The Star Wars thread - "Chewie, we're home." - The Bear and Badger

RedDave2

OK, maybe there are some prequels which are decent but really stretched to think off any that are great. X-Men first class is a good one (although I think thats more a reboot isnt it? It feels like it starts a different timeline to the first 3 movies to me). Rogue 1 is a good shout of how to do it because they didnt go near the main characters or set up. I'd argue its not a typical prequel, more a movie set before the events of the other movie if that makes sense.

Similar with Temple of Doom - I dont think I would consider it a prequel, just a film set in a different time with the same character. It doesnt really link at all with the other movies (Similar to Casino Royale with Bond I guess)

tin_robot

RedDave2 wrote:

OK, maybe there are some prequels which are decent but really stretched to think off any that are great. X-Men first class is a good one (although I think thats more a reboot isnt it? It feels like it starts a different timeline to the first 3 movies to me). Rogue 1 is a good shout of how to do it because they didnt go near the main characters or set up. I'd argue its not a typical prequel, more a movie set before the events of the other movie if that makes sense. Similar with Temple of Doom - I dont think I would consider it a prequel, just a film set in a different time with the same character. It doesnt really link at all with the other movies (Similar to Casino Royale with Bond I guess)

The later ones do explicitly link back to the original X-Men movies, though as ever with comic book films you can debate whether it's the same timeline or not...

One final bid for prequels that don't suck - I'd say the Planet of the Apes Prequels (both the 70s ones and the modern ones) are, at the very least, better than Beneath the Planet of the Apes. (But then I think "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" is the best of them all, which I'm fairly sure is a minority opinion...)

hylian_elf

Do the The Hobbit films count?!

(No, they don't)

superflyninja

I dont think in general that prequels are a good idea. I agree with Tin_robot, that they usually strip away the mystery. See Solo as a prime example.
Disney are just taking familiar, well-liked established characters and using them as an introduction to Disney's own new (mostly rubbish) characters. They already mined the original trilogy for characters and now have to move onto the prequels.

monkey

Planet of the Apes are definitely better but they’re canonically a reboot.

RedDave2

monkey wrote:

Planet of the Apes are definitely better but they’re canonically a reboot.

I think he is referring to the original 5. The second film is a sequel but then it goes back in time for the third, 4th and 5th (although it terms of pure story chronology, they aren't prequels as such)

tin_robot

RedDave2 wrote:

monkey wrote:

Planet of the Apes are definitely better but they’re canonically a reboot.

I think he is referring to the original 5. The second film is a sequel but then it goes back in time for the third, 4th and 5th (although it terms of pure story chronology, they aren't prequels as such)

Both. And, yes, they're all debatably prequels though I'd argue with the originals...

Spoiler:

Anyway, erm, Star Wars...

monkey

From hazy teenage, pot-addled memories, 2-5 are all garbage. But different levels of garbage. 3 & 4 are ok (3 is on the boring side iirc, 4 is schlocky but alright). 2 and 5 are very bad. This may be incorrect. Can’t remember 5 at all.

EvilRedEye

3-5 are Schrödingerquels - they exist in a quantum state of being both prequels and sequels at the same time.

monkey

Sprequels.

davyK

tin_robot wrote:

One final bid for prequels that don't suck - I'd say the Planet of the Apes Prequels (both the 70s ones and the modern ones) are, at the very least, better than Beneath the Planet of the Apes. (But then I think "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" is the best of them all, which I'm fairly sure is a minority opinion...)

You are right in that "Escape" was a clever idea and the ending also ties everything up with a bow. But it was cheap and I'd rather it finished with "Beneath" (which I re-watched recently) which despite being a bit creaky and more than a bit bonkers, I enjoyed. Beneath and Escape would almost be worth remakes in fact. From what I remember they could be tied into the recent remakes (except for the idiotic first one with Tim Roth)

But ultimately it was one book that was thrashed to death. I fancy reading that actually. In it the apes are more advanced technologically from what I know of it. Was written by French author Pierre Boule and translated by Xan Fielding - an interesting character who was a secret operative in Crete when the German's invaded in WW2. I read his memoires of that chapter in his life called "Hide and Seek". He also translated another work by Boule that was adapted in film form as "Bridge Over the River Kwai".

RamSteelwood

hylian_elf wrote:

Do the The Hobbit films count?!

(No, they don't)

They're shit anyway so doesn't help the 'are any prequels good?' argument

stellavista

The Hobbit films are decent enough, just not as good as LotR.

Yossarian

The LotR films are rubbish, so if they’re not even that good, they must be awful.

stellavista

Hohoho. Good one.

Yossarian

Rubbish.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

The LotR films are rubbish, so if they’re not even that good, they must be awful.

