- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The article Prequel includes a list of works that fit that description. The dispute is about whether the films : Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are prequels of Planet of the Apes (1968 film). User Gothicfilm has repeatedly deleted these films from the page. So I started an RfC. Gothicfilm argued that these films were not "true prequels", using a definition of his own devising. The article had, since 2009, the definition as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." The four films above fitted the definition. This did not convince Gothicfilm, who continued to cite his own special rules. I found citations for three of the films, two explicitly being described as prequels. This included notably the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes stating that the film was a prequel. So explained this on the Talk page and restored the films with references, as seen here: [1]. Still, today I found that Gothicfilm has deleted all of them again.
Note: I have copied the disputed section, including new references, on the Talk page here.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Prequel}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed on Talk page, called RfC. When challenged, provided cited references to support my position.
- How do you think we can help?
Advise whether cited references and discussion support the disputed films' inclusion.
Barsoomian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Prequel discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
What was his (User:Gothicfilm's) definition of "prequel"?Curb Chain (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- He started off with this: "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."
- He seems to say that the terms "prequel", "sequel", "reboot" are mutually exclusive. I see no reason to assume that. Also of course time travel means that the setting can be in the past of a previous work, while in the personal future of a protagonist. Godfather II for instance is both a sequel and prequel. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is both a reboot (of the series) and a prequel (to the 1968 film). Barsoomian (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Right, and I cursorily looked over talk:Prequel and noted the main dispute:
- User:Gothicfilm is violating several polices: WP:RS and WP:OR
- As noted, by you (above), in a series of movies the words "prequel" and "sequel" are relative terms that are not up to Wikipedia editors to use as labels for works of fiction or otherwise. Generally, with User:Gothicfilm's definition, a minor change in a film can automatically turn a film into a sequel! His definition is not reliable. Thus we have to turn to sources and use entries that have sources to prove that a film is a prequel. Thus your source of the director saying that the film is a sequel is solid proof that the film is a sequel for our purposes on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Barsoomian has gone against consensus on the articles talk page and at WT:FILM He also keeps leaving out how director Rupert Wyatt contradicted himself a year later, when Rise was released. The filmmakers had decided by then to call it what it was, a series reboot He then said "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". A prequel would be in the same continuity. By the way, Barsoomian also took out a part of the prequel article because it went against his POV. It stated:
"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) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no contradiction between a film being a "reboot" and a prequel. The text I removed was inserted by an IP editor without any source or prior discussion. It has no more authority than any other editor's opinion. Barsoomian (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- @CC, Barsoomian said the director said Rise was a prequel not sequel. Obviously the usual or basic usage of "prequel" does not account for time-travel fiction; e.g. Merriam-Webster's 10th Collegiate has "a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work". So we would not want to rigidly exclude or include cases unaccounted for by the simple definition, and I'd hate to categorize Lost or Mulholland Drive. I also don't see Wyatt saying directly "it's not a prequel", so although he may be an impeached source the case for exclusion is not complete. Is there a more detailed source for defs of prequel and reboot? Are there other RS defining the Apes movies? (Sorry for not looking myself.) JJB 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need to consider Lost, or Doctor Who, as TV episodes aren't considered stand-alone "works". So within such a "work" they can have "flashback" episodes, but not prequels. I've looked for sources describing the Apes movies. There are literally 1.5 million describing Rise as a prequel (Google search). The movies made in the 70s though are a bit harder to source. For one thing the word "prequel" only came into common use in the 1990s, so contemporary reviews wouldn't use that. But I did find a few, which I added as references when I reinstated the films (deleted regardless by Gothicfilm). Barsoomian (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no, an episode is a prequel of another episode if it says so. Should such examples be included? ProbablyCurb Chain (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you really want to add TV episodes, feel free, if you can find citations to support it. But "flashbacks" are such a common device in TV series that it would get unwieldy pretty quickly. Barsoomian (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
And there are literally 3.2 million results describing Rise as a reboot.
