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

[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.