• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Problems with Prequels...

Most of these are not true prequels though.

The Godfather Part 2 is a sequel with flashbacks.
Batman Begins is a reboot of the movie franchise.
Casino Royale is a reboot of the movie franchise.
The X-Men "prequel" movies erased the first trilogy from the timeline.

I didn't even know Good, Bad and The Ugly was a prequel until years after I saw it. I thought it was just Clint Eastwood playing a similar character to the ones he always plays in Westerns. I'll grant you it's good but it's the only real prequel in your list. I hope you enjoyed my meaningless rebuttal

Here is my even more meaningless (part) rebuttal (and part agreement). Sometimes "prequel" describes followups where it is not always possible to apply a label defined solely in terms of intertextuality. In the case of The Godfather Part II, the narrative combines elements of a prequel with those of a more generalized sequel by having two intercut narrative strands, one continuing from the first film (the mafia family story under the leadership of Michael Corleone), and one, completely separate, detailing events that precede it (the story of his father Vito Corleone in his youth). In this sense the film can be regarded as both a "prequel and a sequel" (i.e., both a prior and a continuing story), and is often referred to in this manner.
In the original Planet of the Apes series, even though the latter three films depict events chronologically prior to those of the first two films, the narrative itself is continuous, as three characters from the first two films go back in time. The later installments (Escape from..., Conquest of..., and Battle for...) are sometimes called "prequels" in a broad sense of the word, and they are also sequels defined both broadly (as later installments) and narrowly (as continuation of the previously established storyline).
In recent times the term "prequel" has also been applied to origin-story reboots, such as Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Batman Begins, and Casino Royale. The creators of both Batman Begins and Rise of the Planet of the Apes also stated their intent to dispense with the continuity of the previous films so they would exist as separate pieces of work, with Christopher Nolan—director of Batman Begins—explicitly stating he does not consider it a prequel. Here, "prequel" denotes status as a "franchise-renewing original" that depicts events earlier in the (internally inconsistent) narrative cycle than those of a previous installment. Most reviewers require that a prequel must lead up to the beginning of its original work, which is inconsistent with works that dispense with the narrative of previous work and are not significantly within the same continuity.
The 2009 film Star Trek features characters from the 1960s TV series Star Trek, but earlier in their careers. However, the film is set in an alternate timeline caused by a Romulan captain from the universe of the original series going back in time and interfering with history. Thus, the film has been described as simultaneously a prequel and a reboot.
 
Here is my even more meaningless (part) rebuttal (and part agreement). Sometimes "prequel" describes followups where it is not always possible to apply a label defined solely in terms of intertextuality. In the case of The Godfather Part II, the narrative combines elements of a prequel with those of a more generalized sequel by having two intercut narrative strands, one continuing from the first film (the mafia family story under the leadership of Michael Corleone), and one, completely separate, detailing events that precede it (the story of his father Vito Corleone in his youth). In this sense the film can be regarded as both a "prequel and a sequel" (i.e., both a prior and a continuing story), and is often referred to in this manner.
In the original Planet of the Apes series, even though the latter three films depict events chronologically prior to those of the first two films, the narrative itself is continuous, as three characters from the first two films go back in time. The later installments (Escape from..., Conquest of..., and Battle for...) are sometimes called "prequels" in a broad sense of the word, and they are also sequels defined both broadly (as later installments) and narrowly (as continuation of the previously established storyline).
In recent times the term "prequel" has also been applied to origin-story reboots, such as Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Batman Begins, and Casino Royale. The creators of both Batman Begins and Rise of the Planet of the Apes also stated their intent to dispense with the continuity of the previous films so they would exist as separate pieces of work, with Christopher Nolan—director of Batman Begins—explicitly stating he does not consider it a prequel. Here, "prequel" denotes status as a "franchise-renewing original" that depicts events earlier in the (internally inconsistent) narrative cycle than those of a previous installment. Most reviewers require that a prequel must lead up to the beginning of its original work, which is inconsistent with works that dispense with the narrative of previous work and are not significantly within the same continuity.
The 2009 film Star Trek features characters from the 1960s TV series Star Trek, but earlier in their careers. However, the film is set in an alternate timeline caused by a Romulan captain from the universe of the original series going back in time and interfering with history. Thus, the film has been described as simultaneously a prequel and a reboot.

Well, for the Planet of the apes, they had no choice but to make a prequel/time travel story after the second one since the Earth was supposed to be destroyed.
 
I put the characters first and the setting second. As long as I can get behind the characters, the setting doesn't matter as much.