Check out the article's Talk page, e.g. Betty Logan and others, and WT:FILM. Consensus is they're not prequels. Those film critics and the director who used the term prequel to describe these films were making imprecise, you could even say sloppy, use of the term. It happens. That doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I don't want to repeat everything - please check the Talk page here, WT:FILM, and especially here. You will also see how Barsoomian is determined to plow on with this despite people's issues with what he's doing, and consensus is clearly against him. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's a different issue as to whether a particular film is a "reboot". Has no bearing on whether it's a "prequel" or not. "Reboot" refers to restarting a franchise of movies. "Prequel" is about the relationship between two specific movies. Barsoomian (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- While on the talk page, note the cited reliable sources supporting my edits, and the absence of such by Gothicfilm. Barsoomian (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
So User:Gothicfilm, here, you make the statement (the first post in the section): "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 the series is in chronological order because the characters are "sequels". Do you see the variety in film and how your definition is too narrow to be utilized? A lot of films simply do not fit in "reboot", "sequel", "prequel" categories (squarely). This is why we need to rely on sources. If you can produce reliable sources, maybe you can rather include and discuss this film series with these mechanics.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 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 at WT:FILM would agree with that.
- Dictionary.com: Prequel: A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.
- I would rather not go beyond that here, on yet a third page. See what Betty Logan, who has a good record working on film articles, says about the reliability of Barsoomian's sources for this purpose. Please read the whole conversation at Prequel Talk page, and perhaps at earlier on Prequel Talk, and WT:FILM. I can continue this tomorrow, if necessary. You can see over there that consensus is against Barsoomian from the people who usually edit film articles. Repeatedly it's been stated we operate by consensus at WP, so surely that means something... Gothicfilm (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It surely means something, but wikiprojects do not override the greater community's consensus. I see no solid arguments provided if you don't provide sources.Curb Chain (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- What greater community's consensus? The only consensus I see on this topic is that none of these films are prequels. And Rise does fit squarely and snugly into the reboot category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Gothicfilm: You say "In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger." A misrepresentation that you tried to put in the article until you were caught. The dictionary.com definition says "as by portraying the same characters at a younger age". Where the as means that this is an EXAMPLE, not a precondition. And of course, it doesn't work in a story about time travel. The important factor is not how old the characters are, but whether the setting is earlier. Plenty of historical prequels have no characters from the original, being set long before they were born. (E.g., First King of Shannara (1996) / The Sword of Shannara (1977).) And then, whether the story in the prequel reveals events that are part of the "original" work. Your vague statements that the sources I cited are "unreliable" is no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't given any reason that the sources are unreliable. You just don't agree with them. Hundreds of film reviews described Rise of the Planet of the Apes as a prequel. You just say, they're "unreliable". We should just use your definition and not worry about any published film reviewers. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look in the mirror. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I did. What I first put in the article's lead was It usually portrays the same characters at a younger age. - as can be seen at this dif - which you then took out. That's what you "caught" me at. I did not make it a precondition, I said "usually." (I'm reasonably satisfied with the new definition now in the article's lead, BTW.) This is at least the second time you've misrepresented what I'm trying to do here. I first said In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger on the WT:FILM Talk page in response to someone's question of how to refer to a story with time travel like this. Contrary to your claim, I never tried to put that in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I gather RS say Rise is a prequel and RS say Rise is a reboot. RS also give generic definitions of prequel and reboot, but those RS do not apply the definition to the borderline cases such as here; instead I see participant(s) doing that. RS also do not say these defs are hard and fast and therefore mathematically applicable to all cases. On one side, Barsoomian could find a suitable definer RS, and WP could then say, "By X's definition Rise is not logically a ...." On the other side, Gothicfilm could meet a burden of proof by citing an RS stating, "According to Y Rise is not a ...." If either would like to quote short prior discussion that might be helpful too. JJB 16:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- And, contrary to Barsoomian's other claim, the reliability of his sources for this purpose has been answered. Not just by me, but by others. He just doesn't like the answer. Among other things, Betty Logan also said on the Prequel Talk page:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- Again, all four of the above are from Betty Logan, not me, on the Prequel Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The other big problem here is Barsoomian keeps picking and choosing what he thinks is important. He repeatedly states that it doesn't matter that Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. This is obviously just his opinion and POV. To me and most everyone else, that's the main difference between a prequel and a reboot, and why it can't be both. A prequel should fit in with the original series. Barsoomian has no standing to say it doesn't, and it's a mystery why he's so obsessed with pushing this point. He should not be allowed to override consensus and commonly accepted use of the term prequel (among those of us who care) just because a minority of writers made imprecise, sloppy use of the word in their articles on Rise.
At one point Barsoomian went what we might call forum shopping by posting on the talk page of Jerzy•t, who had put in the unreferenced, simplistic definition of prequel Barsoomian had repeatedly cited to justify his position. But guess what? Jerzy says
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). In other words, WP:OR.
