Talk:Prequel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Silmarillion

"The Silmarillion contains prequels for The Lord of the Rings. " - not really. While The Silmarillion was published long after LotR, it was being developed by Tolkien long before he even made up hobbits. Ausir 23:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All kudos to whoever decided to leave it in with a footnote. Koro Neil (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode I

The Star Wars example is bad. Star Wars Episode I is a prequel to Attack of the Clones.

A prequel is not "something that has a sequel". A prequel is a story that is set before the main story but is written after it. Thus SW I (1999, according to the article) cannot be a prequel to SW II (2002). Alensha 19:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did Epidsode 1 really popularize the term? I recall using it before the movie came out.

Well, as the article says, the term has existed since the 70s, but was popularised by the Star Wars prequels. Of course, how you define, let alone measure, the "popularity" of a word is highly debatable, but it's probably true that it has brought the word more currency than at some points. I would suggest that it is just one resurgence of a word that crops up from time to time, and therefore question the worthiness of that statement in the article, but I guess it's more or less true. - IMSoP 22:45, 22 January 2005 (UTC)

Movies

What about Batman: Begins?

Is Batman Begins really a prequel? Isn't it more of a retcon of the previous Batman origin stories? (Of course, Smallville is also a retcon of the Superman origin story.) Clampton 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins is a sort of "reinstallment" of the Batman series, similar to how Casino Royal (2006) is planned to start the Bond series all over again, thus, not a prequel.

Written first? published first?

Can anyone provide evidence that something is a prequel if it tells the backstory to anything composed earlier, rather than to anything published earlier? It is a very fixed convention is all the arts to relate them to one another in terms of their dates of publication--that is, the dates at which their creators deemed them complete enough for release to the public.

This talk of the Ring Operas all being prequels, rather than sequels to one another, is vaguely absurd: it's like someone forcefully trying to stick this bit of informal neologism wherever they can find a place for it. If I am not mistaken, Wagner's composition of the libretto went in one direction, and his composition of the music in the other. But even if that wasn't the case, it no doubt was with many other books.

If we define a prequel as "set before but published after", then there are fixed, public criteria for judging whether something is a prequel. If we insist on defining it in terms of the order the work was written, then (a) it will sometimes be undefined, since many authors move back and forth between composing different parts of different things, and (b) judging it will in any case require delving into biographies, personal notes, and other facts of which there might be no existing records. Fianlly, (c) This divorced the concept from the purpose it is normally meant to serve. The point in calling something a prequel is to indicate that it has a kind of secondary status--that it is seen as elaborating on a previously-known story. The point of interest, then, is whether the audience is already familiar with the original--that is, whether it has already been publicshed, rather than whether it has (merely) already been written.

This is of course a problem with neologisms: it takes a long time for their usage to be fixed enough for thme to have strict definitions. This despite the fact that the article as it currently stands talks about the "strict definition" of prequel, meaning of course just the one given at the top of the page.

So, two issues: (1) There is little or no evidence that prequel is defined in terms of date of composition rather than date of publication. (2) There are reasons why the latter makes a better--more useful--definition.

Captain Wacky 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the real usage of the word is based upon the intended order of the works. For novels, that would be the order in which the books are expected to be read. This will almost always be the order of composition, but even more importantly it will be the order of publication. If the works are published in a certain order then they are sure to be viewed in that order, so that must be the intended order (with the unlikely exception of a publisher who dislikes prequels and publishes the works not in the order chosen by the artist).

Not necessarily. Consider an author whose first works in a series are rejected, but later ones are accepted for publication -- perhaps after the author has honed their art. Once they get to be a known author or even a Big Name, the publisher is eager to put out anything they wrote, including the earlier works, which precede the later ones in authorship and continuity but follow them in order of publication. -- Thnidu (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a prequel or not is an artistic choice, not a matter of fact. All we get to judge on that issue is what the artist gives us. The order in which the works are published is a huge clue, but it is not definitive because the publisher could possibly release the works out-of-order.

Similarly, the artist could create work B, and then much later create work A, where A seems to be a prequel to B, but the artist can merely say that the works were created out-of-order and B is actually a sequel to A. Even though B was created and published first, the artists wants us to read A before B, therefore A is not a prequel.

I think this article gets a bit confused about Ring Operas when it says that they "were written in reverse order, making each opera a prequel to the following one." Usually a prequel follows the work to which it is a prequel. If the operas were written in reverse order, then surely each one is a prequel to the preceding one, not to the following one. I would make that edit myself, but I know almost nothing about those operas. Lilwik 10:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Thomas Harris Novels

Similar to Captain Wacky's comment above, the Thomas Harris novels were written & published in proper cronological order regarding "the Hannibal Lecter storyline": Red Dragon (1981), The Silence of the Lambs (1988), and Hannibal (1999). However, being that the film adaptions of each novel were made in a different order, this doesn't technically qualify the Red Dragon film adaption as a prequel when compared to the others.

However, his forthcoming novel, Behind the Mask (2006) -- which details Hannibal Lecter's genesis & is set before Red Dragon -- would properly qualify as a prequel.

killer ninjas 00:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto

Isn't "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" and "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" other prequels to "Grand Theft Auto III"? Vice City and San Andreas take place in the same "universe" but in the 1980's and 1990's, respectivly, while III takes place in 2001.

To add to this, the games listed as prequels to GTAIII and GTAIV are not prequels to GTAIV, as IV is a different continuity from the post-GTAIII games and it was also released most recently. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Yoshi's Story, Yoshi's Island 2

Are these video games considered prequels to the Super Mario Bros. series (1, Lost Levels, 2, 3, World)?

Yes. Mario, Luigi, and Bowser are babies in those games.75.142.50.33 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing

Removed the paragraph beginning "Prequels can be viewed as both positive and negative...". Leaving aside the fact that anything can be viewed as both positive and negative or the fact that the justification for seing prequels as a "positive" was unclear to the point of nonsense, none of the material presented had anything to do with the concept of prequels, or applied generally. Such comments, assuming they were given any attribution, belong on pages about the respective works.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprotim (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 October 2006‎ (UTC)

More editorializing

I removed this:

The word is a portmanteau formed from pre-, meaning before, and sequel, a work which takes place after a previous one. While the word is an etymological aberration ('sequel' derives from 'sequence' - latin:sequor - there is no such thing as a "prequor") its meaning is easily grasped and it has passed into common usage. The correct term should be protosequel, as adopted in other languages, like the Spanish "protosecuela".

Unsourced and in such prescriptive terms, it is hardly encyclopedic. I strongly suspect whoever wrote this made it up: it's certainly nowhere else on the interweb. Morwen - Talk 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see, you are removing it for no reason. It is totally accurate and fundamented. Check the Wikipedia in Spanish and you'll find similar reasons and documentation. If required, Latin dictionaries may be quoted, but I revert to the original because it represents the only academic explanation in the whole article. Trencacloscas 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the OED good enough for you? (That's the Oxford English Dictionary.) They say:

sequel, n. [< PRE- prefix + -quel (in SEQUEL n.).]

-- Thnidu (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wagner

"The idea of a prequel is not new. The libretti for the four operas of Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle -- Das Rheingold, Die Walküre, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung -- were written in reverse order, making each opera a prequel to the preceding one." I changed the word from "subsequent" to "preceding". I believe what's being said is that Rheingold was written earliest, Walkure was written second but is a prequel to Rheingold, Siegfried was written third but is a prequel to Walkure, and Gotterdammerung was written fourth but is a prequel to Siegfried. If someone with more complete Wagnerian experience than I (like, anyone) can indicate differently, please do re-write the paragraph -- I was trying to make it make sense according to what I thought was being indicated about the prequel status. Accounting4Taste 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I am no expect, I cannot see that they are prequels. -- Beardo 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha - no, Gotterdammerung was written first, Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen:_Composition_of_the_text: "It is interesting to note that whereas the prose draft of Das Rheingold was written before that of Die Walküre, the verse draft of Die Walküre preceded that of Das Rheingold. So while there is some truth to the oft-quoted remark that the Ring cycle was conceived backwards, it is not completely accurate." And the final scene of the cycle was written last. And they were performed in the right order. -- Beardo 06:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And - Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen#Composition_of_the_music - "In November 1853, Wagner began the composition draft of Das Rheingold. Unlike the verses, which were written as it were in reverse order, the music would be composed in the same order as the narrative." -- Beardo 06:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the passage about the Ring operas being prequels. They were conceived to be performed in chronological order, and that's how they premiered. Had they been intended as prequels, Wagner could have released them in such a way, which he deliberately didn't . --Baumi (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nightcomers

Where does IMDB say that it was the first prequel ? All I see is a comment about "kind of prequel". ANd it wasn't based on any book. -- Beardo 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I could not find that reference of Nightcomers being the first prequel. In fact, IMDb list previous films as prequels, like Another Part of the Forest (1948) [1] and Nevada Smith (1966) [2]. Therefore I delete the sentence " According to [[IMDb]], the first prequel in film was ''The Nightcomers'' (1972)<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069007 The Nightcomers (1972)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>". --Javierme (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Literature???

