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

[Somniloquist]

I mean this plan, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0941.html) for fighting his father. While I'm not exactly willing to put money on this, I do have an idea that could make sense from both a tactical and an... Elanish perspective.

Recruit Sabine, appealing to her desire for revenge. Have her disguise herself as Amun-Zora. Have her consent to the marriage, while the resistance prepares an ambush for the wedding night. As soon as Sabine shows who she really is, the real Amun-Zora crashes through the window.

Sure, it'd catch Tarquin in a vulnerable position (ish - I'm sure he's got some precautions against treacherous brides, though the succubus angle might be a new one). More importantly, a humiliating death at the hands of a woman he's been lusting after would recast him as a more disposable kind of villain. In Star Wars terms, he's not Darth Vader or the Emperor -he's Jabba the Hutt.

Plus, callback. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0386.html)

What do you think? Anyone got a better idea?

[Windscion]

Play Hamlet.
By which I mean, write screenplays which allude to the machinations of the Vector Legion controlling the empires.
Not only can the perpetrators evade capture, but it is the singular most /Bardish/ thing to do.
"Rub Rub Rub my Father's face, in my uselessness."

[Tubercular Ox]

So what might have been Elan's super secret plan?
I feel like it's too soon for a "might have been". I think there's going to be a sequel set in the Western Continent, and either Elan's super secret plan is revealed as part of the cliffhanger, or Rich is going to reveal it in the sequel itself.

I think this because:

Roy says so, and Elan backs him up (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html). I think Rich will reveal that the line about "This is not a thing that's going to happen" refers to titling it "Order Stickier."
There is a high concentration of unfinished plots in the Western Continent, including the super secret plan, that make the story a nightmare to finish in the few hundred pages we have left, given that we're at the North Pole
Rich introduced a complicated plot involving the Vector Legion, lizardfolk, and either dinosaurs or dragons in the May 2020 calendar page that definitely does not fit in the pages we have left.


What do you think? Anyone got a better idea?

No! TT_TT But I also have a theory that I'm willing to bet on that the IFCC is trying to create a mini-snarl by provoking conflict between the gods, and as an extension of that theory that I'm not willing to bet on, I think the ending would be so much easier to write if they got their mini-snarl and escaped, rather than Rich having to cram in confronting and defeating it while the rest of the plot is going on. In that case, it's going to be in the sequel.

It can't have anything to do with Elan's secret plan because there's no way Elan could've known, but maybe someone will be inspired by the idea. One way or another.

[Joerg]

The plan with Sabine won‘t work, simply because Tarquin has a Ring of True Seeing. I like the Hamlet plan, though it will be difficult to protect the players.

I think if we get another story on the western continent - and that‘s a big if - it will be a prequel, not a sequel. I seem to remember Rich saying that he will do something different when the OotS story is done.

[Tubercular Ox]

I think if we get another story on the western continent - and that‘s a big if - it will be a prequel, not a sequel. I seem to remember Rich saying that he will do something different when the OotS story is done.

What if it doesn't star the Order of the Stick? That was my first guess, before I remembered the Order Stickier comment.

A party is mostly filled out: Amun-Zora, Enor, Gannji, Ian, Geoff, and maybe Sabine for color, as someone who really hates Tarquin.

It's not a balanced party like Rich usually presents so I'm not confident.

Would that count as something different? It's at least a better take on, "This is not a thing that's going to happen."

[Psepha]

I highly doubt we'll get a sequel, and if we do it's almost certainly not going to be about Tarquin - if only because that would undercut the whole deal with Tarquin not being the main villain. I expect we'll just get a brief reference to the fact that he got defeated off-screen - that's how you really defeat Tarquin, as anything involving a big thing to take him down ultimately means he wins. So I think "might have been" isn't so unreasonable here.

