So what might have been Elan's super secret plan?

[Peelee]

Also, I dispute that Tarquin can't be defeated off-panel unless he allows it. Tarquin was able to win off-panel because he knew someone had to and he could fill that niche in the story. Similarly, he knows he's a villain and will eventually get knocked down. He grossly overestimates his importance in the story, and being knocked down off-panel is very much in the cards for him, especially if he's only expecting to get defeated on-panel. It's a big blind spot for him.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're not a fan of The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly?

How is that a prequel? It was made after Fistfull of Dollars and For a Few Dollars more, and was focused on a Civil War campaign that actually happened. (No it was not a documentary).
Not seeing it as a prequel. It was a stand alone good film

The Godfather II called.

Not a prequel.

Rogue One and Red Dragon were good.

OK Rogue One was a good prequel. Not as good as original, but good.

[Tzardok]

Fate/Zero was a pretty good prequel for Fate/Stay Night.

[Plactus]

Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

X-Men: First Class is a good movie, although there are enough continuity issues between it and the earlier movies that some people don't consider it a prequel.

[pearl jam]

Normally, prequels are offered as a means of explaining how we got to where we were in the main story, rather than, say, a completely independent story that really adds no explanation and could just as easily happen after as before, which is how I rank Temple of Doom. There is nothing in that movie that really does anything to add to Raiders or, for that matter, the one after Temple of Doom that I have mostly stricken from my memory. I was browsing definitions and found this sentence in one of them, which I kinda like: "A prequel is a work that forms part of a backstory to the preceding work."

Admittedly, I haven't watched Temple of Doom in, well, probably longer than many people on these forums have been alive (gah, I'm old), but I did not feel that it lent anything to the ongoing story and was, in actuality, a complete one-off. Nothing added to the lore, no questions answered, no neato explanations of anything depicted in Raiders, etc. So that was my thought process.

And, yes, temporally.

I believe the reason that they set the Temple of Doom story prior to Raiders was because the end of Raiders seemed to suggest that Indy and Marion would start a relationship that would last at least a little while, but they couldn't get Karen Allen back for Temple of Doom, so they just set it ahead of Raiders to get around the problem.

[Kish]

Fair point, if you ignore that Laurin got them onto that airship and that the actual climactic duel was between Laurin and V after the wizard effortlessly took Tarquin out of the fight. I am not inclined to do that.

Tarquin's ending in Blood Runs in the Family was literally him screaming helplessly after Elan because--while he had gotten what he said he wanted, Elan leaving determined to come back and defeat him later--Elan hadn't used the right tone.

So no, "Tarquin can only be beaten off screen as a canonical strategy if he allows it" is close to exactly backwards: Tarquin can never win because he sets his win conditions in impossible to achieve places. And if Tarquin shows up planning to "bring the climax to Elan," he'll be casually annihilated by Xykon with a line about him reminding Xykon of someone who Xykon thinks annoyed him once.

[Ruck]

Also, I dispute that Tarquin can't be defeated off-panel unless he allows it. Tarquin was able to win off-panel because he knew someone had to and he could fill that niche in the story. Similarly, he knows he's a villain and will eventually get knocked down. He grossly overestimates his importance in the story, and being knocked down off-panel is very much in the cards for him, especially if he's only expecting to get defeated on-panel. It's a big blind spot for him.

Tarquin's ending in Blood Runs in the Family was literally him screaming helplessly after Elan because--while he had gotten what he said he wanted, Elan leaving determined to come back and defeat him later--Elan hadn't used the right tone.

So no, "Tarquin can only be beaten off screen as a canonical strategy if he allows it" is close to exactly backwards: Tarquin can never win because he sets his win conditions in impossible to achieve places. And if Tarquin shows up planning to "bring the climax to Elan," he'll be casually annihilated by Xykon with a line about him reminding Xykon of someone who Xykon thinks annoyed him once.

Yeah, well said, I concur.

