to those of another novel, film, etc. that was produced or published earlier

So saying Fry is his own prequel is a gross misuse of the word. We all know that he became his own Great Grandfather, but that's just another example of a temporal paradox. Besides that's on Futurama which isn't meant to be taken seriously anyway.

As for the Terminator, I see only two timelines that are particularly relevant, 1. the timeline where Judgment Day occurred on Aug. 5 1997 presumably because it remained unaffected by the events in Terminator 2 and beyond. Presumably this is the "normal" timeline, ie the way events were "supposed" to play out, temporal paradox not with standing. 2. the timeline where Judgment Day didn't occur until sometime around 2003 (I'm guessing T3 takes place in the same year it was released, since they never actually say in the movie). This timeline presumably resulted from the events in Terminator 2. So Terminator 4 could only be a prequel if it were following the first one.

Yes, that's why the line about Fry was a complete out of left field, meant in humor. While T4 was thoroughly intended by the producers as a sequel, it can still count as a prequel by the definition you cited above. It is a film in a series, with events that precede other events (even though they happened in the future). In fact, because of changes to the timeline from T4 that affect outcomes for the main characters before they ever hit the screen, after the other movies, and simultaneously before the events in the other movies, the entire Terminator series is a series of storylines that keep affecting each through time travel. It's not a pretty prequel but the story of Kyle Reese and the Terminator's evolution fall right into the definition above. Remember, we are no longer dealing with linear time. Without linear time the definition of prequel becomes fuzzy and maleable. I could write a time travel story, and then write the prequel with all events set after the events previously written. They didn't intend this in T4, they just managed to accomplish something like it because they abandoned any avoidance of paradox in order to tell the story they wanted. The same way Lucas abandoned continuity in his prequels (one of the top reasons his prequels have problems).

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Yes, it is a prequel. Raiders takes place in 1936, Temple of Doom takes place in 1935.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I think that the Star Wars prequels are good, and I never realized that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a prequel before reading this thread but that is also good. The only other prequel I can think of that I've seen is The Scorpion King and that's more of a spin-off (and isn't especially good anyway).

I guess Halo: Landfall is technically a film prequel to Halo 3. Do seven minute shorts that are the prequel to a video game count?

Spoiler: This is Halo: Landfall by the way

 

[Phantomess]

Regarding ST09, can it actually be called a sequel? I was of the understanding that events in the prime universe took place congruently alongside the alternate. Up until the point that Nero attacks the Kelvin, then, all events should be considered the same. So while divergent, the alternate universe takes place at the same time as the prime universe. In which case it is not a sequel nor a prequel. It is, really and truly, a reboot due to the divergent realities.

(In any case, I loved it.)

As to good prequels... Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I know I'm jumping on the bandwagon here, but I honestly love all three of the originals. However, the day I accept that last film as anything but a National Treasure knock-off with stupid answers to the plot questions is the day I give up on good adventure films.

 

[Rebellious_Gate]

Infernal Affairs 2.

Doesn't touch the original but still a really good film IMO

 

[zHellas]

Star wars episode 2 was the most amazing prequel ever.

Not funny

I thought The Phantom Menace was better.

Even though I first saw it when I was little, I LOVED The Phantom Menace.

Attack of the Clones I didn't like, except for a few parts but mostly forgettable.

The 3rd one(whose name I cannot remember right now) I haven't seen.

 

[Superior Mind]

Red Dragon wasn't a bad prequel.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Casino Royale, Star Trek (2009), Batman Begins. They're good.

I agree with Casino Royale, but I don't think BB and ST count as prequels so much as relaunches of the series from the beginning.

ST itself is admittedly an alternate dimensional timeline.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

I FUCKING loved all three prequel Star Wars movies. Anyone who hates them because of Jar Jar or romance are a waste of human life.

I thought we disliked those movies because of Jar Jar Binks and medi Chloriens?

I thought we disliked them because they were bad.

Sry fer double post I do that sometimes

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I disagree, a prequel is made after the already started point of a story. Batman Begins is not a prequel, due to the fact it begins a new story.

Just because it's in a franchise does not change this fact, otherwise by that logic, anything started in a franchise is technically a prequel.

It supplements a previous completed one if that is its intent, but Batman Begins follows a separate time line to the Burton ones etc. It doesn't happen the same, his parents killer was a different person, that already told us it wasn't a prequel.

"Batman Begins" is the movie rendition of a graphic novel that is a prequel. This has nothing to do with Burton's work. Go back and re-read everything I posted

Ok I think there's a general lack of understanding in this thread as to what exactly a "prequel" is so here's the dictionary definition according to Webster's New World Dictionary,

pre-quel
n.
a film, novel, etc. about events that preceded and, often, led up to those of another novel, film, etc. that was produced or published earlier

So saying Fry is his own prequel is a gross misuse of the word. We all know that he became his own Great Grandfather, but that's just another example of a temporal paradox. Besides that's on Futurama which isn't meant to be taken seriously anyway.

As for the Terminator, I see only two timelines that are particularly relevant, 1. the timeline where Judgment Day occurred on Aug. 5 1997 presumably because it remained unaffected by the events in Terminator 2 and beyond. Presumably this is the "normal" timeline, ie the way events were "supposed" to play out, temporal paradox not with standing. 2. the timeline where Judgment Day didn't occur until sometime around 2003 (I'm guessing T3 takes place in the same year it was released, since they never actually say in the movie). This timeline presumably resulted from the events in Terminator 2. So Terminator 4 could only be a prequel if it were following the first one.

