Seghast
Member since: 2007To start off with, I'm not talking about the prequels here; I'm speaking of the idea of prequels in general.
Originally I wasn't against the notion, but it feels like prequels always fall short of expectations and I'm left wondering if hinting at a story's past may sometimes be better than actually telling it; perhaps the interpretation and imagination of the fans based on those hints are far more potent than actually trying to tell the story itself.
Using our own beloved Star Wars franchise as an example, I think most of us had vastly different ideas of what the Clone Wars would be like based on comments made in the original trilogy and passing remarks made in the various novels. For myself, I feel very disappointed with what we got versus what I imagined it to be like. As blasphemous as this may be to say around here, I often wish the prequel trilogy and subsequent cartoon had never happened and that the Clone Wars had been left to our collective imaginations.
Underworld is another franchise where I have this problem; I loved the first two films and while Rise of the Lycans was a fun film in it's own right, it didn't live up to what I expected based on the hints given in the first two movies. It wasn't as much of a letdown as the prequel trilogy was, but it was enough of a disappointment that I'd prefer if it had never existed.
Are prequels ever necessary once a story has begun and become established? Am I alone in thinking that prequels generally fail and end up detracting away from the magic of what the human imagination can concoct based on vague hints throughout the original story?
I ask here because 1) the lack of activity on the forums lately is troubling me and 2) this is an issue that has become very near and dear to my heart as a writer.
For months now I have been sitting on a half-finished Chapter 1 of a prequel to my last story, The Espada's Masquerade. I like what I have so far, I really do, but there's a nagging voice in the back of my head that keeps pointing out that prequels are often a letdown and I'd be better off moving forward instead of backwards. Perhaps it would be better to do a direct sequel and drop more hints to the untold past story and let the readers continue to flesh it out in their heads, perhaps a flashback here or there to give them something concrete to work with.
Should prequels ever happen or do they only end up causing more harm than good?
I don't think there's any unifying law that says 'prequels shouldn't be', but it's also inevitable that you can never please everyone when the fanbase and the expectations start to rise.
Star Wars is such a huge phenomenon that even if the prequels were re-created a thousand times, I honestly don't think there's a single iteration that could be made that would actually please everyone. Or even please an overwhelming majority. When the story, the universe, is already established and people have begun expanding it in their own minds (...or comics or christmas specials or novels or spin-off series or video games...) you're undoubtedly going to have a tougher time trying to live up to all the potential expectations; purely because the expectations are there.
(I very frequently find myself enjoying movies far more when I know next to nothing about them- even if the movie itself is pretty terrible.)
But I also heartily believe that prequels can be done well, can contribute positively to the world that's been created, and can be every bit as enjoyable as the original story. I think a lot of it can depend on whether or not it's background being created for background's sake, or whether there is actually a significant and meaningful story to tell.
The simple fact that 'it's a prequel' shouldn't be what deters you from your story, no way. If you feel like you've got something worthwhile to add, and if you're enjoying the process of creating it, then no way should you let that fact get in your way!!
Seghast, yes. YES. Exactly that.
Hints and allusions are infinitely preferable! The fact is, we all have different expectations, and really it's a lose-lose situation. There won't be a version that we can all be happy with, or at least, the odds are strongly against it.
Boshuda
I think the biggest problem with prequels is that they tend to happen outside of the action that the original audience enjoyed. If I enjoy a movie about gunplay, for example, I'm going to be disappointed at a prequel that gives us a day in the life of a pistol factory, unless something extremely meaningful is happening. Without putting too much of a limit on audiences, people generally want more of the same. Neil Gaiman waxes briefly about this in The People vs George Lucas, and makes a good point. If you're going to do a sequel/prequel, make it the same stuff the audience ate up initially. We know the characters were born to parents, that they went in time-out when they were kids, and went through growing pains, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we need to see all that. That would be the definition of anti-climactic. It's okay to delve into some character/story building, but be sure there are the integral parts of a story, conflict, climax, resolution, and that the spirit of that new story will appeal to the audience that would seek it out, presumably the initial audience. All too often, writers miss the mark when they attempt to subtly swap genres on their fans, and the whole thing derails fantastically. I may very well enjoy documentaries about weapons factories, but I would do so distinctly separately from Shoot 'Em Up. I think it's the genre-swap that does prequels in. Sci-fi action fans look for sci-fi action stories, and when we get a prequel about how our protagonist or villain was from a long line of very successful lawyers, we're left scratching our heads. Same with romance fans; if one enjoys a good love affair between a barmaid and a pirate, they don't want the story about how much science went into the construction of the ship he captains or who grew the barley for the beer she serves.
I think George Lucas took this into account for the SW prequels, but uniquely, he did it WRONG.