Even after that, with the new, improved definition in the Prequel lead, Barsoomian continues to insist it doesn't matter if Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. To me, not only does it matter, it's one of the most important points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Gothicfilm here. Several of us have voiced the opinion that Escape and Conquest cannot be considered prequels because they continue a narrative from previous films rather than predate said narrative. Barsoomian seems to insist that any work which is based on a previous work and is set in an earlier time is a prequel. No other editors have voiced any support for this. Barry Wom (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am uncertain why Betty Logan's personal views have more weight than others' personal views. There are a couple ways to resolve this essentially in-universe problem. One is to list any classification any RS says, and, in the case of disputed RS, to footnote or otherwise advertise why the classification is on shakier ground. Another is to agree on a clear subset of RS, for instance, to exclude reviews. Another is to list all (or some) RS who define the words at issue and either to resolve inconsistencies informally or to list when RS defs would yield different classification results. But in each case the interjecting the personal view "'tis-'tisn't" is the source of the dispute. WP works by attributing, "X says 'tis, Y says 'tisn't". Those are facts people can agree on, and if there are enough then often people are satisfied to leave conclusions to the reader. Perhaps it would be good to make a section below this one that lists undisputed attributed facts about the movies in question? Or perhaps an article structure other than "WP says this is a .." would be useful? For instance, add a section "Prequels also classified as other categories"? JJB 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that BettyLogan and GothicFilm have the better of the argument. Reliable sources have mistakes of all kinds, and misidentifying a film as a prequel would not be surprising. Those who are not writing for an encyclopedia may use a word in a way that our precision wouldn't allow. Editors of course are attuned to that reality. My reading of the dictionary definition for 'prequel' is that it agrees with GothicFilm's conclusion; the time line of the characters in the film in question is not earlier. Yes, it's earlier on the calendar but, no, not earlier to the characters. I don't see how Barsoomian's view is an effort to use the word 'prequel' precisely. Instead, it seems to accept the loosest usage with no linguistic gain. That is not good for the reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well put. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- My views come on stone tablets. To summarise, yes there are sources out there that call "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" a prequel, but the definition of a prequel is inprecise, which makes its application arbitrary, even by film writers. In many cases—such as The Phantom Menace—it is straightforward but in others it is not, so in view of that I fully support Barsoomian's approach of using sources to support inclusion. However there are several issues:
- Reviews are opinion pieces, so a review that states a film is a prequel only reflects the reviewer's opinion of it. If a reviewer thinks a film is a masterpiece, it doesn't automatically make it one.
- Source cherry-picking is a resulting problem of the above issue. Since the application of the definition tends to be an opinion, then we can pretty much dig up sources for any number of films that aren't prequels claiming them to be prequels. No-one one here agrees that Casino Royale and Batman Begins are prequels, but there are many sources out there proclaiming them to be.
- Weighting of collective opinion is essential as per WP:NPOV, to avoid the problems due to source cherry-picking. We use review aggregators in critical reception so that one reviewer's opinion doesn't receive too much weighting. We sometimes get this with genres, where we get four or five genres listed in the lead, and the idea really is to go with the more commonly applied label as the most representative term.
- I think there are only two solutions to this at the end of the day, since there doesn't seem to be a "golden source": we either make it open season and permit inclusion of any film that has been described as a prequel (which would see the inclusion of films like Batman Begins), or we have to weight the collective opinion in some way. My personal preference is for the latter, because I think the former would invalidate the list to a certain extent. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also well put. A list of true prequels would include Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Everyone agrees they are prequels. And even Barsoomian agrees Rise is a reboot. So there's no dispute on any of that. But he also wants to call Rise a prequel, even though to most WP:FILM people that's a contradiction. He has a big problem, which he's repeated often, with expecting a film to be a "true prequel", even though there's plenty of them. Isn't that what a reader should expect from an encyclopedia? If you stretch the meaning of a word to include more and more areas, it loses its precision and meaning. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- We certainly shouldn't be misleading readers about the concept when there is strong dissenting opinion in the cases of some films. Maybe what we need is a section about the misapplication of the terminology. A reboot shares many traits with prequels since they effectively "go back" and tell a fresh story, but they have fundamentally different approaches, and we can give a few notable examples of where the terminology has been conflated. If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. It's legitimate for the Prequel article to go into the distinction between a "true prequel" and one that's being expansively added under the umbrella. But if there's only one list, it should stick to true prequels. Someone perhaps could then add a second expanded list of others, like Rise, making it clear these are only loosely under the prequel umbrella. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, would Barsoomian accept a section or a few subsections of "Ambiguously termed media" for conflated cases that can be narratively grouped? JJB 22:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, splitting the article into List of prequels, List of sequels, and List of reboots is entirely possible (with a good inclusion criteria definition which is usually the first sentence on the article).Curb Chain (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, since again everyone who commented is ignoring any citations, any dictionary definitions, in favour of making up their own definitions and rules, (Gothicfilm has again rolled out his own gold standard of "true prequel" as certified by him, as the only standard that matters) it seems it's pointless to cite sources. But one last time: below is the disputed section that Gothicfilm repeatedly deleted. Including citations to reliable sources that support the labelling of the films as "prequels".
