Has there ever been a GOOD film Prequel?

[erbkaiser]

Cube Zero was pretty good (better then Cube 2 Hypercube anyway), love how they tied into the beginning of Cube with that one.

Rare example though. Wonder how much the Alien prequel(s) will suck...

I've pretty high hopes for The Hobbit movies though. The team behind it is stellar.

 

[CoverYourHead]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Huh?! How was it set before Raiders?

Terminator 2

/thread

WHAT?! It was made AND set after Terminator 1..

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

If I may: /thread

??? Is it not an independent story from A Fistful of Dollars and A Few Dollars More? There is no real timeline, if anything TGTBTU was after A Few Dollars More. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

So far no one has come up with something that is actually a prequel (unless I'm wrong about TGTBTU), not a reboot or a flat out sequel (T2... wtf).

You are correct on all these points. The whole deal with The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was that (as I understand it) they were hunting down the money from A Few Dollars More, though I haven't seen those movies in a while.

OT: I really can't think of one... I may later. In which case, I'll be back.

 

[erbkaiser]

(ignore, fail)

 

[erbkaiser]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Huh?! How was it set before Raiders?

You are correct on all these points.

You both are not correct on 'Temple' (set in 1935). Chronologically it takes place before 'Lost Ark' (1936), technically making it a prequel.

 

[Thee Prisoner]

Coranico said:

The only one i actually disagree with there is Casino Royale, it is a sequel to the previous films chronilogically set before all of them. Just because they changed the actor playing Bond does not mean the series was re-booted. For example; Sean Connery and Daniel Craig, both play the EXACT same Bond, just set at different times. The same way that the star wars prequels weren't reboots however the characters were portrayed by different actors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Connery was not in "Casino Royale". The movie was a spoof of James Bond films, which I would have to guess that the "Austin Power series" got it's ideas from. I apologize if that was not your intent to say that Connery was in the original movie.

You are right that "Casino Royale" is a prequel.

"Casino Royale" was the FIRST book by Ian Fleming. The first James Bond movie was "Dr. No".

 

[erbkaiser]

Casino Royale is a reboot, not a prequel. With CR they moved the James Bond series from basically standalone adventures into an ongoing series a la Bourne.

Even disregarding that, nothing in CR indicates a time setting, so going by the evidence of the movies alone there is no way to state it takes place before or after Die Another Day. The movies have been separate from the books continuity (as much as there is one) for decades.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

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.

I'm sorry, but it's only a gut feeling that was used as the grounding for Batman Begins, you have no proof, it could be only coincidence that they have similarities.

In then end with this discussion, the way I see it, neither of us are wrong.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Schnippen

I'm pretty sure Animatrix is a prequel.

I think... It's hard to tell.

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

Star Trek is not a prequel!

It's an epilogue!

An epilogue to All about the Benjamins.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I'm sorry, but it's only a gut feeling that was used as the grounding for Batman Begins, you have no proof, it could be only coincidence that they have similarities.

In then end with this discussion, the way I see it, neither of us are wrong.[/quote]This isn't a 'gut feeling'. It's called doing the math. If enough similarities exist between two pieces of art then they either one of them has influenced the other, they both have influenced each other, or they have a common root influence. Basic evolution throughout most of art. Between studying aesthetics and having a wife with a background in art and film production, it starts to get easy to call. So, in the interest of bloody 'proof' I went and looked it up. Low and behold, it's cited as a direct influence on Wikipedia. Not the best source, but I'm betting I can find a lot more information if I so choose to hunt for it. But I don't need to, I knew it when I watched the movie the first time after having read Year One. I used to pull apart Batman movies piece by piece with a friend who was a Batman fiend. After a while seeing patterns in the franchise is just plain cake. Bendis has gone so far as to call out actors for roles in the comics themselves. So now we have Samuel Jackson as Agent Fury (YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!)

