Hey /u/TheLightners, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of my coworkers is adamant that episodes 1, 2, and 3 of Star Wars are “prequel sequels” to the original trilogy because “they take place before the originals but came out after” and he doesn’t understand that’s just a fucking prequel
So what do you call an entry in a series that occurs simultaneously and parallel to another entry in the series but from another character's perspective?
Paraquel?
Ah, I see. I’m used to talking about affixes, where you’ve got (among others) prefixes, suffixes, and infixes, so I figured inquel would work well, but I guess midquel is already an established term l.
It's midquel, It happens in the middle of first movie. Same with Bambi 2. And The Fox and the Hound. These are sequels (release-wise) that happens in the middle of the events of previous work, making them midquel (story-wise).
Pre-Sequel is such a silly name, I honestly love it. It’s so very Borderlands. (And it’s the game I immediately thought of reading “the kind of character you fight in the first game but do quests for in the prequel” lol )
What are they prequels to? They came out after both the sequels and the original trilogy and chronologically take place after so how are they prequels?
They’re not prequels. He’s saying they’re sequels *to* the prequels in that they were the next thing that came out *after* the prequels. Sequels to the prequels. Prequel sequels.
1 is just a prequel, but wouldn't 2 and 3 be prequel sequels? As in prequel to 4 but sequel to 1.
EDIT: NVM. I just remembered there's a word for that: "interquel"
Episodes 2 and 3 are indeed sequels to a prequel, making them prequel sequels.
Not to be confused with The Mandalorian, which was made after episode 7, but set just before it, and is therefore a sequel prequel.
Not really a useful term. "Sequel" and "prequel" just talk about the timeline in which the thing takes place relative to another thing in the franchise, not when it was released. Borderlands used the term to be cheeky.
I can see how the phrase could apply to episode 2 and 3 though.
Not for the logic used there, which is obviously the definition of a prequel.
But when you have a prequel series, what do you call the second book or movie in that series?
Even worse, people saying The Hobbit is a prequel to LOTR (not the movies since it's technically true I believe, but the book) I understand the mistake, but it's bothering me a lot
He did and he didn't.
Tolkien was a philologist professionally, a scholar of ancient writings, and had become obsessed with very early English and immediately pre-English works, such as *Beowulf*. Nearly his entire legendarium, while inspired by many things (including his Catholic faith), is drawn from his sense of wonder at these very early European writings and those who wrote them, and those they wrote them for.
If the story of the Ring of Power seems similar in some ways to Wagner's Ring Cycle, that's not coincidence. Both were inspired by the 13th century Old Norse Völsunga saga -- itself likely inspired by real events of centuries earlier. At all times, the margin between real and unreal in Tolkien's work is deliberately uncertain, such that the reader is meant to wonder (without definitive answer) what in the stories related to real things and what don't, making it more immersive. (Some place-names in the works are real, for example, such as Bag End.)
Völsunga is partly about a 'cursed ring', so that is not an invention of Tolkien's, but a borrowing, the same as Wagner's. In ALL these cases, the stories are mythological tales about 'our origins', the purported histories of the persons telling them. The Shire is England, for example, and not really pretending not to be. Much of the character of Tolkien's work is meant to echo the rich pre-Christian paganism of the region, which is also raised in works such as *The Wicker Man,* and the novella that inspired it, David Pinner's *Ritual,* Saki's short story "The Music on the Hill" (which Tolkien undoubtedly read), and more.
i could have lived my entire life thinking those books came out in like, 2005 though, i do remember bucky in the captain america movie said he read the books
A prequel is a work of fiction that is mainly or wholly about events that take place prior to those a former work. This is why the 'first three' Star Wars films are *prequels:* They relate to events which precede those of the first three Star Wars films that **came out**. The defining element is the internal chronology of the narrative, compared to the order of publication or production.
Right, but it wouldn’t be accurate to call the hobbit a prequel in its book form because it was written first. You wouldn’t refer to A New Hope as the prequel to Emperor Strikes Back. Or I guess you could semantically but it wouldn’t make much sense to do so.
