Star Wars I-III, Gotham, and DSC: a study in prequels (and how DSC isn’t a TOS prequel?)

[Groppler Zorn]

"Prefigure" is probably the key part of that definition, not the example of using the same characters at a younger age.
Is it really "evolving"? The word seems to be older than I am and it's pretty much meant the same thing for over half a century.

I tend to agree here. The “as” in “as by portraying” could be read as “for example by portraying” - it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to portray the same characters.

But language is constantly evolving so the definition may well be changing - as with anything, though, we’d need evidence of speakers discussing the “latest” meaning. Which is what we’re almost doing here - yet there’s not much in the way of examples of a prequel that *has* to involve the same characters or that has *not* to involve the same characters. I suppose it’s essentially this distinction between DSC and the other prequels listed in the title of this thread that made me want to begin this discussion in the first place

 

[jaime]

If DSC isn’t a prequel, with half a dozen TOS characters now confirmed, then the Star Wars PT wasn’t a PT.

Trek is episodic, so let’s look at that way....DSC contains prequels to the Mudd episodes, by establishing the character and his background (again.) it contains prequels to the Klingon episodes by establishing the history and balance of power we have already seen or heard discussed. It continues from enterprise in setting up stuff in the MU, and therefore also has a sequel/prequel to the Tholian web as well (wobbly time). It has a prequel to Journey to Babel, through the continued use of Sarek and showing his involvement in various things.
Now the Enterprise has shown up, with Pike, Number One, and Spock inbound. That is now a prequel to the Menagerie , and a sequel to its flashback essentially. It’s possible the red things on the map may end up being related to the set up for Trek 09, but that’s supposition.
If we agree Enterprise is a prequel series, then anything in DSC that directly ties to ENT must also by definition be continuing that tradition. We see design elements deliberately carried through, the afore mentioned Defiant, etc etc.
We also see all the traditions of Trek that they have kept...Deltas etc.
We know section 31 is a thing, that’s something that ties into DS9.

Maybe we could um and ah about it, but they have just cast Spock, one of the central characters, if not the central character, of two of the other eras of Trek.
If it’s not a prequel (ignoring the ongoing debate about visual reboots what have you) then it’s doing a bloody good impression of one. It has more ties to chronologically later episodes than either of TOS’s pilots, and it’s first fifteen episodes feature more ties to other Treks than the first 15 episodes of any other Trek series.

 

[jaime]

I think the continuation of themes and narrative is a much more defining aspect of whether or not something is sequel/prequel, especially given the modern trend of expanding IP universes. I think there's a lot more to it than just being chronologically sequential.

I mean, imagine if WWI and WWII were both fictional movie franchises made by the same studio and same writers/directors/producers/etc and presented as being "in the same universe." Now ignoring all academic cause/effect analysis that's well beyond the scope of my analogy, would you really consider them "sequel" film series, even if say the former had appearances by Churchill, Truman and such?

Aside from it being slightly crass....
Yes. The Second World War was in those terms a sequel to The Great War. You can’t really ignore the academic discussions you wish to, because on even a surface level, the Second World War was a direct result of how things ended and proceeded after the first. That’s basic history. It’s no good pretending the Nazis just sprang forth from no-where and took over Germany and decided to have a War because that’s what evil empires do. The Nazis were the German state, and that all came about because of the events of the Great War, and after. History isn’t a video game, where you introduce some new villains for your second part.
In narrative history, ironically, (literature) we have known since time immemorial that monsters don’t simply spring into being, that they are often the result of human choices and actions. Beowulf is very old indeed and knew that.
Hitler was a human, same as any other...and his experiences after WWI, and a confluence of political events, led to him and the Nazis becoming the evil they were. We don’t get to reframe it as something as simple as a popcorn movie. People, lots and lots of people, all made that great darkness happen.
So yes. In your terms, WWII was a sequel.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Aside from it being slightly crass....
Yes. The Second World War was in those terms a sequel to The Great War. You can’t really ignore the academic discussions you wish to, because on even a surface level, the Second World War was a direct result of how things ended and proceeded after the first. That’s basic history. It’s no good pretending the Nazis just sprang forth from no-where and took over Germany and decided to have a War because that’s what evil empires do. The Nazis were the German state, and that all came about because of the events of the Great War, and after. History isn’t a video game, where you introduce some new villains for your second part.
In narrative history, ironically, (literature) we have known since time immemorial that monsters don’t simply spring into being, that they are often the result of human choices and actions. Beowulf is very old indeed and knew that.
Hitler was a human, same as any other...and his experiences after WWI, and a confluence of political events, led to him and the Nazis becoming the evil they were. We don’t get to reframe it as something as simple as a popcorn movie. People, lots and lots of people, all made that great darkness happen.
So yes. In your terms, WWII was a sequel.