I don't think a throwaway gag by Elan is particularly compelling evidence that an actual sequel is really on the way. Especially since just focusing on other characters doesn't really feel like the Giant doing something different.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rich introduced a complicated plot involving the Vector Legion, lizardfolk, and either dinosaurs or dragons in the May 2020 calendar page that definitely does not fit in the pages we have left. Sometimes, a picture is just a picture.


I think if we get another story on the western continent - and that‘s a big if - it will be a prequel, not a sequel. I seem to remember Rich saying that he will do something different when the OotS story is done. I seem to remember that also.

Let's see:
Star Wars prequels? Not great.
Star Trek prequels? Just plain bad.
Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

While Rich has his own muse and style, and is thus not by default doomed to failure if he chose to do a prequel (I found SoD tepid at best) I got the feeling when I read the above mentioned comment that his next creative effort would not have to do with the OotSverse.

(Honestly, I think Rich could write a decent screenplay ...)

[Precure]

I sure hope so it involves two of them in bed, steamy.


Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

Willy Wonka (2023)

[yes]

I'm skeptical that Elan's plan is for Tarquin to get beaten off screen (even if that's how the Giant handles it). Tarquin is intelligent, resourceful, narratively savvy, and determined. If Elan won't bring the climax to him, he will bring the climax to Elan. Tarquin can only be beaten off screen as a canonical strategy if he allows it.

[Errorname]

I don't think Elan's plan is likely to include Sabine. I think it's possible Sabine, entirely independently, takes Tarquin out of the picture as the 'pleasure' she's mixing into her business for the fiends, but if that doesn't happen I would assume whatever Elan's plan is goes off without a hitch.

I'd agree that the plan is likely taking him down offscreen. I could also see it potentially involving treating one of the other Vector Legionaries as the real big bad of the plotline and reducing Tarquin to a mere lieutenant to promote infighting within the group and turn Tarquin's narrative role from "Overlord' to "Starscream"


Tarquin can only be beaten off screen as a canonical strategy if he allows it.

Tarquin didn't exactly allow himself to be thrown off an airship. Tarquin gets caught up in his preconceptions of what the narrative should be that he abandons genre-savvy in favour of trying to bend the narrative around himself as the most important character, which is an exploitable weakness.

[Yendor]

I don't think Elan's plan is likely to include Sabine. I think it's possible Sabine, entirely independently, takes Tarquin out of the picture as the 'pleasure' she's mixing into her business for the fiends, but if that doesn't happen I would assume whatever Elan's plan is goes off without a hitch.

I think it's possible Sabine would join up with Amon-Zora. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0804.html) I doubt Elan's plan takes that into account, though.


Tarquin didn't exactly allow himself to be thrown off an airship. Tarquin gets caught up in his preconceptions of what the narrative should be that he abandons genre-savvy in favour of trying to bend the narrative around himself as the most important character, which is an exploitable weakness.

Yes, Tarquin isn't as clever as he thinks he is. He's set himself up to be defeated by a ragtag bunch of misfits he's personally wronged, without even considering that they could be a threat. He's painted a huge target on himself, which is exactly what his scheme was supposed to avoid in the first place.

[Peelee]

Star Wars prequels? Not great.
Star Trek prequels? Just plain bad.
Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

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

[Gurgeh]

You're not a fan of The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly?
It's the weakest of the Dollars films by a good margin. You could cut an hour from it and it would still drag.

[Peelee]

It's the weakest of the Dollars films by a good margin.
The criteria wasn't "better than the original". It was "good prequel".

You could cut an hour from it and it would still drag.
I disagree that it drags.

[Kardwill]

Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

While Rich has his own muse and style, and is thus not by default doomed to failure if he chose to do a prequel (I found SoD tepid at best) I got the feeling when I read the above mentioned comment that his next creative effort would not have to do with the OotSverse.

OtOoPC and SoD are pretty early works. Especially "Origin of PCs", that was still pretty deep in that "Pop culture reference and D&D jokes" style that didn't age so well.

