If an occasional person misunderstanding the writing means Tarquin "won," then every villain ever "won."
Printable View
If an occasional person misunderstanding the writing means Tarquin "won," then every villain ever "won."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbaji
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbaji
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Peelee
Because Elan knows the best way to deal with Tarquin is deny him any resolution or on-screen time he'd judge satisfying.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Errorname
Unlike the LOTR films, which were made to lose money and just failed at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
Normal villains' plans aren't depend on how their story been told and accepted by the listeners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kish
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
...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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kish
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Precure
That would still get him remembered as "the guy who played everyone for years", though, which is a way to secure a legend.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
Nah. He's the comic relief bumbling henchman in the Tale of the Empress of Blood's downfall. That would be such delicious irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unoriginal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by woweedd
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Errorname
I do not accept that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbaji
The Hobbit came first.
Han shot first.
This is a hill that I will die on.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
Han only shot first if someone else in that scene shot.
You do not accept the position that the Hobbit films were released after the LOTR films?Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
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.
Rather misses the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruck
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!"...Quote:
Yes, the Hobbit in it's original book form came before the Lord of the Rings, this is not disputable
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
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.
Objectively the films did odd stuff to the LotR too... like the Hobbits getting taken toQuote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
IsengardOsgilliath 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 .
Yes, and as we are well off topic I'm about done here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unoriginal
Spoiler: some dissension in the ranks(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.).
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kish
I was/am actually staggered by this. Elegant, accurate and compelling. There was only one blaster shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kish
- M