Is it valid to put Literature into this article. Since the concept of prequel is just a modern snob gimmick, what's the point in mentioning Jane Eyre and other classics??? This spurious term is never attached to literature. Trencacloscas 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Snob? So writing isn't literature unless the author's been dead for a hundred years or more? IMHO, that's the only snobbishness here. If Shakespeare had written Henry IV part 2 before Henry IV part 1, we'd be perfectly justified in calling part 1 a prequel. --Thnidu (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about facts???? Any references about the term used in literature? Trencacloscas (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Shakespeare Survey 55, King Lear and its Afterlife "literature enough" for you? Check out 'How fine a play was Mrs Lear': The case for Gordon Bottomley's King Lear's Wife by Richard Foulkes, it does mention the word prequel as a definiton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.172.87 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alien vs Predator

I'm going to remove the Predator movies from the list, as they are set in the late 80s and 1997, well before when AvP and AvP:R are said to take place 131.104.252.201 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Prequel listings

Is the listing of all prequels really necessary? Wikipedia ain't just a dump of indiscriminate and trivial facts. WP:NOT#INFO, WP:TRIVIA seem appropriate to cite here. Ong elvin (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda

Most of the Zelda timeline is unconfirmed, and there's never been any official confirmation of Ocarina of Time being a prequel to A Link to the Past. For now, I'm deleting that part. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Aonouma has said in the E3 in December of 2006 that Ocarina of Time is the first game chronologically, so it is a prequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.243.193 (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminator

terminator salvation is not a prequel to the original terminator movie or its sequels... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.236.168 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult when time travel is involved. Presumably, it can be seen as a prequel to the original film in that it shows the war before the Terminator is sent back. However, it can also be seen as a sequel in that it follows on from the first three films (doesn't it?).--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is not a prequel to T3, as was listed. It's a sequel to T2. (It pretty much erases T3 as a possible timeline, happily.) So I deleted that pairing. Barsoomian (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative terms

Though one user proposes protosequel as it was more a correct term [3] [4], the main meaning of the proto- prefix is first. Thus, the clearer meaning of protosequel would be first sequel (i. e. the protosequel of Star Wars might be The Empire strikes back, while its prequels are The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Siths). The last versions of this article presented the protosecuela as a Spanish term. While neither prequela, presecuela nor protosecuela are listed in Real Academia's dictionaries, precuela is far more frequently used than the proposed alternatives, as can be checked by a simple Google search, or by searching it in the Real Academia's Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual which presents two instances of precuela and one of precuelas, while there are none of the alternative proposals. --Javierme (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, and have removed that material as irrelevant.
  --Jerzy•t 08:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  

Confusion concerning lists

It seems to me that there is a little confusion with the meaning of prequel when it comes to the lists.
Since all prequels have to have been released after the original, nothing in the Original column should have a year higher than anything in ts associated Prequel column. The Literature and Film sections seem to exemplify this perfectly, but the other ones do not.
I have begun editing the other columns to reflect those previously mentioned; however if any one disagrees, I would like to hear their concerns. Whatever the end may result may be, a consensus is needed. Otherwise, I recommend we remove the lists completely, before they get absurdly long. Andvari15 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

List

As this is an article meant to define prequels, why is it necessary to have a list of every prequel editors can think of? This is not useful. What would be useful is a discussion of notable prequels within the text. Most of this article is now a list, and I strong suggest this be reversed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unmade films, and redundant mentions of sequels

I deleted a bunch of proposed film prequels that haven't been made, and probably never will be. These can be added back in if and when the movie goes into production. Also, the "Original" column often included several sequels; we only need the actual first, original, in most case. Some I'm not familiar with I left, but probably they should all go. Barsoomian (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a prequel

This is more a problem with the video game list than anything. It seems that people are kind of misidentifying what constitutes a prequel: to me, a prequel refers to a movie that compliments another plot, such as by filling in details or telling an origin story. However, I see several entries that, as opposed to being based on their expansion of another property, they merely take place in the same universe, maybe even with the same character, just before another property. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Iron Man 2

Exactly how is Iron Man 2 a prequel? 78.69.149.63 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) In the marvel cinematic universe, the chronology is as follows: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Thor (2011), The Avengers (2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.121.207 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mario prequels.

Under the "Computer and video games" section, it said the games where the Mario series characters are babies are prequels to "Super Mario Bros." I changed this to "Donkey Kong" linking to the 1981 game, since that was the first appearance of Mario, but is chronologically after the babies games, since Mario is an adult in "Donkey Kong." This was reverted to Super Mario Bros., as though this was Mario's first appearance, even though Donkey Kong was his first appearance. Why? 72.89.83.72 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

I'm unsure why this film is listed as being a prequel to "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For A Few Dollars More". Although they are commonly called Clint Eastwood's Spaghetti Western Trilogy, Eastwood plays a different character in each film and the films aren't themselves specifically related. Halfabeet (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it is part of the "Man with No Name" trilogy, and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" happens during the American Civil War, as opposed to the other two movies which happen in the 1870's.

They don't share the same characters - as mentioned, Eastwood plays a different character in each film. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is not referred to as a prequel in any writing I've seen on it, and it should not be listed as such here. I'm removing it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I read that the man in each film is supposed to be the same man, and "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is supposed to be a prequel because at the end, the character gets the poncho I believe it is, which he is already wearing in the previous two films. Charlr6 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bioshock Infinite and The Sims 3

How is The Sims 3 a prequel? The Sims 3 article doesn't explain. Also, from what we've learned so far Bioshock Infinite appears to be set in a different universe to Bioshocks 1 and 2, albeit during an earlier time period. Does anyone know anything to the contrary? Ta! Mister Six (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sims 3 is meant to be based 25 years before The Sims, just like The Sims 2 was supposed to be based 25 years after.

In the game, Sims 3, there are young "Sim" characters, like in the Goth family. While in The Sims, they are adult, and Sims 2 they are older. Charlr6 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing

i got rid of the repeated puss in boots and shrek 2 in the movies section and also removed rise of the planet of the apes because its not part of the same series as it is a reboot :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.121.207 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong about Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It's clearly set (centuries) before the original Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Thus it is a prequel to that film. Barsoomian (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it shares none of the same characters. It's a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Sharing the same characters" is another rule you've made up. It's irrelevant to to the definition: "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." And whether it's a reboot is even more off topic. Barsoomian (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes series has no prequels

In the original series, the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes goes back in time, but it's the next series of events that happen for the principal characters - thus it and the following two films are sequels, not prequels. A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work. That's not the case here. In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later. So the Planet of the Apes series films don't belong here at all. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are forgetting Rise of the Planet of the Apes. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the 70s movies, of course those set in times earlier than PoTA are prequels. Your definition of a "true prequel" is your own idea, not the definition we use here. Read the introductory text of the article: "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." So the Apes movies fitting that simple rule are listed. Including Rise.Barsoomian (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That definition of prequel is not strictly correct, and should be changed. What matters is what happens with the characters. In a time travel series, we follow the characters. With a prequel, the characters don't know what happens later (in the earlier work). - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't necessarily the "correct" one, I'm sorry. You need to make a case, not just declare it to be true. Barsoomian (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said just above, Rise is a reboot. It's not part of the original Planet of the Apes series. Its premise is similar to the fourth film in the original series, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, but it is not a direct remake in that it does not fit into that series' continuity, meaning that Conquest follows characters we saw in the previous film, and continued to see in the next film. And those films are in the order that those characters experience the events of the overall series. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rise is a prequel to the 1968 PotA, explaining where that world came from. Doesn't matter that it's inconsistent with the origin used in the Apes movies made in the 70s. Conversely, if there are sequels to Rise, inconsistent with PoTA, that also wouldn't affect the clear relationship between PotA and Rise. It's not important whether the studio describes it as such, or as a reboot. They'll it use whatever buzzwords they think will sell the film. But the name of the film Rise of The Planet of the Apes is an explicit statement that it is a prequel to PotA. Feel free to call it a "reboot" (of the series), that doesn't prevent it also being a prequel to Planet of the Apes. Barsoomian (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of that is your opinion. Of course it matters if it's inconsistent with other films in the series. In a time travel series, you don't call a story that goes back in time a prequel if it came later for the characters. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And all of that is your opinion. As is the requirement that the whole series of film be consistent. This isn't about series, or franchises, it's about the relationship between individual films. With time travel, it's the SETTING that is the determinant, not an individual's timeline. The events in the prequel are shown to have led to those in the preceding film. Barsoomian (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a prequel like, if for example there is a film series, and the first two films is based in 2100, but in the third film the characters travel back in time to 2012, it would still class as a sequel, even though the characters are going back in time, because it's a continuing story for the characters. Star Trek First Contact for example is still a sequel, even though they have traveled back in time. If the 'prequel' however focused on entirely new characters or the parents of the main characters from the original films then it would be a prequel. Charlr6 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no necessity to make it one thing or the other. A film can be both a prequel, and a sequel. They are not mutually exclusive. Godfather II, for instance, had long sequences in Sicily in the past, forming a prequel to The Godfather, and the rest in the "present", being a sequel to the events of The Godfather. Barsoomian (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That was made deliberately to become a prequel and sequel though. I wouldn't class every single Doctor Who episode a prequel when they travel back in time, its still the same timeline for the characters. When the characters are in 1977 in LOST, it was never, ever called a prequel. It's called flashbacks. And the flash forwards weren't called a 'sequel'.

