Can Prequels Ever Be Well Recieved by the Fans?

[Set Harth]

Don't forget that there are actually two Clone Wars series. The first one was the 2D animation, which I think is what people weren't so much sold on.

I'm talking about the Filoni version.

ETA: Even though I'm a big fan of the 2D one I don't think it's canon anymore. My favorite parts would probably be the Ilum sequence with Luminara & Barriss and the arena on Rattatak or wherever that was.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, so that pretty much confirms what I thought. They kind of rebooted the show with the 3D series. And I also forgot about the movie that they had made beforehand. In a way, the 2D version paved the way.

 

[Mage]

Your post does not erase what I've mentioned earlier. No one knew what to expect from the films based on the trailers, other than knowing TPM was about the early years of Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader. There was no groundswell of negativity until the release of the film. To deny that is not only historically incorrect, but just a sweeping generalization of anyone who did not eat up all things prequels, and ignoring the innumerable reasons why the films were judged as flawed after each release.

I don't think you eiher read or understood my post....

Oddly enough, SOME fans (please, I'm saying some, not all) judged the movie on the trailers alone. They went in biased, and did not view the movie with an open mind. This happened with TPM, the subsequent sequels to it, TFA. Sadly enough, as stated by someone else in this topic, those fans usually shout the hardest, and give the impression that all fans feel the same way, which is not true. Plenty of fans love, like or tolerate the prequels.

 

[Solid Snack]

I think, in a way, that Clone Wars was sort of the first Star Wars projects to largely overhaul the Expanded Universe stuff as well. At the time, there were Clone Wars novels/comics/games that largely followed a different chain of events (No apprentice for Anakin, him being a knight much later on, and most infamously, the Mandalorians and their relationships to the clone army, as well as different fates for a great deal of the background Jedi for the prequels), so among those who appreciated those, there was some initial backlash-similar to a degree like some of the post-ROTJ EU fans feel with TFA and it's sequels. Especially since it was all supposed to be canon.

Disney kind of simplified things a great deal by pretty much just keeping the 2008-2012 Clone Wars series canon IMO (Although it's also important to note that it did borrow a bit from other stuff around the time-the characters of Ventress and Quinlan Vos for example-but their characteristics, backstory and fates were changed somewhat).

 

[Reverend]

Yeah, so that pretty much confirms what I thought. They kind of rebooted the show with the 3D series. And I also forgot about the movie that they had made beforehand. In a way, the 2D version paved the way.

There was some question of that in the early days, as if they themselves hadn't quite made up their minds if the micro-series was in continuity with the new show or not. Part of that is due to them clearly basing the character designs and overall aesthetic (at least early on) on Genndy Tartakovsky very distinctive style, as well as their carrying over several key voice actors in their roles. But there's also a number of plot related reasons for this initial uncertainty.

For example, the micro-series picks up almost straight after AotC and handles the introduction of Asajj Ventress, Grevious, depicts Anakin's Knighting ceremony and shows how R2 ended up with Anakin & 3PO with Padme (they exchanged them as wedding/Knighting gifts.)

TCW begins seemingly a few months *after* AotC and all of the above things have already happened, so it's not a reboot in the sense that it didn't seem to cover any of the same ground. Quite the contrary, it seems to deliberately avoid retreading the events of the micro-series. Everyone already knows who Ventress and Grevious are, Anakin is already a Knight etc.

Indeed, until relatively recently one could reasonably presume that the entirety of the CG show could have taken place in the second season's 'passage of time' montage, with the rest taking place between the end of the show and RotS.
Even now that they've begun to elaborate on their unrealised plans for how the show would have lead into RotS--and is incompatible with the micro-series version of events--one can still reasonably look at the earlier material as at least a rough guide as to what the as yet untold canon version of events might be.


The Knighting ceremony is an interesting detail for me, since it pretty clear that they certainly haven't forgotten about it.

 

[Lance]

Yes, people were actually harmed by the movie.

Evidently I should've prefaced my comments with, 'metaphorically speaking'.