 

[Enigmers]

In theory Terminator 4 is actually a prequal of what happened before Terminator 1.
I know it's in the future, but also in the time travel past or something

My head hurts..damn time travel.

I think once you throw time travel into the mix chronology takes a sharp left turn into a brick wall and dies.

 

[Reg5879]

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

Star Trek can't really be listed as a prequel seeing as it was time travelling.

 

[Captain Blackout]

In theory Terminator 4 is actually a prequal of what happened before Terminator 1.
I know it's in the future, but also in the time travel past or something

My head hurts..damn time travel.

I think once you throw time travel into the mix chronology takes a sharp left turn into a brick wall and dies.

QFT!

No, seriously, I needed this a few pages back. "Why yes, that is a prequel. We figured it out from the post-mortem."

 

[Tdc2182]

I'm sure there are. I'm not saying that it was good, but does Terminator Savaltion count as a prequel? Or is that a sequel? Kind of a mindfuck if you think about it.

I know there was a good one somewhere.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I'm sorry, but it's only a gut feeling that was used as the grounding for Batman Begins, you have no proof, it could be only coincidence that they have similarities.

In then end with this discussion, the way I see it, neither of us are wrong.

This isn't a 'gut feeling'. It's called doing the math. If enough similarities exist between two pieces of art then they either one of them has influenced the other, they both have influenced each other, or they have a common root influence. Basic evolution throughout most of art. Between studying aesthetics and having a wife with a background in art and film production, it starts to get easy to call. So, in the interest of bloody 'proof' I went and looked it up. Low and behold, it's cited as a direct influence on Wikipedia. Not the best source, but I'm betting I can find a lot more information if I so choose to hunt for it. But I don't need to, I knew it when I watched the movie the first time after having read Year One. I used to pull apart Batman movies piece by piece with a friend who was a Batman fiend. After a while seeing patterns in the franchise is just plain cake. Bendis has gone so far as to call out actors for roles in the comics themselves. So now we have Samuel Jackson as Agent Fury (YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!)

You're just making the math up. I don't buy it, sorry.

There are a lot of key moments in year one that aren't even noted in Batman Begins to show reference, such as when he dives off a bridge to save Gordons son and his glasses were off/broken (it's been a while.) and he decides to not try see his face etc.

Of course it has influence from anything Batman, because it's Batman! Similarities between something doesn't automatically mean they had anything to do with each other either.

But influence does not a prequel make.

Also, with one of your previous posts you said "Achieving in my mind a prequel." You admit, in your mind, that's more an opinion base then anything else.

By your logic, that means with the similarities between series such as Gundam Seed and the original series (being in their own seperate settings but having influence/nods to the other etc) that makes Gundam Seed a Prequel. And that is absurd, Begins is in a different world to Year One and when it comes to a prequel, that is one of the things that matters most.

What you're saying sounds good, but it doesn't work that way.

EDIT: Does this suddenly make Iron Man 2 a prequel? How about the Incredible Hulk? Or Spiderman?

All their stories are based off comics that inspired and were used to base them on, ask anyone and they would say they aren't prequels. Because all of those comics have had their own "Year One" by their own name at one point or another.

 

[jeejbe]

In theory Terminator 4 is actually a prequal of what happened before Terminator 1.
I know it's in the future, but also in the time travel past or something

My head hurts..damn time travel.

I think once you throw time travel into the mix chronology takes a sharp left turn into a brick wall and dies.

Unless it's Back to the Future, then it's just awesome.

 

[Captain Blackout]

You're just making the math up. I don't buy it, sorry. Doesn't matter if you buy it or not, there are lawyers, courts, and court cases that have turned on the simple point that enough similarities qualifies. Go take aesthetics and try again

There are a lot of key moments in year one that aren't even noted in Batman Begins to show reference, such as when he dives off a bridge to save Gordons son and his glasses were off/broken (it's been a while.) and he decides to not try see his face etc. Right, because changes from book to script change everything. Of course Jackson has no business saying his trilogy is based on "Lord of the Rings". Heck, I'll go one better: Go read the original graphic novel "The Crow" and watch the first movie. Those two have a host of differences but the movie is based directly on the graphic novel.