But I think the 3 prequel stories (Spoiler Alert, Peer Pressure and How the Paladin Got His Scar) in Good Deed Gone Unpunished are among Rich's best work. Really solid stories about "secondary" characters, some of which had already met a grisly fate in the main webcomic.
They were about characters Rich actually likes, though, and that love can be felt throughout the stories' emotional beats. I don't know if a prequel about another party of bad guys would inspire the same kind of work.

[Errorname]

While Rich has his own muse and style, and is thus not by default doomed to failure if he chose to do a prequel (I found SoD tepid at best) I got the feeling when I read the above mentioned comment that his next creative effort would not have to do with the OotSverse.

The first two prequels are showing their age a bit, but they're as good as the comic was during that time, but Good Deeds Gone Unpunished is some of the best Order of the Stick out there.

[danielxcutter]

Honestly if we ever do see what Elan’s plan was I imagine it’ll be in something like a GDGU-esque side book for the Linear Guild and the Vector Legion (and maybe one or two other Western Continent characters).

[hroþila]

While Rich has his own muse and style, and is thus not by default doomed to failure if he chose to do a prequel (I found SoD tepid at best)
I think this is the kind of thing where you have to separate your own personal opinion from the broader reception. SoD is a fan favourite, long held by many as the best OotS material out there. While of course you don't have to like it yourself, it's kinda weird to dismiss it entirely and suggest it wouldn't count as a good prequel based solely on your own subjective opinion

[Mordar]

Let's see:
Star Wars prequels? Not great.
Star Trek prequels? Just plain bad.
Can someone name a prequel movie that was good?

(Honestly, I think Rich could write a decent screenplay ...)

The Godfather II called.

Rogue One and Red Dragon were good.

Re: screenplays - I would be very surprised if he could. Not because of anything other than it being such a decidedly different medium. Serial webcomic probably leans more towards screenplay than novel prose, but I think they are just two distinct skillsets. High jump and jump shooting both involve jumping, but no reason to think Fosbury could rain threes or Steph could clear 7'.

That's why, I think, Martin was valuable in helping HBO's GoT but King books virtually never make great films despite being great writing. One has years of experience working with TV and film, the other doesn't.

- M

[dmc91356]

Not sure that I would technically call Godfather II a prequel given its split story. It sure had elements, but the story still moved forward in time and I think the main part of the story was watching Al Pacino descend into full on mobsterism (I made up a word!)

The second Indiana Jones movie is often considered a prequel because it took place temporally before Raiders of the Lost Ark. Now, whether you think that movie is "good" is, of course, another issue. I wouldn't consider it bad per se, but it sure didn't age well.

[Peelee]

The second Indiana Jones movie is often considered a prequel because it took place temporally before Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I assume "temporarily" means "chronologically" here. And yes, that typically is what makes a story a prequel.

[mucat]

I assume "temporarily" means "chronologically" here. And yes, that typically is what makes a story a prequel.
dmc said "temporally", not "temporarily". So yes, chronologically.

I too am confused why that would mean Temple of Doom "is often considered a prequel" to Raiders, rather than "meets the exact definition of a prequel"...

[Peelee]

dmc said "temporally", not "temporarily". So yes, chronologically.

I too am confused why that would mean Temple of Doom "is often considered a prequel" to Raiders, rather than "meets the exact definition of a prequel"...

Whoopsie, need to get me reading eyes fixed.

[Tubercular Ox]

I don't think Elan's plan is likely to include Sabine. I think it's possible Sabine, entirely independently, takes Tarquin out of the picture as the 'pleasure' she's mixing into her business for the fiends, but if that doesn't happen I would assume whatever Elan's plan is goes off without a hitch.

I'd agree that the plan is likely taking him down offscreen. I could also see it potentially involving treating one of the other Vector Legionaries as the real big bad of the plotline and reducing Tarquin to a mere lieutenant to promote infighting within the group and turn Tarquin's narrative role from "Overlord' to "Starscream"

Could Sabine be the real villain? How about the IFCC?

[dmc91356]

dmc said "temporally", not "temporarily". So yes, chronologically.