If a film can be both a prequel and a sequel, then the stand-alone 1997 film Titanic is a prequel to itself because most of it is based in the past while only about 20 minutes is in the present day.

Star Trek for example, the recent movie is more of a prequel than sequel (sequel for "Old Spock"'s life). If the characters from TOS traveled back in time it wouldn't be classed as a prequel.

Infact, actually, even though The Godfather II is part sequel and prequel, those 'prequel' scenes, should be more of a 'flashback'. If they aren't, then there is no such thing as 'flashbacks' in movies or television shows at all.

"In the original series, the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes it's the next series of events that happen for the principal characters - thus it and the following two films are sequels, not prequels. A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work. That's not the case here. In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later." That, from all the way at the top of this discussion, is the general and mostly used definition to distinquish the difference from sequel and prequel.

What would you class Back to the Future Part 3? That has been classed as a sequel by practically everyone, even though based in the based. It's the "next series of events that happens for principal characters". What about 2006's Casino Royale? It starts off based before Bond gets his 'double O', so I could say thats a prequel to Dr. No, even though based modern day.

If the story is focusing on the main characters and continues in a series of events for their life, its still going to be a sequel. Back to the Future Part 3 is still classed as a sequel because it is the continuing adventures. If it was based before the first film, then it would be a prequel. Charlr6 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Half of "timey wimey" Steven Moffatt's oeuvre is a completely tangled timeline. River Song's every appearance is a "prequel" in one sense. But this list hasn't included individual TV episodes, just series as a whole, like Star Trek Enterprise being a prequel to TOS. So fortunately we don't need to argue about Doctor Who or Lost. A flashback is part of the same work. A prequel is a different work. So the Sicilian scenes in Godfather II would be flashbacks if they were part of The Godfather. But they're in a different film. That makes it (partly) a prequel. If we consider a TV series a single work, that would mean they could have flashback episodes, but not prequels. I've never heard a TV episode called a "prequel", so that may be a working rationalisation.

The "rules" you cite: "A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work" and "In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film," were stated by the editor Gothicfilm, unsupported by any reference. They're not rules I accept. This article says "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." That's the definition I'm using.

I wouldn't include BTTF3. It doesn't "supplement" (provide new information about) the first film, I think. Casino Royale is a remake of the 1954 TV film, based (loosely) on the 1953 novel, the first in the series. And there is little continuity between the different eras of James Bond movies anyway. So I'm not going to worry about that either. The Apes movies however definitely had continuity, some of the same characters, and set in the past of the same world seen in the first movie, explaining how the apes became dominant. At least Escape and Conquest are thus prequels of Planet of the Apes. Barsoomian (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You said that "The "rules" you cite: "A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work" and "In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film," were stated by the editor Gothicfilm, unsupported by any reference. They're not rules I accept..

The Hobbit film coming out this year, even though when it was a book, Lord of the Rings was a sequel, to the film series Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit movie is a prequel. That's the truth, thats common knowledge. And Wikipedia can't really be trusted with it's 'rules' as Wikipedia copies information from other websites and then dumps it in. That information copied is written by someone who thinks he is correct. I could write an article myself and then sneak it into some article on Wikipedia and present it as fact, just because I (unknowingly) to readers wrote the article myself that I have put in as a source.

And if the film, the prequel is set five years before the original work, and even has the same actors playing the characters, its still a prequel.

But as in the Planet of the Apes films, they travel back in time even though they might change the past that actual helps or explains events of Planet of the Apes to happen that is set in the future, still doesn't make it a prequel. It's going to be 75% sequel and 25% prequel, and those 'prequel' parts are going to be if they change the past which benefits Planet of the Apes, like a loop. It will set up events that will happen, and then the characters will travel back in time to actual unknowingly to them set up those events (unless they already knew about it).

And Doctor Who isn't just Steven Moffat's tangled timeline, the timeline has been tangled and changed since it started 50 years ago.

If the characters in Planet of the Apes, travelled back in time for fun but didn't change anything, it wouldn't suddenly be a prequel. If I was to travel from the UK to America, I wouldn't be traveling back in time because of the time different. If I was to travel from the UK to Australia I wouldn't be entering the future because of the time change. Charlr6 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here. Barsoomian (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Grandprequels

Have there been any prequels of prequels at all?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior (2008) : prequel to The Scorpion King (2002), which was a prequel to The Mummy Returns (2001) Barsoomian (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Planet of the Apes prequels

A prequel is defined in the article as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." Until recently the films: Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) were all listed as prequels to Planet of the Apes (1968) in the list of Prequels.The inclusion of these films is now disputed. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also listed at WT:FILM. Barsoomian (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically this RFC is still open. I've invited the WikiProject to join in here rather than there. JJB 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

---

My position is that all the originally listed Apes films above fulfil the simple requirement used in this list to be a prequel, being a "work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." The various prequels and sequels don't have to be consistent with each other, Rise contradicts Conquest, for example. It's only the relationship with the original 1968 film that is relevant. It's quite irrelevant to this question if the new buzzword "reboot" has been used to label a film.
Since it has been repeatedly deleted from the article, for reference the section was:

Prequel(s)	Original
Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)	Planet of the Apes (1968)

Barsoomian (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note a revised version of this, including citations is in the next section. Barsoomian (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Rise contradicts Conquest is part of what makes Rise a reboot. Why don't you make a RfC to WT:FILM, since we're talking about films here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rise could be called a reboot, I don't care, that's not the issue here. I also don't care about its relationship to Conquest. It's a prequel to PotA. The name of the film says that. (Now lowercased for your viewing pleasure.) Barsoomian (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Shout all you want, that's still just your interpretation of the title. You earlier said you don't care that the studio called it a reboot. Who do you think gave the film that title? - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the title "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is not a reference to the original film? You were the one who cared about the studio, but you now ignore them if it's convenient. We're talking about the film itself, which includes the title, not the PR campaign. Nowhere on the film itself does it say "reboot" (or "prequel" for that matter). But the words "rise of" in a title are pretty much a label saying "this is a prequel". Some other examples in the list:

• The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior (2008) / The Mummy Returns (2001)
• Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009) / Underworld (2003)
• Lufia II: Rise of the Sinistrals (1996) / Lufia & the Fortress of Doom (1993)
• Hannibal Rising (2007) / The Silence of the Lambs (1991) (not literally "rise of",if you want to be pedantic)

Barsoomian (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no rule that the word Rise consistently means it must be a prequel. And no, I was just looking for consistency. The studio changed the title after shooting started. And reboots often refer to the original indirectly, as Rise does repeatedly (e.g. with character names that refer to actors from the 1968 film - a prequel wouldn't do that.) - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it isn't a "rule". And there is no "rule" that a prequel can't make jokes using actors' names -- where do you get all these "rules" you keep citing? Rules about time travel, rules about reboots, rules about names.... 05:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down in the issue of whether modern reboots are considered part of a canon or not; however, Escape, Conquest and Battle are certainly not prequels. They continue a narrative in a linear fashion onwards from Beneath the Planet of the Apes, unlike, say, the Star Wars prequels, which slot additional story material before the preceding films. The time travel thing means they occur earlier in an absolute timeline, but they tell a story which follows rather than precedes the films they come after. They're sequels. GRAPPLE X 05:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

With time travel, a story can be both a sequel -- in the timeline of the protagonists -- and a prequel -- in that it recounts events that are part of the history of the original film. All of the Apes prequels, including Rise, show how the world that Charlton Heston arrived in in Planet of the Apes came to be. And the question of canonicity is a mess that we can leave to the Ape fans on their articles. Consistency and logic can't be demanded of these films, you could blank the whole article except for a few carefully planned literary works if you insist on that. Barsoomian (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to make a list of film prequels, doesn't it make sense to only include films that are indisputably prequels? What use is a list of everything that can be included if you stretch the definition? That doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Start a new topic if you want to discuss that. And don't imply that the definition is being "stretched" for the Apes films. It isn't. I'd include most of them as notable prequels in any list. "Indisputable" would leave an empty page, an empty Wikipedia for that matter. There is always someone who disputes anything here. Barsoomian (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question - isn't it more useful to have a list of prequels that cannot also be listed as sequels? - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't, because 1) That wasn't the question you asked, and 2) neither question is the topic of this RFC. Barsoomian (talk)

A minor but pertinent point - Escape, Conquest and Battle do not "recounts events that are part of the history of the original film"; neither do they "show how the world that Charlton Heston arrived in in Planet of the Apes came to be". The ending of Battle in particular strongly suggests that the future has been changed by the actions of the time-travelling characters. I'm in the "sequel" camp on this one. Barry Wom (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Each film has to be considered separately. Escape and Conquest aren't inconsistent with PotA. They show the creation of intelligent apes and their rebellion against humans, leading to PotA. Arguably Battle shows a different timeline. I wouldn't contest losing that one as a prequel.Barsoomian (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I must repeat here: the article begins with this definition: "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." That's the only condition that must be satisfied to allow inclusion. It is irrelevant what other categories a film falls in (sequel, reboot, etc.). A work can be in multiple categories.