Of course it has influence from anything Batman, because it's Batman! Similarities between something doesn't automatically mean they had anything to do with each other either. This isn't about general influence, this is about character influence, and at this point, cited influences

But influence does not a prequel make.

Also, with one of your previous posts you said "Achieving in my mind a prequel." You admit, in your mind, that's more an opinion base then anything else. That's a debatable point. If one bases their opinion strictly on hard fact as opposed to personal preferences, this line gets you nothing.

By your logic, that means with the similarities between series such as Gundam Seed and the original series (being in their own seperate settings but having influence/nods to the other etc) that makes Gundam Seed a Prequel. And that is absurd, Begins is in a different world to Year One and when it comes to a prequel, that is one of the things that matters most. Different world? What part of 'Gotham' went right past you?

What you're saying sounds good, but it doesn't work that way.Again, yes it does. I'm not bothering citing case history but the fact is even without the producers stating a work is based on/influenced by/inspired by a previous work doesn't mean we can't figure it out for ourselves. One major example: Damn near everything Lucas did. Ok, too broad, how about all of Star Wars. He's got WWII movies, clips from Ben Hur re-imagined, countless other movies and genres borrowed/stolen from. We all know this even though George would have us believe as much of it as possible came from his own mind. "Star Wars: Phantom Menace" is a re-write of "A New Hope". If different production companies had been involved a lawsuit would have been forthwith. If "Year One" was a solely owned by Frank Miller, and "Batman Begins" was made without his blessing, he'd have grounds for a suit.

EDIT: Does this suddenly make Iron Man 2 a prequel? How about the Incredible Hulk? Or Spiderman?

All their stories are based off comics that inspired and were used to base them on, ask anyone and they would say they aren't prequels. Because all of those comics have had their own "Year One" by their own name at one point or another. Would have to see the works in question. Is it possible? In the Hulk's case, sure. Iron Man 2 can't be, unless it's set before Iron Man 1. Spiderman.... After #3 we're not discussing Spiderman. The Hulk? Maybe. I doubt it, as I'm pretty sure it doesn't go back over his origin, isn't an origin story and is a re-imagining of the character using Bendis' work as a launching pad. Bendis didn't write prequels, he re-wrote the Marvel Universe. Miller didn't re-write Batman, he wrote his kind of prequel to Batman. That would be a key difference between the two, which you seem to have blithely overlooked. Bottom line: "Year One" precisely fits the definition of a prequel, "Batman Begins" is at least inspired heavily by "Year One", and the only thing that might keep "Begins" from being a prequel in and of itself is that it is the start of a particular movie franchise, separate from any other. So now a movie can be based wholly on a prequel, and not be a prequel itself? That had better be possible, because that's what you're left with.

As I said above, I don't care if you don't buy that I did the math. Too many years of watching the industry itself do the same thing, too many days studying aesthetics, and too many conversations with those who have studied the industry first hand whether for work or personal reasons, I'm pretty convinced you're missing quite a few key factors and chasing down inconsequential ones to make your point (Spiderman? Really? After the joke that was the last movie?)

 

[chozo_hybrid]

You're just making the math up. I don't buy it, sorry. Doesn't matter if you buy it or not, there are lawyers, courts, and court cases that have turned on the simple point that enough similarities qualifies. Go take aesthetics and try again

There are a lot of key moments in year one that aren't even noted in Batman Begins to show reference, such as when he dives off a bridge to save Gordons son and his glasses were off/broken (it's been a while.) and he decides to not try see his face etc. Right, because changes from book to script change everything. Of course Jackson has no business saying his trilogy is based on "Lord of the Rings". Heck, I'll go one better: Go read the original graphic novel "The Crow" and watch the first movie. Those two have a host of differences but the movie is based directly on the graphic novel.