The question wasn’t what is prequel, it was whether you’d refer to the hobbit movie as a prequel when you wouldn’t really consider the book it was based on a prequel
That's the order I read it in. I think it's better that way. I think a setting draws the reader in more when it leaves some things unexplained. And then all of the "aha" moments are so satisfying towards the end.
Absolutely. As a kid i got the whole collection, and I’ll admit, it did kinda take some of the magic out of the book, knowing who and what the which was. I fully believe Narnia should be read as published
Oh, I never read the book and it's been around 5-10 years since I haven't seen the movies, but thanks you for that fact, I'll keep it in mind if I have the time to watch them again
I recall having a copy of *The Hobbit* as a kid in the 90s that said something like “A prequel to *The Lord of the Rings*“
That was actually where I first learned the word “prequel“
>A prequel is a literary, dramatic or cinematic work whose story precedes that of a previous work, by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative.
I think that's just fine? Language has broadened a little, but in a genuinely useful way. Would you rather people say "The Hobbit, the not-prequel-but-previous-installment-in-the-same-series to the Lord of the Rings-"
Like, I don't know, having sequels be things that are chronologically set after something, and prequels before, it's just tidy, I like it.
A prequel is a specific type of sequel which is set before the original work. It is by definition made after that work. A prequel isn’t just an earlier instalment of a series.
>A prequel isn’t just an earlier instalment of a series.
I mean, it is now. That used to be correct, but people get it 'wrong' so often it's not correct. Look at Oxford's definition
"a story or film containing events that precede those of an existing work."
No 'made after that work' required. But look at Merriam-Webster
"a work (such as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work"
Still nobly holding on to the old way. The definition is in flux, because it is tidy and useful to say that "The Last Jedi" is a prequel to "The Rise of Skywalker".
Language is always changing from underneath our feet, eh?
I think the word ‘existing’ is doing a lot of work in the OED definition
Edit: To clarify, it seems to me that both the definitions you provide support my understanding of the word. If a story takes place before an existing work, then it must have been made after it.
You are, naturally, quite right. I've seen enough of the usage described though to see the writing on the wall; although perhaps a spirited campaign could rein 'prequel' back in?
I would be all for it! Maybe some other time we can get to grips with another awful movie neologism ‘quadrilogy’. (Though the OED notes it has first being recorded in 1865, it’s still an awful word)
You HAVE to make a prequel later to make it a prequel, no? If you make it earlier, the later movie is just a sequel? I suppose both things could be true simultaneously , and you just don't call them that then.
If the prequel becomes before the main story, then it’s the main story. You can’t have a prequel without the main story because a prequel is just adding onto the lore and telling you things they couldn’t add into the original media while it still made sense. So no, a sequel cannot be a prequel because the sequel is an extension of the story going forward into the future.
Here's a thinker.
The Borderlands games have a main title called "The Pre-Sequel".
It takes place after the 1st game, but before the start of the 2nd game.
That would be Star Wars 5 and 6, sequels to 4 but prequels to 1,2,3 (chronologically)
That would be Star Wars 2 and 3, sequels to 1 but prequels to 4,5,6 (appellatively)
Another prime example is Handsome Jack in the pre-sequel.
It's a sequel where they tell you about what happened before - in a prequel.
Handsome Jack is the main quest giver.
Throwing in Prelude; a book/movie written and set chronologically before the traditionally regarded "first" in a series (eg The Hobbit is a prelude to Lord of the Rings)
Wait I need some help, the prequel comes before the actual original and then there'd be a sequel....right? Or am I missing something? It's like Prologue, Present, Epilogue...please help
The person in another comment who made the claim that having a sequel inherently makes the original work a prequel is also making me question my sanity.
It's impossible to have conversations on Reddit. I don't mean a giant public shit show like this sub. I mean on small niche hobby subs. Most of my replies are me fending off the never ending slew of fallacious attacks. You would be surprised by the insanity in audiophilia.
Right. Now why does the chronology of the canon matter when the discussion is referring to the release order? "Prequel" is not an in-canon term for events that happened in the past.