And while we're at it: Definition of prequel. Oxford Dictionary (you need a login to see this online):
prequel, n. Etymology: < pre- prefix + -quel (in sequel n.).
A book, film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work.
(That is the complete entry.)
If a work is a "prequel" of another work, only the two named works are relevant to the discussion. Doesn't matter what happens in any other works. So for instance, "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" and "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" set out to explain how Apes came to be intelligent as seen in the "original" film, "Planet of the Apes". And 40 years later, they made "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" which did the same, but in a different way. Both films made many references to the "original" film. (And both films made continuity errors in some details, which doesn't affect the main intent -- every film does, there are websites devoted to that.) The latter film was explicitly called a prequel by its director. If either or both films are also "reboots" or "sequels", that is a different question. There is no rule, except in Gothicfilm's mind, that these terms are mutually exclusive. I've found numerous articles describing "Rise" as a "prequel/reboot", which again Gothicfilm decided didn't count against his own opinion.
- Huffington Post, "director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand"
- Rotten Tomatoes "Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype..."
- Nelson Mail "Weta's digital apes the stars of prequel reboot"
So, if despite all this, if Rise at least is not a "prequel", this is a declaration that editors' opinions override verifiable reliable sources. If it's upheld here to just ignore statements by, e.g. the film's director, numerous film reviewers because the editors here think they know better, though they have failed to cite any sources themselves, I will recuse myself from editing this article any more, since I can't accept that. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- User:Barsoomian, the Apes series is a special case as has been commented by the above other editors. I don't think a black or white categorization per your definition or User:Gothicfilm's (original) definition fits. A discussion of these special circumstances is anyway more informative than either a straightforward inclusion or exclusion as first proposed.Curb Chain (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are proposing. There is a list, and a work is either on it or it isn't. That is "black and white". And "my definition" is from a dictionary. "Gothic film's definition" is from Gothicfilm. Barsoomian (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- With all the above evidence, we can make a separate section as suggested, or leave out this series because including it would allow many other films
theto be included, and I doubt this is what you want.Curb Chain (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what "special section"? Where? Why? I don't agree that the films that provoked this dispute should be excluded from the list because of some slippery slope argument about other films. It seems you want to implement Gothicfilm's "true prequel" standard. I won't be a part of that. Barsoomian (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Prequel discussion cont'd - Arbitrary break
- The proposed second section would address reboots where the reboot/prequel terminology is used interchangeably. Rise and Batman Begins are essentially reboots that are often described as prequels. The "prequel" terminology is being applied in a more liberal sense i.e. telling an origins story that predates other films, whether they tie in with continuity or not, and what is being proposed is to introduce the distinction into the article. We can use this source as a basis, which addresses whether Batman Begins is a sequel, prequel, remake, or standalone film. I don't agree with some of their conclusions about the films, but they go some way to explaining this is anything but clear-cut, and we should be depending on more scholarly sources. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article Prequel is just about prequels. It's not an article about all the other terms that might be applied to a film. There is already a list of Reboots at that article. And there is what can serve as an umbrella article at Sequel, which includes links and discussion about the various kinds of sequel/prequel/reboot/ etc. Prequel should not duplicate Reboot or become more general and duplicate parts of Sequel. Each work included in Prequel is a link to the article on that work, and there you can read all about it, including discussion of what categories it is in. (If somehow Batman Begins were to be in the list -- I wouldn't agree with that myself -- you would go to the article about that film to see a nuanced discussion that is impossible in a list.) Also, what about the 70s Apes prequels? They have been shitcanned repeatedly, despite them being the clearest example of prequels I can imagine. By the way, your book link is "unavailable for viewing", so I can't comment on that. Barsoomian (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but the 1970s Apes sequels are the clearest example of prequels you can imagine? More so than Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy? Those are pure prequels, but you'd rather call the Apes films prequels... After all that's been said here? You are unbelievable... - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry. No, I wouldn't "rather" call the Apes films prequels. Just "as well". Happy now? Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I found another source for the book mentioned by Betty Logan, on Scribd. It's quite interesting, but the prequel chapter is mostly about Batman Begins. Quite distressingly for many here I imagine, it describes that without any hesitation as a "prequel". As well as Casino Royale. I find those a bit odd myself, but I'd have to defer to this if someone wanted include them citing this. And the same reasoning would include Rise of the Planet of the Apes, by the way. Ultimately, the number of films in this class (rebooted franchises) is quite small and it's not opening the barn door to include those few that are also referred to by reliable sources, such as this one, as a "prequel", despite what some editors may prefer. As mentioned above, the article on the film itself can go into the pros and cons if anyone is interested. No one is insulting Butch and Sundance: The Early Days by putting it in the same list as films with less purity of prequelness. Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The point the book makes is that it isn't a simple labelling exercise (chapter link).