Of course it has influence from anything Batman, because it's Batman! Similarities between something doesn't automatically mean they had anything to do with each other either. This isn't about general influence, this is about character influence, and at this point, cited influences

But influence does not a prequel make.

Also, with one of your previous posts you said "Achieving in my mind a prequel." You admit, in your mind, that's more an opinion base then anything else. That's a debatable point. If one bases their opinion strictly on hard fact as opposed to personal preferences, this line gets you nothing.

By your logic, that means with the similarities between series such as Gundam Seed and the original series (being in their own seperate settings but having influence/nods to the other etc) that makes Gundam Seed a Prequel. And that is absurd, Begins is in a different world to Year One and when it comes to a prequel, that is one of the things that matters most. Different world? What part of 'Gotham' went right past you?

What you're saying sounds good, but it doesn't work that way.Again, yes it does. I'm not bothering citing case history but the fact is even without the producers stating a work is based on/influenced by/inspired by a previous work doesn't mean we can't figure it out for ourselves. One major example: Damn near everything Lucas did. Ok, too broad, how about all of Star Wars. He's got WWII movies, clips from Ben Hur re-imagined, countless other movies and genres borrowed/stolen from. We all know this even though George would have us believe as much of it as possible came from his own mind. "Star Wars: Phantom Menace" is a re-write of "A New Hope". If different production companies had been involved a lawsuit would have been forthwith. If "Year One" was a solely owned by Frank Miller, and "Batman Begins" was made without his blessing, he'd have grounds for a suit.

EDIT: Does this suddenly make Iron Man 2 a prequel? How about the Incredible Hulk? Or Spiderman?

All their stories are based off comics that inspired and were used to base them on, ask anyone and they would say they aren't prequels. Because all of those comics have had their own "Year One" by their own name at one point or another. Would have to see the works in question. Is it possible? In the Hulk's case, sure. Iron Man 2 can't be, unless it's set before Iron Man 1. Spiderman.... After #3 we're not discussing Spiderman. The Hulk? Maybe. I doubt it, as I'm pretty sure it doesn't go back over his origin, isn't an origin story and is a re-imagining of the character using Bendis' work as a launching pad. Bendis didn't write prequels, he re-wrote the Marvel Universe. Miller didn't re-write Batman, he wrote his kind of prequel to Batman. That would be a key difference between the two, which you seem to have blithely overlooked. Bottom line: "Year One" precisely fits the definition of a prequel, "Batman Begins" is at least inspired heavily by "Year One", and the only thing that might keep "Begins" from being a prequel in and of itself is that it is the start of a particular movie franchise, separate from any other. So now a movie can be based wholly on a prequel, and not be a prequel itself? That had better be possible, because that's what you're left with.

As I said above, I don't care if you don't buy that I did the math. Too many years of watching the industry itself do the same thing, too many days studying aesthetics, and too many conversations with those who have studied the industry first hand whether for work or personal reasons, I'm pretty convinced you're missing quite a few key factors and chasing down inconsequential ones to make your point (Spiderman? Really? After the joke that was the last movie?)

I'm sorry, but after talking with my boss (I work at a comic store) and many other people, also pointing them in the direction of this thread I have come to the conclusion that you ARE wrong.

And yes, you heard me. Different world etc, there are enough differences in Begins to Year one to say it's an alternate reality, timeline or what ever you'd like to call it.

Just because it was inspired etc doesn't mean dick when it comes down to its classification on whether it's a prequel or not.

In short, you can call it an adaptation, sure. But it's not a prequel, as it starts its own series and isn't set in one that's already in motion.

EDIT: In short, it doesn't matter that Year One is a prequel when talking about Begins, because inspiration/influence is all they have to connect them.