And waiting for WW3 is like waiting for the sequel to Avatar, no one is interested yet it's probably going to happen anyway.

 

[Phaser Two]

Sad that they couldn't have just approached Sir Patrick to begin with and done a story in the post-Nemesis era instead of this faux prequel with nice acting and some truly legendarily awful writing. On the plus side, we can have these discussions, I guess.

 

[BillJ]

Sad that they couldn't have just approached Sir Patrick to begin with and done a story in the post-Nemesis era instead of this faux prequel with nice acting and some truly legendarily awful writing. On the plus side, we can have these discussions, I guess.

I think that there is a great show in there somewhere. I honestly do. I think it has gotten lost in their attempt to try and juggle a new interpretation with a fifty year old timeline.

 

[Phaser Two]

I think that there is a great show in there somewhere. I honestly do. I think it has gotten lost in their attempt to try and juggle a new interpretation with a fifty year old timeline.

I agree with that. The Mudd episode was really, really good. It was also the most episodic. So the real problem is probably that their arc was garbage, and made no sense with canon.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I agree with that. The Mudd episode was really, really good. It was also the most episodic. So the real problem is probably that their arc was garbage, and made no sense with canon.

The Mudd episode's ending encapsulates what's wrong with Discovery. They reimagined Mudd as an ice cold killer, Klingon conspirator and then... he gets off with a tiny slap on the wrist because TOS continuity. Not because it made any sense or was a natural conclusion to his arc.

 

[BillJ]

They reimagined Mudd as an ice cold killer, Klingon conspirator and then...

Also is puzzling that none of this is in his records in "Mudd's Women". It seems like it would be very important information if another Starfleet vessel were to run into him at a future time.

It is the same fault that plagued a few of the Enterprise episodes, like "Acquisition" and "Regeneration". Where they simply act like all is good because Archer didn't get the name of the species he was dealing with.

 

[Phaser Two]

The Mudd episode's ending encapsulates what's wrong with Discovery. They reimagined Mudd as an ice cold killer, Klingon conspirator and then... he gets off with a tiny slap on the wrist because TOS continuity. Not because it made any sense or was a natural conclusion to his arc.

LOL, you're right, even that one had problems. But by that point I was pretending it was in an alternate universe anyway, and with that in mind, it worked and was highly entertaining. After that, the writing got bad, then comically horrible (L'Rell haz bomb!!), so the show ceased functioning for me on any level.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

The Mudd episode's ending encapsulates what's wrong with Discovery. They reimagined Mudd as an ice cold killer, Klingon conspirator and then... he gets off with a tiny slap on the wrist because TOS continuity. Not because it made any sense or was a natural conclusion to his arc.

I think for some it was easier to assume that Mudd was always an ice cold killer, even in TOS (an interpretation I don’t subscribe to), which is based on looking back at TOS through a modern lens. Since there’s a whole 10 years before Mudd’s Women, it would have made more sense to me that Mudd just escaped from the disco - the end of “magic” was like the end of Revenge of the Sith - everyone had to be where they were just before the TOS episode... or so it seemed.

It is the same fault that plagued a few of the Enterprise episodes, like "Acquisition" and "Regeneration". Where they simply act like all is good because Archer didn't get the name of the species he was dealing with.

I always rationalised Enterprise by thinking that the war with the Romulans meant that Starfleet had a load of records destroyed or severely damaged - maybe the Romulans attacked Earth or an embryonic version of Memory Alpha meaning that Starfleet lost a lot of info they had on species like the Ferengi and the Borg. I know it’s a simplistic explanation but I think it works when you’re a hundred years before TOS. I don’t think that explanation works when you’re only 10 years before TOS - unless the Klingons did the same and attacked MA or earth or somewhere else where records were kept. They did conquer almost the entire federation during the war, remember.