Besides being prequels by definition, a few supporting citations:

• Rise of the Planet of the Apes: In a 2009 interview, director Rupert Wyatt said, "We've incorporated elements from Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, in terms of how the apes begin to revolt, but this is primarily a prequel to the 1968 film" Sci-Fi Magazine (August 2011). Many reviews call it a prequel, e.g. : Los Angeles Times: " “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” this summer’s prequel to the sci-fi franchise Heston launched in 1968." This article also mentions "A TV newscast playing in the background references the space mission “Icarus, lead by George Taylor,” and a newspaper shown in the third act reveals the vessel has been lost in space. Icarus was the name of the spaceship that crashes on the “Planet of the Apes” in the original film, and Heston’s character name was George Taylor." So this is a statement that the films are in the same history.

• Escape from the Planet of the Apes: AMC filmsite : "Escape From the Planet of the Apes (1971) Earth, Los Angeles, 1973; a sequel and prequel to the first two films".

• Conquest of the Planet of the Apes: The Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy Film Review: "With Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, the series sets out to chart the beginning of the events that lead up to the ape-ruled future." Battle though seems to diverge to a new timeline. So I won't include that. I have thus restored the Apes prequels with references to reviews. Citations trump WP:OR. Barsoomian (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get this idea that the only thing that matters is that definition someone put at the top of the article? As Charlr6 said in the discussion above Talk:Prequel#Planet of the Apes series has no prequels, anyone could put that there. It holds no authority. Those of us who have longed studied stories and genres know what a prequel is, and that definition is simplistic. Most obviously, to be accurate, it needs to say that when it's a time travel story, with the same characters later going back in time, it's a sequel, not a prequel. We all know this but you. The fact you found a couple sources who made sloppy use of the term - you left out how director Rupert Wyatt contradicted himself a year later, when Rise was released, saying -

• "It's not a continuation of the other films; it's an original story. It does satisfy the people who enjoy those films. The point of this film is to achieve that and to bring that fan base into this film exactly like Batman Begins."

- doesn't change the fact that WP operates by consensus, and you have gone against it. No one who has come here or to WT:FILM has backed your position. Most fully agreed those films are not prequels. Charlr6 backed me up -

"In the original series, the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes it's the next series of events that happen for the principal characters - thus it and the following two films are sequels, not prequels. A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work. That's not the case here. In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later." That, from all the way at the top of this discussion, is the general and mostly used definition to distinquish the difference from sequel and prequel.

If you don't accept that, fine. But you don't have control over the article, and you cannot go against consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You realise that you're trying to prove something by just quoting yourself? That doesn't work here.
That the three Apes movies are prequels 1) fulfils the conditions of the definition in the article and 2) is cited by references as above. Your argument is WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Repeated deletion of referenced information from this article will be reported to the appropriate noticeboard. Barsoomian (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I repeat - where do you get this idea that the only thing that matters is that definition someone put at the top of the article? What doesn't work here is going against consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the definition and wacky rules that you pulled out of your ass is what Wikipedia has to follow? And where do you get off of ignoring and deleting cited references? Including a statement by the director of Rise? Maybe you should start an article True prequel using your own personal definition. Barsoomian (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Barsoomian, while I think it's good you are using sources to try and back up your stance (since what either you, myself or any other editor thinks or does not think is a prequel does not really matter), I really don't think film reviews cut it for this type of claim. They are to all intents and purposes opinion pieces that are trying to convey a sentiment to a reader. If you had a book reference or something that listed prequels and included these films then your stance would be much stronger IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth wouldn't film reviews count? Articles written by professional journalists who write about film for a living are as reliable as you can get. The same as are cited in every movie article. Why demand such extraordinary standards? Does such a book as you describe even exist? We're not saying some living person is a pedophile. We're talking about a movie category. I have sourced and cited these three films more than 99% of any other works listed here, or in any other similar list article for that matter. If you want to dispute a specific source, say so and why. Barsoomian (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not the function of film reviews to categorise films. They are personal opinion pieces. It is their job to say how good the film is, and even then we only include someone's opinion if they are notable. As an example, take this list of prequels from Empire Magazine, a highly respected British film reviewing magazine (possibly the top-selling one). It includes "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", but in your honest opinion how many of the others fit the formal definition? Chris Nolan is on record as saying Batman Begins is not a prequel. Casino Royale can't be because it contradicts the earlier films. Hell, Manhunter was the first Lecter film so how can it be a prequel, sequel, reboot or anything else? If I decided to add Manhunter on the basis of my source from a respectable film review publication would you permit me to go ahead and add it, or would you object on the basis we all know it's not really a prequel? On that note I think in the case of contentious films we should find sources with a more formal and scholastic approach. Betty Logan (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Because it is not the function of film reviews to categorise films." Says who? They describe films, put them into genres, give them stars. So, you found one sloppy piece of journalism. Therefore, we can't use any? "Top 10 XXX" articles are usually crap filler anyway. Just looking for an excuse to mention a bunch of favourite or topical movies, and stretching the definition to fill out the required number. An article or review on a specific film though has no such pressure to jam a film into an inappropriate category. A "formal and scholastic approach" to deciding if a film is a prequel? It's not a "formal and scholastic question". It's trivia, of interest only to some obsessive film nerds. I've provided respectable sources that describe films as prequels, as well as discussion of how they fit the definition we have had in this article for several years (3 years since the lead sentence was last changed). Barsoomian (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "discussion of how they fit the definition we have had in this article for several years" consists of nothing more than that's the definition that's there in the article. You don't discuss it, and you don't answer people's problems with it. And if it's all just trivia, why are you here? Why are you so determined to pull every film you possibly can under the prequel umbrella? It should just list true prequels, like Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and X-Men: First Class. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not your list of trivia - which you yourself deride. A word loses its meaning when you tag everything with it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty sick of hearing about "true prequels". You just keep insisting the "definition" you made up out of thin air is the one that must be applied, with all these wacky conditions on it. The definition here isn't what you think is "true", it's how the word is used in the real world. The only things I personally "tag" as prequels are ones that I'm familiar with. And I do happen to have seen the Apes movies and so I'm sure they are prequels. And when challenged, I proved it by definition and by citation. "Rise" is a particularly indisputable case, since the director of the film itself called it a prequel. And if you Google for "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" prequel you'll find 1.5 million hits. So let me know if you need more citations for that. You can argue about some other films, but that one is rock solid. Barsoomian (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that Casino Royale or Batman Begins are prequels? This chart at Box Office Mojo seems to think they are, but how is "Rise" different to these two? None of them depict events leading up to the previous films, all three re-imagine the origins of the mythology in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the previous films (the POTA series depicte dtheir own 'uprising'. Clearly this chart, the Empire list and the reviews you cite are mis-applying terminology that has a specific application. The troubling thing here is that you are clearly not consistent with your application. Betty Logan (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't personally think that either Casino Royale or Batman Begins is a prequel. If anyone does, state which film they are prequels to. "Prequel" is relationship between two works, it doesn't describe one film alone. Rise is a prequel because 1) the director of the film said so, 2) numerous reviewers said so 3) it fits the definition in the article -- there are numerous references in the 2011 film to the 1968 film, see Collider Visits The Set of RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES for details. You say that Rise is inconsistent with "the series". Yes, it is. It contradicts Conquest. But it isn't (very) inconsistent with Planet of the Apes (1968). It is a prequel to THAT film, "prequel" is not a property of a "series", it describes a relationship between two films. Thus the two columns in the table: "Prequel" and "Original". This is not about fitting a series of films into a consistent timeline. That is something for fans of each particular series to argue about. I am being very consistent in how I use the terms. Please point out exactly where I am not. Barsoomian (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of enclosing the following two contribs in the following box, for reasons i will make clear in my response to them, below.^{Jerzy•t 08:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)}

Prequel: A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. These claimed 'prequels' continue the story of the characters, not focusing on them at a 'younger age', so the so called 'prequels' are sequels. Rise of Planet of the Apes shows Caesar from his birth until he 'rises' up. Charlr6 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good, short and accurate definition. That should replace the current one in the article. This link works a little better, though. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that you added your own interpretation by adding "It usually portrays the same characters at a younger age." Which is YOUR OWN OPINION only. The word "usually" does not appear in the cited dictionary, which says  : "a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age." So I will delete that. I note that you are unable to find any support for the "true prequel" rules you mention above, motivating your edit warring on deleting the Apes movies. Barsoomian (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I could put it in exactly as it is - would that make you happy? That would mean a prequel must always portray the same characters at a younger age. That goes against keeping the Apes films on the list as well. I didn't use that because not all prequels involve the same characters. But they usually do.