- To quote: Christian Bale, who plays Batman, comments, “this is an origin story, not a sequel,” adding, “You could say it’s a prequel—it feels like a prequel—because we don’t have the pressure of following anything that’s already been created” (qtd. in Grove, “Christian Bale” 202). The film’s status as a possible prequel is contested too, however, with Christopher Nolan himself explaining, “I don’t see this film as either a sequel or a prequel to the other films. It just sort of exists in its own very different universe” (qtd. in Jordan and Gross 23).
- To quote the author: The status of Batman Begins —as variously prequel, sequel, or stand-alone film is clearly something of a vexed question, and this difficulty of designation interests me here.
- There are many different aspects, it discusses a "prequel" in terms of a narrative that simply sets its events before those of another film, and also in terms of its intent to "renew" or "remake" the franchise. In this sense the term is being applied in a way that is synonymous with a reboot. The problem here is that you refuse to accept that the term carries different meanings; traditionally it was used to describe an instalment that inverted the concept of the sequel i.e. the first film could be perceived as a sequel to the second film; however in this essay and in the media it is increasingly being used to describe a form of 'reboot', particularly origins stories such as Batman Begins and Casino Royale. The fact is, a 'prequel' in the form of Batman Begins and Rise of the Apes is fundamentally different to those that simply invert the sequel concept like Temple of Doom, and that distinction should be presented in the article if we include this extended family of 'prequels'. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The problem here is that you refuse to accept that the term carries different meanings". I understand the distinction. The problem is that we (as editors at Wikipedia), don't get to arbitrarily decide that one meaning is legitimate, because we agree with it, and another, equally well sourced, is not. Aside from that, Batman Begins is far less "pure" a prequel than Rise. I couldn't name a particular film that BB is supposed to be a prequel to; it's just a new origin story if I was going to describe it. But Rise has many callouts to the original PotA, including a mention of Taylor's ship, and there isn't much that couldn't be handwaved away to accept it as a part of the same history. Aside from the numerous citations I have given before on that question. "that distinction should be presented in the article": No, because unless you source it, it's WP:OR. And really, do we want to go the way of having to ascribe a degree of prequel purity to every film mentioned? That way lies madness, and shifts the edit war to which subgenre of prequel a particular film goes into. I already know Gothicfilm's top 10, and bottom 10, and he and me and everyone else would be fighting about that forever after. Leave that obsessive over-analysis to film bloggers. Barsoomian (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I came to this with a completely open mind and at one point thought you had the better of the argument, Barsoomian, so I can be persuaded. If you want to take this process seriously, I think you should be able to explain to someone like me why you are correct. My problem with your view is that the dictionary definition is consistent with both positions. If we take as our frame of reference the characters in the story, the dictionary supports GothicFilm's view as well as yours, so that tells me the dictionary is not trying to make the kind of distinction under discussion. You seem very convinced that this is incorrect, but I don't see why I should adopt your thinking. You want me to rely on your sources, but reliable sources have all kinds of half-hearted assertions and less than rigorous writing (see BettyLogan's 'masterpiece' example). So maybe you have an answer to this criticism of your position. There is another step to my thinking on this, but it depends on my view about the dictionary definition, so I will hold that back to give you a chance to respond. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "positions" or "distinctions" here. Please say just what issue(s) you are referring to. And if you think that the sources I cite are unreliable, you have to say why a specific source is not reliable. You can't just blow off every film reviewer as "less than rigorous" and just follow what you think. That's just original research and disallowed completely. The "masterpiece" example is silly, that is a much more subjective assessment. A film isn't a "masterpiece" because any one person says so. It's a film that is universally lauded, not something that can be proven by satisfying a definition. That's why there isn't a List of film masterpieces article. For Wikipedia editors to dismiss all sources as "not rigorous" enough if you disagree with them leaves us with no authority, it becomes no more than a collective blog.Barsoomian (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, of course, if I come to believe that 'masterpiece' can be used correctly or incorrectly, I am certain to reflect that in my editing, and I will defend my choice. That's what I'm asking you to do: defend your choice. You have taken the position that it is correct to use 'prequel' to refer to any film that has events that occur on the narrative's calendar before the earlier film. I don't find a place where you say why that is correct. By contrast, I am saying it is incorrect, and I will explain why: the difference between a prequel and a sequel is that the characters in a sequel remember the earlier film and they don't in a prequel (or reboot, by the way, which is why these categories can include the same film). By that standard alone, every successor film can be delineated into prequel or sequel. So, this is how I figure out which sources are rigorous and which are not. It's not arbitrary, it is by a principle that I can state and which makes things clear for the readers instead of muddy. So, please defend your choice. By what standard do you separate the good uses of prequel from the bad ones? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- "it is correct to use 'prequel' to refer to any film that has events that occur on the narrative's calendar before the earlier film. I don't find a place where you say why that is correct" See the dictionary definitions cited above and in the lead of the article Prequel. ("A prequel is a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting". ) Where is the definition you give from? From you? From Gothicfilm? I'm sorry, but if so, it's original research and irrelevant here. As for deciding if a use is "good" or "bad", that's a matter of opinion, a question to discuss in a forum, also irrelevant in an encyclopedia article. Barsoomian (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any time an editor thinks about what words to use in the article, is it OR in your opinion? That is what it seems to come to. By that standard, you are guilty of OR every time you write a sentence for Wikipedia. No, that's not serious. I am offering the observation that, if you look, it just so happens that the characters in a prequel don't remember the events in the original, while the characters in a sequel are able to remember the events in the original. The dictionary definition has this bit about "prefigures". What is entailed by "prefigures" requires some thinking. You seem to hold that "prefigures" amounts to nothing. But it's not nothing, it's in the definition. So, as a good rule of thumb, use the memory test. Characters in reboots and prequels don't remember the source film. That is how to apply the word correctly according to the dictionary definition. I don't think you can rebut that, but I'm interested in what you have to say. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Extended discussion
- I hear Betty Logan proposing and Gothicfilm affirming, "We can give a few notable examples of where the terminology has been conflated. If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels." There is no need to have "one" list; applying logic from other cases, we could easily have a second table under Prequel#Films that explain this. Barsoomian also affirms Rise is a "prequel/reboot" (putting the other Apes on hold for now), which can be considered a slightly different category from "prequel" but perfectly valid for this article. Why not have someone paste Rise as a stub table with a title like ";Ambiguous prequels" (";" for bold but not listed in TOC)? Maybe include a column for rationales and add Casino Royale et al. JJB 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I also see Barsoomian regarding being on or off "the" list as black and white, and that may illustrate the sticking point. One view is "one monolithic list of all 'prequels' in any criteria-meeting RS", the other is "some nuance distinguishing more nominal 'prequels' from those less so". If these two views were upheld, they would be logically contradictory, and only a compromise from someone would suffice. But it seems to me that a second table immediately after the first, that looks almost identical but has certain footnotes or other markers, would be a valid compromise, as would a single table where disputed entries have an obvious asterisk or other callout. Certainly the current table does not appear to be sorted in any way and at least we can agree on improving that! Anyone want to flesh this out? JJB 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not a "valid compromise". I see people saying that, in their opinions, "terminology has been conflated". Which means they disagree with the sources I cited, and therefore will ignore them. And you propose creating an "ambiguous prequel" list, that you deprecate and hide away in an unlisted section. And Gothicfilm's patented "True prequel" list. Who decides on what goes there? How? On what criteria? Dump all the prequels you disagree with in that list, regardless of any sourced citations, even if a "substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel", because a couple of editors think their opinions override WP:RS and WP:V. Is this Wikipedia, or some fan wikia? As for sorting the table, it's "Wikitable sortable". i.e. alphabetic if you click on a column. That seemed simplest with editors adding entries willy nilly, it didn't matter where they put them. Barsoomian (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa whoa, I'm trying to work from what you've said, such as that it's a "prequel/reboot". I don't believe in deprecating or hiding. Are you saying that the only solution is that all films called prequels anywhere in RS should be listed without any qualifiers? Usually WP is much better at demonstrating nuances than that. How are you intending to handle the nuances that you admit? (As for willy-nilly, feel free to add "cn" to any others that don't meet the criteria.) JJB 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- To summarise, because this is getting very word:
