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

[Leroy]

I find most prequels tend to be contrived and unnecessary, but not all.The op acts as if all sequels/spin offs are awful that's just not the case Terminator 2, Star Trek II, TNG, DS9, Gundam Zeta, nuBSG, sure there are some bad ones but that doesn't mean the good ones shouldn't be made. If we followed that logic most comic book characters would have only had one issue!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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.

Hollywood is chock full of ideas. Every waiter, store clerk and massage therapist has a screen play in this town. But producers are going to make something they know can sell, and right now, the audience is into universes which can spin off endless material.

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.

While I appreciate your sentiment, because I once had the misfortune to receive as gift the novel sequel to Casablanca, and some stories are so perfectly ended that to go beyond that ending is a crime - to be honest, such stories are few and far between. You can probably name the stories that should never have sequels all in one breath, and I doubt much pulp SF/ Fantasy is going to be on the list. And does it really hurt? Is TOS any worse for having been followed by Enterprise? I can still watch The Corbomite Manuever with a smile because it just doesn't matter that the other series ever aired.

If you want original material, visit the library or bookstore, where it packs the shelves in droves, or maybe the arthouse theater where extremely original material usually goes wanting for an audience. Did you see Nightwatch and Daywatch at the theater? How about Primer, or 2046, or Paprika?

 

[I am not Spock]

Yeah, this endless trend of sequels, remakes, and prequels is getting tiresome. I agree though that there are exceptions to the rule. We'd have no DS9, for example. Or Casino Royale, which IMO was the best Bond film in ages.

Sequels which aren't neccessary are my pet hate. Did the original Jurassic Park NEED any sequels? The Matrix 1 is one of my favourite films ever, but the sequels came along and soured everyone on even the first one. Sometimes bad sequels can take all the fun out of even the original ones. Does anyone even WANT Terminator Salvation?

I think when a story is done, it should be left alone. Unless there is a good reason to make another. Trek is no different. I'm a big fan, but after Trek XI I wouldn't mind if we didn't see any new productions for a long time, if not ever. There's already more than enough Trek.

 

[Ghel]

I, for one, have no problem with sequels and remakes. They are nothing new to Hollywood, and often a sequel/remake can add a great deal to a discussion/significance to the original film.

For example, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was adapted to theater, then silent film, than the iconic 1930s film, and into many later films. While the novel is great for its own reasons, the more simplistic yet more visually iconic 30s (or was it 40s) film has greatly influenced our society to the degree that it has in many ways eclipsed the original novel in its influence.

The classic technicolor Wizard of Oz was a remake.

Even the 1960s and 1980s Cape Fear films each add their own very interesting interpretations of a theme, especially as a reflection of family life in their particular era.

Similarly, many sequels (such as Trek, Star Wars, and Terminator) greatly added to the original work by expanding the respective universes and allowing for more variance and imagined possibilities in the stories.

As someone already pointed out, in cases where sequels and remakes fail (such as in the Matrix), one can always ignore the later films of a series.

 

[John Picard]

Yeah, this endless trend of sequels, remakes, and prequels is getting tiresome. I agree though that there are exceptions to the rule. We'd have no DS9, for example. Or Casino Royale, which IMO was the best Bond film in ages.

Sequels which aren't neccessary are my pet hate. Did the original Jurassic Park NEED any sequels? The Matrix 1 is one of my favourite films ever, but the sequels came along and soured everyone on even the first one. Sometimes bad sequels can take all the fun out of even the original ones. Does anyone even WANT Terminator Salvation?

I think when a story is done, it should be left alone. Unless there is a good reason to make another. Trek is no different. I'm a big fan, but after Trek XI I wouldn't mind if we didn't see any new productions for a long time, if not ever. There's already more than enough Trek.

I don't mind sequels so long as they aren't a rehash of the original story with a "twist" (Highlander 2). Continuations of popular characters are great.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I have a problem with sequels and remakes that I don't like, and have no problem with those sequels and remakes that I do like.

 

[NoImpulseEngine]

And no more remakes or re-visionings

agreeing with you 99%, most remakes suck the tv shows the movies. Some suck from day one other start out great and the fall into a sludge pit. Was looking at a website of 200 remakes and everyone sucked. Remakes should be avoided I agree 99% except for the new Batman movies (saved from Joel Schumachers dustbin of history) and Terminator SCC because T3 was such a crap movie it needed a good tv show remake to erase the pain.

No Craig as Bond

Craig Bond sucked

No Christopher Reeves Superman

No SupermanIV and No Singer/Routh disaster = WIN

 

[ClayinCA]

Craig Bond ruled

Fixed that for you.

 

[MNM]

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.

He didnt say it was important to the original sroty, he said it was somethng that he was interested in seeing.

 

[RandyS]

Once a story is finished, leave it alone.

But, but, then we wouldn't get more good stories.

And more to the point, the writers and producers of these stories wouldn't get overpaid and have more money than me a God put together.

(Which is the REAL point)

 

[Lonemagpie]

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

Isn't that the definition of "Immortal"? Which sort of fits...

 

[Forbin]

I have a problem with sequels and remakes that I don't like, and have no problem with those sequels and remakes that I do like.

 

[Ubik]

Um...to re-emphasize some points that were mentioned earlier in the thread, and to add a bit...yes, not only was The Odyssey a sequel to The Illiad, and The Aenead a remake of the Illiad, but EVERY SINGLE PLAY the ancient Greek tragedians wrote (including probably the best play of all time, Sophocles' Oedipus) was a "remake." Not a SINGLE tragedy was an original story. The Oedipus story was covered by all 3 of the extant Greek tragic playwrights, as were basically every other story they wrote.

Next: Shakespeare wrote only a SINGLE original story: The Tempest. Every single other play he wrote has very specific sources in earlier stories. Some of them came from Ovid's Metamorphoses, and Ovid himself got most of his material from the Greeks.

"Originality" is a very low-brow 20th-century concept. You think A New Hope was original? It's Lord of the Rings, change the names and setting.

By the way, the Judy Garland Wizard of Oz was a remake.