Yes, that's why the line about Fry was a complete out of left field, meant in humor. While T4 was thoroughly intended by the producers as a sequel, it can still count as a prequel by the definition you cited above. It is a film in a series, with events that precede other events (even though they happened in the future). In fact, because of changes to the timeline from T4 that affect outcomes for the main characters before they ever hit the screen, after the other movies, and simultaneously before the events in the other movies, the entire Terminator series is a series of storylines that keep affecting each through time travel. It's not a pretty prequel but the story of Kyle Reese and the Terminator's evolution fall right into the definition above. Remember, we are no longer dealing with linear time. Without linear time the definition of prequel becomes fuzzy and maleable. I could write a time travel story, and then write the prequel with all events set after the events previously written. They didn't intend this in T4, they just managed to accomplish something like it because they abandoned any avoidance of paradox in order to tell the story they wanted. The same way Lucas abandoned continuity in his prequels (one of the top reasons his prequels have problems).

Ok sorry, I couldn't tell that you were joking.
However as for the Terminator, I'm afraid I cannot agree with your logic. Even though we are not dealing with a strictly linear timeline(s) there is still the matter of cause & effect even in terms of time travel. As I previously stated, we are dealing with 2 relevant timelines, in order to qualify as a prequel T4 would have to be taking place in timeline 1 (I'm not resummarizing it), thereby taking place prior to the events, although in the future, of the other 3 films.
If you wrote that time travel story and it's prequel, I'm sorry to say, but it'd be crap because it wouldn't make any sense. This is why time travel has to be handled very carefully, otherwise it ends up being a huge mess.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I disagree, a prequel is made after the already started point of a story. Batman Begins is not a prequel, due to the fact it begins a new story.

Just because it's in a franchise does not change this fact, otherwise by that logic, anything started in a franchise is technically a prequel.

It supplements a previous completed one if that is its intent, but Batman Begins follows a separate time line to the Burton ones etc. It doesn't happen the same, his parents killer was a different person, that already told us it wasn't a prequel.

"Batman Begins" is the movie rendition of a graphic novel that is a prequel. This has nothing to do with Burton's work. Go back and re-read everything I posted

I did.

Just because it seems to be based on Year one, doesn't make it a prequel.

I did read your post, twice in fact, I covered Burtons work as well just as an example.

As someone who has read Year one, I see where you're coming from. But at the same time I don't think that makes it a prequel.

Also, in a cross media situation such as comic and movie, unless it is stated as such, I don't think it counts as a prequel.

EDIT: Also, could you link me to information saying that it is the movie rendition of Batman: Year One. Because I think you're just interpreting it that way.

 

[Canid117]

I FUCKING loved all three prequel Star Wars movies. Anyone who hates them because of Jar Jar or romance are a waste of human life.

I thought we disliked those movies because of Jar Jar Binks and medi Chloriens?

I thought we disliked them because they were bad.

Sry fer double post I do that sometimes

Oh that too definitely!

 

[Death916]

Star wars episode 2 was the most amazing prequel ever.

i actually loved the starwars preque;s i think they did what they shou
ld have with them

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I rather liked the animatrix (That was a prequel, yeh?) And the unnoficial prequel for Chronicles of riddick...Or the official one (Pitch Black)

Pitch black came first, Chronicles was a sequel. Shabam. Good movie though.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your logic. Even though we are not dealing with a strictly linear timeline(s) there is still the matter of cause & effect even in terms of time travel. As I previously stated, we are dealing with 2 relevant timelines, in order to qualify as a prequel T4 would have to be taking place in timeline 1 (I'm not resummarizing it), thereby taking place prior to the events, although in the future, of the other 3 films.
If you wrote that time travel story and it's prequel, I'm sorry to say, but it'd be crap because it wouldn't make any sense. This is why time travel has to be handled very carefully, otherwise it ends up being a huge mess.

I'm stating that we aren't dealing with 2 relevant timelines, we're dealing with multiple timelines, some of them 'fractal'. In such a case, the defenition of prequel may depend on whose story you're telling. The story of John Conner isn't so much a prequel, and yet it shows so much about that character in how he will affect his own past as if it were his future. The story of Kyle Reese is absolutely a prequel and if the focus of the movies was Kyle Reese T4 would be a prequel, no two ways about it. I do understand your lack of agreement though, because Kyle Reese isn't a main character. He wasn't the main character in the first one, and he's not even close to being a main character in T4.

Just because it seems to be based on Year one, doesn't make it a prequel.

As someone who has read Year one, I see where you're coming from. But at the same time I don't think that makes it a prequel.

Also, in a cross media situation such as comic and movie, unless it is stated as such, I don't think it counts as a prequel.

EDIT: Also, could you link me to information saying that it is the movie rendition of Batman: Year One. Because I think you're just interpreting it that way.

Yes, I am interpreting it that way, for very precise reasons. Two of our main characters, THE two heroes of the movie, are pulled from Year One. Gordon is exactly what Gordon was in Year One, and the inspiration for our new Batman comes from there as well. There are story-line similarities and differences. However, there are almost always differences when going from print to movie (WATCHMEN: Bring your own squid). The list of similarities, especially in character which is the heart of art for an Aristotelian, is too long to be ignored.

So, can a prequel exist across media types? I suspect I'm on weak ground with the T4 argument above, because while I'm convinced I'm on to something it's obvious the writers of T4 did NOT intend anything like a prequel, they just got that along the way.

In the case of "Batman Begins" we have a prequel (the novel) being used for a reboot (the movie) of a film franchise. There is already a film history there, such as it is (I loved the first Burton Batman, too bad it went downhill from there). In order to create a new film franchise, they retell his origins, achieving in my mind a prequel, a reboot, and a fresh franchise all at the same time. Damned impressive, but then, I do like the new Batman movies.

 

[00slash00]

i thought red dragon was good