He knew we wanted more of the same type of stuff we loved in the original trilogy, but then he totally failed to understand what it was that we loved. Instead of giving us a simple, action-packed, humorous story of good vs. evil and a hero's journey, in a believable, lived-in universe, instead he completely changed the type of story he wanted to tell, changed the type of characters he included, changed the universe, the feel, the scope, and then recapitulated stuff that nobody cares about (like having to destroy a space station from the inside during a dogfight - that's so absurdly specific, why would anyone care?).
He tried to shoehorn every character he thought we liked (and to be fair, we do love those characters, but we love them IN THEIR PLACE). He tried to emulate elements of the old films that worked, like the humor, but did it in the most offensively stupid way possible.
I really can't tell if George Lucas really is so dumb that he couldn't tell what we like about his movies, or if he has the lowest possible opinion of us and our intelligence as fans, so that something like Jar Jar seemed like a good vehicle for humor and plot.
Although, after going on the new Star Tours with some friends, it's become pretty clear that he doesn't care about us or his original vision. He's after a totally different audience now. And he's pursuing them pretty hard.
I just want some mildly corny Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers-esque space fantasy. Is that too much to ask?
Boshuda
In today's world of CGI and technology... Yes, it's to much to ask.
No one wants to go back to the way things were in the 70's and 80's they all want the new and different. Despite the fact that we all loved the 70's and 80's sci-fi, where it truly took off to a new level never seen before.
As far as prequels go, I think it's an awesome idea, when it's done right. But if it's done wrong, it truly can ruin everything you liked about the originals.
My biggest problem with prequels is when someone gets a brainy idea and ends up retcon some, certain or several details that were established in the original movie(s).
The other thing about prequels is perhaps to a certain extent, we're all expecting more of the same as the original story. I think to really enjoy a prequel, we have to take it as it's own movie/story.
I don't mind the SW prequels as much as long as I keep them in mind as their own separate story set in the same universe. To think of the prequel trilogy as more as a side story than actual prequel. A good example of this would be "The Hobbit", which is set in the Tolkien universe. If we expect it to be on the same epic level as the LOTR trilogy, we'll probably be miserably disappointed since LOTR had its own distinctive flow and vibe.
Or maybe perhaps, George Lucas just simply waited far too long to produce the prequels, by about 20 years. Sure, the movie production technology is better today than it was back then, but then again, in the time of the original trilogy, they really had to get creative to push the envelope for those effects the established. A Prequel trilogy done back then, would've had the same visual quality as the O/T, sharing the same or similar effects as well as having used actual constructed sets instead of 20ftx20ft bluescreen backdrops.
Likewise, just as much as the span of time progresses movie production values, time also ages the person aka George Lucas... Back then, George was much younger, more creative, adventurous, with a flair for imagination. The creative ideas IMHO would've been alot closer together. We'd have probably gotten a much different story and movie for the prequels if it was done back in the early to mid 80's , keeping with the same audience that seen the O/T in the theaters, and keeping the SW franchise alive instead of letting it die out and stagnate until the mid/late 90's when the O/T's were released over again with the first few early "revisions" err- *cough* enhancements *cough*.
Unfortunately, the only thing we had after the SW O/T was the one live action Ewok movie, and the couple of cartoons - Droids, and Ewoks.
A similar fate happened to the Aliens franchise. The first 2, Alien, and Aliens were made close enough together that they share the same flair, vibe, and effects production value. Years later Aliens 3 and Alien Resurrection came out, each having an entirely different mood, feel, and setting - stood well on their own if not thought as close continuations of the same story (if it only weren't for continuing on with Ripley's character). Yet they were *different* enough that in a way ironically *alienated* alot of the original fans.
Now this year, we've got the Aliens prequel movie "Prometheus" ... Toted to be the answer to all the Aliens questions and mystery. IMHO, worst thing to have happened to the Aliens franchise. Story? what story? Plot? what plot? Just a bunch of visual effects and almost all the characters doing unbelievably stupid things that even defies common sense. I think an Aliens prequel probably would've been better done in Ridley Scott's younger days, or skip a prequel entirely and focus on continuing the story in a new direction. Say like what if some of the Xenomorph samples actually made to earth, and what havoc it could've caused beneath the city streets or to some small town with a nested nearby corporate research lab. I just think that with Prometheus, too much time had passed since the original 2 films. Ridley Scott tried too hard to answer the mysteries that which really made the Alien Xenomorphs soo exotically original and refreshing (and that he waited too long to get to it). Even with the ends sequence of the movie, we see Ridley Scott trying to re-invent the wheel, and I think it failed miserably; and only to ends up seeming to succeed ironically as an Aliens wannabe copycat type by some no-name B-movie upstart producer.