I might even go so far as to say I think it's more likely Rich never actually came up with Elan's actual plan and just plans to reference Tarquin's defeat offhandedly in the denouement, than it is that he is planning to write a sequel book about how Elan's plan defeated Tarquin.

[Yendor]

Yeah, well said, I concur.

I might even go so far as to say I think it's more likely Rich never actually came up with Elan's actual plan and just plans to reference Tarquin's defeat offhandedly in the denouement, than it is that he is planning to write a sequel book about how Elan's plan defeated Tarquin.

Fun idea: Tarquin's defeat (but not the plan leading up to it) is covered in a bonus strip. He goes to Hell and finds a copy of the book, which shows that not only is his demise not included in the main story, it takes up a single page.

[Peelee]

How is that a prequel? It was made after Fistfull of Dollars and For a Few Dollars more, and was focused on a Civil War campaign that actually happened. (No it was not a documentary).
Not seeing it as a prequel.

Well, as prequels tend to be made after the original film, and take place chronologically before the original film, and given that you readily admit that these two facts apply to TGTBATU, I'm more than a bit confused as to how you don't already acknowledge that it's a prequel.

[Kardwill]

Well, as prequels tend to be made after the original film, and take place chronologically before the original film, and given that you readily admit that these two facts apply to TGTBATU, I'm more than a bit confused as to how you don't already acknowledge that it's a prequel.

It doesn't really feel like one, though. Like Indy 1/2, the Dollar movies feel like different movies that just happen to have the same iconic character.

In fact, are they even in the same continuity? If I remember right, Lee Van Cleef plays 2 different characters in "good, bad, ugly" and in "for a few dollars more"

But overall, it's difficult to pull a continuity on iconic characters like The Man With No Name, Indy or Bond, since, by definition, they stay true to their "icon" and don't really change.

Fun idea: Tarquin's defeat (but not the plan leading up to it) is covered in a bonus strip. He goes to Hell and finds a copy of the book, which shows that not only is his demise not included in the main story, it takes up a single page.

I'm willing to bet that if we see Elan defeating Tarquin, it will take exactly one single box ^^ (possibly with Tarquin tied up and outraged)

[Peelee]

It doesn't really feel like one, though.

Sure, but feelings don't make something a prequel. Both they movie and Temple of Doom are generally agreed to be prequels.

Also, actors being reused as different characters doesn't mean different continuity.

[Kardwill]

Also, actors being reused as different characters doesn't mean different continuity.

It really doesn't help to sell the continuity, though.

[Peelee]

It really doesn't help to sell the continuity, though.

Sure, but that's not relevant. If everyone in universe treats them as a different character, then they're a different character. Hell, it can even be subtly played as a psychological angle, like how in Peter Pan Mr. Darling and Captain Hook are typically played by the same actor. It can even be lampshaded, like how Julia Roberts' character Tess in Oceans 12 is used as a lookalike for Julia Roberts.

Point is, having an actor play a different role doesn't make it not a prequel.

[KorvinStarmast]

X-Men: First Class is a good movie, although there are enough continuity issues between it and the earlier movies that some people don't consider it a prequel.

Well, as prequels tend to be made after the original film, and take place chronologically before the original film, and given that you readily admit that these two facts apply to TGTBATU, I'm more than a bit confused as to how you don't already acknowledge that it's a prequel.

He wasn't referred to as Blondie in either of those two films.
What is your source, or your basis, that it takes place before the two Dollars films?

[hroþila]

Can I just say this is the weirdest hill for any of you to die on

[Peelee]

He wasn't referred to as Blondie in either of those two films.
What is your source, or your basis, that it takes place before the two Dollars films?

From Wikipedia:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is considered a prequel, since it depicts Eastwood's character gradually acquiring the clothing he wears throughout the first two films and because it takes place during the American Civil War (1861–1865), whereas the other two films feature comparatively more modern firearms and other props. For example, Lee Van Cleef's character in For a Few Dollars More appears to be a Confederate veteran who has come down in the world, and a graveyard scene in A Fistful of Dollars features a gravestone dated 1874.

