No more prequels, sequels, tv movies, etc...

[cynical dreamer]

Do we really need to know what happens between Episode III and Episode IV?

Do we really care about seeing the details of Admiral Cain's command? Doesn't it cheapen the Pegasus episodes which told the tale in just the right way with enough ambiguity to let your mind play with it.

Does there really need to be 10,000 'Dune' books?

Did we really need Riddick's backstory?

Does it matter what happens after the first Matrix movie?


I find Hollywood to be obsessed with taking a good concept and beating it in to the ground because they think they have a cash cow on their hands.

It doesn't matter what happens between ep 3 and 4. Hell it could be argued that it doesn't matter what happened before 'A New Hope'.

the ending to the first Matrix is the end of the story for me. At least the part that was important to the story they were trying to tell.

Etc.. etc...

I realize some people may be fascinated by such things and i respect that. But I think it cheapens the original story and doesn't really add anything. To me it's Hollywood groping for ideas.

I'd rather see Ron Moore and JMS work on original ideas than to see 20 post S4 Galactica or post S5 B5 tv movies. And don't even get me started on 'Caprica'.

These things are so irrelevant to the original story. Do we care about the backstory of "guy in red armour third from the left of main character"?

Drama is supposed to be about keeping what is central to the story and tossing the rest overboard.

Once a story is finished, leave it alone.

 

[tharpdevenport]

And no more remakes or "re-visionings" ,especially ones not needed, like "The Pink Panther", "Superman", and of course the upcoming "Friday the 13th" (not that we really needed that last one at all).

 

[MattJC]

And no more remakes or "re-visionings" ,especially ones not needed, like "The Pink Panther", "Superman", and of course the upcoming "Friday the 13th" (not that we really needed that last one at all).

I agree, especially with regard to the upcoming Star Trek remake.

 

[Fel]

Its not that we need to know, its that we want to know. All of these franchises have huge amounts of stories to tell, so why not utilize that potential. The fans enjoy the universe, so keep the universe alive with new stories. I find it odd that you post this on a Star Trek Message board, as everything post TOS is a sequel. There is always the option of not watching it, watch the parts you enjoy. Skip those you don't, and pretend they don't exist.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

How could you not mention HIGHLANDER, which wrapped its mythos up in the first movie, yet refuses to die?

 

[cynical dreamer]

How could you not mention HIGHLANDER, which wrapped its mythos up in the first movie, yet refuses to die?

LOL, good example.

It was by no means meant to be even close to an exhaustive list

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Some prequels are worthwhile, some aren't. You can't make a blanket statement saying they are all bad.

I'd rather see Ron Moore and JMS work on original ideas than to see 20 post S4 Galactica or post S5 B5 tv movies. And don't even get me started on 'Caprica'.

I'd rather see Caprica and some original space-opera series launched at the same time. The more, the merrier. Not all will be successful and not all will be good.

And for a concept to be "new" is no guarantee it will be original or good. Just look at Fringe, what a godawful disappointment.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about Star Trek XI. I want to see Kirk, Spock & the rest come to life again, for a substantial number of movies and preferably also a TV series, and this is the only way it's going to happen.

 

[Small White Car]

No TNG or DS9.
No Craig as Bond.
No Christopher Reeves Superman or Christian Bale Batman.


Yeah, you all are nuts.

 

[Starbreaker]

Originality doesn't work!

 

[PsychoPere]

Do we really need to know what happens between Episode III and Episode IV?

I, for one, happen to be very interested in how the Rebellion was formed.

 

[cynical dreamer]

Do we really need to know what happens between Episode III and Episode IV?

I, for one, happen to be very interested in how the Rebellion was formed.

Yes, but is it important to the original story? I would argue no.

Episodes 4-6 were the story of a family. A son redeeming a father. I don't think it's any surprise that the 'galactic politics' of episodes 1-3 fell with a thud and were death to the real drama that should have been the focus.

 

[Frontier]

Do we really care about seeing the details of Admiral Cain's command? Doesn't it cheapen the Pegasus episodes which told the tale in just the right way with enough ambiguity to let your mind play with it.

RAZOR rocked socks.

And no more remakes or "re-visionings" ,especially ones not needed, like "The Pink Panther", "Superman", and of course the upcoming "Friday the 13th" (not that we really needed that last one at all).

50/50 on this. Some such suck, some such rock.