- Barsoomian believes the Planet of the Apes sequels where they go back in time are "prequels", because they contain "events that precede the original". Gothicfilm contests this interpretation since "events that precede the original" is open to interpretation, either by literally reflecting the chronology (in which it would meet the definition), or it could be construed as being from the perspective of the time-travelling apes, whose experiences follow on from the original, in which case it would not meet the definition. An observation by Charl6 at the Film project was that the "prequel" terminology does not tend to be applied to time-travel sequels such as Back to the Future Part 3, which depicts events that chronologically occur before the previous films in the series.
- As a result of the above disagreement, both editors agree that reliable sources should be used. The issue here is what type of source. There are many reviews that refer to Rise of the Planet of Apes as a prequel, but there are are even more that refer to it as a reboot/remake (more than twice as many in fact). This is the crux of the problem: asking Gothicfilm to find sources describing it as "not a prequel" is unrealistic, because reviews/sources that regard it as something else will call it by something else, such as a reboot/remake. In that capacity there are more sources out there that regard it as something other than a prequel.
- The issue is exacerbated by conflated terminology. Barsoomian refuses that there is a conflation, but I have provided an academic source that clearly extends the definition of a 'prequel' to include reboots that predate depictions in other films, often in the form of an 'origins story'. Using Batman Begins as an example, the source explicitly cites Chris Nolan as saying it is not a prequel because the film exists in its "own universe", but the source (along with Christian Bale) argues that in some sense it is because it depicts an origins story that in a narrative sense predates the events of the old Batman series, even though they are unconnected i.e. the purpose of the 'prequel' is to 'renew' the franchise. It applies the same logic to Casino Royale too, which is a Bond origins story and has been explicitly been referred to as a reboot by the Bond producers, not a prequel. Even Barsoomian agrees that Batman Begins and Casino Royale are not prequels in a traditional sense, because he "can't see which films they are prequels too". I agree with him on that, so it is pretty clear that the terminology has transcended its original usage, and in this case is being used to describe a particular type of reboot as well, that is quite distinct from its original application.
- The solutions are that we accept any film on the list that is described as a prequel, but this does not allow for consistency of usage, context of usage, nor significance of usage. The alternative solution is to only permit films on the list if they are primarily described as a 'prequel' i.e. if more sources declare it a 'reboot' then that's what we go with rather than 'prequel'. Both of these approaches have possible WP:WEIGHT issues. 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, but Barsoomian rejects this idea.
- I don't see how much further the participants can debate this. If you remove the viewer interpretation of these films and focus fully on reliable sources then the following patterns emerge for films that are described as prequels: films that are primarily described as prequels; films that are primarily described as something else; films where there is a strong correllation between being described as a reboot and a prequel; time-travel films that depict events earlier in the chronology but the story itself follows on from the preceding film. I really don't see the harm in explaining the different contexts in which the terminology is applied, and listing films that are representative of that application. That is where I stand on the issue, and then the reader can draw their own conclusions. 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? Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this very well thought-out analysis. You can see why I was quoting Betty Logan earlier. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- @User:Betty Logan: I agree with point 4. At first I thought we reached an impasse, but it seems that User:Barsoomian does not agree with all the parties here/consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: You can add notes and discussion to the article explaining the niceties of how "true" a prequel is if you like, though that kind of analysis might be interesting it would pretty likely be WP:OR.
- "Barsoomian refuses that there is a conflation" Don't put words in my mouth. Of course I "accept" that. Paul Sutton's article that called Batman Begins and Casino Royale prequels was something I find a silly conflation of the term. Nevertheless, it's about as "reliable" a source as we can find, and we must therefore include both films regardless of what fans think. The point is, that if reliable sources describe a film or other work as a "prequel', then Wikipedia's basic principle of verifiability mean we can't delete it and ignore it because we think we know better.