Just because in "the real world" there are published sources who make sloppy or imprecise use of a term doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I could Google all sorts of misuses of various words, then use them as refs and put inaccurate definitions into WP. That not what it's for. But it's obvious you are determined to pull every film you possibly can under the prequel umbrella due to your own preference. You have no answer for good valid points. You repeat that director Rupert Wyatt called Rise a prequel in an early interview, but always leave out how he contradicted himself a year later, when Rise was released. They had decided by then to call it what it was, a series reboot. Consensus is now even further against you, with the new comments here and at WT:FILM. No one has backed your position. Most fully agreed those films are not prequels. I've taken them off the list. Again. I suggest you leave it alone, and don't go against consensus. Again. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote your own definition and presented it as a quote from a dictionary. Then you say we have to follow your definition, and ignore anything said by anyone else, including the director of "Rise" that disagrees with your own idea of a "true prequel". And as for "But it's obvious you are determined to pull every film you possibly can under the prequel umbrella": Bollocks. Look at my history on this page. I have been watching it for a few months and removed far more dubious inclusions that I have added. Barsoomian (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. But it doesn't give you authority to go against consensus or keep the Apes sequels on here. And, unbelievably, you again left out how director Rupert Wyatt contradicted himself a year later, when he put Rise in the the series reboot category, "exactly like Batman Begins." - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop asserting you speak for "consensus". You're speaking for yourself. You have no authority to state what the consensus is. And SO WHAT if Rise is a reboot? That doesn't contradict it being a prequel. There is no reason a film cannot be in multiple categories. See below cites. Rise is indisputably a prequel to the 1968 film.

• Rotten Tomatoes " The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype that many other summer films did, "
• Huffington Post "So effectively does director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand..." and "by changing its title from an oblique reference to the prior Apes series to one that specifically situates it within that brand, it also changes how we view the story. Once you state explicitly that your story is a prequel to Planet of the Apes".
• Chicago Tribune "'Apes' prequel stands alone, upright"
• The Telegraph "Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an entertaining prequel with marvellous special effects." Barsoomian (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is disputable. As said above, these are imprecise (at best) uses of the term prequel. That does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I could Google all sorts of misuses of various words, then use them as refs and put inaccurate definitions into WP. That's not what it's for. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite someone notable who disputes it. You can't dismiss 1.5 million references that describe Rise as a prequel just by handwaving. Barsoomian (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else. 2.6 million Google hits decribe it as a "remake", and 3.2 million hits describe it as a reboot, as opposed to 1.5 million that describe it as a prequel i.e. 80% of hits describe it as something else. Given the fact that there are more sources describing it as something other than a prequel, then do you honestly think it is acceptable to abide the minority opinion. If so, how do you reconcile that stance with WP:WEIGHT that says that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their weighting in reliable sources? Betty Logan (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've said a dozen times: whether a film is a "reboot" is irrelevant to whether it's a "prequel". They are not mutually exclusive. It can be both. See the first two refs above calling it a "prequel/reboot". More? Google for "rise of the planet of the apes" "prequel reboot": 55,200 results. How many do you want me to cite specifically? Add in time travel and a film can be a sequel as well. I've given a dozen reliable sources saying Rise is a prequel, including the director of the film who said so explicitly. Why are these sources simply dismissed? By the way, looking at your 2.6 million results for "remake", the first ones at least, most are saying "is not a remake". Barsoomian (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And 3.2 million hits describe it as a reboot, so we go with that, because this is an encyclopedia. We don't list secondary categories a film might fall under. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What a series of non sequiturs. Barsoomian (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger. I think most people here would agree with that, especially as it is drawn from Dictionary.com. Consensus is against you. Time to call an end to this discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You have real delusions of grandeur. And again misrepresenting the Dictionary.com reference. It's hard to assume good faith when you continually engage is such practices. Barsoomian (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, not misrepresenting. I'm tired of going around in circles with you. Consensus is against you. Time to end to this discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC). -

You were rewording it to suit your own prejudice. You don't have authority to close a discussion. But you can go away if you can't refute the sources I have cited. Barsoomian (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD makes a good point responding to Barsoomian over at WT:FILM: "Interestingly, there are no sources from the year that the film was released that call it a prequel. Your obsession is fine for you and would go great at a blog but they are not encyclopedic."

By the time Rise was released, people realized it was a reboot, not a prequel, and wrote about it as such. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing you've proven is that you cannot read, and refuse to read, anything that goes against your prejudices. Already above I listed at least FOUR REVIEWS OF THE MOVIE, that obviously were written AFTER it was released, that describe "Rise" as a prequel. Since you can't raise your eyes, I will copy the whole slab here again:

• Rotten Tomatoes " The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype that many other summer films did, " Nov. 04 2011
• Huffington Post "So effectively does director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand..." and "by changing its title from an oblique reference to the prior Apes series to one that specifically situates it within that brand, it also changes how we view the story. Once you state explicitly that your story is a prequel to Planet of the Apes". 08/09/11
• Chicago Tribune "'Apes' prequel stands alone, upright" August 04, 2011
• The Telegraph "Rise of the Planet of the Apes is an entertaining prequel with marvellous special effects." 11 Aug 2011 Barsoomian (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm getting tired of going around in circles with you. So I made the mistake of using a quote from someone else, forgetting about what I had read and responded to there earlier. That doesn't change what was said before: these are imprecise (at best) uses of the term prequel. That does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. And they're greatly outnumbered by the critics who called it a reboot when it was released. I could Google all sorts of misuses of various words, then use them as refs and put inaccurate definitions into WP, but 3.2 million results describe it as a reboot, so we go with that. We don't list secondary categories a film might fall under, because this is an encyclopedia. Consensus is still against you, even more than before - add the one I quoted. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you copied and pasted a false statement, and take no responsibility. But that's how you roll. Hey, I'm pretty sure that Rise was also described (I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong) as a "science fiction" movie. That means, under your rules, can't be a drama, right? Because a film can only be in one category. Or your brain will explode. And someone who didn't bother to read the RfC and comments and respond here can't be counted as taking either side. Barsoomian (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I said I made the mistake of using a quote from someone else, forgetting about what I had read and responded to there earlier. What more do you want? Then you put on a phony straw man argument about science fiction and drama? There's no point in debating with you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't expect you to apologise for making a false statement. As for the "straw man", no, it's exactly the same argument you make to exclude "prequel". It illustrates how silly your logic is. You've never debated with me at all. You ignore every sourced reference I cite and just keep repeating your personal definition of a "true prequel". Barsoomian (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No one reading the above discussion will agree with that. Anyone can see I've explained your refs are making imprecise, even sloppy use of the term prequel, and they're vastly outnumbered by others. That's not ignoring them. So all can see you just misrepresented what I've been doing here.

Consensus is still against you in a landslide, both here and at WT:FILM. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

   I make no apology for responding, to this extent, without reading the rest of the section: I was asked to consider commenting by the initiator of the RFC, bcz i was "the last person to revise the actual definition on the [accompanying article]".
   I don't know where i got that definition, bcz the word is too new to be in the print dicts that i routinely consult. I assume i regarded it as obviously what had been meant every time i had heard it used (and i thot my wording as more straightforward -- less likely to confuse -- than the first sent of what i found there). (I'm not sure that "narrative" was a wasted word, but i'd argue that La Mer and the Pastoral Symphony could conceivably acquire sequels or prequels, whether or not they are considered narrative works.)
   I think i regarded that defn as a minor cleanup: a fix too simple to neglect, since i was already committed to editing out the irrelevant OR about "prequor", and the wacky and irrelevant attempt to introduce "protosequel" into English.
--Jerzy•t 08:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Except that you added your own interpretation by adding "It usually portrays the same characters at a younger age." Which is YOUR OWN OPINION only. The word "usually" does not appear in the cited dictionary, which says  : "a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age." So I will delete that. I note that you are unable to find any support for the "true prequel" rules you mention above, motivating your edit warring on deleting the Apes movies" Just because I added the word 'usually' it's my opinion. From the actual definition: "portraying the same characters at a younger age". That doesn't say anything about it being a continuing story where characters travel back in time to be a prequel. You are trying to back up your own opinion just because you don't believe a "true prequel" has to focus on the characters before the original story. Charlr6 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not talking about you but responding to Gothcfilm, who had changed the definition you found, from "A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age" , to "A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work. It usually portrays the same characters at a younger age." He changed what was an example of a prequel to a "usual" characteristic, and presented it as a dictionary definition, which would justify his own prejudice. Barsoomian (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between list and prose

   Perhaps i will expound further on this theme, but for the moment i invite attention to a very old analog that i was reminded of. (And there's a virtual lollipop for the first one to adequately explain why it occurred to me.) The good news about it is that it doesn't require, as i had feared, admin privileges to inspect the history: see User:David Gerard/Motif of harmful sensation. I am suggesting -- in the subsection title and now explicitly -- that Prequel resembles this deleted (but eventually userified) article, typifies a type of failure of the editing process where the list content of a page gets too much attention and the prose too little; this raises the question "what makes the page encyclopedic?"
--Jerzy•t 09:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I get your point. Lists attract cruft. I have no idea if all the games listed are prequels in any sense, for instance. And there is no prose at all discussing games. Just a long list. However, I think that Escape from the Planet of the Apes should be noted even in a severely cut down article, as it's one of the earlier examples of the concept in film. The prose is getting some attention as a side effect, though almost only about film prequels.Barsoomian (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved - now returned here