The funny thing about The Clone Wars is how the prequel haters flip-flopped on it. When it first started, it was considered the same as the prequels and was treated like it had prequel cooties. "There's a character named Stinky the Hutt!!!" and all that. Then, at some point, a little light bulb went on. They figured out the natural endpoint of their "the prequels are the worst thing ever"/"literally everything is better than the prequels" mentality was to embrace The Clone Wars. Eventually The Clone Wars became just another plank to beat the prequels with.

That's because it got better. It improved as they went along. The thing with prequels is how they get handled, and in time The Clone Wars proved to be worthy, in time. Same deal as with the turnaround on opinion about ENT in the later seasons when fans felt it was at least trying a little bit harder to feed into the TOS 'future'.

Prequels aren't intrinsically bad things. It's what's done with them that counts.

 

[Set Harth]

That's because it got better. It improved as they went along.

The movie wasn't remotely as bad as people made it out to be. The initial negative reaction was overblown, and the show's early material wasn't really all that dissimilar to what came after. Not to the extent that would explain a 180 degree reversal. Fashions change. What is de rigueur in one decade is mocked in another.

Grevious

It's Grievous.

 

[LJones41]

Isn't this question a bit redundant, considering that the Prequel Trilogy does have its collection of fans, even if the media pretends otherwise?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Can Prequels ever be well received by fans? Sure. All it takes is a good story, the right timing and to not be invasive towards the original.

Spartacus Gods of the Arena, Fear The Walking Dead, X-Men First Class, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, animes like Gundam (which has various sequels, prequels and midquels spread throughout it's timeline of the original story), the last season of Enterprise (when the show earnestly began trying to be a predecessor of TOS and is arguably the best season of the show) and others I'm sure. Hell, try watching Episode 3, 4 and 5 as a trilogy, instead of 1-3 or 4-6. Tonally and poignantly, the story of Vader's fall, Luke's rise and their first clash carries a lot of weight and drama. More so than their ultimate resolution in Episode 6, where both characters seemed like guest stars in their own movie.

 

[Set Harth]

I don't think Rise of the Planet of the Apes technically qualifies as a legitimate prequel in the fashion of the others listed. It's really a hybrid between a prequel and a reboot - a preboot?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I don't think Rise of the Planet of the Apes technically qualifies as a legitimate prequel in the fashion of the others listed. It's really a hybrid between a prequel and a reboot - a preboot?

It's more in the title and what the film is trying to accomplish. Compared to say Prometheus, which rides the line between prequel and reboot. Because Ridley Scott couldn't decide which he wanted to make.

 

[Set Harth]

The title isn't relevant to the issue of continuity. Rise features a different origin for the apes. Prometheus, by contrast, does not contradict the original Alien movies, despite Scott's tapdance prior to release, while rumor has it that its sequel is more obviously in prequel territory.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

The title isn't relevant to the issue of continuity. Rise features a different origin for the apes. Prometheus, by contrast, does not contradict the original Alien movies, despite Scott's tapdance prior to release, while rumor has it that its sequel is more obviously in prequel territory.

Well, you can still call Rise a prequel because it shows an Earth before they take over the planet and the humans die out. It wouldn't however be a prequel to the OG Planet of the Apes, which started with the apes large and in charge. Rise wouldn't fall into the remake category because there's no Taylor and the Apes don't rule the Earth yet. Reboot/Prequel with the destination being a true Planet of the Apes. If Taylor does show up in one of the later Ape films, that would be pretty cool.


I was glad to hear that Scott is more committed this go round and actually putting Alien in the title of his next film. Hopefully he sorts out the Space Jockies and planets LV 426 and LV 223.

 

[Greg Cox]

But RISE is demonstrably not a prequel to the original cycle of APES movies, despite some fun Easter eggs and homages. In the original movies, Caesar was the child of time-traveling chimpanzees from the future. In the new movies, Caesar is a super-intelligent ape created by genetically-engineered virus.

Not sure how you can reconcile those two origin stories . . . unless, I suppose, you assume that RISE is a prequel to only the original 1968 movie and ignore all of the original sequels.

