"It's a prequel" is now the newest bit of backpedaling/damage control...

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

All this craziness over a word. Heck, I don't think "contemporary re-imagining" even got a thread and I would think that would have made people more upset than the film being called a prequel.

Well it started with people calling Trank out on his BS for desperate damage control by calling this a prequel, then people started to defend it and things just escalated from there.

 

[Dasher10]

It's a prequel since the soundtrack confirmed that we won't get our FF until the third act and Doom until the last 15 minutes. It'll just be four people in a lab. Great day for the Banal Four.

Fox should either keep Trank as far away from the sequel as possible and if they can't do better, give the FF rights (and their cut of the merch as well as certain characters like Taskmaster and The Brood along with shared rights to the Shi'Ar) back to Marvel for the X-Men TV rights. Fox get their X-Factor show. Marvel get all their cosmic characters in one place. Everyone is happy.

 

[Zarex]

All this craziness over a word. Heck, I don't think "contemporary re-imagining" even got a thread and I would think that would have made people more upset than the film being called a prequel.

Don't blame me. I try to incorporate "contemporary reimagining" into as many of my posts as possible.

It seems like this is a further attempt to align with the X-Men franchise, in which the current films ARE prequels to an existing, popular trilogy. The silliness is that no such version of the FF exists on film.

 

[Eddie]

Taskmaster is probably already with Marvel. If he wasn't, he probably would have been left off of that poster that excluded all Fantastic Four and X-Men characters (but had plenty of room for Cosmo and Devil Dinosaur).

 

[Spidey's Curse]

Don't blame me. I try to incorporate "contemporary reimagining" into as many of my posts as possible.

I'm enjoying the contemporary reimagining of the definition of prequel in this thread.

 

[Val_Zod]

For people trying to defend the blatant misuse of "prequel"

Prequel is a contraction of the words sequel (meaning to follow up), and precede (to come before).

ie, prequels are meant to be follow ups to an existing project, and tie to that project through the past.


Examples of ACTUAL prequels.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom
First Class
The Phantom Menace
Hannibal Rising
Butch and Sundance: The Early Days


Don't know why this needs more clarification, but some people can't seem to accept it.

 

[Eddie]

We had to provide links to Toby Kebbell's Domashev interview yesterday. A few people were under the impression it was a rumor we were making up.

Of course the word prequel means something different to those sort of people.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

For people trying to defend the blatant misuse of "prequel"

Prequel is a contraction of the words sequel (meaning to follow up), and precede (to come before).

ie, prequels are meant to be follow ups to an existing project, and tie to that project through the past.


Examples of ACTUAL prequels.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom
First Class
The Phantom Menace
Hannibal Rising
Butch and Sundance: The Early Days


Don't know why this needs more clarification, but some people can't seem to accept it.

I don't think anyone was trying to explain it away as a misuse. Just that it's a common misuse that's accepted by many. Like Agents of Shield being a prequel to AoU.

y'all isn't a real word. People understand what it means but it's still improper English.

 

[RAE072]

I don't think anyone was trying to explain it away as a misuse. Just that it's a common misuse that's accepted by many. Like Agents of Shield being a prequel to AoU.

y'all isn't a real word. People understand what it means but it's still improper English.

Except nobody misuses the word prequel. No one. No one says "prequel" when they're referring to anything other than a movie sequel whose story takes place BEFORE the previous(first) film it's the sequel to.

No one except for Trank, obviously. Because words is hard.

Nobody called Batman Begins a prequel, even before TDK came out. No one did.

 

[Eddie]

Also, y'all is totally in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's a variant of you-all, credited as a Southern (US) origin word.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Also, y'all is totally in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's a variant of you-all, credited as a Southern (US) origin word.

That's not now contractions work. You all is....You all are.... is no where near isn't aren't.

It's southern slang that's accepted. It's wrong though.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Except nobody misuses the word prequel. No one. No one says "prequel" when they're referring to anything other than a movie sequel whose story takes place BEFORE the previous(first) film it's the sequel to.

No one except for Trank, obviously. Because words is hard.

Nobody called Batman Begins a prequel, even before TDK came out. No one did.

You sure you don't want to check before you make that definitive statement?

People make up words to describe stuff all the time. Superman Returns was a quasi-reboot sequel....yada yada yada.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Yeah.... clearly Trank used the word "prequel" incorrectly here. But we all know what he meant.

