RNL
Global Moderator 
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 25, 2009 2:49:41 GMT
It's an adaptation of the book that was written before The Da Vinci Code.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 25, 2009 3:10:18 GMT
It's an adaptation of the book that was written before The Da Vinci Code. How many other times has a book written as a prequel been adapted into film as a sequel? You know, FCM might ban me for this*, but as lame and boring dull and silly as DA VINCI CODE was.... I sorta enjoyed ANGELS & DEMONS, if nothing more than a decent forgettable experience like many Peter Hyams movies. That said, no surprise that at this weekend's American box-office, STAR TREK in its 3rd weekend outgrossed ANGELS, which was #1 last weekend. That's pathetic.*=Oh what am I kidding, they won't. If they didn't for GYMKATA, I think I have some small clearance here. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 25, 2009 3:14:50 GMT
The book wasn't a prequel, but I suppose the film technically is.
(Wtf is GYMKATA?)
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 25, 2009 6:23:44 GMT
A&D (movie) is a sequel just in terms of the chronology, otherwise it can be watched as an independent film. My other one line comment is in the other thread....
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on May 25, 2009 19:22:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 25, 2009 21:40:17 GMT
The book wasn't a prequel, but I suppose the film technically is. why? The ANGELS book came out before the CODE book, thus CODE is a book sequel....but since CODE the movie came out before ANGELS the movie, ANGELS is the film sequel Its like those 007 movies. DR. NO the book came after LIVE AND LET DIE the book, but since DR. NO was the first 007 film, when Eon got around to adapting LIVE AND LET DIE (after 7 previous pictures), DIE the film is a sequel to DR. NO the film. Make sense? If knowledge is power, than what's locked inside my skull is Hiroshima.  But since you don't read my reviews, try the 60s-80s section. You'll find your answer there, my young Irish knight. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 25, 2009 21:41:56 GMT
I like how RNL had posted in that thread, yet isn't aware of the war crime that is GYMKATA. ;D |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 25, 2009 22:17:13 GMT
The book wasn't a prequel, but I suppose the film technically is. why? The ANGELS book came out before the CODE book, thus CODE is a book sequel....but since CODE the movie came out before ANGELS the movie, ANGELS is the film sequel Its like those 007 movies. DR. NO the book came after LIVE AND LET DIE the book, but since DR. NO was the first 007 film, when Eon got around to adapting LIVE AND LET DIE (after 7 previous pictures), DIE the film is a sequel to DR. NO the film. Make sense? Yes. But prequels are sequels. 'Prequel' is a portmanteau of the words 'pre-' and 'sequel'. Angels & Demons the novel isn't a prequel to The Da Vinci Code the novel, because it was written beforehand. But, technically, Angels & Demons the film is a prequel to The Da Vinci Code the film, despite the source text not being a prequel to the source text of the first film. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 25, 2009 22:53:43 GMT
Angels & Demons the novel isn't a prequel to The Da Vinci Code the novel, because it was written beforehand. [/quote] We're arguing over semantics. You view prequel as an after-the-fact, and I view prequel as another way without having to say "previous book/film." I.e. before. Its not the proper definition of the term, but I use it. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 25, 2009 23:10:47 GMT
Okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 26, 2009 2:14:20 GMT
Oh, I too had been using the word prequel like Ronnie. Hmmm....
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 26, 2009 13:25:11 GMT
A prequel is produced after the fact. Hence the need for the "pre". It's something produced after the first but set before it; so it alters or enhances the meaning of the first.