 

[Reverend]

But RISE is demonstrably not a prequel to the original cycle of APES movies, despite some fun Easter eggs and homages. In the original movies, Caesar was the child of time-traveling chimpanzees from the future. In the new movies, Caesar is a super-intelligent ape created by genetically-engineered virus.

Not sure how you can reconcile those two origin stories . . . unless, I suppose, you assume that RISE is a prequel to only the original 1968 movie and ignore all of the original sequels.

If one were desperate to draw a connection where clearly none was intended, then I'd suggest the way to do it would be to say that all of the original movies after the first two represent an alternate timeline. While the new movies show the original history of that world where time travelling chimps didn't show up in the 70's.

Of course the massive hole in that particular theory is that it has Taylor's mission originating from 2011 at the latest. Obviously we're nowhere near sending a spaceship out at any appreciable fraction of light-speed. On the positive side, it does side-step the pre-destination paradox...

Personally I tend to think of the new Apes movies as a thematic reinterpretation of the core concepts of the source material, rather than anything as simple as a reboot or a remake. Aside from some name drops and Easter eggs, very little in terms of character and plot is re-used.
Really speaking they're almost wholly original movies masquerading as remakes. I sometimes wonder if that's more literal than figurative if the reports of the studio suits' unwillingness to green-light anything that isn't an already established IP are accurate.

 

[LJones41]

Can Prequels ever be well received by fans? Sure. All it takes is a good story, the right timing and to not be invasive towards the original.

What do you mean by "can"? It has already been well received by a large number of people. As I had stated earlier, the Prequel movies already has its share of fans. Why are other people pretending otherwise?

 

[fireproof78]

Can Prequels ever be well received by fans? Sure. All it takes is a good story, the right timing and to not be invasive towards the original.

Spartacus Gods of the Arena, Fear The Walking Dead, X-Men First Class, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, animes like Gundam (which has various sequels, prequels and midquels spread throughout it's timeline of the original story), the last season of Enterprise (when the show earnestly began trying to be a predecessor of TOS and is arguably the best season of the show) and others I'm sure. Hell, try watching Episode 3, 4 and 5 as a trilogy, instead of 1-3 or 4-6. Tonally and poignantly, the story of Vader's fall, Luke's rise and their first clash carries a lot of weight and drama. More so than their ultimate resolution in Episode 6, where both characters seemed like guest stars in their own movie.

I agree with the bolded part but not sure about the rest. I think ENT Season 4 works well, but I still feel like the OT stands up on its own just fine. That might be due to me having such vivid imagines of what I thought Anakin's fall looked like that I didn't "need" the PT to tell me. It's nice to have, but ultimately unnecessary.

What do you mean by "can"? It has already been well received by a large number of people. As I had stated earlier, the Prequel movies already has its share of fans. Why are other people pretending otherwise?

This topic is about prequels as a whole, not just the Star Wars ones. Just a head's up.

 

[Solid Snack]

Yeah, Gundam in a few ways has the same technology problem that some prequels have. The technology in the first few series sort of develops in a linear fashion;Gundam to Gundam Mark II and beyond; and 0080 sort of makes sense since that Gundam was never really put into the field. But then you've got Gundam 0083, 08th Ms team where the things are practically everywhere in that era, making the original version far less unique and the design lineage all over the place.

 

[LJones41]

My mistake. Well I do believe that prequels can be well received, if they are handled well. The same can be said about sequels or reboots.

 

[Ralphis]

Basically, the only thing off the table in a prequel is a universe-shattering event with possible apocalyptic consequences-anything below that level does not have an predetermined endpoint. So, in Star Trek Discovery a "Will the Federation survive this ?" storyline should not be done but the stakes can easy be high enough to matter They could be dealing with a crisis that only threatens to affect a hundred colonies in a remote area of the Federation, That is still billions of people (including most of our heroes and many of their friends and families) under threat. but no matter what the outcome, the Federation will survive.

I was going to make that same exact point. In a universe as big as Star Trek, there are so many things you can do that don't have to intrude of, or contradict future events.