Take Better Call Saul. That's a prequel I'm interested in. After the end of Breaking Bad, Saul is washed up. There's nowhere to go. The only way to do a spin-off with Saul was to do a prequel. I'm interested in seeing how Jimmy McGill became Saul Goodman, so that's what I'm following. Along with how Mike Ehrmantraut went from ex-cop to private eye entrenched in the criminal underground.

Caprica was another prequel I liked. I was interested in the Greystones, Clarice, and how the Cylons came to believe in their one God. I liked the Adama story but it was the one I was least invested in.

A good prequel makes you forget the series that follows it, even though it's building up to it.

Enterprise didn't work for me. I couldn't get into the characters at all. I stopped watching after six episodes in 2001. I binged the series in 2010, but I still couldn't get into it. Before you say it's because I binged it and there was no time to digest it, that's bullshit. I was instantly hooked on Breaking Bad in 2013 and I literally burned through the entire series in one week. I. Could. Not. Stop. Watching. It. I was that hooked into it. Same as Orange Is the New Black, which I can't wait to binge through every season. But, back to Enterprise. The characters didn't grab me. The premise didn't grab me. The story didn't interest me and I didn't care about how it tied into TOS.

If Discovery makes me care about the characters, care about the premise, and show how it can build up into -- or supplement -- TOS, then I couldn't care less about when it's set. I've heard rumors that the main character might be Number One from "The Cage". That interests me. That's a character I'd like to see more of. If the Captain is a minority woman, then all the rumors fit. The lead is a woman. The captain is a minority. Check and check. Of course, it might not be Number One, but it's something that has me wondering.

Likewise, this referenced event we haven't seen. It could be the Sheliak. It could be the Klingon skirmish on Donatu V. Both would be interesting. It might be neither of those either, but, again it's something that has me wondering.

If I'm wondering, I'm engaged. I'm wondering about what might be possible. That's an effective prequel.
 
Movies and television in general are what's stagnant today. How many new projects are not sequels, prequels, sidequels, spinoffs, reboots and reimaginings of existing franchises?

What exactly is the difference between a 'sidequel' and a spinoff? Or between a reboot and a reimagining?

That was the major problem with that other show was that no amount of explaining away can possibly reconcile that the NX-01 did not exist in canon. There was an established line of ships named Enterprise referenced on numerous occasions that was simply ignored. I believe that the studio made a (simple-minded) edict to B&B that the next show must be on an “Enterprise” so if that was indeed a constraint that they had on them then that is fine, but it wasn't very hard to do even some cursory research for how to make a show on an enterprise in a previous time-frame, a quick google search would have done the job. If that constraint wasn't there, then simply making the NX-01 (despite the other criticism's I have on its design) a ship with a different name would have solved such a fundamental problem.

That is soooo far down the list of problems that Enterprise had that it's not even worth mentioning. There are tons of far more egregious retcons contained even just in TOS itself. If Enterprise had been a well handled show overall, it would have succeeded, period. The name of the ship would not have dragged it down in the slightest.
 
Movies and television in general are what's stagnant today. How many new projects are not sequels, prequels, sidequels, spinoffs, reboots and reimaginings of existing franchises?

Duh, I forgot the remakes!
doh.gif


What exactly is the difference between a 'sidequel' and a spinoff? Or between a reboot and a reimagining?

Infographic: Movie Franchise Lexicon:
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/movie-franchise-lexicon-infographic/

As you can see, there's also the threequel, midquel, parallaquel, interquel, pseudosequel, retcon, adaptation, re-adaptation, reinterpretation, cross-over, instalment, etc.

What can I say, Hollywood is very inventive… or not! :lol:
 
What exactly is the difference between a 'sidequel' and a spinoff? ...

A sidequel is happening at the same time in the same reality as the original show, while a spinoff not only happens at a later date but also borrows elements (mostly characters) from the original show.

(e.g. Ally McBeal is a sidequel of The Practice, while Boston legal is a spinoff of it.)
 