Unless the Civil War takes place at different dates in the Dollars trilogy, that one has to be a prequel.

Can I just say this is the weirdest hill for any of you to die on

You should see me talk about the World Between Worlds in Star Wars.

[gbaji]

Rogue One and Red Dragon were good.

Rogue One is definitely a prequel, and definitely was good. SW is tricky though, because technically any and every series/film set prior to the end point in RoS now counts as a prequel. So Mandalorian is a prequel (which was definitely good, at least the first two seasons). Ahsoka is a prequel (not so good). Andor is also most definitely a prequel (and good), regardless of where we decide to stick our timeline pin in.

Point of order on Red Dragon. The book came out in 1981, a good 7 years before the Silence of the Lambs novel (which was specifically written as a sequel to Red Dragon). And.... even if we're just looking at films, "Manhunter" came out in 1986 (which was the original film version of Red Dragon). Note that this means that there was a film version of Red Dragon before both the book Silence of the Lambs (writtten in 1988) *and* the film Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Dont get me wrong. The film actually titled "Red Dragon" is vastly superior to Manhunter and should be considered the version to watch (and it uses Hopkins as Hannibal, and a brilliant performance by Edward Norton). But yeah... It is not a prequel via any method we could use to apply the term. It's a remake of the original (a much much better remake).

If we're talking thriller books made into films later, there are a ton of very very good prequels in the Jack Ryan related books by Tom Clancy. Patriot Games, while subtle to detect, is a prequel to Hunt for Red October (and both the books and films were released in order to make Patriot Games a prequel). Ryan is first offered a job to work for the CIA in Patriot Games, and is working as an analyst in Hunt for Red October, and his past working with the UK is more relevant in the book than in the film. To be fair, both books and films can be read/watched in any order and it doesn't matter (very small details are all that's there). Without Remorse, on the other hand, was written specifically as a prequel, and shows it (and is also an excellent book). Sadly, the film version is basically a completely different/new continuity, so we can't really call it a prequel to anything. It wasn't as good as the book (and frankly, other than the title and character names had absolutely nothing in common with the book, so...).


While I"m not sure it counts (for a couple reasons), the Babylon 5 film "In the Beginning" is kind of a prequel? It's technically set chronologically after the series and other films, but it's literally Molari telling a story about what happened during the Earth-Miinbari war (and I think it's good, so there's that). But it's a spin off film from a series, so I'm not sure it qualifies on that ground either.

I could probably think of some more. I think that prequels are as likely to be "as good as the original' as sequels. In some cases, they make a great film, have options for more, so they make more and the quality suffers (and will whether it's a prequel or sequel). Other times? Either could be a an excellent work. Usually, it depends on whether the film project is just about cashing in on a hot commodity, or they're actually approaching it as a separate project, building on another, and they really want to make it great.

[Wintermoot]

You know, I've never really spent a lot of time thinking about what Elan's secret plan was/is, but I really like the idea from upthread someone had of it involving Haley's dad leading a troupe of play actors/entertainers/clowns in a series of anti-Tarquin take-down pantomimes/plays, like Hamlet's play within a play in order to shift public acceptance of Tarquin's rule and making people realize what a bad guy he is.

The "equipment and training" he references is learning how to stage the plays and getting the costumes/props etc.

I like this for a lot of reasons:

It would be an Elan plan because it involves Bardwork
It hits Tarquin where he lives in using propaganda/population control against him
It undermines him making him the fool and the target of character assassination
The whole hamlet analogy is fitting

I think that's a brilliant idea the more I think about it.

But, like quite a few others, I don't expect to get more than a brief bit at the end with most of this happening offscreen.

[Mordar]

Not a prequel.

Re: Godfather II -> Perhaps this is appeal to authority, but an awful lot of film people disagree. So much so that it is the "Best Prequel" on any number of film-based websites. Can you capitulate that it is at least three-fourths-prequel?

