Can a Prequel EVER be a Good Film?

Tools    


Can a Prequel EVER be a Good Film?
15.52%
9 votes
Yes-There are lots of good Prequels
62.07%
36 votes
Yes-Sometimes
3.45%
2 votes
Undecided
12.07%
7 votes
No-but there are rare exceptions
6.90%
4 votes
No-NEVER!
58 votes. You may not vote on this poll




You are now literally trying to put words in my mouth. I never said such thing.
You're talking about what you said more recently to him. He's talking about your response to Rodent, before, and he quoted it accurately:

Terrible example. With all 6 original films being out, there's a good chance a lot of people who are new to these movies will watch them in order starting with Episode 1. Therefore, they may only have a vague idea of who characters are - maybe not even that.
I also don't really understand how Iro saying "they might as well" could be reasonably described as "People should do whatever I think is best for them." It was an opinion about how to watch the films, not a command, no different than your opinion or anyone else's. And it wasn't even phrased all that forcefully!



Ok, I'm gonna try to put this in a different way. Lucas started out with a very big outline about the story he had in mind. Due to budget and technical limitations, he had to really narrow down what he could do in the first film, so that it could be done with the resources he had at the time.

Coming into SW the way many of us did was effectively like walking into a movie halfway - except we were walking halfway into what would eventually become a 6-movie series (talking exclusively about the ones he made, although as far back as 1980 he had said he hoped to make a 9-movie saga if he had enough time).

There's no way to "remedy" coming into the saga halfway through, it wasn't what he wanted as a storyteller but the technology in the 70s wouldn't have allowed him to start with the fall of the Republic.

I'm just glad he got to do the 6-film saga on his own before selling the company. To me those films are the truest to his original vision, a vision that is now inspiring a lot of other filmmakers... who are now going into a lot of different directions that no longer necessarily feel like something inspired by old Saturday matinee serials but, nonetheless, seem to entertain some folks still.



I know it's low-lying fruit, but I don't see anyone mentioning The First Omen here....



Not joining into the bickering about the topic, I'd just revert to language. "Can a prequel EVER be a good film?"....of course it can. Who can say that it can't? EVER is a real long time and, excluding all movies forever is an untenable statement.

I'd aver that the question can be re-worded to something like "Name a prequel that's a good movie". Even add, "I dare you" or "I bet you can't", that's OK.



I'd just revert to language. "Can a prequel EVER be a good film?"....of course it can. Who can say that it can't? EVER is a real long time and, excluding all movies forever is an untenable statement.
I mean, there's also the fact that a film's quality is subjective.



To address the somewhat larger point of, "can a prequel be good if you know what happens to the characters," I would say any movie can be pretty good even if you know what happens to the protagonists.

Today I watched Firebrand, which is in a somewhat limited release right now, and I knew very little about Catherine Parr (the last wife of Henry VIII). I think it's a great movie that works very well, regardless of whether or not you know how and when she died. It still manages to create a great deal of suspense.

Once you care about a character, I think their ultimate fate isn't even necessarily the most compelling part of their adventures, but rather, how and why they arrive to that endpoint.

If an unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined life of a protagonist isn't worth watching.



I think most prequels are not as good as the originals but there are some exceptions. The Godfather II jumps to mind, even though it was only half prequel.
__________________
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” — Gandhi​



I mean, there's also the fact that a film's quality is subjective.
Yeah, for sure, but often the language of the question prejudices the answer. It's like those "when did you stop beating up your partner" kind of questions. "Can it EVER" casts doubt right from the beginning...."yes" needs to be justified.



I think that sorta makes sense



I mean, there's also the fact that a film's quality is subjective.

On the subject of quality objectivity/subjectivity, I have put the issue to rest with the help of ChatGPT.



In the AI's words:


"In the context of art, the qualities themselves, such as technical proficiency, adherence to artistic principles, and mastery of craft, are indeed objective. These qualities can be observed, measured, and assessed based on established standards and principles. There isn't an inherent "subjective quality" residing within the art itself.