I too am confused why that would mean Temple of Doom "is often considered a prequel" to Raiders, rather than "meets the exact definition of a prequel"...

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. :smalltongue:

[Errorname]

Could Sabine be the real villain? How about the IFCC?

Sabine and the IFCC aren't working with Tarquin. I think it's very likely that Sabine kills Tarquin at some point, but for the "deny Tarquin his place as the big bad of the vector legion" plan it'd be one of his fellow conspirators. I was thinking Shoulderpads Guy, he's got commander vibes and I think it's a fun idea if in-universe Tarquin being overshadowed in memory by someone who wasn't even important enough to the story we saw to have a name, but Laurin and Miron would both probably work. Malack would have too, but he's sadly double deceased which makes him less viable.


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.

This is true of all three Indiana Jones movies, they're very episodic and can be watched in functionally any order with no changes, but if we're not counting Doom as a prequel we shouldn't count Crusade as a sequel. I can see a logic to that, but it's not how the words are conventionally used.

[yes]

didn't exactly allow himself to be thrown off an airship. Tarquin gets caught up in his preconceptions of what the narrative should be that he abandons genre-savvy in favour of trying to bend the narrative around himself as the most important character, which is an exploitable weakness.

I have a very different take away: That even after Elan and co escaped on an airship, he found a way to continue the scene within seconds. Yes, they then thwarted him on the airship and got away, but that happened while he was sharing center stage with Elan, and not while he was dueling with a secondary (or dare I say tertiary) character. He employed everything at his disposal to get front and center, and unless he lacks the means to do it again (in which case, he's already lost), he'll do it again before he lets something takes him down off-screen.

[Errorname]

I have a very different take away: That even after Elan and co escaped on an airship, he found a way to continue the scene within seconds. Yes, they then thwarted him on the airship and got away, but that happened while he was sharing center stage with Elan, and not while he was dueling with a secondary (or dare I say tertiary) character.

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.

[Yendor]

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.

And then, after throwing his impotent tantrum, Tarquin had to be rescued by Laurin and even then she took advantage of the situation to get her favour.

EDIT: Oh! And how did V win that fight? With the help of tactical advice from Sabine. Because Tarquin killed Nale.

[hroþila]

I have a very different take away: That even after Elan and co escaped on an airship, he found a way to continue the scene within seconds. Yes, they then thwarted him on the airship and got away, but that happened while he was sharing center stage with Elan, and not while he was dueling with a secondary (or dare I say tertiary) character. He employed everything at his disposal to get front and center, and unless he lacks the means to do it again (in which case, he's already lost), he'll do it again before he lets something takes him down off-screen.
I think this analysis misses that Tarquin wasn't meant to be a nobody, he was meant to be an early boss, a B-list villain long before the fight against the actual big bad in the finale, a Kubota or a Vamp Durkon rather than a Xykon. And that's exactly what he got - and what he tried so hard to avoid. Of course the position still comes with a fair bit of attention and spotlight.

[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. :smalltongue:

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. :smallconfused:

[Peelee]

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

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. :smalltongue:

[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 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollars_Trilogy) who thinks otherwise (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EYEF2S/). 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.

[Kish]

If an occasional person misunderstanding the writing means Tarquin "won," then every villain ever "won."

[gbaji]

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.

Ok. I can buy that. From the film audiences point of view, The Hobbit is a prequel to LotR, despite the books themselves not being written in that order.

And I see what you're saying about the movie universe versus the book. I do think, however, that some films/shows are written specifically to be a spin/take on a book series (but otherwise go off in their own direction), while some are more directly supposed to be "the book in film form". And I think that can affect how we label them.


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.

I think this is where the whole "are we in the same continuity?" question comes in. In the case of the previous 3 Clancy films, despite the actor change, they were presented as though they were in the same continuity. Same repeating characters, references to events in the others, etc. I don't think it was the change to Affleck that made SoaF a separate film (ie: neither a prequel nor a sequel to the others). It was the fact that the events in the film are so divergent from those in the book (while the others stuck pretty closely for the most part), that it simply can't be judged to be in the same continuity at all.

