Speaking of nerd stuff, did I miss the Slog chatter about the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit? He is an excellent choice, in my opinion.
I think people need to stop complaining about sequels and prequels and remakes. The arguments have all been made ad nauseam, but the economics remain what they are and the fan base of the various franchises remains what it is. It's kind of a pointless conversation.
There was only ever one sequel to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Too bad Lucas never continued that story in any way, nor did he ever rerelease the movies.
The recent Trek and Bat-prequels outdid the originals...
Charlie Jane Anders's reasons for disliking sequels would make sense if you think M. Night Shyamalan work is good filmmaking. Plot, plot, plot, plot! What happens next? How will it end?
There's a lot more to it than plot. Which is why people still like reading the classics, even when they know how they will end. And Abrams's Star Trek prequel did not, as it turns out, suck. QED.
Maybe the new BSG prequal will finally explain WTF Head-Baltar and Head-Six were. But I won't know, for I will never watch it. Fooled me once, Ron Moore. Won't get fooled again.
1. Prequels are anti-creative: Which Star Trek had the space whales, exactly? The Abrams prequel was far more creative.
2. Prequels are anti-future. Um, IT'S STILL THE FUTURE. Near-future science fiction is not a valid form of science fiction? I actually prefer it.
3. Prequels are anti-heroic. ("There's no point rooting for the good guys in a trilogy (sic), because their future is already set in stone.") So I guess movies about the Civil War or the Roman Empire must all suck.
4. Prequels are all about trivia. I agree with this one 100%. Man, that kind of shit is so annoyingly smug.
5. Prequels are small and personal. Yes, Abrams' Star Trek was just fucking like My Dinner with Andre.
@18 Head-Baltar and Head-Six mentioned they were agents of an entity who didn't like to be called God in the closing scene of the last episode. An entirely hollow non-explanation of LOST level Deus ex machina douche bag proportions when two of the primary themes of the show were destiny and religion.
Movie prequels tend to be unfortunate, but there are tons of great books that are prequels to established stories/worlds. How we got to where we are can be just as fascinating as where we are going next.
I think prequels do run into trouble when they focus on the main characters and storyline of the established work.
I.e. A set of Star Wars prequels focused on Lando would presumably have been far better than the drek that was
released.
Focusing instead on a minor character and a somewhat tangential storyline seems to free the plot from its rails and from the epic expectations. One could argue that these don't even constitute prequels, just world-building and lore.
The Clone Wars ... kind of go back and forth on that. For some reason it's annoying, at times.
There was only ever one sequel to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Too bad Lucas never continued that story in any way, nor did he ever rerelease the movies.
The recent Trek and Bat-prequels outdid the originals...
There's a lot more to it than plot. Which is why people still like reading the classics, even when they know how they will end. And Abrams's Star Trek prequel did not, as it turns out, suck. QED.
Going to be fun, muggles!
https://go.washington.edu/uwaa/events/20…
but hurry cause they were almost sold out - it's opening night for the IMAX release
http://www.cracked.com/article_18813_5-r…
RedLetterMedia and I can dream.
1. Prequels are anti-creative: Which Star Trek had the space whales, exactly? The Abrams prequel was far more creative.
2. Prequels are anti-future. Um, IT'S STILL THE FUTURE. Near-future science fiction is not a valid form of science fiction? I actually prefer it.
3. Prequels are anti-heroic. ("There's no point rooting for the good guys in a trilogy (sic), because their future is already set in stone.") So I guess movies about the Civil War or the Roman Empire must all suck.
4. Prequels are all about trivia. I agree with this one 100%. Man, that kind of shit is so annoyingly smug.
5. Prequels are small and personal. Yes, Abrams' Star Trek was just fucking like My Dinner with Andre.
Head-Baltar and Head-Six (and now Head-Zoe in Caprica) are gods. They hinted at that several times in BSG.
I think prequels do run into trouble when they focus on the main characters and storyline of the established work.
I.e. A set of Star Wars prequels focused on Lando would presumably have been far better than the drek that was
released.
Focusing instead on a minor character and a somewhat tangential storyline seems to free the plot from its rails and from the epic expectations. One could argue that these don't even constitute prequels, just world-building and lore.