I'm now being asked to continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Prequel discussion. I said I'd prefer to keep it on the Talk page, but Curb Chain (talk) and JJB seem to want to have it there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears Curb Chain at DRN and Barsoomian at user talk are both politely backing away from discussion. Would anyone else find it appropriate if I attempted some nuancing footnotes as I suggested at DRN? JJB 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorting by year of original work is indeed better than nothing. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I mean are we ready to add Apes to Films now, while "explaining the different contexts in which the terminology is applied" in Betty Logan's words? JJB 16:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we may as well. I think there are two ways to go about doing it. Either create a new table of pseudo-prequels below the main one, or keep them in the main table and gray them out, with a key at the bottom. The main thing is that reboots and sequel-prequels (we can cover The Godfather 2 in that which is an odd case too) are distinguishable from the pure prequels, and just include a few sentences on how the usage in terminology differs. Personally, I think using cell shading with a key is the cleanest approach, but it really depends on how 'distinguishable' we want to make them. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for having them be very distinguishable - best way is to have a first table of uncontested prequels, then a secondary table with the ones falling under the expanded umbrella. I'd like to see a short section or subsection in the article explaining how the term prequel has been expanded by some journalists - most likely due to their lack of rigor rather than an expressed preference - and this is an example of how the English language keeps evolving - due to sloppy usage. Yeah, that's my take on it, but that's what happened. I'm sure there are some sources that back that up. This may be a bit much, but something in that direction. I would also like to see the text Barsoomian took out Apr. 5 restored:

It is also important to note that a prequel must be part of the same series as the publication to which it is a prequel. If, as with the case of Batman Begins it starts the story (and the series) anew, it is not a prequel; but rather a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with the two table approach. I agree with your definition of the 'traditional' prequel too i.e. a prequel was originally the inverse of a sequel—that is, the first film could be perceived as a sequel to the second film. The problem of course is that I'm not sure if there ever was a rigid definition that we can source, the definition seemed to be implicit in its application to a particular sub-set of films that bore this characteristic. It's only recently with the current vogue of reboots that the usage has somewhat become bastardized. If we can't source the definition we can at least summarise the first table as containing films that have no 'reboot' or 'sequel' elements though. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll agree on excluding Batman Begins (though not because of some definition, but rather because "you could say it's a prequel" is not a sufficient enough RS cite IMHO). I think graying might work better than a small asterisk so will try that later, as has been done in other cases where a long list includes some "disputed" entries; I think Barsoomian felt that two tables would be undue weight against the status of those we are calling "conflated", and it would be better to see them in chrono order I think too. This pretty well satisfies the original concern at DRN so I will report on that accordingly; Barsoomian has compromised also, by excluding Battle. To Gothicfilm, to restore the definition previously taken out, or to bring in any discussion over disputed or changing meanings of "prequel", simply provide RS. Let me know if anything else is needed. JJB 02:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done some prose clean-up, since the history and etymology was gretaly confused. I've started a separate section for usage too, where I am going to document its conflated application. I've you don't like anything I've done so far feel free to hit the revert button, if I've removed something that anyone else feel is pertinent then feel free to add it back in. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a note pointing out that time travel movies (e.g. Back to the Future III) can constitute special cases ? Barry Wom (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded on this anomaly in the "Usage" section by using the Planet of the Apes series as an example of chronological prequal-ness, but which are continuous as a narrative. Anyway, I think I've covered all aspects of the terminology in an unbiased way (perhaps I have even been too accommodating of a minority view?), and it's on the right track now. If anyone thinks there are any fundamental problems with what I've written feel free to bring them up here or take a crack at it yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All-in-all you've given a very good write-up. I would only bring up a couple points. I agree with discussing Rise as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. From what I recall, they were always called sequels, all four of them. I suppose we could find some sources that have called them prequels more recently, but only in very small numbers. Not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. So yes, I would say you have been too accommodating to a very small minority view. I would either take them out, or explain why they're not prequels at all - each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline and experiences from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in the earlier film. These are not prequels. Also, on a more minor point, is there any RS for The Godfather Part II being contemporaneously called both a sequel and prequel back in the 70's? I don't recall seeing that when going over contemporaneous articles on it. It was always called a sequel from what I've seen. Rather famously so, and often commented on, as it was the first "prestige" sequel - the first to be nominated and even win Best Picture, the first major studio release to be labeled "Part II", as Coppola points out. There was comment on the fact it also contained extensive flashbacks telling the earlier family story, but did the word prequel really get used back then to describe those parts of it? It's appearance in the "Usage" section is good even if it only applies to later decades, but the "History" section may not be accurate. Do we have access to the original press pack for the film? And even if it was called a "prequel" therein, did enough journalists use the term to make it notable? - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if Godfather 2 was referred to as a prequel at the time of the release. The reference for that claim didn't bear it out, but since it was specific about where the claim was i.e. the press pack, I left it in for the time-being, with a citation tag. I suggest leaving it there for a few weeks and if no-one produces a source then pull it. As for the original ape sequels, I have to admit I had to search around for a decent reference; I don't believe the usage is that common, but since that has been one of the more contentious points of the debate then I felt it was a good choice for illustrating a specific misuse of the term. Another good example would be Star Trek (2009), which is a sequel that actually takes place in a parallel universe, and that has been widely heralded as a prequel. I feel we need something in there that covers the misapplication of the term in the case of time-travel movies, whether it is Apes, Star Trek or something else. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very likely we'll be pulling Godfather II from the "History" section, but I guess there's no rush. I agree we should address the misapplication of the term prequel in the case of time-travel movies, but it doesn't come across strongly enough in the case of the Apes sequels for me. It reads too even-handed: In this case the latter three instalments in the series satisfy the definition of a 'prequel' in one way—and are sometimes referred to as "prequels" is not something I believe belongs in the article. Too few people would make that assertion. Perhaps the 2009 Star Trek is a much better example, as a lot of people do seem to think it's a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with the Trek movie (which I agree off source count is a better example), but I'll get on to that tomorrow. It will give everyone else an opportunity to make any observations/suggestions too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To JJB - What happened to using a second table for contested cases? And as said above, Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) are not prequels. Rise was often called a prequel, the 70s sequels were not. See four paragraphs just above. And isn't saying that Escape and Conquest are somehow prequels, but their follow-up, the fifth film Battle is not WP:OR? Consensus is against including the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. Only one uncompromising user was for that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He's probably added them in because I wrote them up in the introduction. However, I will rewrite that part using the Star Trek example as discussed above, since Star Trek is more representative. As for the second table/shading debate, I don't mind either way provided it is clear. As for whether the early ape sequels should be in the table, I tend to think not given that they are mostly described as sequels in keeping with other time-travel movies, but I'm willing defer to majority opinion on that one. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, I am trying to resolve a DRN request, namely, how to handle the question whether the Apes films are prequels. Gothic above has returned to three positions: the statement that they are not, the request for the second-table option, and the additional Battle question. This is a bit of a surprise because I had read the situation differently earlier on all three. OTOH, thank you for your compromise attempt by allowing Rise to stand.

1. We agree two defs of prequel are found in RS. Betty: "If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels." Gothic: "Sounds fine to me. It's legitimate for the Prequel article to go into the distinction between a 'true prequel' and one [i.e., a prequel] that's being expansively added under the umbrella." This implies the article should cover both defs. If we say to each other "not a prequel" we should mean "not a prequel by def 1" because def 2 appears in RS. Gothic deleted based on saying "not a prequel"; but this contradicts the RS deleted (which says basically "prequel by def 2"), and the dispute on this, fleshed out by other RS, already appears in the article. The deleter did not challenge reliability of the source (Slotkin's book on Apes, added by Betty), but only contradicted the RS, which is insufficient. So why, according to RS, is there this need for the earlier Apes movies not to appear at all? If "prequel" is a minority report, it has notable adherents. I am looking for a deletion reason, but the view that "noncontinuity prequels" exist appears to be established as a significant POV, so I don't know of any valid deletion reason; but I am generally inclusionist. Here's the RS status I understand so far:

• Webster, Oxford, and dictionary.com give a broad generic definition that permits "yes".
• Slotkin's book, several critics of Apes, Empire Magazine, and the director of Rise say "yes".
• Silverblatt's book gives a generic statement (not about Apes) from which Betty Logan infers "no".
• It is possible an RS might specifically say "no" about Apes (but forcing one requires proving a negative).
• It appears more sources link "reboot" with Apes than "prequel", from which "no" is also tangentially inferred.

2. I thought Gothic had agreed that one list was possible. Betty: "The compromise is to create a sub-section of the list for reboots that are sometimes referred to as 'prequels', for cases where the terminology is being used interchangeably in reliable sources. Gothicfilm agreed to this .... After all, we don't need to just bundle everything into one big list without even attempting to explain the criteria for its inclusion do we?" Gothic: "I agree with this very well thought-out analysis." Offhand, it seems like one list is better because with two we would need a second list for each genre (eventually at least literature, and one gaming candidate appeared but was rejected), because coloring is a good signal used in many tables for disputed list entries, and because a second list would sacrifice chrono consistency in favor of significant (undue?) demotion of the disputed entries. However, since Barsoomian has been willing to compromise, it's possible two lists might fly. But this question should wait until we understand where the animus against sources is coming from.