In the case of the Harris films though, despite a different actor for Hannibal, the events in Manhunter still fit perfectly with the events in Silence of the Lambs. Maybe it's because I'm one one of the rare people who did actually see Manhunter prior to seeing SotL I have a different perspective. When I first saw SotL and Hannibal is introduced in the film, I immediately realized this was the same character from Manhunter, and that this was a sequel to that film. I did later read both books. And then when Red Dragon came out, I watched that, but to me it was a remake of the original film, not a prequel.

None of these were intended or felt like they are in a different continuity. And while there are notable differences between Manhunter and Red Dragon, the core story is the same. The core characters are the same. The degree to which it introduces the character of Hannibal Lecter is the same. The only differences between the two films are details that only matter within the individual films themselves. As far as their ability to fit into a larger continuity, they do so equally.

As a funny little side note about the two films, when I watched Manhunter my favorite part in the entire film was the scene where Will and Hannibal are speaking, and the subject of how Will caught Hannibal comes up. There's this wonderful dialogue where Hannibal is prompting Will, and Will is describing the case he was working on, how he was consulting with Hannibal, and then a series of observations he made about objects in Hannibal's office, each one of which was minor, but together made him realize that Hannibal was the killer they were looking for. And then they talk about how Hannibal knew that Will knew, and things got ugly from there. This one scene does so much to explain how Will does what he does when tracking down serial killers (gets inside their heads), and also incidentally really defines Hannibal (and explains Will's injury and limp). It just always stuck in my head, and whenever I thought of that film (the rest of which was a fairly mediocre cop film), that was the scene that I thought about.

So yeah. To say I enjoyed the opening sequence in Red Dragon would be a huge understatement. To see the scene that I had loved in Manhunter, but only ever visualized in my own head based on the dialogue in that film (which was good mind you), and have it played out visually in front of me (and done very very well)? Yeah. Love that.



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.

Yeah. That's kinda my opinion as well. I think SW is maybe somewhat unique in that there is a vast amount of film and series content, all of which is presented as being in the same continuity, so picking a point in that timeline to say "everything before this is a prequel and everything after is a sequel" just seems somewhat arbitrary.

I think it's about what content within that continuity is being referenced or related to that determines this. And I suppose the purpose of the project. If the purpose is "We're going to explore what events resulted from the events in this existing film/show", then it's a sequel. If the purpose is "we're going to explore the events which lead up to the events in this existing film/show" then it's a prequel.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ok. I can buy that. From the film audiences point of view, The Hobbit is a prequel to LotR, despite the books themselves not being written in that order.
Amigo, The Hobbit was written and published before WW II, and LotR was completed and published after WW II. As evidenced by the extensive correspondence between Tolkien and his publisher, Tolkien took forever to get out of the Shire and the Northlands and 'get on with it!" ... but he eventually published six books, which became a trilogy (two books each) that we are all familiar with.

[Errorname]

I find it exceedingly frustrating that we're having a "would a prequel even be good" argument for a series that has three entire prequel books, all of which are good.


I think it's about what content within that continuity is being referenced or related to that determines this. And I suppose the purpose of the project. If the purpose is "We're going to explore what events resulted from the events in this existing film/show", then it's a sequel. If the purpose is "we're going to explore the events which lead up to the events in this existing film/show" then it's a prequel.

I don't think Prequel and Sequel are mutually exclusive terms. Like something like Attack of the Clones is a prequel to a New Hope and it's sequels while also being a sequel to the Phantom Menace. These are kind of inherently relative terms that describe how a work relates to the works that came before and if there are multiple previous works then it can relate to those in different ways.


Amigo, The Hobbit was written and published before WW II, and LotR was completed and published after WW II.

That is what "not written in that order" means, very perceptive. They're talking about how due to the order the films were made in, the Hobbit film trilogy is functionally a prequel.

[Unoriginal]

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.