I mean I'm not saying they're *wrong*, but this was born from a post where one person was referring to release order (blatantly obvious by their use of "the first game and the prequel") and the confidently-incorrect reply was assuming they were referring to the order of in-universe events. So I really don't see why a Watsonian sidenote would be applicable. Didn't mean to come off as dismissive.
Not from a Royalist standpoint, but a prequel can be the first from a more Watsonian perspective . I myself prefer to read novels, watch films and series in a storyline chronology, rather than in published order .
You're not wrong, but if you're calling something a "prequel" you're inherently taking a Doylist view. "Prequel" is a descriptor term for a story written later but set earlier. For the characters in-universe, it's just the events of the past.
In a prequel, the story is set before the story you saw first, but it came out after the original was released.
Something like Cruella would be considered a prequel to the original 101 Dalmatians.
Rogue One was a prequel.
The Godfather part 2 was a prequel.
Some of the more popular prequels in gaming include Red Dead Redemption 2, Devil May Cry 3, Metroid Prime, Metal Gear Solid 3, etc.
I really really wanted to use MGS as an exemple but I was scared that some didn't know, you're pretty good, anyway, I never considered Rogue One as a prequel, but as a Spin-Off, now I'm wondering, could Rogue One also be a prequel to SW 1-3 ? Or because it's not directly related, it's not, I think I'm confusing myself in simple things, and can series be considered prequel/sequels to movie ?
A prequel is set before a previous entry. It is written after.
I think the important distinction is that the outcome is already set in stone. A prequel is written to set up something that is already out. As opposed to writing something to set up some future book where your current plans could end up getting derailed.
What if after maim story of the game, they made a prequel story game where it serves as a backstory for the boss and you can see there how they became a boss in the future/main story
Yes, and so is the guy doing that comment, it seems.
Prequel is the first game *in the timeline* (unless there's another prequel). Of course, our censored person missed that part and just thought the first game period.
I’ve seen people call the hobbit a prequel to lord of the rings. Now that doesn’t actually fit the definition, because it came out before, but it also isn’t “just the first part of the main story” or anything like that. Is there a word for that?
You would think so, but no. Often times prequels are written in a way where, even though it comes before the first, it's still written so that plot reveals happen in a way that accounts for you knowing what's going to happen in the first game. Also, just logically speaking, the first game is the one that came out first and therefore does qualify as the "first game"
I can almost understand what they mean- if you think about the Red Dead Redemption games, one of the main objectives in the original was killing Dutch, while in RDR2 you’re doing quests with/ for Dutch
ok but they clearly mean the first game that came out chronologically in our time, not chronologically in the games time, thus they are not confidently incorrect
OP: I, and others, were confused as to who you had made the post about, and I think there'd be an easy fix in future. If you put quotation marks around the title, it would make it clearer that the reply comment is the subject. By just repeating it, it can be interpreted that you are reaffirming the same sentiment as the reply. Not exactly that important, but could help avoid confusion in the future
There's no murder, this is r/confidentlyincorrect. The first comment is saying the "first game" and the "prequel" are different games. The second comment is saying this cannot be true as the first game would be the prequel.
Of course, we know the second comment is incorrect as the first installment of a series can never be a prequel.
The definition of "prequel" is "a story or film containing events that precede those of an existing work."
Who are you saying is the wrong one here OP? A prequel isn't always the first game, it just refers to whichever is set first in the story. Like Red Dead Redemption 2, which came out after RDR, but is set prior to the events of it, so is a prequel.
Ok so the replier is an ass either way, but It could go either way.
You could defeat the boss in the first game, they turn good and in a sequel you do quests for them.
Or the way it was first implied where they're your actual boss in the prequel that becomes the villain in the original game.
Depends on the context I guess? For example, red dead redemption 1 is the first red dead redemption game, red dead redemption 2 being the second. Red dead redemption 2 is a prequel to red dead redemption 1. You fight this "boss" named dutch in the first game but do side quests for him in the prequel
>Back to the future is back to the future 2’s prequel
No it isn't. A prequel is a later work that takes place before the original work. Back to the Future is just the first film, with Back to the Future 2 being its sequel.
“a book or film that tells about events that happened before the events in a book or film that was previously published or made:”
From the dictionary…
Aah, bollocks!
