Do sequels/prequels tarnish the original?

[Derishton]

I'm in agreement with you, basically. There are plenty of terms which mean different things in different contexts, and "sequel" works as a catch-all for (as I said or tried to say) anything "sequential." One of the interesting things about the study of cycles is that we don't have a widely accepted term for the parts of a cycle, especially given that adaptations and revisions can add to a cycle at any historical moment. But it is a very useful way of looking at these big multi-part and even multi-author narratives, especially when looking at a question of perception - whether something can be tarnished by a subsequent "attachment" (whether sequel or prequel or midquel or adaptation).

 

[stj]

My enjoyment of The Three Musketeers is affected by knowing that two of the foursome were mean-spirited and gullible enough to favor Charles I, even trying to wrest him from justice. I had less affection for them, after reading that sequel. Now I can't re-read any of the Musketeers novels.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Dude, spoilers!

 

[stj]

Oh, sorry.

Spoiler: spoiler for sequel Musketeer novel

Charles I is executed.

 

[Derishton]

Oh, sorry.

Spoiler: spoiler for sequel Musketeer novel

Charles I is executed.

I feel bad just posting an emoticon, but that post totally deserves acknowledgment.

 

[Kegg]

My enjoyment of The Three Musketeers is affected by knowing that two of the foursome were mean-spirited and gullible enough to favor Charles I, even trying to wrest him from justice. I had less affection for them, after reading that sequel. Now I can't re-read any of the Musketeers novels.

You know I only think I ever read the first Musketeers novel, but the idea they tried to save Charles I makes me like them more.

Then in Greek drama you have things like Sophocles's Oedipus trilogy, Aeschylus's Oresteia trilogy, etc.

Orestia yes, Oedipus no. Aeschylus wrote and presented the Orestia as a consistent trilogy - as playwrights would show three tragedies and a satyr play, and Aeschylus usually worked in trilogies. In fact Aeschylus had an Oedipus trilogy, now lost, and Prometheus Bound was the first part of a Prometheus trilogy, and so on.

Sophocles and Euripides, however, tended to write three seperate tragedies and a satyr play.

The idea that Sophocles' three plays about Oedipus and his relatives is a trilogy mostly a modern convention. He wrote them seperately, at different stages in his career, and in a non-chronological order - the events of Antigone take place after Oedipus the King, and Antigone was written first. Also they don't fit in terms of 'continuity' in the fluid sense that the Orestia does.

It'd be a bit like if Tim Burton's Batman, Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and Schumacher's Batman and Robin were the three surviving Batman films and they were treated as a trilogy.

 

[Christopher]

^The point isn't in the details, the point is that it's a universal pattern throughout history to tell stories that are followups to pre-existing stories. The point is that it's silly and shortsighted to react to the creation of sequels as though it's some undesirable modern trend. Everything that's done today has been done throughout the history of storytelling, and the fact that it's been done in a variety of different ways just reinforces the point that it's a universal theme.

 

[stj]

^^^But it's still true that seeing sequels/prequels/remakes affects your viewing of the originals. Maybe there's a handful of exceptions. Maybe. Although the change in viewing may not be deleterious, they may well be. It seems rather high-handed to demand that people be so obedient as to control their very memories and suppress them when re-watching the original because it's been very common for plays and movies to have sequels and prequels and remakes.

Monarchism? For shame, Kegg.

 

[Kegg]

^The point isn't in the details, the point is that it's a universal pattern throughout history to tell stories that are followups to pre-existing stories.

And I wasn't disagreeing with your point. I was, however, observing that the three Theban plays are not a trilogy, that's all.

Monarchism? For shame, Kegg.

Not monarchism as such. I'm Irish. The tl;dr version here is that Charles I was not Oliver Cromwell and Oliver Cromwell was not particularly good to Ireland.

 

[sonak]

I think so. My enjoyment of the Star Wars OT is a little bit tarnished now(ROTJ most of all, because the whole "redemption arc" and the throne room scenes no longer make sense, since Anakin wasn't seduced by the power of the Dark Side, he was tricked due to stupidity). Darth Vader was just... diminished by what was done to him in the PT. Also, the way the Jedi were portrayed in the PT, as dogmatic, rigid, ascetic monks who get easily outmanuevered by Palpatine.