3. Whether or not to include Battle was waived by Barsoomian as a compromise, so I went with the waiver. If Gothic feels three are better than two (assuming we include them), it appears everyone else would agree with that.

If I can understand where the rapid deletion is coming from, that should move toward resolution. I am not working out why every last one of the sources using the second def must be impeached for listmaking purposes; it seems a noteworthy secondary POV is being documented. JJB 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful to distinguish between the recent Apes film and the 70s sequels. Clearly there are many sources calling the recent film a prequel i.e. it is a significant minority view, so on that basis it should most likely be documented. In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it, but either way we do have mechanism for dealing with it now so neither option is unacceptable to me. My view on the early Apes films being prequels had no bearing on the reason I removed them from the prose; the reason I did was simply because I was looking for a continuity based example of a film that was described as a prequel, and Star Trek fitted that profile better given that there were many more sources describing it as a prequel. We don't need to include every complex case in the prose, we just need one example that best illustrates the problems in its application. As for the table, I do think the shaded cell styling is by far the cleanest approach, and I'm not convinced a secondary table gives anything over what the shaded cell approach does; we're basically saying not everyone considers these films prequels, and the shading adequately conveys that in IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for your consideration. I actually was reading your source Slotkin as being a sufficient RS to tack a POV on, as it appears a book-length description of the Apes franchise and is unequivocal. The other sources, as above, are 3 dictionaries by implication (assuming that noncontinuous stories are included), your Empire Magazine cite, and several reviewers found by Barsoomian. It's clear that, now that we have actually pretty good text defining the distinctions (thanks), there are a lot of people independently using the noncontinuous def to support the POV. I can affirm the article with the other Apes films restored (based on RS) and no other changes, but of course the dispute resolution is still incomplete. JJB 18:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

While I would prefer a properly labelled second table, as I think it's more clear for the casual reader, I'm willing to go along with the current new one using gray shading. And, for the record, I agreed to including Rise as a contested example on that list because a large but minority of sources imprecisely called it a prequel. But I did not agree to including the original Planet of the Apes series sequels for all the reasons described above, and again, consensus is against it. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of them prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concession. Will revisit the question of the earlier films later and maybe I'll bring my own sources. JJB 01:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seemed this was all but wrapped up, and now for some reason you seem to want to advocate for the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both here and at WT:FILM. And why are you insisting on putting in Works with darker gray background shading have been alternatively described as a reboot, remake, or sequel; some are not universally regarded as prequels. As I said, all the works in gray are actually primarily described by sources as something other than a prequel. It's not accurate to say "some" of them are not universally regarded as prequels. They all are. There's no dispute about that. I don't understand your edit summary: The crux is that no RS says alternate description ("reboot") automatically requires ("so") being "not a prequel"; we only have RS for that for Batman and Star Trek, the two linked. How does that conflict with stating the accurate Works with darker gray background shading have been alternatively described as a reboot, remake, or sequel, so are not universally regarded as prequels. Betty Logan first put in wording very similar to that, you added in the "some", I took it out, and now you put it back again. Are you saying Rise was not described by any RS as a something other than a prequel, when it was established repeatedly on this page that actually the majority of sources called it a reboot?

Why are you doing this? I can't believe I now find myself back here again for more debate with the Dispute Resolution guy. If you're going to insist on this I'm going to have to withdraw my support for putting these contested cases in gray within the main list. They're supposed to be distinct. IMHO the contested cases can go in a properly labelled second list, or just be discussed in the "Usage" section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I sort of see what he is getting at; while something like The Godfather 2 is very rarely described as just a prequel, it is pretty much regarded as part-prequel by everyone so it is misleading for our key to indicate marked films are not considered prequels. However, a key shouldn't need sourcing (since it is a critera, not a claim), and the wording shouldn't just apply to some films it should apply to all films. Maybe we should just drop the second part of the sentence and leave it as Works with darker gray background shading have been alternatively described as a reboot, remake, or sequel. To most people (myself included), if a film is a reboot or a remake it cannot be a prequel so I think it would still do its job. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As you know I agree if a film is a reboot or a remake it cannot be a prequel. What you suggest now is better than including "some", but the second half does tie up the sentence well, and I don't see how it causes any problems. It didn't say the films in gray were not prequels, it said they were "not universally regarded as prequels." I took that to mean they were also regarded as other categories. But the wording is a little ambiguous. Perhaps it should be re-phrased. If it were up to me it would say something like Works with darker gray background shading have been primarily described as a reboot, remake, or sequel, but have also been regarded as prequels in a broad sense of the word. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that would work fine too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. Let's put it in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Some good did come out of this, as it is now clearer and less ambiguous. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working your minds around these definitions, that was a great compromise. I apologize for tempting you to disappointment in debating the "DR guy". My (volunteer) job is to advocate for everyone. But I think a key is for us to recognize when our statements don't have significant support in RS, such as "if a film is a reboot or a remake it cannot be a prequel"; if we don't have that in RS, we must admit that RS allow films that fall in multiple categories, and then we have WP report that. If I were to affirm or advocate for that statement, it would be my duty to support it with sources. So it looks good for now; let's have it simmer and come back later with various new sources. The only change I'll make is to delete the tags on the legend, per your hint, because they don't apply to your improved wording. JJB 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing dispute resolution?

I'm glad this was agreed to. Hopefully this is settled now. To the one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus both here and at WT:FILM - You ought to take a look at WP:WEIGHT. It says Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Again, I agreed with discussing Rise as a reboot film that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. But I don't believe that's accurate for the original Planet of the Apes series sequels. I have read a great deal about them over the years, including looking back at contemporaneous articles. They were always called sequels, all four of them. Each film has characters moving forward in their own timeline from the previous film, and they discuss what happened in that preceding film. These are not prequels.

To again quote Betty Logan: In the case of the 70s sequels, there really isn't that much out there calling them prequels, just the odd source here and there, and for the most part they are usually regarded as sequels, so the question is whether there is enough opinion out there to warrant the claim that there is a significant view they are prequels? I generally think there isn't if I have to call it.

Again, consensus both here and at WT:FILM is firmly against listing any of the original Planet of the Apes series sequels as prequels. They were against including Rise as well, but I compromised and went along with listing it in gray shading because it's a reboot that a large but minority of sources imprecisely called a prequel. You may be able to find a small number of sources that have called some of the original sequel films prequels, but not enough to be notable. A very tiny number compared to those that called Rise a prequel.

Just so you know, I will actively contest any attempt to list any of the original 1970s Planet of the Apes series films as prequels, now or in the future. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you got your way. I recused myself and haven't edited the article for almost a week, and have no intention of beating my head against this brick wall again. But you keep on sneering at me here. And misrepresenting WP policies. You ignored the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT when you selectively quoted it  : "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". It does not mean "I have more buddies at WT:FILM who will back me up. Therefore I don't need to source anything and can ignore anything I don't like, just declare they're 'imprecise', 'inaccurate' , 'minority' if they fall foul of my own definition." The rest is just a rerun of the same twaddle I have refuted earlier, I won't waste my time on that again. Logic, WP:RS, WP:V don't count here. Barsoomian (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you B for returning. I'm glad we reached agreement on settling some issues, though not all presented in the original DRN. If you don't mind, I will do no more than allude to one party's active recalcitrance and to one party's passive sarcasm. Verbum sat. I trust further dialog will be fruitful. My interest is representing the sources, and there is still fertile ground here toward complete resolution in the future, despite apparent impasse. The remaining original question is whether the first Apes series should be categorized as including prequels under the broad later definition. I think we all agree that is a question answerable by source analysis and determining proper weight. Because of potential heat, let's go very slow, and over some period present a number of sources, followed later by analysis. Maybe immediate efforts would be better directed at sourcing and sorting the remainder of the current lists!? JJB 13:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• In regards to the 70s POTA sequels. There are two questions that will determine whether they are included here:

1. Should we include any film that is merely cited as being a "prequel"?
2. If not, what level of significance should be employed to determine inclusion? Can this be decided by objective criteria?

My answer to the first question is simply "no"; lots of sources make wrong calls, such as the Empire source that was cited elsewhere that labelled Manhunter a 'prequel'. Manhunter was the first Lecter film, and all our definitions whichever stance they adopt, all agree that a prequel must be preceded by at least one other film. Even Barsoomian agreed the labelling used by this source was spurious. If we made it a free for all, then we would see many erroneous entries added to the list, so I think there should be some level of significance testing.