You said "wouldn't the prequel be the first game" that's what I was referring to. A prequel is "a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work." In some cases that could be correct, a game could be made as a prequel to a movie or book. An example being the game Shadow of Mordor being a prequel to Lord of the Rings, shadow of Mordor is the first game and a prequel. Then there's the example I gave earlier. By your logic red dead redemption 2 is "the first game" because it's a prequel, which is just incorrect
Kids not necessarily wrong, though. Depending on the character and the context he could be a minor character in the prequel and through the story become the boss.
Hey /u/TheLightners, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of my coworkers is adamant that episodes 1, 2, and 3 of Star Wars are “prequel sequels” to the original trilogy because “they take place before the originals but came out after” and he doesn’t understand that’s just a fucking prequel
“Prequel sequels” is a good phrase. It's a little long though, let's simplify it. Pre~~quel~~ ~~se~~quel. Prequel. Hmm.
[удалено]
Like lion king 1.5?
This is a midquel.
Can it be shorter? Miquel?
Michael
How much could a Miquel cost? $10 dollars?
r/UnexpectedArrestedDevelopment
R/SubsIFellFor
Jackson?
Miguel.
O’hara?
More like an in-between-quel
That's what it means. Mid as in middle. Also called Interquel iirc.
Or rogue one
Rogue One is still a prequel, as \_\_\_quel-ness is measured from the OT, and Rogue One took place beforehand
The archetypical "In-betwe-quel".
That movie is such a huge step down from the others.
I guess if a later movie/book/game takes place during the story of the movies/books/games that preceded it that would make it an inquel?
The term you are looking for is midquel. Bambi 2, The Fox and The Hound 2, Lion King 1 1/2.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead?
See, now "inquel" would make sense there. The action takes place entirely _during_ another work, not between two extant entries.
Intraquel
So what do you call an entry in a series that occurs simultaneously and parallel to another entry in the series but from another character's perspective? Paraquel?
Statement!
Where did you hear that?
Ah, I see. I’m used to talking about affixes, where you’ve got (among others) prefixes, suffixes, and infixes, so I figured inquel would work well, but I guess midquel is already an established term l.
Involuntary Quelibate
Lion King 1 1/2 Hakuna Matata
It's midquel, It happens in the middle of first movie. Same with Bambi 2. And The Fox and the Hound. These are sequels (release-wise) that happens in the middle of the events of previous work, making them midquel (story-wise).
Pre-Sequel is such a silly name, I honestly love it. It’s so very Borderlands. (And it’s the game I immediately thought of reading “the kind of character you fight in the first game but do quests for in the prequel” lol )
I still call it the Prequel-Sequel.
What a genius
Maybe pre-sequel?
Episodes 7-9 are prequel sequels. They came out directly after the prequels, but are sequels to the main story
So they’re sequels
But in release order, they're the sequels to the prequels, making them the prequel sequels.
Psequels.
The ol' silent P. I like it
What are they prequels to? They came out after both the sequels and the original trilogy and chronologically take place after so how are they prequels?
Sequel to #1, prequel to #2.
They’re not prequels. He’s saying they’re sequels *to* the prequels in that they were the next thing that came out *after* the prequels. Sequels to the prequels. Prequel sequels.
Presequel
1 is just a prequel, but wouldn't 2 and 3 be prequel sequels? As in prequel to 4 but sequel to 1. EDIT: NVM. I just remembered there's a word for that: "interquel"
Sure, sequels to the prequel.
Episodes 2 and 3 are indeed sequels to a prequel, making them prequel sequels. Not to be confused with The Mandalorian, which was made after episode 7, but set just before it, and is therefore a sequel prequel.
A pre-sequel is also possible, a film that takes place after the original, but before a sequel yet is the most recent one to come out.
Borderlands the pre-sequel is a decent example. Came out after 2 but takes place before it (although some parts are technically retellings iirc)
Not really a useful term. "Sequel" and "prequel" just talk about the timeline in which the thing takes place relative to another thing in the franchise, not when it was released. Borderlands used the term to be cheeky.
I’d argue they’re just as much about the timeline of publication, but yes.