The problem is, I don't buy for a second that Josh Trank ever had the intention of making a faithful Fantastic Four sequel. Every time he speaks about this movie, it's him boasting about doing something "different" than a colorful, fun comic book movie. How his movie is a daring dramatic take on superhero characters. Cronenberg-ian even.

Collider interview:

I don’t know if there are Blockbusters [the video chain] anymore, but there would probably be a superhero section. And this would fit more into the science-fiction, or horror, or even drama sections of the Blockbuster. And that’s just kind of the way I look at it. I want it to feel like it’s its own thing.

Empire interview:

The original two films to me are very similar to a lot of recent movies that have come out, in terms of that kind of cartoonish. It’s just not something that me and Simon are interested in as storytellers. There’s the opportunity to make something that is challenging and tragic and dramatic. The opportunity is right there in the material. We’d rather steer it in that direction as opposed to just embracing a tone that comes right off the page.

Why would he ever have the intention of making a true Fantastic Four movie when it came time to do a sequel? He just said he didn't like the new, "cartoonish" superhero movies we often see today. Obvious damage control is obvious.

 

[RAE072]

You sure you don't want to check before you make that definitive statement?.

Except nobody misuses the word prequel. No one. No one says "prequel" when they're referring to anything other than a movie sequel whose story takes place BEFORE the previous(first) film it's the sequel to.

No one except for Trank, obviously. Because words is hard.

Nobody called Batman Begins a prequel, even before TDK came out. No one did.

Didn't really make it all that definitive.

 

[RAE072]

Yeah.... clearly Trank used the word "prequel" incorrectly here. But we all know what he meant.

The problem is, I don't buy for a second that Josh Trank ever had the intention of making a faithful Fantastic Four sequel. Every time he speaks about this movie, it's him boasting about doing something "different" than a colorful, fun comic book movie. How his movie is a daring dramatic take on superhero characters. Cronenberg-ian even.

Collider interview:


Empire interview:


Why would he ever have the intention of making a true Fantastic Four movie when it came time to do a sequel? He just said he didn't like the new, "cartoonish" superhero movies we often see today. Obvious damage control is obvious.

Man I love the internet.

So much backpeddling. So much.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Didn't really make it all that definitive.

I gave you an example.
I'm out. We're arguing semantics and we all agree he's wrong.

I knew this was a bait thread and I still fell in. My fault.

See you guys on the 7th.

 

[Eddie]

That's not now contractions work. You all is....You all are.... is no where near isn't aren't.

It's southern slang that's accepted. It's wrong though.

Okay. It's actually in the dictionary, though, unlike your definition of prequel.

 

[Tony Stark]

WTF is wrong with people when they start defending the indefensible. If you are excited for the movie, OK then, fine. At the least Trank misspoke, at the worst this is a full on studio spin job because they can tell how badly this is going to bomb.

 

[Miken Ayers]

My point was less about him misusing the word, but more that they're trying to reword and phrase this anyway they can hoping to win us "haters" over.

You can make an origin film without alienating the source material. They did just that and now they're claiming. You'll get the FF you want in the next film.

 

[The Guard]

Where have they said that?

 

[The Guard]

Except nobody misuses the word prequel. No one. No one says "prequel" when they're referring to anything other than a movie sequel whose story takes place BEFORE the previous(first) film it's the sequel to.

No one except for Trank, obviously. Because words is hard.

Nobody called Batman Begins a prequel, even before TDK came out. No one did.

Simply not true.

 

[marvelmadness13]

Simply not true.

It's 100 percent true. Do I need to show you the dictionary again?

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Simply not true.

Definition of prequel: a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work.

A prequel to this FF series would be about the events taking place before the ones in this movie. Storm as a young man, the Four and Doom when they were kids, etc. You can't have a prequel without an existing work. This movie is the first in the franchise and therefore cannot be a prequel. As for the TDK series, BB will never be a prequel to TDK. If TDK was the first movie in the series and then BB came later then it would. But BB is simply the first film in the series.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Where have they said that?

More or less what they say in the article the thread's been referencing.

 

[The Guard]

It's 100 percent true. Do I need to show you the dictionary again?

Not arguing the definition, which is why I didn't quote it.
You said no one misuses the word "prequel", which is just patently untrue. Plenty of media people and fanboys have done so.

You also said that no one misused the term regarding Batman Begins. This is also untrue. Maybe you weren't around for it, but trust me, it happened.

Suggesting that no one misuses a particular word is silly. You can't possibly prove that. Whereas examples of reboots occasionally being called prequels by someone, pretty sure that can be proven.