On an entirely different note, a prequel done splendidly IMHO recently was Star Trek, by J.J Abrams. Now that's the way to do a prequel. Sure, its a whole different cast of actors being put in place to portray large iconic characters in their younger years. J.J Abrams being fresh to the franchise, did an outstanding job, compared to someone say like Brannon & Braga, whom literally tanked a great prequel series idea like Enterprise. Cast and characters were great, but it took all 4 seasons to finally pick up speed and energy, sadly which was too late as the ratings bottomed out. The new Star Trek movie had fresh energy and flair that could launch a whole new tv series or even series of movies to follow. Only major retcon being the destruction of the Vulcan planet (I'm still iffy about that, tough startrek has had its fair share of plotline temporal spacial anomolies to screw around with the timeline a few times)...
Anywhoo, thats my thoughts on Prequels for the moment (and my less-than stellar opinion of Prometheus)...
________________________
Core to the Quad baby!!!
If your going to complement me, don't tell me my work is neat, cool or awesome. If you really like it, tell me why you like it and what you like about it. Only then I'll take it as a complement.
I had a funny moment last night. My friends and I were doing some SW RPG, and we were talking about some older sci-fi movies (the pre-CG days), and I said, "Special effects were great back then."
Everybody laughed. It took me a second to realize why that was funny. lol
Boshuda
I think the REASON for making a prequel is the single most important factor in determining whether it should be made or not.
Typically today it's just because Hollywood wants the brand recognition. They are hunting for anything that will hit people over the head with nostalgia and thus increase the chances that they will pay some money. Movie making is a business and everything takes a back seat to making money. Nothing is sacred; not characters, not actors, not settings, not story, not even established 'facts' of the original material. Directors or writers who insist on these can and will get canned.
And there is usually a big 'twist' thrown in...for the sake of having the twist...it's the illusion of giving the crowds a spectacle so they think they got their moneys worth.
A good rule of thumb I like to use is: if it's been 2 decades since the original, nobody wants or needs the prequel. And if they do...they aren't going to be getting what they expected.
Here's a bit if logic: if the prequel was worth telling...it should have been told first. Anything else is a money grab to capitalize on something that actually made money.
In many ways people used to be cynical about sequels. 'Did it make money? Well then you know they will make another one."
Prequels are the bisbegotten mutant offspring of sequels... Not welcome in regular society, but they can bring in a lot of money as a freak show.
I kinda suspected the majority might be against prequels and I've been proven right! Everyone has brought up some great points to think on and for myself, I think I'll scrap my prequel and move ahead with a true sequel; if there's anything important to the story in the past, I think Highlander-style flashbacks are the better route.
________
Links removed because the spam filter apparently doesn't like me, but I shall have vengeance. And maybe beer. Beer and vengeance.
The flip side to it though is that you aren't doing it (presumably) to make money.
There is a certain amount of fun to writing a story that people like, and then taking the characters and telling an earlier story so that the readers can go 'aha! So that's how that became the way it did!'
And they can feel pensive over something they know is going to happen, but agonize over the characters not knowing what their future holds.
I think Hollywood screws with this because nine times out of ten the *something* they reveal is something that wasn't originally intended. (like Anakin building C-3PO when he was a kid. NO ONE can convince me that Lucas originally intended that! In that case the audience doesn't go 'Aha! that's cool.' It's more of an incredulous groan.
I think whether a prequel is appropriate or not is dependent on a number of factors. For example, in the original SW trilogy, the Skywalker family was something of a revelatory surprise to the audience. It changed the characters in the viewers' eyes and helped develop their respective journeys. The release of the prequels inadvertently cheapens many of those cherished moments in the originals. While there are many things I enjoy about the prequels, I don't really like what they take away from the originals.
But I have seen prequels done right. One example I enjoyed is the Caprica series, a prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series. It goes far enough back that we aren't directly messing with the dramatic devices used in the original series, but not so far back that it's almost completely unconnected. It's got enough room to be its own thing while laying down interesting back story for aspects of the original series.
Strangely, the one prequel I was pretty much completely happy with (even though it can't be called a 'great' film) is The Thing (2011)... and that's because it's pretty much a carbon-copy of John Carpenter's original (yes, I'm familiar with Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World, but you know what I mean). It's made with an obvious love of Carpenter's film, it doesn't ret-conn anything, and it doesn't get all caught up in the business of 'look at all the amazing things we can do with digital technology!'.
I have to add, I enjoyed Prometheus a great deal. And Ridley Scott has always said that it's not a prequel to Alien - it's another film entirely, set in the same universe. Also, of all the Alien films, the first two were actually the furthest apart: the four Alien films came out in 1979, 1986, 1992, and 1997.
Ooh, I did not enjoy Prometheus. My friends and I have been taking every opportunity to make fun of it since it came out. But I think our reasons are completely unrelated to whatever function it has as a prequel (and mostly predicated on the space flute).
Boshuda
Aw MAN, I'd forgot about that damn space flute! :D