Movies and television in general are what's stagnant today. How many new projects are not sequels, prequels, sidequels, spinoffs, reboots and reimaginings of existing franchises?
Duh, I forgot the remakes!
doh.gif

There's also the threequel, midquel, parallaquel, interquel, pseudosequel, retcon, adaptation, re-adaptation, reinterpretation, cross-over, instalment, etc.
What can I say, Hollywood is very inventive… or not! :lol:

For example The Scorpion King 3: Battle For Redemption is the threequel to the spin-off The Scorpion King that is also the prequel to the sequel The Mummy 2 of the re-imagining and/or remake The Mummy of the original The Mummy.
doh.gif
:brickwall:

By the way, there's a reworking for a new reboot of The Mummy that will be first film in a series of interconnected shared cinematic universe films. :whistle: :rofl:
 
For example The Scorpion King 3: Battle For Redemption is the threequel to the spin-off The Scorpion King that is also the prequel to the sequel The Mummy 2 of the re-imagining and/or remake The Mummy of the original The Mummy.
doh.gif
:brickwall:

By the way, there's a reworking for a new reboot of The Mummy that will be first film in a series of interconnected shared cinematic universe films. :whistle: :rofl:

That's confusing.
 
For example The Scorpion King 3: Battle For Redemption is the threequel to the spin-off The Scorpion King that is also the prequel to the sequel The Mummy 2 of the re-imagining and/or remake The Mummy of the original The Mummy.
doh.gif
:brickwall:

By the way, there's a reworking for a new reboot of The Mummy that will be first film in a series of interconnected shared cinematic universe films. :whistle: :rofl:
I actually rather enjoyed the Mummy films and their various spinoffs.

Also, the new Mummy film will feature Trek alumni Sofia Boutella and Alex Kurtzman. Not sure how I feel about that.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345759/?ref_=nv_sr_1
 
By the time we've actually seen the pilot episode on CBS, half of us will change our minds on the show anyway. Right now, I love it. But there's absolutely no telling what I'll be posting after I've see the pilot. LOL

And Star Trek most certainly does NOT have a good record with their pilot episodes.
 
By the time we've actually seen the pilot episode on CBS, half of us will change our minds on the show anyway. Right now, I love it. But there's absolutely no telling what I'll be posting after I've see the pilot. LOL

And Star Trek most certainly does NOT have a good record with their pilot episodes.

You didn't like "The Cage" or was it "The Menagerie"? I keep forgetting which one it is...
 
I think there are four good pilots out of the six.

Based on the track record below, I think odds are the pilot for Discovery will be solid material.

"The Cage" --> Good, for the most part. Some flaws with the story but they didn't occur to me until later. And, obviously, it was made in 1964, so certain things you just have to bear with. i.e. Pike saying he can't get used to having a woman on the bridge when, in 1964, they probably thought that was being progressive. "Look, we've got women on the bridge! Pike has to get used to it!"

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" --> Great. Instantly sells you on Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the crew. The conflict is simple and compelling at the same time, "What's Captain Kirk going to do?"

"Encounter at Farpoint" --> This originally wasn't going to be a two-hour premiere and you can tell. The story is too thin and how do you square stringing Q and the Farpoint storyline together? Using how Picard deals with the being who was used by Groppler Zorn seems really forced as The Ultimate Example of how Humanity Has Changed. If I were Q, I would've chosen a higher-stakes test. The '80s-ness such as the music, the chase scene between the Enterprise are Q, and the courtroom are things I enjoy but only because that's the decade when I was a kid. It could've been horrible (not that it was) and I'd still enjoy it. Not exactly much of a defense on my part.

"Emissary" --> I thought this was a strong pilot in 1993. Unfortunately, my opinion of it also went up in 1997 after my mother died. I could see Sisko in my father. I wish this wasn't why I can relate to this pilot more than the others.

"Caretaker" -- This was a strong pilot. Stronger than most of the actual series and harder-edged. All the characters are well-defined from the beginning. Janeway has to pull it all together and Paris has a transformational arc.

"Broken Bow" -- The idea that Vulcan has basically occupied Earth for almost 90 years and has held Earth back the entire time doesn't square well with me at all. The Suliban seemed shoe-horned in as if the 22nd Century doesn't stand up well enough of its own. Otherwise, the pilot serves to set up the series even though I can't figure out why T'Pol would want to stay with these humans. Yeah, I don't like it.
 
Last edited:
The record for pilots is better than the record for first seasons. TNG, DS9, and ENT has pretty bad first seasons. VOY's was probably about on par with the rest of the series.

Mr Awe

I think voyager got better after seven came on board.
 
I think a prequel has unique disadvantages because a lot of the viewers will be bothered by either seeing new aliens ("why didn't we see them before/later") or already-seen aliens ("I don't want to just watch a remake" or "They're acting out-of-character").

I admit I disliked X-Men: First Class in part because it was really different in story and style to what the first films suggested about that universe's past (also I thought the new mutants were pretty uninteresting in terms of both personalities and powers, maybe because most of good characters had already been used).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top