Do sequels/prequels tarnish the original?

[Silvercrest]

^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.

No argument here. And it appears I was trying to refute a point that may not have been made. Re-reading, people started taking sides on whether TCW is some sort of alternate timeline -- which I was trying to refute by my examples. But that started with someone misinterpreting Temis.

So, never mind....

 

[sonak]

^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.

I agree with a lot of this, and from what I have watched of the CW series, Anakin does seem like a different and better character. But no matter what they have him do in that series, ROTS is still the final word on his fall, and it's what I think of now when I think of Vader and that horrible alteration in ROTJ, where instead of smiling old Sebastian Shaw- Anakin , we get obnoxious young jerk Hayden Christensen-Anakin.

 

[Christopher]

No argument here. And it appears I was trying to refute a point that may not have been made. Re-reading, people started taking sides on whether TCW is some sort of alternate timeline -- which I was trying to refute by my examples. But that started with someone misinterpreting Temis.

Well, not an alternate timeline, but it does seem that Temis is interpreting TCW as a retcon of elements from the prequels, something that's happened in SW before. So maybe I didn't quite have the right of it either.

I think that differences of interpretation are common in serial works created by multiple different minds. In comic books, you often have a new writer come in and approach a character as a completely different person from how the previous writer approached them. Sometimes this is explained away with a retcon, sometimes the old behavior is just ignored. In series fiction, continuity is often more a pretense than a reality.

 

[Silvercrest]

Maybe we should ask her.

Temis, are you envisioning TCW as a retcon of Anakin's origin which rewrites Whiny Anakin as a better character?

Or are you envisioning TCW as a richer backstory that doesn't rewrite anything, but helps flesh out the films? That was how I always envisioned it, but I don't follow it that closely.

I suppose there could be a door #3.

 

[Derishton]

I think that differences of interpretation are common in serial works created by multiple different minds. In comic books, you often have a new writer come in and approach a character as a completely different person from how the previous writer approached them. Sometimes this is explained away with a retcon, sometimes the old behavior is just ignored. In series fiction, continuity is often more a pretense than a reality.

Exactly, which is partly why I was talking about cycles as a better umbrella term for this kind of phenomenon. You have a mass of material (for Star Wars, the history of the Old and New Republics, a plethora of established characters) which takes different forms in different hands, while still participating in an over-arching story.

I've been very surprised bv the mainstream media's discussion of the Spider-man film franchise reboot; they're acting as though we don't get a million versions of Spider-man all the time across media, some in continuity, some not, some kinda.

 

[Christopher]

I've been very surprised bv the mainstream media's discussion of the Spider-man film franchise reboot; they're acting as though we don't get a million versions of Spider-man all the time across media, some in continuity, some not, some kinda.

Yeah, I don't get all this "It's too soon for a new version of Spider-Man" when we've already got two parallel continuities in the comics (three if you count the Marvel Adventures version for younger readers -- is that still being published?) plus an animated series (plus an upcoming guest shot by Spidey in The Avengers, which is in a separate continuity from Ultimate Spider-Man) plus a video-game franchise about crossing over Spideys from several alternate realities.

 

[Set Harth]

But that started with someone misinterpreting Temis.

Not at all. An imagined new fall to the dark side in TCW doesn't fit in the same continuity as the PT. Or in other words:

But they've made a definite break with the prequels at this point.

However, this is not accurate. TCW's break is with previous EU, but it does not break with the prequels. It is meant to exist in the same continuity as the films, not to replace them. Or in other words:

But no matter what they have him do in that series, ROTS is still the final word on his fall

This fact is being deliberately ignored by those intent on using TCW as the latest weapon to bash the PT.

He has reason to believe he really has the sole responsibility for "saving the galaxy" now.

You mean he knows he's supposedly the Chosen One? He already knew that - the hippie version of Ra's Al Ghul said it right in front of him.

 

[Silvercrest]

Or no one misinterpreted Temis. Hence my query.

 

[Holdfast]

But that started with someone misinterpreting Temis.

Not at all.

Or no one misinterpreted Temis. Hence my query.

So...

... are we still talking about Temis, or a reimagined Temis, or are we just waiting for a Temis sequel now...?

 

[Silvercrest]

No, we're just switching to nuTemis, the Abramsverse version.

But in that timeline she might be a little different. First off, in that universe I don't think she should be a Vorta. Also there's the question of casting.

 

[Destructor]

The films that stand out to me as tarnishing their prequels are:

Terminator 3: The whole point of T2 was that the future was not set. The whole point of T3 was that the future WAS set- which really put a damper on T2's hopeful ending.

Alien3: The whole point of Aliens was that Ripley saves Newt. Alien3 killing Newt before the film even began really put a damper on Aliens.

The Return of Jafar: Aladdin was awesome and RoJ really made me hate the whole Aladdin universe.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Terminator 3: The whole point of T2 was that the future was not set. The whole point of T3 was that the future WAS set- which really put a damper on T2's hopeful ending.

And then TSCC came along and put a damper on T3's damper on T2's hopeful ending.

 

[Christopher]

The films that stand out to me as tarnishing their prequels are:

Terminator 3: The whole point of T2 was that the future was not set. The whole point of T3 was that the future WAS set- which really put a damper on T2's hopeful ending.

Yeah, I hated that. Worse, the whole "immutable future" interpretation wasn't even done to make a philosophical point; it was for strictly commercial reasons, to set up more sequels. It was blatantly mercenary and calculated and hollow, and that stripped it of any merit.

But I don't think that tarnished T2. If anything, it just highlights how much better a movie T2 was and makes me appreciate it more. I simply ignore T3 and the even more empty and superficial Salvation as apocryphal stories, and count only the first two movies and The Sarah Connor Chronicles (although TSCC is in a slightly different timeline from T2, since some of the date references conflict).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I've always thought - and still do - that since Terminator history depends so much on time travel, and there are so many alternate timelines constantly being created, that eventually it will all collapse in on itself and lead to a future where Skynet never existed. (For example, if whoever actually invents time travel technology is killed before they can do it.)

 

[MacLeod]

With regards to the Terminator films, the outcome could be said to be inevitable. SkyNet sends a terminator to kill Sarah/John Conner. The person who leads the human resistance. If SkyNet succeds then John Conner would never exist hence SkyNet would never send a Terminator back in time to kill him.

That's if we are following a single universe, if we go down the multi-verse/parallel dimension route that could change.