Can I just say this is the weirdest hill for any of you to die on

Nah, Persistent Resurrection has been cast.

Point of order on Red Dragon. The book came out in 1981, a good 7 years before the Silence of the Lambs novel (which was specifically written as a sequel to Red Dragon). And.... even if we're just looking at films, "Manhunter" came out in 1986 (which was the original film version of Red Dragon). Note that this means that there was a film version of Red Dragon before both the book Silence of the Lambs (writtten in 1988) *and* the film Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Dont get me wrong. The film actually titled "Red Dragon" is vastly superior to Manhunter and should be considered the version to watch (and it uses Hopkins as Hannibal, and a brilliant performance by Edward Norton). But yeah... It is not a prequel via any method we could use to apply the term. It's a remake of the original (a much much better remake).

I think it should qualify since we're talking about a distinct movie universe (e.g. Hopkins as Lecter). The book timing and previous film version muddy the water, but absent SotL there is no Red Dragon film.

If we're talking thriller books made into films later, there are a ton of very very good prequels in the Jack Ryan related books by Tom Clancy. Patriot Games, while subtle to detect, is a prequel to Hunt for Red October (and both the books and films were released in order to make Patriot Games a prequel). Ryan is first offered a job to work for the CIA in Patriot Games, and is working as an analyst in Hunt for Red October, and his past working with the UK is more relevant in the book than in the film. To be fair, both books and films can be read/watched in any order and it doesn't matter (very small details are all that's there). Without Remorse, on the other hand, was written specifically as a prequel, and shows it (and is also an excellent book). Sadly, the film version is basically a completely different/new continuity, so we can't really call it a prequel to anything. It wasn't as good as the book (and frankly, other than the title and character names had absolutely nothing in common with the book, so...).

Another quandary with the books and films intersecting, particularly given the multiple actors leading the films, and their different uses to introduce the new leads (SoAF as reboot seems egregious to me, and I like Affleck). At risk of losing my Harrison Ford fanclub membership, I actually think he was the least-good Jack Ryan.

- M

[Peelee]

SW is tricky though, because technically any and every series/film set prior to the end point in RoS now counts as a prequel.

What? That's not right. The original movie is the point where sequel/prequel delineation is.

So Mandalorian is a prequel

You are the only person I've ever heard that from. And it's wrong. Not only because it doesn't take place after the original movie (except for small portions in flashbacks), but also because it's not following the same characters or story. Rogue One and Episodes I-III are prequels because they still follow the same characters or story, just from earlier. Mandalorian is an entirely separate story that also takes place later. It's not even a sequel. It's just another story in that franchise.

[Ruck]

Also, actors being reused as different characters doesn't mean different continuity.

Worked great for Deadwood and Garrett Dillahunt.

[wilphe]

Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

Half of Godfather II

[Peelee]

Worked great for Deadwood and Garrett Dillahunt.

Also Law and Order. Before the revival, at least.

[gbaji]

I think it should qualify since we're talking about a distinct movie universe (e.g. Hopkins as Lecter). The book timing and previous film version muddy the water, but absent SotL there is no Red Dragon film.

I don't know if mere cast changes count though. I think that to qualify as a prequel the actual story has to have been written after the story it's referencing, but detail events that occur chronologically before the events in the previously written story. The order in which film viewers see them should not really matter.

And yes. That can get muddied if the films were actually produced in different order than the books they are based on were written. But that's not what hapepned either. The Hopkins/Norton "Red Dragon" film is a remake of the original 1986 film. A very very good remake, but that doesn't make it a prequel. Just because most film viewers saw Silence of the Lambs first should not change that status. If that was the case, a whole lot of films either become or cease to be prequels/sequels depending on the individual audience members order of viewing (which would be a really strange and unusuable way to determine this).