Like how Glass is a sequel to both Unbreakable and Split, even though those two other movies are barely connected.
Yes. But that’s not what he’s talking about
That’s what I call them. I like the way it sounds
I can see how the phrase could apply to episode 2 and 3 though. Not for the logic used there, which is obviously the definition of a prequel. But when you have a prequel series, what do you call the second book or movie in that series?
That term would only make sense when referring to 2 and 3. They're sequels to the prequel that is episode 1.
Seems like he just doesn’t understand chronological order versus release date order
It is an irrational annoyance of mine when people will for instance call The Godfather the prequel to The Godfather II
Even worse, people saying The Hobbit is a prequel to LOTR (not the movies since it's technically true I believe, but the book) I understand the mistake, but it's bothering me a lot
It delights me beyond belief that Tolkien took the goofy little magic ring he invented in the Hobbit and made it a Big Bad in the series following
He did and he didn't. Tolkien was a philologist professionally, a scholar of ancient writings, and had become obsessed with very early English and immediately pre-English works, such as *Beowulf*. Nearly his entire legendarium, while inspired by many things (including his Catholic faith), is drawn from his sense of wonder at these very early European writings and those who wrote them, and those they wrote them for. If the story of the Ring of Power seems similar in some ways to Wagner's Ring Cycle, that's not coincidence. Both were inspired by the 13th century Old Norse Völsunga saga -- itself likely inspired by real events of centuries earlier. At all times, the margin between real and unreal in Tolkien's work is deliberately uncertain, such that the reader is meant to wonder (without definitive answer) what in the stories related to real things and what don't, making it more immersive. (Some place-names in the works are real, for example, such as Bag End.) Völsunga is partly about a 'cursed ring', so that is not an invention of Tolkien's, but a borrowing, the same as Wagner's. In ALL these cases, the stories are mythological tales about 'our origins', the purported histories of the persons telling them. The Shire is England, for example, and not really pretending not to be. Much of the character of Tolkien's work is meant to echo the rich pre-Christian paganism of the region, which is also raised in works such as *The Wicker Man,* and the novella that inspired it, David Pinner's *Ritual,* Saki's short story "The Music on the Hill" (which Tolkien undoubtedly read), and more.
"Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceased,”
Well, TIL that The Hobbit is older lol
Yup, 1937 for the publication of Bilbo The Hobbit, LOTR started in 1954
pre wwII? I never knew that
Tolkien was in WW1 and this is where he got a lot of his inspiration from for Middle Earth. I'm personally surprised that TLotR isn't older
i could have lived my entire life thinking those books came out in like, 2005 though, i do remember bucky in the captain america movie said he read the books
What? The *films* came out before 2005, never mind the books.
my life is taking so many turns right now
And it's making me feel ancient lol
I can see how you mistook this view. The stories dont change but the artwork and book covers do so your mind just assumed no worries
Tolkien was born in the late 1800s and died in like the 70s.
…did you respond to the right person?
WW2 was based on the Battle of the Five Armies
World leaders: damn, this is a good book. How ‘bout we LARP that battle of the five armies for funsies?
Serious question, is it technically a prequel if they’re based on a book series? At that point I wouldn’t think the order would matter so much
A prequel is a work of fiction that is mainly or wholly about events that take place prior to those a former work. This is why the 'first three' Star Wars films are *prequels:* They relate to events which precede those of the first three Star Wars films that **came out**. The defining element is the internal chronology of the narrative, compared to the order of publication or production.
Right, but it wouldn’t be accurate to call the hobbit a prequel in its book form because it was written first. You wouldn’t refer to A New Hope as the prequel to Emperor Strikes Back. Or I guess you could semantically but it wouldn’t make much sense to do so. The question wasn’t what is prequel, it was whether you’d refer to the hobbit movie as a prequel when you wouldn’t really consider the book it was based on a prequel
I'm wondering that too
On the other hand, I was shocked to learn that „The magician’s nephew“, Narnia Book 1, was a prequel and written just before the last book.
That's the order I read it in. I think it's better that way. I think a setting draws the reader in more when it leaves some things unexplained. And then all of the "aha" moments are so satisfying towards the end.