No TNG or DS9.
No Craig as Bond.
No Christopher Reeves Superman or Christian Bale Batman.


Yeah, you all are nuts.

My point exactly.

Even if the ratio is usually two crappy remakes to one glorious, when they do it right, they hit it out of the park.

 

[Orintho]

Did we really need Riddick's backstory?

Actually I like the two Riddick films precisely because it was new and not some rehash.

Hollywood always recycles its material. Problem right now is that Hollywood is
stuck in this remake phase that makes the usual recycling activity seem all the worse. And I personally want to beat the filmmakers who keep churning out the movie parody movies - Scary Movie, Date Movie, Epic Movie - argh!

 

[Gaith]

Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was a remake. His "Merry Wives of Windsor" was a spin-off.

"The Iliad" tells a complete story; "The Odyssey" is a sequel/spin-off.

Oh, and "The New Testament"? Sequel. And very different in tone from the original. OT fans are still split on this one.

There are always more stories to tell.

 

[Pilot Ace]

Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was a remake. His "Merry Wives of Windsor" was a spin-off.

"The Iliad" tells a complete story; "The Odyssey" is a sequel/spin-off.

Oh, and "The New Testament"? Sequel. And very different in tone from the original. OT fans are still split on this one.

There are always more stories to tell.

Exactly, perfect response.

 

[tharpdevenport]

I'm not against everything, though. Say for example a movie that really sucked the first time it was made. If someone feels they can make a legitimately good movie this time around, bring it on.

And I am not against TV movies. I'm just against ones Sci-Fi Channel and Oxygen make and air. ;-)

And speaking of TV movies, the one from the 70's with John Travolta, "Boy In the Plastic Bubble" ... I'd rather watch that ANY day of the year, than any of these shitty movies like "Iron Man", "Underworld", "Scary Movie"(s), another "Hulk" rebooting, "Transformers", so forth. At least that Travolta movie was decent. It's on YouTube, if you are interested. And if you are a score fan, the music ws done by Mark Snow in a orchestra style (since this was two decades before his desicovered the style that eventualyl made him popualr with "The X-Files").

 

[RAMA]

Do we really need to know what happens between Episode III and Episode IV?

Do we really care about seeing the details of Admiral Cain's command? Doesn't it cheapen the Pegasus episodes which told the tale in just the right way with enough ambiguity to let your mind play with it.

Does there really need to be 10,000 'Dune' books?

Did we really need Riddick's backstory?

Does it matter what happens after the first Matrix movie?


I find Hollywood to be obsessed with taking a good concept and beating it in to the ground because they think they have a cash cow on their hands.

It doesn't matter what happens between ep 3 and 4. Hell it could be argued that it doesn't matter what happened before 'A New Hope'.

the ending to the first Matrix is the end of the story for me. At least the part that was important to the story they were trying to tell.

Etc.. etc...

I realize some people may be fascinated by such things and i respect that. But I think it cheapens the original story and doesn't really add anything. To me it's Hollywood groping for ideas.

I'd rather see Ron Moore and JMS work on original ideas than to see 20 post S4 Galactica or post S5 B5 tv movies. And don't even get me started on 'Caprica'.

These things are so irrelevant to the original story. Do we care about the backstory of "guy in red armour third from the left of main character"?

Drama is supposed to be about keeping what is central to the story and tossing the rest overboard.

Once a story is finished, leave it alone.

Who cares? As long as its good.

RAMA

 

[Forbin]

While I agree with the spirit of the OP, I agree with some of the responses too. Let's just say that a LOT of sequels/prequels/whetevers do suck, and do ruin the original. But some don't. It's not a consistant thing. Some sequels are beter than the original. But a good deal of the time, the producers definitely should have left it alone.

It needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

...the upcoming "Friday the 13th" (not that we really needed that last one at all).

Here you name the ONE remake I am looking forward to. It's been years since there's been a good F13 film, the last decent one was part VII (1988). I'm looking forward to seeing Jason on the big screen again, I hope they make it nice and gory.

Now, don't get me started on the Nightmare on Elm Street re-make without Englund...

 

[John Picard]

Prequels are overdone and not necessary. The biggest part I hate about prequels is when fanboys imagine how they would be, such as, "Young Kirk and Spock meet Scotty at Starfleet Academy..." Why is it these people do not understand that not everyone meets someone in their younger days and then all work together for the rest of their respective careers!?!?!?!