- "This is the crux of the problem: asking Gothicfilm to find sources describing it as "not a prequel" is unrealistic" Tough. You want to ignore the sources I have provided because it's hard to find contradictory ones? How absurd an argument is that? Over and over, I have said that reboot/prequel/sequel are not mutually exclusive. A film can be any combination of these if it satisfies their separate criteria. The film Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been often described as a "prequel/reboot". I cited several sources in the previous discussion. You can't just blow these off because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a false dichotomy to say that if a film is a reboot it therefore is not a prequel.
- I think that all a simple focused article like Prequel should worry about is whether a work is a prequel or not, the link provided to each film or book's article will lead the interested reader to a full discussion of each work, and for instance if it's also a "reboot", something that is a separate category and a separate list in a separate article. Adding a burden of deciding exactly what kind of prequel any particular film is is what is unrealistic. No one will be able to consistently follow the guidelines and sub-categories you propose, analysing numerous obscure and inaccessible books, films, let alone video games (a big list that I have left alone except for formatting since I have no clue about them) even aside from that these rules and categories are WP:OR and unverifiable. Barsoomian (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- You seem adamant and entrenched in your position. We have had, I hope, a deep and thorough discussion above. Alternatives and compromises have been provided. I believe I can no longer further help in this dispute except to point you towards consensus-as I have stated above. If you feel you need to take this up to a higher authority of dispute resolution, WP:DR has the information you are looking for.Curb Chain (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, so Prequel is now to be defined following rules arrived at by a group of editors, regardless of any verifiable reliable sources. In that case I recuse myself from the article from this moment. Barsoomian (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um, if we want to avoid impasse: (1) recusing yourself would count as a resolution, but need not. (2) Betty Logan and Gothicfilm, and maybe other FILM members, may be forming a consensus, but the consensus must also be receptive to interaction with Barsoomian's concerns. (3) It is realistic to find "not a prequel" sources in general (one has been found for Batman Begins); but it is not realistic to give their absence unequal weight, when instead the "reboot" sources etc. should be given the weight. (4) Barsoomian need not say that "prequel or not" is simple yet "what kind of prequel" is unrealistic; WP is not about oversimplifying and the "prequel" article is fully capable of such nuances; and this is an article, not a standalone WP:LIST. We all agree that sources do not treat Rise like other movies. Therefore (not to say anything against Curb Chain's position) I'll get my hands a little dirty here: the below seems to meet Betty Logan's compromise position (based on consensus-building attempts) as well as Barsoomian's position (based on policy reading). Note that the first film is regarded as undisputed and the rest as in various other shades; references are simplified rather than full, so this is not of course final. Why wouldn't something like this be agreeable as to format? Then we can go on to ordinary discussion, more easily resolved, about what is RS or not, and the like. JJB 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone, not even Barsoomian, was for the inclusion of Batman Begins. It was not on the list before. We all agree it's a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Films
*Classified both as prequel and within another category.
- References
- 1. Source
- 2. Source: "a sequel and a prequel"
- 3. Christian Bale: "an origin story, not a sequel ... you could say it's a prequel"; Christopher Nolan: "I don't see this film as either a sequel or a prequel"
- 4. AMC: "a sequel and prequel"
- 5. Source: "a sequel ... and a prequel"
- 6. Director: "primarily a prequel"; The Telegraph: "prequel"; Collider: "prequel/reboot"
JJB 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Before we get too much further down the Clinton-esque What "is" is path can Gothicfilm and Barsoomian define susinctly what the sticking point is? From what I can tell it's the addition of the Planet of the Apes expanded films example. If this is correct, might I suggest leaving the content out as the article's list section is already very long? Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion with Betty and Gothic is ongoing on Talk:Prequel. Barsoomian is taking a break but has affirmed the proposal above at my talk. The discussion has enough seeds now to blossom into harmonious editing but we'll see. JJB 14:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since there's a RfC running currently and it appears this is being talked out, is there any objections to having this thread being closed down in favor of those routes? Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 23, 2012 at 15:31 (UTC) because technically there's an RFC open; this is partially resolved, and partially at an impasse, generally agreed to be resolved with sources and policy at Talk:Prequel. JJB 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GeneralColton.png&action=history){kind=link}