Another quandary with the books and films intersecting, particularly given the multiple actors leading the films, and their different uses to introduce the new leads (SoAF as reboot seems egregious to me, and I like Affleck). At risk of losing my Harrison Ford fanclub membership, I actually think he was the least-good Jack Ryan.

Yeah. Again though, I think the order in which the stories were written is what we should be looking at, not just releases, and definitely not "which actor played which character".

I actually kinda agree with you on Ford though. He was pretty decent in Patriot Games, but looked really worn out in Clear and Present Danger (My understanding is that he was actually very sick during most of the shooting, and it really shows). It's kinda sad because I'm not a huge Alec Baldwin fan, but he did an excellent job with the character in Hunt for Red October (and let's face it, that was possibly one of Sean Connery's best performances too). Ford, who I am a big fan of almost kinda phoned in the character in the two films he did.

And yeah. Sum of All Fears is an oddity. It's a reboot. It dramatically changes core aspects of the book. And Affleck was right in his "I'm going to do a series of really crappy films" phase. So I really really wanted to hate it. Yet.... oddly, I actually kinda really like it. Go figure.

What? That's not right. The original movie is the point where sequel/prequel delineation is.

Is it? I mentioned "where you put a pin in it", and that's what I was talking about. If you have a lot of films in a series, which one is the starting point at which all others are defined to be prequels or sequels? Sure. The simple answer is "the first one', but I'm not sure I agree.

I think that something is a prequel if it is written after another work in the same "world", takes place chronologically before the events in that previously written work, and serves the purpose of filling in historical gaps or explaining how things came to be that existed in that previously written work.

We can certainly say that Andor and Rogue one are prequels to Star Wars (ANH), since both directly fill in details that are relevant to the first film in the series. We can clearly state that the PT is also a prequel to ANH (and the entire OT). But at some point, we have to also consider which previously released film we're primariliy referencing in a future released one.

You are the only person I've ever heard that from. And it's wrong. Not only because it doesn't take place after the original movie (except for small portions in flashbacks), but also because it's not following the same characters or story.

I'm assuming you meant to write "does take place after the original movie" (or "doesn't take place before the original movie" maybe?).

Is Mandalorian a sequel to the OT? Or is it more of a prequel to the ST? I would argue the latter. Mandalorian doesn't follow any of the characters from the OT (well, Luke is in there a tiny bit). It does, however, follow and "introduce" characters and events that have direct relevance to the situations and events that occur in the Sequel Trilogy. We're clearly seeing bits that fill in the historical gaps in the creation of the First Order, right? As ugly and unliked as it was, we're also seeing bits that preface the project that brings Palpatine back in RoS, right?

Rogue One and Episodes I-III are prequels because they still follow the same characters or story, just from earlier. Mandalorian is an entirely separate story that also takes place later. It's not even a sequel. It's just another story in that franchise.

And if we only had the first two seasons, I'd probably agree with you. Sadly, that third season is clearly now behaving as a prequel for the ST. I know. I know. We all hate the ST, and would like it to be tossed in a dumpster and lit on fire. But... that's the direction Mandalorian is going.

Same deal with Ahsoka. Clearly a prequel to the ST. It's literally setting up events that will presumably help explain the state of the New Republic and how things get to where they are by the events in The Force Awakens. It's also, amusingly, a sequel to Rebels, which is itself a prequel to ANH. So....

Um... In the same way, I suspect the new series The Acolyte, will be a prequel to the PT, and not so much to the OT.

Again. I tend to label things based on what characters and events and setting bits they are either building on (sequel), or backfilling (prequel).

One can also look at any series of films written/released in chronological order as a sequence of sequels. But anything in the same "world" released later, and out of crhonological order to any in that sequece can properly be called a prequel. We assume that the "current timeline" is whatever the most recent and latest in chronological order is. Anything released after that point, but which takes place prior to that "current point in time" can be considered a prequel.