If anything, I'd expect Haley and her father to reunite in the epilogue, after the ragtag resistance ruined the rascal's rule, and when Ian goes to explain how they managed that Elan interrupts and goes "I know it would be nice to explain that on-panel, but even that kind of narrative resolution is too good for Tarquin. Let's save this talk for off-screen."

Because Elan knows the best way to deal with Tarquin is deny him any resolution or on-screen time he'd judge satisfying.

[KorvinStarmast]

That is what "not written in that order" means, very perceptive. They're talking about how due to the order the films were made in, the Hobbit film trilogy is functionally a prequel. No. It's a money grab. :smalltongue: It is also a scintillating example of how one can take a good story and ruin it, even with talent at all levels of the production.

[Peelee]

No. It's a money grab. :smalltongue:

Unlike the LOTR films, which were made to lose money and just failed at that.

[Precure]

If an occasional person misunderstanding the writing means Tarquin "won," then every villain ever "won."

Normal villains' plans aren't depend on how their story been told and accepted by the listeners.

[woweedd]

Normal villains' plans aren't depend on how their story been told and accepted by the listeners.

I feel like any chance of Tarquin being accepted as the magnificent bastard he wants to be by the fanbase at large, and not as the smug snake who was essentially a more competent Nale, died when the last we saw of him was him screaming in impotent rage in the middle of the desert, utterly defeated. I don't doubt there are people who still think of him as this super-cool unstoppable badass, we've seen some, but I think the general consensus has shifted to where Rich wants to be: Well-constructed element of the fiction, competent, nowhere near as competent or, especially, IMPORTANT as he wishes he were.

[Kish]

Beyond that, for all his fourth wall breaking, Tarquin didn't actually say he valued the opinion of the readers. He values being a legend in the OotS world...

...Which he clearly will not be. Even if Elan comes back and defeat him in exactly the way he wants (which isn't going to happen), he will never be remembered as the deuteragonist in a grand heroic epic.

[Theris]

I have two ideas for a plan Elan could have come up with :

The first one would be to get someone to appear as a good candidate for Tarquin to use as a replacement for the Empress of Blood, for the next time he overthrows his own empire. Then, the apparent puppet leader can use his resources to set up Tarquin's execution, as if it was just your regular purge.
The second one is to find a way to dump Tarquin in delicious BBQ sauce in front of the Empress of Blood and hope she just gobbles him up.

[Precure]

Beyond that, for all his fourth wall breaking, Tarquin didn't actually say he valued the opinion of the readers. He values being a legend in the OotS world...

If that was the case, there would be no point for Elan to not defeat him at the desert. He would die as just a general perished at some family affair, no one would know or remember him as a legend.

[KorvinStarmast]

If that was the case, there would be no point for Elan to not defeat him at the desert. He would die as just a general perished at some family affair, no one would know or remember him as a legend. A more fitting end would be, I think, being defeated by a scrappy band of rebels led by Amun Zora and then humiliated by some sort of "walk of shame" on his way to being hanged or sent to the guillotine ... after his schemes and evil abuses of the people in all of the kingdoms are exposed.

[Unoriginal]

A more fitting end would be, I think, being defeated by a scrappy band of rebels led by Amun Zora and then humiliated by some sort of "walk of shame" on his way to being hanged or sent to the guillotine ... after his schemes and evil abuses of the people in all of the kingdoms are exposed.

That would still get him remembered as "the guy who played everyone for years", though, which is a way to secure a legend.

IMO, it's far more likely that the fate that awaits Tarquin is to get treated as Guard #3 as the rebels crush his boss.

And at best he'll be remembered by a few people as a foreign mercenary who was just good enough at his job to keep getting hired by new bosses despite failing at protecting his former bosses from the typical our-empires-last-a-couple-years-at-best of the Western Continent.

[Kish]

Precure, you're using an unstated and not universally agreed upon premise as support.

In this case, "When Elan didn't kill him, that was because he would have won if Elan had."