I guess prequels can, because they change the actual story that has come before. It's easier to ignore sequels you don't like.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

My enjoyment of the Star Wars OT is a little bit tarnished now(ROTJ most of all, because the whole "redemption arc" and the throne room scenes no longer make sense, since Anakin wasn't seduced by the power of the Dark Side, he was tricked due to stupidity).

Because of that, the story fails to cohere and is not really a single story at all. It's two different stories that have no real connection other than some proper names in common. Just because Lucas may tell us one story is the prequel to another, that doesn't make it so. So I just keep the part of the story that I like, and ignore the part I don't.

The Clone Wars is re-doing the prequel story in a way that I suspect will synch up better with the OT. If Anakin really does "fall to the dark side" - meaning he makes a moral choice to embrace the dark side, knowing full well what he's doing - and isn't tricked, or being obtuse - then that solves the whole linkage issue.

 

[Set Harth]

If Anakin really does "fall to the dark side" - meaning he makes a moral choice to embrace the dark side, knowing full well what he's doing

That happened in ROTS. Thus, putting it in TCW doesn't achieve "linkage" because it throws out the PT.

Again, such is not what TCW is doing. It's meant to be in the same continuity as the PT films, not replace them. Disgruntled fans insisting that TCW is an alternate timeline don't make it so. It's not actually an official production of the Star Wars Tea Party, it's just their latest ammunition. Because when one follows the "anything is better than the PT" philosophy, eventually one figures out that this includes TCW. But it wasn't always that way, as anyone hanging around SW sites in 2008 can attest; TCW was originally attacked with the venom normally reserved for the PT. The Tea Partiers were against TCW before they were for it. ( Remind you of anyone? )

 

[JD]

The Clone Wars is re-doing the prequel story in a way that I suspect will synch up better with the OT. If Anakin really does "fall to the dark side" - meaning he makes a moral choice to embrace the dark side, knowing full well what he's doing - and isn't tricked, or being obtuse - then that solves the whole linkage issue.

I don't get where you get the idea it's redoing the PT story. All it's doing is filling in the gaps and giving us more context for some of the events. It's pretty clearly just an addition to the movies, not any kind of a replacement.

 

[Christopher]

^I think Temis means that TCW is interpreting the Anakin character in a way that improves on what the prequel films did, and can allow us to understand Anakin's actions and choices in those films in a different light.

 

[Gojira]

Although not science fiction the Rocky series is a franchise tainted by its sequels. The original won the Academy Award for best picture. The sequels turned the character into a cartoon.

I find that an interesting and oddly appropriate observation coming from someone whose username is Gojira and whose avatar is of the "cute" version of Godzilla from the later Shōwa-era movies. Talk about a serious character becoming a cartoon in the sequels...

I certainly don't disagree with you!! The original Godzilla movie is a classic. None of the sequels ever lived up to the seriousness and the quality of the original.

 

[Christopher]

I certainly don't disagree with you!! The original Godzilla movie is a classic. None of the sequels ever lived up to the seriousness and the quality of the original.

Yeah, TMC showed Gojira in the original Japanese a few weeks ago, and it's a strikingly dark and compelling film. Even the early, more serious sequels/knockoffs that I've seen didn't have the same allegorical depth, and the series got quite silly later on. (Though I am fond of Mothra vs. Godzilla, which arguably marks the end of the serious phase of the Showa era.)

I'm curious about the Heisei and Millennium series as well, and fortunately Netflix has most of those, but is missing the first two Heisei films. Wikipedia says they've never been released on DVD in the US. And the library doesn't have the VHS releases.

 

[Gojira]

I certainly don't disagree with you!! The original Godzilla movie is a classic. None of the sequels ever lived up to the seriousness and the quality of the original.

