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 4

Bingowings said:

I thought Quantum Of Solace just as good/bad as Casino Royale (with less cheese).

I can't see why people slapped QOS so hard when it was just following the same style and tone as the previous film.

 

Erm... as soon as Bond and bad guy #1 started fighting whilst suspended downside up, tied by their ankles to chandeliers and punching each other while trying to get a fallen gun (end spoilers), I knew we had left the world of Casino Royale and had starting hitchhiking back to Roger Moore land.

I have reserved judgment on QoS.  If DC Bond #3 is excellent, then it can be the bridge in a nice little trilogy.  I think there is something of a character arc for Bond continued from CR... but I need to see a third Quantum pic to know for sure if it works.

And GoldenEye is the best Bond movie ever and forever.  /Thread.

(By the bye, has anyone else noticed how many threads here de/evolve into passionate Bond analysis.  Hint: it's a lot.)

see you auntie said:

Hmmm.... no mentions of Squeakquels?

*quietly backs out of thread*

I just bought that on BD for my kids for Christmas.  ($6 on Amazon Marketplace, yay!)

We watched the first one with them when that first came out on video, and thought it wasn't horrible.  But I have to admit, I enjoyed watching the squeakquel with my kids.  Maybe it's because it has Chuck in it?  Or maybe David Cross...

ChainsawAsh said:

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.

And Star Trek 2009... and the Star Wars Prequels, I guess, too.

GoldenEye is something of a Reboot too, right?  But it's clearly a sequel reboot.  (or is it? (duh duh duH!)) Is CR a sequel reboot or a prequel reboot, or a reboot reboot?

Gaffer Tape:

Although, granted, there's so little actual continuity with Bond to begin with, it's almost like the terms don't really apply.  But I stick by reboot.

Yeah, that's what I meant.  Each new actor seems to be something of a Reboot.  Except Lazenby.  They put that part where he's going through his desk and the theme music of the previous movies play to remind you that he was supposed to be the same Bond Connery was.  But then there is the Blofeld thing.

Yeah, the new stupid Star Trek movie blurs the line, trying to be a sequel/prequel/reboot just to cater to every little thing.

I'm partial to the term "reborquel" but sadly I didn't coin it. I think pajiba.com is responsible.

ChainsawAsh said:

How are the Star Wars prequels reboots in any way?  They don't de-canonize the films they take place before,

* Single raised eyebrow*

And I don't know where all this "sequel" reboot/"prequel" reboot business is coming from.  A reboot is a reboot, plain and simple.  None of the Bond films are reboots except for Casino Royale.  They just have very "fuzzy" continuity.

I think there's always been an undertone that the different Bonds were, in fact, different Bonds.  It's hotly debated amongst fans, but the debate is there.  Is Dench's M in GoldenEye a new M?  She's played that way.  Is Brosnan's Bond a new Bond?  Is Craig's Bond a new Bond or a rebooted Bond?  Dench's M seems to be an interesting variable in that argument.

Depending on your definition of reboot, changing the cast and making a new movie may be all that it takes to make it a reboot.  Hulk -> Incredible Hulk?  (sequel reboot, by the way)  :)

Think of it this way - is every episode of The Simpsons a reboot? 

Erm... of course not.

Of course not,

That's what I said!  However, they did reboot the origin (or retcon, if you prefer) of how Homer and Marge met... but that was after I stopped watching the show, so I'm not sure how much that has stuck.

 it's (in its own way) a "sequel" to the episode that came before it.  But how can Bart have stayed ten years old for 21 years?!  "Fuzzy" continuity, just like Dr. No through Die Another Day.

Possibly.  Like I said, it's a hotly debated question.

And the new Star Trek is still a reboot, it's just that the rebooting is built into the story, unlike Casino and Batman Begins, which simply pretend anything before it doesn't exist.

Yes, but it's a reboot prequel/sequel.  It has Spock from the sequel-verse and Kirk (and Spock again) from the prequel verse.  And then it's a reboot.

And I don't know where all this "sequel" reboot/"prequel" reboot business is coming from. 

I think it came from Godfather II, but apparently we're not allowed to discuss it here.  ;)

RE:  xhonzi

In GoldenEye, Dench is specifically stated to be a new M, while Brosnan is heavily implied to still be the same Bond.

Gaffer Tape said:

RE:  xhonzi

In GoldenEye, Dench is specifically stated to be a new M, while Brosnan is heavily implied to still be the same Bond.

In what ways is he "heavily implied".  I'm not doubting you, I just don't know what you're referring to.

And couldn't that be used as an argument that in CR, M is heavily implied to be the same M, and Craig is specifically stated to be a new Bond?

In the scene that introduced the new M, she made references to the relationship Bond had with her predecessor, and how his womanizing ways are common knowledge.  He's obviously known by Moneypenny and Q (the latter of whom is the same actor).

So the possibilities are:

1.  He's the same Bond.

2.  He's a long-established MI6 agent who just inherited the role of Bond.

3.  He's an established Bond, but in a continuity we haven't seen up to this point (ie. he's had previous Bond adventures, but we never saw them).

But he's very definitely not "green."

4. He used to be Remington Steele.

ChainsawAsh said:

Oh, and about the Star Wars prequels - whether or not they did a good job at following established continuity is a moot argument.  They were still designed to take place before Episodes IV-VI, not to start over and pretend they didn't exist (again, how well they did this is moot).  Therefore, prequel and not reboot in any way.

Yes, I was somewhat joking.  But you have to look at the way that "new" Star Wars exists almost to the exclusion of "old" Star Wars and wonder if there wasn't an attempt to "effectively" reboot it, even if they didn't "technically" reboot it.

Therefore, different M - she just happens to be played by the same actress.

Is that more likely than "new Bond, same M"?

So I guess the term "sequel-reboot" can apply here.

I win?  ;)

xhonzi said:

Therefore, different M - she just happens to be played by the same actress.

Is that more likely than "new Bond, same M"?

I guess that depends on whether or not you believe the fan-theory that "James Bond" is a legacy title in-universe, given to different agents.  If that's the case, then it very well could be  "new Bond, same M."

But if James Bond is just a person and just one person, then that has to be a different M as well.

The first Hulk was made with no appreciation for the TV show, which is far and away what the "little people" think of when they think Hulk.  It left them with a lot of questions: Why did the Hulk tear tanks apart when he just as easily could have knocked over a bookcase?  Weren't there perforated desks and tables to break instead of having to fight soldiers?

The 2nd movie is somewhat of a reboot.  The "origin" scenes are completely different, but not terribly focused on.  The origin is more in line with the TV show.  But it also plays as a loose sequel to the 1st movie.

I liked the 2nd movie better, but I didn't hate the first movie.  I am a moderate Hulk Comic book fan.  Some comics are like the first movie: The Gov't wants to capture/control the Hulk and they send gamma powered dogs, robots or tanks to capture him and he spends a lot of time in the desert smashing stuff.  These comics aren't too good, but they are plentiful.  But the recent Planet Hulk & World War Hulk comics were quite good.  Hulk: The End is good.  House of M: Hulk was good.  Hulk is usually good when it's a little more high concept.  (Hulk IN SPAAAACE, etc.)  When the Hulk movie was more like the "regular" version of the comics, I wasn't surprised or disappointed.  But I wasn't overly joyed either.

It's funny that the 2nd movie was compared very favourably to the 1st, but both had IMDB scores of about 6.6 a couple of weeks after the 2nd came out.  Now they've settled at 5.7 and 7.1 for 1 and 2 respectively.

Did that answer your question, Slug?

So it went to the Superman Returns school of rebooting then, huh?