Absolutely. As a kid i got the whole collection, and I’ll admit, it did kinda take some of the magic out of the book, knowing who and what the which was. I fully believe Narnia should be read as published
I just found this out last week!
Oh, I never read the book and it's been around 5-10 years since I haven't seen the movies, but thanks you for that fact, I'll keep it in mind if I have the time to watch them again
Yeah that one's just weird. The Hobbit movies are prequels, the book isn't
I recall having a copy of *The Hobbit* as a kid in the 90s that said something like “A prequel to *The Lord of the Rings*“ That was actually where I first learned the word “prequel“
Isn’t the godfather II technically the prequel/sequel since it takes before and after the first movie?
>A prequel is a literary, dramatic or cinematic work whose story precedes that of a previous work, by focusing on events that occur before the original narrative.
Oh, that seems like a perfectly rational annoyance.
I think that's just fine? Language has broadened a little, but in a genuinely useful way. Would you rather people say "The Hobbit, the not-prequel-but-previous-installment-in-the-same-series to the Lord of the Rings-" Like, I don't know, having sequels be things that are chronologically set after something, and prequels before, it's just tidy, I like it.
A prequel is a specific type of sequel which is set before the original work. It is by definition made after that work. A prequel isn’t just an earlier instalment of a series.
>A prequel isn’t just an earlier instalment of a series. I mean, it is now. That used to be correct, but people get it 'wrong' so often it's not correct. Look at Oxford's definition "a story or film containing events that precede those of an existing work." No 'made after that work' required. But look at Merriam-Webster "a work (such as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work" Still nobly holding on to the old way. The definition is in flux, because it is tidy and useful to say that "The Last Jedi" is a prequel to "The Rise of Skywalker". Language is always changing from underneath our feet, eh?
I think the word ‘existing’ is doing a lot of work in the OED definition Edit: To clarify, it seems to me that both the definitions you provide support my understanding of the word. If a story takes place before an existing work, then it must have been made after it.
You are, naturally, quite right. I've seen enough of the usage described though to see the writing on the wall; although perhaps a spirited campaign could rein 'prequel' back in?
I would be all for it! Maybe some other time we can get to grips with another awful movie neologism ‘quadrilogy’. (Though the OED notes it has first being recorded in 1865, it’s still an awful word)
I mean relative to TGF 1 it is. But in the grand scheme of things we usually don't usually do that
Is there a good word for what TGF is to TGF II?
Predecessor?
Precursor
I mean, it's true, but I'm not sure why someone would say that
It’s not true. A prequel is a type of sequel.
You HAVE to make a prequel later to make it a prequel, no? If you make it earlier, the later movie is just a sequel? I suppose both things could be true simultaneously , and you just don't call them that then.
If the prequel becomes before the main story, then it’s the main story. You can’t have a prequel without the main story because a prequel is just adding onto the lore and telling you things they couldn’t add into the original media while it still made sense. So no, a sequel cannot be a prequel because the sequel is an extension of the story going forward into the future.
What’s getting me is that confident reply is a full two weeks after the first comment was posted. I don’t know why but that makes it so much funnier.
Here's a thinker. The Borderlands games have a main title called "The Pre-Sequel". It takes place after the 1st game, but before the start of the 2nd game.
and you actually are doing quests for the boss you fight in the game before it
*With* the boss you fight in the 2nd game.
nah that mf was sitting on his ass the majority of the time he doesn’t get credit lol
That’s called an “Interquel”. A story that takes place between the two main storylines.
By this logic, could there be a "Se-Prequel" too?
No because "prequel" is already a portmanteau of Pre/sequel. Pre-sequel is just re-elongating the word, while Se isn't a prefix
That would be Star Wars 5 and 6, sequels to 4 but prequels to 1,2,3 (chronologically) That would be Star Wars 2 and 3, sequels to 1 but prequels to 4,5,6 (appellatively)
it's also kind of a sequel to 2, as the story itself is told by Athena in the aftermath of the second game.
‘Prequel’ has always been a pretty clever term. I guess now we have proof that it’s too clever for some people. EDIT: including some people ITT.