I enjoyed them but I think they are over rated and the hobbit stuff was terrible. Lord of the rings seems to be like star wars and Indiana Jones in terms of topping the popular votes in mags like total film but as good as they are, they aren't that good. About the same level as the better marvel stuff. Nowhere near the real quality cinema offerings. Like Tremors.

Time_on_my_hands

Anyone else think that the direction in regards to where characters were in relation to each other and the geography of the whole place was completely off at the end of episode 3?

It felt really sloppy to watch in places - Obi-Wan is suddenly alone in the middle of a waste ground with Vader hunting/ fighting him, and none of the imperials who are clearly not that far away seem to realise. Then the woman helping them seems to find him just like that, even though I thought that the third sister was blocking the other exit to the tunnel (and then teleports to the other end of the escape tunnel to ambush Leia).

On the whole, I'll watch this to the end. It's not reaching the heights of Mando - there seems to be a real lack of inspiration with the direction - but it's interesting enough. I just hope Obi-Wan gets his mojo back because at the moment he's in Phantom Menace mode rather than in full on pantomime mode that we got in Revenge of the Sith.

monkey

I can sit and watch it and I don't hate it in the same way as Fat Bob. But it's objectively terrible I think. It's lazy and slap dash. Proper low-standard, network tv level action and writing. The baddies are bloody awful and their dialogue is cringe-worthy. The mistake they've made with that Woman Baddy is making her completely unknown and completely uninteresting. Like why does she care so much? I don't know but I'm not interested to find out. The Vader fight didn't have any suspense at all. Some guys running about and bumping into each other in what I suspect is the Tatooine set slightly relit and retooled, then a ridiculous resolution.
McGregor is ok. The cast are generally ok but they've got nothing to work with.

monkey

Mando season 1 really wasn't ambitious story-wise in any way. Just the basics done well. And from that, they've sunk to pumping out things that don’t even bother getting that right.

Time_on_my_hands

monkey wrote:

Mando season 1 really wasn't ambitious story-wise in any way. Just the basics done well. And from that, they've sunk to pumping out things that doesn't even bother getting that right.

Mando was basically the storytelling I remember from Saturday morning cartoons as a kid in the 80s that I'd watch with my Dad, but live action and with a stupid budget. They just appealed so well to any age group. Genius.

Everything now just feels like fan fiction that needs a good script doctor. The stories are too pretentious and there are just too many half-baked characters that you don't care about.

ChopperByrne

Rise of The Planet of the Apes is pretty good.

Regardless of the quality of this show, I'm going to watch it all, just like I'm going to go see the new Jurassic Park. Just have to hope for the best.

Gremill

Yossarian wrote:

The LotR films are rubbish, so if they’re not even that good, they must be awful.

You and I see eye to eye on most things, but... that was before I realised you were a cunt.

davyK

I really liked the LoTR films. I thought they were truly great cinematic experiences and excellent realisations of the book. I've watched them a bit too much.

Hobbit was just OK. Overblown and not really all that memorable apart from the realisation of Smaug.

superflyninja

LOTR were magnificent films. I especially loved the sound though. The music of course too, but there is nothing like hearing the thunder of the Rohirrim hooves when they join the battle and save the day or when one of the hobbits knocks that piece of metal down the well in Moria. Stunning stuff.

The Hobbit was a bit shit in comparison. Still watchable though.

Paul the sparky

Aye, LotR was class. The best use of sound was when the music builds up and up and then just completely cuts out once the fights begin, you're left with the clanging and crunching of battle. The tomb in Moria and the Warg attack in Two Towers stand out, breathtaking stuff

Time_on_my_hands

LotR was a near perfect example of how to adapt the story rather than the book. The new Dune does something similar.
The Hobbit tried to do the same but should have just been two films.

Watch the first two Harry Potter movies for examples of an attempt to adapt the books and it winds up looking like a series of moving illustrations with empty gaps where the story should be.

RedDave2

The Hobbit would have been fine as one movie - the good is so spread out and the filler is really evident.

I'd agree LOTR is about as good a way to adapt a book like that as can be seen. Overall a very good trilogy, in fact one of the most consistent (although I think it peaks at Two Towers and Return of the King is a little flabby), but as pure movies I do think they are a little over hyped.

For a fun memory, who recalls when Americans got all annoyed at the name of the second movie because they thought it was "cashing in" on 911?

RamSteelwood

Hobbit should have been one film, it's a short children's book that they stretched and bloated and dragged out into 3 'epic' films just to try to match LOTR.

davyK

Agreed re one film; albeit a longish one.

There was no need to add all that stuff tying it into LoTR. It was fun seeing Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel super-teaming up and seeing off Sauron though.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories