Prequel good or bad?

I'm still unsure if this is the right way to go. Reinventing the series could be a good idea if it's done the right way, for example when the Batman Begins film was released, i think it re-invented Batman brilliantly and was similar to the original 2 films.

However with the Star Wars prequel films, i didnt find them that great and because of that, i think it has made me think worse about the original 3 star wars films.

So if the new Star Trek film is a failure then not only will it kill off Star Trek completely, it will wreck people's memories of Trek when it was at its best.

 

wow...that is some seriously strange logic

if Trek can STV...it can survive anything

 

What "Batman Begins" did you watch? It was nothing like the other films - for the better...

I'd think Lucas's re-editing of the originals would have more to do with this then the prequels. If anything you can easily isolate the sets of movies - but its a bit harder to not notice Lucas having updated the older ones. Hey that's just me. Your logic though is like saying a bad spinoff book could ruin Star Wars for you - if this was true my love of Trek would be forever ruined by TNG...

Huh? No at least not regular humans who do not have their lives wrapped up in the Franchise. Basically no one can ever make another Star Trek again because it might risk ruining it "When it was at its best" (Which is always a debatable point) Specifically when for you was it at its best?

Sharr

 

The flaw with this oft-made argument is simple... the movies are not in any way the "source material." The source material is the comic books.

The thing that made the first Batman movie remotely watchable was that it attempted, for the first time, to approximate the "feel" of the comics. But it did so in a freakishly stylized way and, original popularity aside, the film really doesn't stand up very well.

Besides... the filmmakers screwed up a CORE point of the character. Batman never uses guns. EVER. Yet in that movie, he had machine guns and rockets on my car and plane. TOTALLY out-of-character.

They got this RIGHT in "Batman Begins." After you've watched this movie, you know why he hates guns so much, and you'd never expect to see him use one. That's true to the SOURCE MATERIAL.

The further the movies (or the 60s TV show) deviated from the original conception of the character, the worse the shows were. True, for a brief time in the 60s they actually "changed" the comics to more closely reflect the TV show... but that thankfully ended when Denny O'Neil came on board at DC Comics.

"Batman Begins" is almost directly lifted from three of the best Batman stories of the past several decades. They didn't really make up anything... they just faithfully translated things that had already been done. And as a result, the film was WONDERFUL.

See, this is CRUCIAL to get. THEY DID NOT REINVENT ANYTHING. They simply decided to be true to the original material. And that's what made for a great movie.

If the filmmakers for this new Trek film do the same thing... stay true to the source material (in terms of characterization and just general FEEL as much as in terms of details!)... they'll most likely do well. On the other hand, if they try to "reinvent" it, I fully expect a disaster. Much like the disastrous "reinvention" of "Lost In Space" (which actually made the original TV show look GOOD by comparison!)

A reasonable point, but I disagree. See, I think that it's been schlock crap like "Voyager" that has "ruined people's memories of Trek when it was at its best."

This movie is starting from a point where people have already "had their childhood's raped" and we're just sorta hoping that someone will come along and fix all of that. If they don't... it's no big deal... we'll just have to accept that the corpse-like thing we keep glancing at is really a corpse and not just someone in a really sound sleep.

 

The prequel is the best idea of any that people have posed, and I've been here for years so I've seen it all and then some. Birth of the Federation, Fall of the Federation, Earth-Romulan War, WWIII, Eugenics War, Post-Dominion War, Federation Civil War, Starfleet Academy, Focused on Federation Civilians for a Change, Klingon-focused, Romulan-focused, Borg-focused, All Mirror Universe All the Time, Far-Future SuperDuper Tech, Crossover with Star Wars, Farscape, Firefly, Stargate, BSG, Babylon 5, Doctor Who and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (not all at once, tho).

Maybe. Resurrecting the elements that people know better than any others - Kirk, Spock, Enterprise - is the least risky strategy I've seen so far, and a hell of a lot less risky than any of the other ideas I've seen touted.