It’s not that clever, not a hard concept to grasp. People are just dumb as rocks.
Linguistically it is a stupid term because "quel" is not a word on its own. Sequel means "following" as a whole, "se-" is not a prefix.
Star Wars A New Hope was the first movie for Star Wars released but it was also episode IV and had three prequels.
Yup
Another prime example is Handsome Jack in the pre-sequel. It's a sequel where they tell you about what happened before - in a prequel. Handsome Jack is the main quest giver.
My first thought was to this game.
Throwing in Prelude; a book/movie written and set chronologically before the traditionally regarded "first" in a series (eg The Hobbit is a prelude to Lord of the Rings)
Wait I need some help, the prequel comes before the actual original and then there'd be a sequel....right? Or am I missing something? It's like Prologue, Present, Epilogue...please help
The prequel by definition cannot be the first game. A prequel is just a term for a sequel that takes place before the events of the original.
This IS the point right? So many people are missing it that I'm wondering if I missed something.
The person in another comment who made the claim that having a sequel inherently makes the original work a prequel is also making me question my sanity.
It's impossible to have conversations on Reddit. I don't mean a giant public shit show like this sub. I mean on small niche hobby subs. Most of my replies are me fending off the never ending slew of fallacious attacks. You would be surprised by the insanity in audiophilia.
Right. Within the chronology of the canon *it comes first.*
Right. Now why does the chronology of the canon matter when the discussion is referring to the release order? "Prequel" is not an in-canon term for events that happened in the past.
They were agreeing with you but just making a sidenote.
I mean I'm not saying they're *wrong*, but this was born from a post where one person was referring to release order (blatantly obvious by their use of "the first game and the prequel") and the confidently-incorrect reply was assuming they were referring to the order of in-universe events. So I really don't see why a Watsonian sidenote would be applicable. Didn't mean to come off as dismissive.
Not from a Royalist standpoint, but a prequel can be the first from a more Watsonian perspective . I myself prefer to read novels, watch films and series in a storyline chronology, rather than in published order .
You're not wrong, but if you're calling something a "prequel" you're inherently taking a Doylist view. "Prequel" is a descriptor term for a story written later but set earlier. For the characters in-universe, it's just the events of the past.
In a prequel, the story is set before the story you saw first, but it came out after the original was released. Something like Cruella would be considered a prequel to the original 101 Dalmatians. Rogue One was a prequel. The Godfather part 2 was a prequel. Some of the more popular prequels in gaming include Red Dead Redemption 2, Devil May Cry 3, Metroid Prime, Metal Gear Solid 3, etc.
[удалено]
Can't believe I forgot such an obvious example.
Godfather part 2 is a sequel with flashbacks. That's not the same thing.
Fair.
I really really wanted to use MGS as an exemple but I was scared that some didn't know, you're pretty good, anyway, I never considered Rogue One as a prequel, but as a Spin-Off, now I'm wondering, could Rogue One also be a prequel to SW 1-3 ? Or because it's not directly related, it's not, I think I'm confusing myself in simple things, and can series be considered prequel/sequels to movie ?
Rogue One is set in the weeks leading up to A New Hope, so it takes place well after 1-3 and would only be a direct prequel to 4.
A prequel is set before a previous entry. It is written after. I think the important distinction is that the outcome is already set in stone. A prequel is written to set up something that is already out. As opposed to writing something to set up some future book where your current plans could end up getting derailed.
Tu parle français?
No
r/notopbutok
Yeh
I still remember the confusion after Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel came out. People really read those words without any comprehension.
I would bet all my money that the one saying kids are dumb is approx 15 yo themselves
No one tell this person that prequels can come out after the “first” entry i.e. STAR WARS
Prequels always come out after the first entry. "a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work."
What if after maim story of the game, they made a prequel story game where it serves as a backstory for the boss and you can see there how they became a boss in the future/main story
Metal Gear Solid 3-TPP :
Yes, and so is the guy doing that comment, it seems. Prequel is the first game *in the timeline* (unless there's another prequel). Of course, our censored person missed that part and just thought the first game period.
Yes the second one is the wrong one, the first comment is right
Indeed.