No. Elan didn't kill him because--well for starters, because killing him wasn't an option Elan had. The most physical harm they could do to him in the situation where he was trying to get Elan to pull him up onto the airship, was exactly what Haley did: fire arrows at his eyes and let him choose between "get blinded" or "fall."

Now, Elan could have pulled Tarquin up letting him think he was going to be taken prisoner and then tried something meant to be lethal (details left out because it's really not important because read after the next comma), but...Rich is never going to write a heroic character doing something like that. Not Roy, who would be vastly more likely to than Elan. And again: not because "Tarquin would have won if he did," except insofar as any path that involves Rich writing Elan pulling Tarquin up onto the Mechane leads to Elan taking Tarquin prisoner, the way Tarquin wanted right then.

[gbaji]

Amigo, The Hobbit was written and published before WW II, and LotR was completed and published after WW II. As evidenced by the extensive correspondence between Tolkien and his publisher, Tolkien took forever to get out of the Shire and the Northlands and 'get on with it!" ... but he eventually published six books, which became a trilogy (two books each) that we are all familiar with.

I was intentionally pointing out a situation where the books were written in one order, but the films released in another. That's why I said this was "from the film audiences point of view". I'm well aware of the order the books were written. That was exactly the point I was making.

[woweedd]

That would still get him remembered as "the guy who played everyone for years", though, which is a way to secure a legend.

IMO, it's far more likely that the fate that awaits Tarquin is to get treated as Guard #3 as the rebels crush his boss.

And at best he'll be remembered by a few people as a foreign mercenary who was just good enough at his job to keep getting hired by new bosses despite failing at protecting his former bosses from the typical our-empires-last-a-couple-years-at-best of the Western Continent.
Nah. He's the comic relief bumbling henchman in the Tale of the Empress of Blood's downfall. That would be such delicious irony.

[Errorname]

Nah. He's the comic relief bumbling henchman in the Tale of the Empress of Blood's downfall. That would be such delicious irony.

I like the idea of him being seen as a minion of Shoulderpads Guy, personally, because the idea of his legacy being overshadowed in story by a guy so irrelevant to the actual plot he never got an actual name is delightful to me, but the Sserpme fo Doolb getting all the credit is also pretty appealing.

[Ruck]

I like the idea of him being seen as a minion of Shoulderpads Guy, personally, because the idea of his legacy being overshadowed in story by a guy so irrelevant to the actual plot he never got an actual name is delightful to me, but the Sserpme fo Doolb getting all the credit is also pretty appealing.

I forget who came up with it once, but I remember a post on here suggesting Shoulder Pads Guy was basically the Vector Legion's Roy, the sensible frontline fighter who is constantly exasperated by his ridiculous story-loving teammate's flights of fancy. I really enjoyed that idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was intentionally pointing out a situation where the books were written in one order, but the films released in another. That's why I said this was "from the film audiences point of view". I'm well aware of the order the books were written. That was exactly the point I was making. I do not accept that position.
The Hobbit came first.
Han shot first.

This is a hill that I will die on. (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/KxYAAOSwgGtkpPZW/s-l1600.jpg)

If you cater to Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view" bit that's another strike against "a certain point of view."

Turn away from the dark side.

[Errorname]

I do not accept that position.
The Hobbit came first.
Han shot first.

This is not a matter of perspective. Yes, the Hobbit in it's original book form came before the Lord of the Rings, this is not disputable, but that the live action Hobbit movies were made ten years after the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is also not disputable, and the fact that the Hobbit's sequels were adapted before it was had the effect of turning the movie adaptations into prequels when the book they were adapting was not, which was the root of most of the problems in those films.

[Kish]

Han only shot first if someone else in that scene shot.

[Ruck]

I do not accept that position.

You do not accept the position that the Hobbit films were released after the LOTR films?

[Unoriginal]

It has to be acknowledged that the adaptation is not the same work as the adapted.

The Lord of the Rings movies are different from the Lord of the Rings books on many, many, many levels, including thematic, aesthetic, and narrative.

