Article on prequel films. Note: Does not pertain to Godfather II, which isn't a prequel - it's a sequel with extended flashback sequences - or a partial prequel to some. — Page 3

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

I agree.  T4 was much better than I expected.  It's fun, regardless of flaws.  And Q2's fanedit fixes some (not all) of those flaws in a nice looking AVCHD.

But wait a minute - how was it a prequel?

It's John Conner meeting young wacky Kyle Reese... setting up "Terminator" (1985).

It may set up Terminator, but the event takes place after Terminator, hence it is not a prequel.

Austin Powers said:

Squid Pro Roe.

Gaffer Tape said:

I don't know.  I guess it depends.  Would you consider Kyle Reese to be the protagonist, or at least the focal point, of the first movie?  If that's the case, then I can certainly see the fourth movie being a prequel.

First three movies take place before Judgment Day, fourth takes place after.  Therefore fourth is not a prequel.

Again, squid pro roe.*

^Who cares about that?  All that matters is that you agree I AM RIGHT!

Now then, who else agrees that I am right?

Gaffer Tape said:

I agree that we're both right.  I agree with Bingowings that time travel makes the distinction a little more fluid.  If you're arguing in a strict, timeline sense, then, yes, Salvation is a sequel because it takes place farther on the timeline.  But I think if you're talking in a narrative sense, which I think is more important, Salvation is very much a prequel because it tells the backstory and sets up the events from the first film.

"Narrative?" Sorry, fancy college girl, I live in the real world with words that aren't made up.  A comes before B, therefore B is not a prequel to A.

Prequels kick ass.

Gaffer Tape said:

EDIT:  Oh, and also you're right since all prequels ARE sequels.

Nope, sorry, not buying it.  If prequels were sequels, they would be sequels, not prequels.

It must be hard for you, being this wrong all the time.

We're in off-topic, so if I want to imagine you as a fancy college girl, with your fancy dress and your fancy...

...er, never mind.

Anyway, prequels are nothing like toads.  Argue with that.

They are none of the above.*

TV's Frink said:

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

But wait a minute - how was it a prequel?

It's John Conner meeting young wacky Kyle Reese... setting up "Terminator" (1985).

It may set up Terminator, but the event takes place after Terminator, hence it is not a prequel.

Stop thinking to three dimensionally.

Casino Royale = reboot.

Same as how Batman Begins isn't a prequel or a sequel - it's a new/alternative starting point for the series.

There's actually a fair amount of continuity in the early Bond films.  I'd say all the Connery films and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are definitely part of the same continuity (despite the confusion in OHMSS created by Blofeld apparently not recognizing Bond).  I'd also put Licence to Kill in this same continuity, as Bond's mission of vengeance against the killer of Felix's wife seems to be a vicarious mission of revenge for his wife.

Beyond that, yeah, they're pretty much standalone films.  Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are the first Bond films since the sixties that actively try to be a part of the same continuity.

I also disagree with the sentiment that Quantum is the first "direct sequel" Bond film - From Russia with Love explicitly references the events of Dr. No a couple of times.

The James Bond books had lots of continuity.  The film series rather savaged this by doing them all completely out of order . . . and of course, you know, having less and less to do with anything that Ian Fleming actually wrote as they went on.

I like that they kept it so Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, since in the book series they had never met.  That film is one of the few that actually keeps true to the source material, which is one of the reasons I'm fond of it.  I was able to see it at an art theatre in New York a few years ago with a very appreciative crowd, which was great.

There was some controversy about the colour scheme having been altered in the beginning of the film on the recent remaster, but I took note of this and the blue lighting was definitely there on the 35mm print, though not exactly the same shade or quite as dark.  This suggests that the old video transfer is inaccurate and artificially brightened in that scene, which surprised me.  It was definitely a somewhat older print, since some of it was scratched and it had the original mono mix (which is far better balanced than the remix even though the sound is harsher), but it didn't seem to have faded or red-shifted at all, so I'm confident that it was a proper rendition of the film's appearance.

I dislike about half of the Bond films because they are so campy and over the top.  I have no idea why they kept taking the film series in that direction, but it's often irritating and stupid.  My favourites are the ones that take the premise and the character of Bond seriously, and these are usually the ones that adhere more closely to the spirit of Ian Fleming's creation.  Even among the better films, few of them really represent Bond himself being like the literary character, but the old movie persona is so ingrained in the popular consciousness that most people can't think of him any other way.

Since they effectively rebooted the series with Casino Royale, which is the first of the books, I really think they should have tried to do it properly this time and do them all, in order and more like the original stories while keeping the modern setting.  Doesn't seem like that's going to happen, though.

hairy_hen said:

I dislike about half of the Bond films because they are so campy and over the top.  I have no idea why they kept taking the film series in that direction, but it's often irritating and stupid.  My favourites are the ones that take the premise and the character of Bond seriously, and these are usually the ones that adhere more closely to the spirit of Ian Fleming's creation.  Even among the better films, few of them really represent Bond himself being like the literary character, but the old movie persona is so ingrained in the popular consciousness that most people can't think of him any other way.

Since they effectively rebooted the series with Casino Royale, which is the first of the books, I really think they should have tried to do it properly this time and do them all, in order and more like the original stories while keeping the modern setting.  Doesn't seem like that's going to happen, though.

I agree with all of this.  I was quite saddened to learn that after Casino Royale, they wouldn't be doing any more book adaptations.

For shits and giggles (and I know this isn't the thread for it, but hey, we're in Off Topic already, right?), here are the Bond films I consider to be good Bond films - I really don't care about any of the others:

• Dr. No
• From Russia with Love
• Goldfinger (to a lesser extent)
• On Her Majesty's Secret Service
• The Living Daylights
• Licence to Kill
• GoldenEye (to a MUCH lesser extent)
• Casino Royale
• Quantum of Solace

Although I suppose, to be fair, I haven't seen Live and Let Die in ages, so that one could be better than I remember.  I have no fondness for any of Roger Moore's other outings, though.