Wow, that is kooky, especially if the interview was made BEFORE they began shooting on "Star Wars II"...
Dirty pool? Maybe you should try this:
Me too...? Even though I apparently posted in it. What's going on?
Yeah, the new stupid Star Trek movie blurs the line, trying to be a sequel/prequel/reboot just to cater to every little thing.
While I agree that having an actual book is nice, and I like the tactile nature of it, I'm honestly not that fussed about that new-fangled digital readin'. I don't even need a Kindle. I just read books on my laptop. I read all of zombie's book (several times) on my laptop. This summer I read Little Women on my laptop. Sure it's not AS portable as a Kindle (or a book), but it gets the job done.
Hmm. I have to admit that alleviates a little bit of the antipathy I hold for General Grievous.
Yep. Reboot. 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.
Damnit! Stop posting something new before I get my footnote posted!
Sure they are. They're warty, green, and they jump... to conclusions?
Well, I'm flattered you think of me as a fancy college girl, but isn't that just the teensiest bit off-topic?
And, of course, prequels are like toads. Figure that one out.
Aaaaaaaand, now you've lost me.
Oh, and look above. I edited my last post.
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.
EDIT: Oh, and also you're right since all prequels ARE sequels.
For that matter, I guess The Godfather Part II could be considered a prequel as well. The young Vito scenes aren't flashbacks. Marlon Brando isn't telling a story of when he was a young Robert DeNiro. Michael isn't being told this story, and, as far as we know, isn't necessarily remembering this story. There is no frame story. There is no past nestled in the present. In fact, there is no past or present. There are two independent time periods that are intercut, whose juxtaposition pull out parallels. So, yeah, The Godfather Part II is half-sequel, half-prequel, not sequel with a flashback.
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.
Even I knew that, and I don't even care about sports!
Alright, this apple is starting to rot.
THREAD IS OPEN!!!
I find it funny (and sad) that the documentary that comes with the DVD has the original sky. Blah.
Fannie's amused by you, Bingowings. And so are the eyes on her boobs.
That's what she said...
That's why they claim it was put there. And I don't see any other reason why they'd randomly add that in there. I mean, it probably wasn't officially "in production," but Back to the Future was an instant breakaway hit, so it probably didn't take the studio long to decide, "We're going to do another one!"
I stand by my unsupported claim that it's all George Lucas's fault, and you should be taking it up with him.
(Oh, and I temporarily forgot my own name, but that's entirely irrelevant.)
Well, in your earlier posts, when you were saying "To be continued..." I thought you were referring to the concept. Now it's obvious you're referring to the title card at the end of the film. Except that that doesn't actually exist. It wasn't there in the theatrical release and was only added for the VHS release when it was clear there'd be a sequel. It was removed for the DVD release and hasn't been seen since.
What the hell does George have to do with this? Oh... wait... yeah, that's right. He's the one who took my chair away! It's all his fault. That damned Lucas. He ruins everything. I guess that means you all should leave me alone about it and start complaining to Lucasfilm. You should start a petition!
TheBoost said:
Gaffer Tape said:
Well, actually, Temple does have one truly prequel moment, and that's the failed gun reach.
Actually, since that gag only is funny if it happened after Raiders, both to the audience and to Indy's expectations, I think that further weakens Temple as a 'prequel'
Not really. That's how prequels work. You're supposed to watch them after the original. Well, at least to the audience. I'll give you Indy's reaction. That always left me scratching my head too. But I guess it could just as easily work that it shows he wasn't as suave back in the day and better prepared himself in the future.
Well, actually, Temple does have one truly prequel moment, and that's the failed gun reach. Granted, that could have worked in a plain sequel as well, but a prequel IS a sequel, so... wait, what was I talking about again?