"A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting. The widely recognized term was a 20th-century neologism, and a portmanteau from pre- (Latin for "before") and sequel (a supplementing work with a setting later than its predecessor's, from the Latin sequella, thing that follows). The prequel forms part of the back-story."

Begins isn't back story to an already established plot, it's the beginning of one.

"Bottom line: "Year One" precisely fits the definition of a prequel, "Batman Begins" is at least inspired heavily by "Year One", and the only thing that might keep "Begins" from being a prequel in and of itself is that it is the start of a particular movie franchise, separate from any other. So now a movie can be based wholly on a prequel, and not be a prequel itself? That had better be possible, because that's what you're left with."

That's what I am going by, and I would say it is possible, because it is merely based on it. It is not Year One itself.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I'm sorry, No you're notbut after talking with my boss (I work at a comic store) and many other people, also pointing them in the direction of this thread I have come to the conclusion that you ARE wrong.So a comic book store employee has more to say on this than a philosophy of art professor or an assistant film producer? BWHAHAHAHA... I'm sorry, what were we saying?

And yes, you heard me. Different world etc, there are enough differences in Begins to Year one to say it's an alternate reality, timeline or what ever you'd like to call it.So the movie "The Crow" is in a different universe than the graphic novel? Careful how you cut that line, there are far more examples than you see on both sides.

Just because it was inspired etc doesn't mean dick when it comes down to its classification on whether it's a prequel or not.That's debatable. It may not mean everything, but saying it doesn't mean dick is a pretty big assertion.

In short, you can call it an adaptation, sure. But it's not a prequel, as it starts its own series and isn't set in one that's already in motion.They used a PREQUEL to set a new franchise in motion. Get that detail through your head, because it's about to come up again.

EDIT: In sort, it doesn't matter that Year One is a prequel when talking about Begins, because inspiration/influence is all they have to connect them.

"A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting. The widely recognized term was a 20th-century neologism, and a portmanteau from pre- (Latin for "before") and sequel (a supplementing work with a setting later than its predecessor's, from the Latin sequella, thing that follows). The prequel forms part of the back-story."

Begins isn't back story to an already established plot, it's the beginning of one.

We pretty much have to throw the part about 'completed' out, because far too many works are potentially or actually ongoing. Rather than discuss the definition of complete, we will have to use a better term, established, making the line ...supplements a previously established one...
So, having cleared up that bit of mud from your cited definition we can do some real work here.
'Begins' is a back story. It is the back story of an established character, the setting of the stage for more to come. In the case of a beginning, the more to come hasn't arrived yet. This is the tricky part to 'Begins': We know the players, we know many of the stories. Its a new movie franchise, but it isn't wholly undefined territory. We could say "oh, it's not completed which is really required for a prequel", but if that's the case than what the hell is Phantom Menace, since last I checked Lucas still wants more movies and the Star Wars mythos isn't a 'completed' one.

Year One is a prequel. Begins is based upon Year One (and don't go into that 'adaptation' stuff again, that's a poor standard given Marvel's penchant for ret-conning and the fact that the vast majority of movies based on other works go through massive changes and are still considered the movie version). Begins is based upon a prequel and the material it uses is established material. The only missing thing is a movie in the Begins franchise prior to Begins. Granted, that's huge, but the point I've been making since moment one of the discussion is this: That isn't enough by itself to disqualify Begins from being a prequel. If it is, than for some of the very reasons you've listed here, Phantom Menace can't be a prequel. Tell George he failed so bad that his own movies don't count as prequels or take Begins as having enough elements to possibly qualify as a wierd sort of prequel and leave me alone about this. Your choice, either way I win.

EDIT: Hell with George, his 'prequels' sucked and don't deserve that kind of recognition. So, you win on Begins, The MOVIE, not being a prequel. In part because while the movie isn't a prequel, the story is. Have fun with that (went and did further research myself)

 

[Logic 0]

Star wars epsiode 3, it goes back to the basics of less talking more light saber fights.