That brings to me my next point. WP:WEIGHT states that all significant viewpoints should be fairly represented, proportional to their coverage in reliable sources. "Significant" does not equate to majority btw, so is there a way we can objectively define "significance" beyond an editor's own subjective judgment? In statistical significance testing, anything above a 5% share i.e. within the 95% confidence interval is regarded as 'significant'. So my take on this is that if more than 5% of sources refer to these films as "prequels", then that makes the viewpoint significant enough for inclusion. To avoid contamination from the Burton remake and the reboot, I have performed a Google search on the following terms, up to 1999:

"planet of the apes" sequel -rise -Burton – 715 hits

"planet of the apes" prequel -rise -Burton – 122 hits

According to those percentages, the search on "prequel" receives 15% of the Google hits. That is three times our threshold for significance, so our objective criteria seems to indicate that there is significant coverage of the 70s films being referred to as "prequels". However, if you actually look at those hits, not one single one applies the term to these actual films! The term is being used in a completely different context. The bottom line here is that there are plenty of sources referring to them as sequels, but no-one really considers them prequels at any significant level. Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a decent framework. I think I read Barsoomian earlier as agreeing "no" to #1, not every single cite proves a prequel. I'm not sure if I'd say 5% is a decent threshold but it opens discussion in the right arena, viz., what the sources say. Naturally you show the weakness of Google for hard analysis by demonstrating it yields both 15% and 0% as answers, neither of which is correct because we already have a few scattershot sources calling the earlier Apes films prequels. JJB 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Side question: are there any RS taking Gothic's POV, such as by asserting that the expansive definition of "prequel" is offensive or should be deprecated? They too can be quoted. JJB 15:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(@ Betty Logan) You can't conclude any such thing.

"In regards to the 70s POTA sequels. There are two questions that will determine whether they are included here".

Really? You decided that these, and these alone, are the criteria? Ignoring the question of whether a work objectively satisfies the definition of prequel, as cited in the lead. Also setting a standard that is applied to NO OTHER FILM, BOOK, GAME, etc, etc, in the article. None of which were cited at all.

"lots of sources make wrong calls": from that you conclude that you can impeach any source you disagree with? I never presented the "Empire" article as as source, so I'm not going to defend it. Actually, reading it, the text says "we've put together 10 of the very best origins stories". Only the headline says "prequels", maybe some editor thought that was snappier. Talk about the sources I actually cited.

Your 5% rule is a novel idea, I don't accept it at all. It certainly isn't a WP policy.

For one thing, when the films were released the term prequel was not in common use. Contemporary reviews of any 70s film won't use the word. So it would prove nothing if 99% of reviews did not use "prequel". God knows what percentage of 1970s reviews are online at all. Very few new reviews of them have been done since. But I found a few and CITED THEM. That your search produced a lot of irrelevant crap means -- nothing.

Let's try Zulu Dawn A big budget 1979 film that I doubt you would dispute as a prequel. Only 7 hits, one from 1982 (NY Times), one from 1989 (Criterion). I can't see any earlier. What statistical analysis can you do on that? Nothing. You just read the actual sources, and see if they can be considered reliable.

So, returning to boring old actual WP policies, like WP:V, let's look at some sources:

Since a prequel is defined as: "A prequel is a literary, dramatic, or filmic work whose story precedes that of a previous work by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative." So, it's all about the relationship between the "prequel" and the "original". (And note that it says "events" and "narrative", not "characters", despite some's focus on the latter.) To that end, some references examining the relationship between the Apes works:

• An archived copy of the Planet of the Apes Timeline, originally published by Marvel Comics, who did a series of comics on the subject. That places all the '70s movies, the '73 TV series and the comics, in one timeline. I.e., no "reboot", no "alternate timeline". They're all events that lead up to the 3955 setting of PotA (1968). Thus, in the opinion of Marvel Comics, "prequels". Laugh if you like, but they're authorised by the copyright owners and not simply dismissable as the Empire filler story.

• The recent book Timeline of the Planet of the Apes from Hasslein Books also follows this interpretation. Some fans of course have other opinions. See Circular vs Linear Timelines (a wikia, so not citeable in itself, but can be examined on its own merits) which discusses the theories exhaustively, and concludes "However, most Planet of the Apes fans - both casual and devoted - consider the movie series to be a continuous loop; that either the contradictions were due to mistaken or misleading statements of history, or that if there was a change in history it merely brought events forward but with the same ultimate catastrophic conclusion."

• Most authoritatively, the major writer of the 70s Apes scripts, Paul Dehn stated in an interview in 1972:

While I was out there [in California], Arthur Jacobs said he thought this (Conquest) would be the last so I fitted it together so that it fitted in with the beginning of APES 1, so that the wheel had come full circle and one could stop there quite happily, I think?

— January 1972

• Regarding Battle, the Apes wikia cites the book Planet of the Apes Revisited by Joe Russo and Larry Landsman: "Dehn stated that the tear was to tell the audience that Caesar's efforts ultimately failed - as with Conquest, Dehn was concerned with bringing the saga full-circle rather than changing history for the better, an idea specifically incorporated into the first Corrington treatment."

Your Google search wouldn't find these, because Dehn doesn't use the word, but the writer's statement of intent satisfies the conditions of the definition. Barsoomian (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that none of these four sources Barsoomian spends all this text on ever call any the original Planet of the Apes series films "prequels". He wants to overcome consensus with sources that don't even use the word - and yes, the word "prequel" did exist in the 1970s. I would call this a stretch. The narrative as well as the characters of those films continue forward in their own story in each one, even as they go back in time. For the three primary Apes characters, the events of the third film occur after the original narrative. Not before. So even by the definition Barsoomian keeps quoting, these films are not prequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Gothicfilm is again citing his own unsourced definition and rules. That's nice, but this is not Gothicpedia, and the definition cited in the actual Wikipedia article is what applies.

"sources that don't even use the word" I cited films with sources using "the word" earlier. Gothicfilm repeatedly deleted them regardless. Especially Rising, which has literally thousands of cites calling it a prequel.

"the word "prequel" did exist in the 1970s" It had been used in literature in the 50s. But it was obscure and not applied to movies commonly till the late 70s. This article in Salon regarding your favourite prequel, claims "Lester may also have locked up the dubious distinction of inaugurating the term “prequel” in 1979 when he directed “Butch and Sundance: The Early Days.”". How about you cite some early 70s uses of "prequel" if it was used then? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to substantiate any of your statements.

"So even by the definition Barsoomian keeps quoting, these films are not prequels." Sorry, no, that's the Gothicpedia definition again. Where he considers the personal timeline of some characters (not all, of course, just the the ones he chooses), not the setting, as the determinant. That rule would neatly rule out any time travel story. Sadly, it's a rule that exists only in Gothicfilm's mind.

And you're just ignoring the statements of the writer of the films? At least you're consistent. Barsoomian (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

B, I've suggested two paths forward for Gothic below at #Apes source analysis. "Give a man a horse he can ride" as to paths that are actually traversible. Also, I trust you recognize the present inclusion of Rise is a partial compromise on his part, just as (potentially) waiving Battle is on yours. I will of course add your Butch link to the article as general improvement. All, please continue discussion in the new section. JJB 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the screenwriter's statement as Barsoomian said just above - the screenwriter never called any of his scripts or films prequels, nor did he mean that they were. A time travel story with the same characters going back in time is not a prequel.

And look at this dishonest argument Barsoomian puts on above. He knows damn well I agreed to putting Rise back in the article, in gray shading, precisely because of those sources (imprecisely) calling it a prequel. Yet to read the above, you'd never know that - you'd think I was still trying to keep it out. He has at least three times misrepresented what I was doing. Earlier, well above this, he made a totally false charge against me, claiming I'd put something in the article I never did, and claiming I'd been "caught" at it. I had to respond to that with a diff proving otherwise. He never responded to that part of the thread, much less admitted he was wrong. This is the guy you're advocating for. I am tired of having to spend time reacting to his false statements. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted "Planet of the Apes" prequels

For reference in above discussion, this is the disputed section deleted by Gothicfilm, regardless of the included citations. I have updated this with more refs since. Barsoomian (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Prequel	Original
Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)	Planet of the Apes (1968)

References

And while we're at it: Definition of prequel
I looked at the Oxford Dictionary. You need a login to see this online, the full entry is here:

prequel, n. Etymology: < pre- prefix + -quel (in sequel n.).
A book, film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work.

And that's all. Barsoomian (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

---

My view is that none of these films are "prequels" in any relevant sense. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOTAFORUM Barsoomian (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot add this content without agreement from other editors, which it appears you don't have. I was not guilty of violating WP:NOTAFORUM. The point of my comment was perfectly clear: you were supporting the inclusion of certain material, and I was objecting to it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You were stating your own personal opinion, unsupported by any citations or reference to published definitions. I took the trouble to cite sources. Consensus doesn't override verifiability. Anyway, this discussion has been moved elsewhere, as noted above. Barsoomian (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But good news: citations and verifiable sources aren't required now to edit this article, according to the consensus. So go ahead and delete whatever you like, I'm done here. Barsoomian (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into a long argument about this. A lot of people commented in this discussion. Someone else asked for comment here at WikiProject Film, so I decided to add my two cents worth, not imagining that it was anything else. As for consensus, in principle it overrides everything on Wikipedia with the exception of BLP. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record we are not rejecting 'your' prequels either, we are just suggesting the list is presented in a way such that readers can identify the traits they have. In that sense it is nothing to do with RS, it is an editorial decision simply about the best way to present the information. In this manner something like the time travel ape films, would be presented as a list of films that have both prequel and sequel traits, which is distinct from films that are just full-on prequels. Betty Logan (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? I'll check back in a few months and see if you've actually done anything beside delete the films you disapprove of. Barsoomian (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continues above in two sections. JJB 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)