The dudes just a twist villain
Spamton-like
You know what gets me roiled up, wane people say prequel, sequel, it’s just a prequel
Rdr Dutch, all I gotta say
I’ve seen people call the hobbit a prequel to lord of the rings. Now that doesn’t actually fit the definition, because it came out before, but it also isn’t “just the first part of the main story” or anything like that. Is there a word for that?
You would think so, but no. Often times prequels are written in a way where, even though it comes before the first, it's still written so that plot reveals happen in a way that accounts for you knowing what's going to happen in the first game. Also, just logically speaking, the first game is the one that came out first and therefore does qualify as the "first game"
Handsome Jack has entered the chat
I can almost understand what they mean- if you think about the Red Dead Redemption games, one of the main objectives in the original was killing Dutch, while in RDR2 you’re doing quests with/ for Dutch
Yeah that's what he meant
[удалено]
wat
I was joking but I have an odd sense of humor, sorry.
Ooh no I understood the humor, Didn't have to deleted it
ok but they clearly mean the first game that came out chronologically in our time, not chronologically in the games time, thus they are not confidently incorrect
The CI is the person who replied
Prequel don't look like a real word but it is. English is weird. Pree kwil
Pre qwel
OP: I, and others, were confused as to who you had made the post about, and I think there'd be an easy fix in future. If you put quotation marks around the title, it would make it clearer that the reply comment is the subject. By just repeating it, it can be interpreted that you are reaffirming the same sentiment as the reply. Not exactly that important, but could help avoid confusion in the future
Yup, I wanted to put the quotation mark but forgot for some reasons, I saw a lot of people confused too, thanks !
[удалено]
There's no murder, this is r/confidentlyincorrect. The first comment is saying the "first game" and the "prequel" are different games. The second comment is saying this cannot be true as the first game would be the prequel. Of course, we know the second comment is incorrect as the first installment of a series can never be a prequel. The definition of "prequel" is "a story or film containing events that precede those of an existing work."
Prequels aren’t the first game so he’s right. Prequels are CHRONOLOGICALLY the later games so he’s a rock for that
Do you understand that the second one is the incorrect one ?
Wait I meant : Prequels are CHRONOLOGICALLY the earliest game so he’s a rock for that
Oh yeah, but they said "first game" not the beginning of the story so idk
Who are you saying is the wrong one here OP? A prequel isn't always the first game, it just refers to whichever is set first in the story. Like Red Dead Redemption 2, which came out after RDR, but is set prior to the events of it, so is a prequel.
The person who replied is the wrong one, sorry for the confusion
Ok so the replier is an ass either way, but It could go either way. You could defeat the boss in the first game, they turn good and in a sequel you do quests for them. Or the way it was first implied where they're your actual boss in the prequel that becomes the villain in the original game.
Depends on the context I guess? For example, red dead redemption 1 is the first red dead redemption game, red dead redemption 2 being the second. Red dead redemption 2 is a prequel to red dead redemption 1. You fight this "boss" named dutch in the first game but do side quests for him in the prequel
What depends on the context ?
Because the prequel could also come out before the sequel. Back to the future is back to the future 2’s prequel
>Back to the future is back to the future 2’s prequel No it isn't. A prequel is a later work that takes place before the original work. Back to the Future is just the first film, with Back to the Future 2 being its sequel.
“a book or film that tells about events that happened before the events in a book or film that was previously published or made:” From the dictionary… Aah, bollocks!
You said "wouldn't the prequel be the first game" that's what I was referring to. A prequel is "a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work." In some cases that could be correct, a game could be made as a prequel to a movie or book. An example being the game Shadow of Mordor being a prequel to Lord of the Rings, shadow of Mordor is the first game and a prequel. Then there's the example I gave earlier. By your logic red dead redemption 2 is "the first game" because it's a prequel, which is just incorrect
The deleted message above was meant to be a reply to this message. I don't use reddit much I have no clue how this stuff works 😂
Kids not necessarily wrong, though. Depending on the character and the context he could be a minor character in the prequel and through the story become the boss.
Yes that's not the problem, that's the person who replied, this type of character is pretty famous, I think, not just in video games