The subjectivity enters the picture when individuals interpret, appreciate, or derive personal meaning from the objective qualities. For example, one person might prefer abstract art (a subjective preference), but the technical proficiency or mastery of craft in creating an abstract piece is still objectively present."


I mean there you have it, case closed.



Well, AI is notoriously prone to errors



Well, AI is notoriously prone to errors
No kidding, at the start of my conversation with ChatGPT it argued that quality in art was subjective, and it took a long time questioning and reasoning with it before it finally admitted that quality in art is objective. Fortunately it does seem bound to submit to logic. I really appreciate how precise and concise its wording was. I've been looking for a solid irrefutable resolution to this debate for years. It feels good to finally have it.


Darn you, AI ChatGPT. You win this round.
*shakes fist in anger*

Hehe



On the subject of quality objectivity/subjectivity, I have put the issue to rest with the help of ChatGPT.



In the AI's words:


"In the context of art, the qualities themselves, such as technical proficiency, adherence to artistic principles, and mastery of craft, are indeed objective. These qualities can be observed, measured, and assessed based on established standards and principles. There isn't an inherent "subjective quality" residing within the art itself.


The subjectivity enters the picture when individuals interpret, appreciate, or derive personal meaning from the objective qualities. For example, one person might prefer abstract art (a subjective preference), but the technical proficiency or mastery of craft in creating an abstract piece is still objectively present."


I mean there you have it, case closed.
Nothing regarding subjectivity is ever closed. That's the whole point of it.

"In the context of art, the qualities themselves, such as technical proficiency, adherence to artistic principles, and mastery of craft, are indeed objective. These qualities can be observed, measured, and assessed based on established standards and principles. "

There's nothing objective about "technical proficiency, adherence to artistic principles, and mastery of craft" since a subjective judgement is needed for all of them, like what's proficient and what's art.



Nothing regarding subjectivity is ever closed. That's the whole point of it.
Exactly



Nothing regarding subjectivity is ever closed. That's the whole point of it.

C. S. Lewis already refuted the subjective world-view.


There's nothing objective about "technical proficiency, adherence to artistic principles, and mastery of craft" since a subjective judgement is needed for all of them, like what's proficient and what's art.
If you don't know what proficient is or what art is, then how do you know there's nothing objective about it?



I've read a whole lot of C.S. Lewis and I'm not really sure what that means. He refuted moral relativism (and even then only a specific incarnation of it, IIRC), but that's not the same thing as saying subjectivity doesn't exist.

Whether objective truths exist is an important philosophical question, but at the moment it is only philosophical, since we can plainly see in practice we are unable to confirm them objectively in our current state. So they are functionally subjective, for our purposes, and it says nothing about our broader worldview to recognize this.

None of this is to say I find "it's subjective!" to be a good response when someone wants to disagree meaningfully about art. It's often a cop-out. The fact that things are ultimately subjective is true, but shouldn't be an escape hatch to avoid having to back up opinions or compare notes or to avoid the fact that subjective opinions can be based on stronger (or shakier) foundations of understanding and experience.



I've read a whole lot of C.S. Lewis and I'm not really sure what that means. He refuted moral relativism (and even then only a specific incarnation of it, IIRC), but that's not the same thing as saying subjectivity doesn't exist.

I'm not saying subjectivity doesn't exist. I was speaking in layman's terms when I said "the subjectivity world-view," but what I really meant was subjectivism. C. S. Lewis refuted subjectivism. I, like him, am an objectivist.



I'm in complete agreement with this excerpt from Jerry Root's article, C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Subjectivism:


"An objectivist lives in recognition that one’s thoughts and impressions, that is, one’s subjective responses, ought to approximate objective reality. When error occurs, it can be corrected by an appeal to reality. Truth is not reality; truth is what I think about reality when I think accurately about it. That which is asserted by a false statement does not exist."


Here's the article:

https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-...tivism-417.pdf