To give one example: the Frodo of the books is a fair-haired 50-go-to-60yo Hobbit, acquires better darkvision/low-light vision than anyone else in the Fellowship (except maybe Gandalf) in the first book and eventually manages to do some level of the magical authority which defines power in Tolkien's work. Which is how Gollum ended up falling in the volcano and why the Hobbits didn't immediately slaughter Saruman in the Shire.

The Frodo of the movies is a dark-haire 30-ish years old Hobbit (so just past legal majority in the Shire) who doesn't develop any power in the whole trilogy.

And the movie studios made clear they wanted the The Hobbit movies to be made as prequels for the LotR movies, refusing to work with del Toro when he wanted to use a different aesthetic, and doing things like making Legolas a screentime-occupying presence.

[KorvinStarmast]

You do not accept the position that the Hobbit films were released after the LOTR films? Rather misses the point.

Yes, the Hobbit in it's original book form came before the Lord of the Rings, this is not disputable
For unoriginal: yes, the films did some odd stuff to the Hobbit....and as Sam on screen said at Osgilliath "we aren't supposed to be here!"...

[Unoriginal]

Rather misses the point.

No one is disputing the order of the books. But we have to acknowledge that the books and the movies are not the same products.


The video game Batman: Arkham Asylum was released in 2009. The video game Batman: Arkham Origins was released in 2013. In the continuity established for the games, Origins is a prequel to Asylum.

However, the comics relating the events are adapted in Origins were published before the comics that were adapted into Asylum (taking into account the typical comic book nightmare-continuity).

So the video game Batman: Arkham Origins is a prequel to Asylum, but Asylum is an adaptation of Origins' sequels.

Adapting the work in a different order means the order of production for the new product isn't the same.



For unoriginal: yes, the films did some odd stuff to the Hobbit....and as Sam on screen said at Osgilliath "we aren't supposed to be here!"...

Objectively the films did odd stuff to the LotR too... like the Hobbits getting taken to Isengard Osgilliath I can still buy because they wanted to make the power of the Ring more threatening at this point of the story AND they wanted the Gondorians to be more aware of the Ring from the get go too.

But there was no reason to, say, make Sauron the giant flaming eye. Or make Gandalf lose against the Witch-King at Minas Tirith.

But even then the odd stuff done to The Hobbit was not only odder, it was clumsier and certainly less narratively justifiable .

[KorvinStarmast]

But even then the odd stuff done to The Hobbit was not only odder, it was clumsier and certainly less narratively justifiable. Yes, and as we are well off topic I'm about done here. (I heard a couple of interesting bits from the cast in terms of their dissatisfaction: Orlando Bloom asking "wait, are we filming for 2 or 3 now?" and Evangeline Lily being told/promised "no, you aren't going to be the romantic interest in this film if you sign on" and then ... well, there ya go.).

[Ruck]

Rather misses the point.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

[Precure]

Precure, you're using an unstated and not universally agreed upon premise as support.

In this case, "When Elan didn't kill him, that was because he would have won if Elan had."

No, Tarquin claimed that he would won if Elan play the part he envisioned for him. Elan could deny his father's words and ignore these ramblings, but he didn't do that. Instead, he took the bait and gave credence to Tarquin's silly self-fan fiction. Elan accepted Tarquin's terms, and much more damning is the fact that the story itself accepted Tarquin's terms, which leads to THIS IS A TERRIBLE ENDING panel. Terrible ending mentioned there was created for the viewers behind the fourth wall, not the people of Western Continent. Author was trying to ruin Tarquin's hopes and dreams there by showing what a pathetic man he was. But he failed to convince many fans, and the fans in turn failed to grasp Tarquin's inner pathetic self. Which leads to Tarquin's continuing popularity. Hence Tarquin won.

[Mordar]

Han only shot first if someone else in that scene shot.

I was/am actually staggered by this. Elegant, accurate and compelling. There was only one blaster shot.

- M