George Lucas will have nothing to do with Star Trek XI. Don't you feel better already?

 

Hey now, don't be knockin' the Adam West show. It was pure genius (even if it was comedic genius, which is hard for people to accept), and it actually did manage to get the prevailing spirit of Batman (as he was pre-Frank Miller) pretty darned accurately (as long as you can ignore over-the-top moments like the Batusi).

 

I think you(dan bevan) have good point and tend to agree with you on prequels being bad idea. I just don't generally don't like prequels. You put Star Wars prequel films as great example why prequels just doesn't work because if you are going to know the outcome off the movie before it started it will ultimately tarnish your excitement for the movie(it did for me big time)...
This is why i am still hoping that Star Trek XI will still be some-kind re-invented or re-image movie smilier to Batman Begins and Superman Returns. Possibilities is still there as Roberto Orci has stated Star Trek will be some-kind of reimageing movie(hopefully).

 

Actually, in some of the earliest, Bob Kane-done issues of the comics, Batman did use guns every now and again. It's not "TOTALLY" out of character.

 

"You put Star Wars prequel films as great example why prequels just doesn't work because if you are going to know the outcome off the movie before it started it will ultimately tarnish your excitement for the movie(it did for me big time)..."

We don't know the ending of Star Trek XI...

The Hobbit will suck!

 

I'm probably the only poster around here who likes the PT.

I don't have a problem with prequels, or sequels for that matter, as long as they are well written and entertaining.

 

You're not the only one. Trust me.

 

Where is it written that no story is worth telling if you already know how it ends? There are many, many examples of how utterly false that idea is. The entire genre of historical fiction wouldn’t exist if that were true. Furthermore, just because you already know what events will take place in the future and what the ultimate fates of your characters are does not mean you automatically know the ending of every story that can possibly be told about them.

Prequels do not inherently suck. They don’t have a very good recent track record, but that just means it’s due time for a turnaround.

 

for all those that know how the film ends can you please write out a description please? I want to know too.

Oh you mean that Kirk and Spock survive?

I see...so how many Bond, Bourne, MI or other films did you actually think the hero was going to die? I guess it just isnt worth going to any movies anymore...except the ones where they kill the main character

i dunno, maybe you are right. Imagine if they made a movie about the Titanic...everyone knows how that is going to end so what is the point...no one would see such a film

 

or, they could do like New Voyages, and kill off Kirk and Spock!

 

Believe me The Hobbit will be considered lesser movie then TLOTR movies. Also i am not saying all prequel movies are bad. I usually don't find prequel movies not as good as original story and of course i dot know the ending of Star Trek XI but i firmly believe reboot concept for XI are better then prequel concept that all.

Good point . However i do not thing historical fiction movies fall into the category of a prequel film, take f.e. Titanic, we all knew how is going to end right, thou we didn't know if fictional main character are going to make it or not. However Titanic is historical fiction movie isn't considered a prequel. If they would make another movie revolving either two main character prior to Titanic then it would be considered a prequel.

That is probably the exception from the rule if prequels are considered better then original story. You are right prequel haven't recent good track record, why then take a change on making XI a prequel if the concept has poor track record. Re-image or reboot formula seems to be working right now with release of Casino Royal, Batman Begins, Superman Returns. What do you thing suits in Paramount going to want, capitalizing on popular a reboot/re-image formula or taking a change on a prequel movie?

 

Common sense has no place on this board! One warning for intelligence!

 

If done right and not like the Star Wars collection it could be great...

 

It all depends on how it's done

Though I think the main focus is moving forward (into the 25th century) but they should have a prequel as a mini series running along side it.

 

I'm for a series set during the TOS movies. :thumbsup:

That's what DS9, SCE, IKS GORKON, Titan, and The Lost Era are. The 24th century is just window dressing.

:insert Homer here:

window dressing.

or the early 24th century. ie Stargazer.