Yeah, TMC showed Gojira in the original Japanese a few weeks ago, and it's a strikingly dark and compelling film. Even the early, more serious sequels/knockoffs that I've seen didn't have the same allegorical depth, and the series got quite silly later on. (Though I am fond of Mothra vs. Godzilla, which arguably marks the end of the serious phase of the Showa era.)

I'm curious about the Heisei and Millennium series as well, and fortunately Netflix has most of those, but is missing the first two Heisei films. Wikipedia says they've never been released on DVD in the US. And the library doesn't have the VHS releases.

I am also on a Godzilla forum, Toho Kingdom.com , and there is a thread which talks about Godzilla vs Biollante the second Hesei G-Movie is in current production for an American release on DVD. I have a bootleg copy of Godzilla 1985.

 

[Silvercrest]

^I think Temis means that TCW is interpreting the Anakin character in a way that improves on what the prequel films did, and can allow us to understand Anakin's actions and choices in those films in a different light.

Right. Which, if you think about it, is no different than what the previous films did. We've almost never seen the same Anakin twice.

ANH referred to Anakin as a Jedi Knight, fantastic pilot, and all-around great guy who was murdered by the Most. Badass. Villain. Ever.

ESB reinterpreted that as a Jedi Knight who somehow became the Most. Badass. Villain. Ever. Which also told us what his son could become.

ROTJ had to fix the apparent contradiction between those two films with the "certain point of view" business. It ended with his redemption. It also threw in that he had a second child.

As you said, this allowed us to understand Anakin's actions and choices in a different light with each succeeding film. The PT did the same. TCW is just doing the same thing yet again.

 

[Christopher]

^The difference is that it's not just revealing new facets, it's, as I said, improving on the prequels' interpretation of the character. The point isn't just that it's a different take, the point is that is works better, at least in the opinion of the commentator.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

^I think Temis means that TCW is interpreting the Anakin character in a way that improves on what the prequel films did, and can allow us to understand Anakin's actions and choices in those films in a different light.

Exactly. And the "interpretation" from the prequels is now inconsistent with the TCW, since Anakin is no longer the stupid, childish dunce of the prequels. That alone is a huge change.

Maybe that means the impression the prequels gave was "wrong." Okay by me, but that means the prequels were "wrong."

The other big change is in the Mortis Arc. Anakin knows more (always knew more?) about the whole Chosen One jazz than he let on in the prequels, where he seemed utterly clueless about everything. He can't be clueless now.

My objection to Anakin in the prequels is basically, I don't want to see a story about a sullen, stupid brat. (Who does? I'm amazed how many people are apparently perfectly content with that characterization! I guess I'm just incredibly fussy.)

I don't care that the story makes sense, which it does - it's the story of a sullen, stupid brat who creates havoc due to his immense character flaws and gets smacked upside the head, as he richly deserves.

The trouble with that story is, it's stupid and not worth my time. I'd much rather watch the story of a basically admirable and decent guy - loyal, loving, courageous, dynamic, charismatic, even funny at times - who "falls to the dark side" for reasons we can't really blame him for, or at least, not hold him in utter contempt for.

Basically, give him any flaw besides stupidity or weakness. Those are the two no-go flaws for any fictional character. Unless you're doing comedy, and holding the character up to ridicule, you don't want him to be stupid or weak. Stupid and weak, that's the killer. Arrogant, that's okay. The story could work with an arrogant, overconfident Anakin.

Interestingly, I don't think that's where TCW is going with the character either. They seem to be either going for something like "he realizes he's the only person who can solve the mammoth problems that everyone faces, because he's the Chosen One, and that leads him to take desperate steps that he probably realizes he shouldn't, but has no choice."

That hunch is largely based on what happened in the Mortis Arc. It remains to be seen what actually happens, of course - I'm very curious. But they've made a definite break with the prequels at this point. Anakin in TCW is a lot more clued in than the prequels Anakin. He has reason to believe he really has the sole responsibility for "saving the galaxy" now. He could fall to the dark side, not out of ignorance, but out of knowledge. Much better.

And the OT didn't have inconsistent versions of Anakin, because Anakin wasn't even in the OT till the end. We just heard different stories. I never made the assumption that those stories were the ironclad truth about the guy.