You wouldn't call The Bourne Identity a "prequel". It precedes The Bourne Supremacy, sure, but it's not a prequel.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 26, 2009 14:45:15 GMT
A prequel is produced after the fact. Hence the need for the "pre". It's something produced after the first but set before it; so it alters or enhances the meaning of the first. You wouldn't call The Bourne Identity a "prequel". It precedes The Bourne Supremacy, sure, but it's not a prequel. I don't want to make this thread a grammar debate, LOL. I have the exact same definition as you capo, and also was under the impression that RRA thought the same.  In any case, in Angels and Demons (the film), there are multiple references of "your recent entanglements with Church" directed at Dr.Langden, which I am certain is a reference to DaVinci Code. Therefore, if I were to be oblivious of the existence of the novel, Angels & Demons (the film) is a direct sequel to DaVinci Code(the film), in every sense. No confusions at all. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 26, 2009 14:59:48 GMT
Well, since this is "Random Film Posting", and the context is filmic, I'll continue the pedantry. RRA calls a film a prequel even if it was made before the fact. What he terms it before the fact (the second in the sequence) has been established is unknown. As an example, take this sentence I wrote in the Bourne Supremacy thread: "As fast-paced as the first film..." I wrote "first film" because The Bourne Identity is not a prequel. It's a predecessor. And it only becomes a predecessor when the sequel is made; otherwise, it has nothing to precede. If Supremacy (or Ultimatum) hadn't been made, Identity precedes nothing. The "prequel" question would have come into play if, for example, The Bourne Ultimatum had been chronologically set before the events of the two previous films. Now, to return to that sentence above, RRA would apparently write it thusly: "As fast-paced as the prequel..." Which, as he's already said above, is inaccurate. Why? Because Identity was designed and made before Supremacy was designed and made. As wetdog has pointed out, "prequel" is a portmanteau of the prefix "pre-" and the word "sequel". |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 26, 2009 15:36:27 GMT
Now, to return to that sentence above, RRA would apparently write it thusly: "As fast-paced as the prequel..." In such a case, I subscribe to your definition and not his |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 26, 2009 21:16:17 GMT
Well, since this is "Random Film Posting", and the context is filmic, I'll continue the pedantry. RRA calls a film a prequel even if it was made before the fact. What he terms it before the fact (the second in the sequence) has been established is unknown. As an example, take this sentence I wrote in the Bourne Supremacy thread: "As fast-paced as the first film..." I wrote "first film" because The Bourne Identity is not a prequel. It's a predecessor. And it only becomes a predecessor when the sequel is made; otherwise, it has nothing to precede. If Supremacy (or Ultimatum) hadn't been made, Identity precedes nothing. The "prequel" question would have come into play if, for example, The Bourne Ultimatum had been chronologically set before the events of the two previous films. Now, to return to that sentence above, RRA would apparently write it thusly: "As fast-paced as the prequel..." Which, as he's already said above, is inaccurate. Why? Because Identity was designed and made before Supremacy was designed and made. As wetdog has pointed out, "prequel" is a portmanteau of the prefix "pre-" and the word "sequel". Then you suggest such sluggish terms like "first film" or "previous movie" or "that last one"? Yes my definition of prequel violates the arcane grammar rules constructed by a capitalist elitist paradigm of which enculturered you and me, and which you want to defend....I guess I'll remember that for future reference. So Capo, instead of being bitches of the system as we're stuck as, lets create a brand new term to associate a movie that comes before a sequel, that isn't a prequel.Or is there an accurate term available? |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 26, 2009 21:27:30 GMT
'Predecessor' maybe? He said it twice.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 26, 2009 22:02:19 GMT
Yes my definition of prequel violates the arcane grammar rules constructed by a capitalist elitist paradigm of which enculturered you and me, and which you want to defend....I guess I'll remember that for future reference. LMFAO! Seriously (if I may use that word), I've just spat saliva all over my keyboard. Not that there was any blow to be cushioned, but if it helps, I did admit my post was pedantic before I even set out to say anything. arcane grammar rules constructed by a capitalist elitist paradigm of which enculturered.... Damn. Shit. Anyway, end of discussion. (Though somehow, something tells me it isn't.) |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 26, 2009 23:05:56 GMT
the arcane grammar rules constructed by a capitalist elitist paradigm of which enculturered you and me, and which you want to defend....I guess I'll remember that for future reference. LOOOOOOL! I only read the first and last sentences of your post. Jesus fuck. One can only do you the favour of assuming you're baiting... |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 27, 2009 2:16:32 GMT
'Predecessor' maybe? He said it twice. It's ok, just...not unique enough. I mean where else does Prequel apply accept for its direct definition? It doesn't to my recollection. How about cinecestor? Cinema jammed with ancestor? |
|