Consider the Star Trek TV series'. Each one was done in chronological order (some with overlaps even). But the assumption was that "right now" is whatever time frame the last film/show was in. When Enterprise was released, that was clearly a prequel (no question since it covered a time period before TOS). But consider "The Undiscovered Country". It was set in TOS time frame, and included the original cast, right? So a sequel in that sequence of films. But... It was also a prequel to TNG, since TNG was the current running series and "point in time" the world was in at the time. Heck. It included references to events that were current in TNG timeline. It's literally detailing the events that explain the Klingons creating an alliance with the Federation (a condition that exists in TNG). The peace talks are at Khitomer, which is a direct historical fill in to the "Khitomer Accords" referenced in TNG previously as being critical to that aliance. The film is literally filing in historical details of events we've already seeing taking place in the future of that "world" in TNG. And they throw in an ancestor to Worf in there (played by Michael Dorn), you know... just in case there weren't enough tie-ins for the audience to pick up on.

So, do we still just ignore that and restrict the label of "prequel" only to stories detailed chronologically before the first episode of the the original Star Trek series? I think that's a bit too limited. But that's just me. I have no problem labeling something as simultaneously a sequel to one story, while a prequel to another. If someone inserts a story that takes place in between ESB and RotJ today, that's exactly how I'd label it. It's a story both written and chronologically taking place after ESB (so a sequel), but written after while choronologically before RotJ (so a prequel to that film).

Not sure why this is an issue.

[Mordar]

I don't know if mere cast changes count though. I think that to qualify as a prequel the actual story has to have been written after the story it's referencing, but detail events that occur chronologically before the events in the previously written story. The order in which film viewers see them should not really matter.

I agree re: events order, but not "written" order. I think this is so because of the transition of works across media - a series of books might be written in standard A-B-C order, but for some reason a studio elects to make Movie B. When they make Movie A, with events happening before Movie B, it is a prequel, in no small part because the Book universe and Movie universe are different. The consumers of Movie universe may be, but are not required to be (because frankly that way lies financial ruin), previously consumers of the Book universe.

Re: actor changes

I think it *can* reset prequel-ness by shifting the frame of reference. In the case of Clancy, Sum becomes the new Movie A because of Affleck. So I wouldn't expect anything to present from earlier in that version of Ryan's life, but if it did, even though after Red October both as written and presented, I think it would be Prequel.

Re: established point of reference for "prequel"

I don't think every SW film, for instance, has to necessarily be before ANH to be a prequel...but only with the following condition: Films occurring chronologically after ANH can still be a prequel if they are films focused on a single character introduced after the original trilogy. A Kylo Ren feature, for instance, that details his life before Force Awakens would, to me, be a Kylo Ren prequel.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

From Wikipedia:

nope
Lee Van Cleef's Confederate character died in GBU. GBU was a stand alone film.
Thanks for sharing why you think otherwise.

[Kish]

The term "prequel" has a specific meaning which is not "anything other than the last thing in the series."

[Peelee]

nope

Yep.

Lee Van Cleef's Confederate character died in GBU.

Yes, he did. Again, that was a different character.

Thanks for sharing why you think otherwise.

It'syou who thinks otherwise. You're free to think it's not a prequel, but you're wrong to think that anyone who disagrees is the odd one out here.

[Precure]

Tarquin's continuing popularity and fans' expectations that he shouldn't be off-screened is the ultimate proof that, despite of Rich Burlew's wishes, Tarquin won.

About SW prequels, any movie that showcase Rey's past would be a prequel to the sequel trilogy, no?

[woweedd]

Tarquin's continuing popularity and fans' expectations that he shouldn't be off-screened is the ultimate proof that, despite of Rich Burlew's wishes, Tarquin won.

About SW prequels, any movie that showcase Rey's past would be a prequel to the sequel trilogy, no?

I mean, I appreciate him as a well-written element of the fiction, but I also view him as what he is: an arc villain with aspirations, who doesn't even lead his own party, a dreadful strategist, amd, most of all, a control freak who throws petulant tantrums when things don't go hos way.