the concept of a prequel

[dualedge]

I'm curious to hear thoughts and discussion on this concept... here's my opinion and I'll start by pasting in this chunk from wikipedia.

A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting. The widely recognized term was a 20th-century neologism, and a portmanteau from pre- (Latin for "before") and sequel (a supplementing work with a setting later than its predecessor's, from the Latin sequella, thing that follows). The prequel forms part of the "back-story".

I know folks are very opinionated on the Star Wars prequels and this IS NOT ABOUT THEM - at least not exclusively about them - but rather about the concept of what a prequel is and how they're technically executed. And let me just begin by saying I don't mind folks disagreeing with me. Just because *I* don't care for pretty much ANY prequel doesn't mean I have a problem with anybody else liking one or all of them (and I'm also curious if someone can suggest something I haven't considered which I'm sure is the case.)

Over the past 10-15 years I've gradually come to the belief that the concept of prequels is just universally a flawed idea. I can't think of any prequels I like... novels (the Dune prequels - Butlerian Jihad, etc.), comics, tv shows (Caprica), etc. though I'm mainly thinking of films right now.

Personally I can't think of one single "prequel" movie that I'd include in my "favorites" list. Some are mediocre and some are just torturous. Maybe I just haven't watched the right one?

It's easier to call a movie a "prequel" but it's use seems to have become pretentious to me when it's really just a sequel that narratively happens earlier than the original film.

But if you use the same actor and you don't film the movie very fast after the original comes out, they're going to look oddly older when they should look younger. Then you've gotta use makeup or digital effects which even today are sketchy even with the best efforts (like Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy, etc.) And if you recast, then there's THAT disconnect for the audience (X-Men First Class with Fassbender taking the place of Magneto, etc.)

Not to mention, the f/x and budget are usually better which then make the original more dated even though the new film is supposed to happen before the original - yet another disconnect for the audience (at least the older audience) and Star Wars is a good example of that for me.

So, I dunno... maybe I'm alone in my general universal dislike for all things "prequel" but it just seems to me that it would be simpler and wiser to just stick with a.) moving on to something else, b.) making sequels or even c.) remakes or reboots. If you've gotta fill in a back story, maybe do some flashbacks... X3 was a crappy movie IMHO but I could tolerate the digitally de-aged Charles Xavier for a couple of minutes.

In Tron Legacy, I think the simplest solution would have just been to let Clu be aged to match Flynn. Yeah, they'd have to figure out why a digital construct was "aged" but that's better than having a 'not-quite-right' de-aged Bridges who doesn't quite match the look of any other character in the movie (except the de-aged Tron character...)

I just see the very concept of prequels as flawed and impossible to execute well without causing disconnects with the originals. Sequels at least might have a disconnect because f/x have gotten better but at least they're aging in the right direction.

The ONLY thing I can think of that might change my mind is the Hobbit though I think the f/x improvements are going to ultimately prove the same problem I mentioned above.

I'd be curious to see how others feel on the subject as this is something I've been pondering for a while but haven't had the opportunity to really discuss with my fellow fanboys (or girls as the case may be).

 

[Angelus Lupus]

The main problem with prequels is a fairly straightforward one: You start off knowing where the story ends. It limits what twists can be made if you know 100% that character X lives or character Y dies. You know that X will get out of the impossible-to-get-out-of situation and that removes any drama there might be.
It requires a very good story to pull of that scenario, possibly fleshing out characters you didn't see much in the original, or filling in backstory that might explain later events, or put them in a new light.
I know you don't want this to be about SW, but as an example: You can't have things in the prequel that contradict the original, and then go and change the original to make the prequel correct. That won't please anyone.
The Hobbit, is different. If you've only seen LOTR then you know that Bilbo did something important to find the ring, but not the full story, so this fills in that blank. It gives you more info about how he ended up where he did, and why Frodo looks up to him, also why the other Hobbits think him a bit odd. it gives you Trolls and Dragons that you don't see in LOTR and lot more dwarves and wood-elves. Sure you know that Bilbo lives, but you won't have learnt about any of the Dwarves before, so that is all new. In fact, knowing what happens to Gollum in LOTR might give you a new sympathy for him when you meet him in The Hobbit.

Just my two pence (or whatever the conversion rate is)

 

[Zykotec]

AND, the Hobbit is not a prequel, it's just that they chose to film the sequel (LOTR) first
Actuall, if you think about it Lotr also has most of the typical 'Hollywood' signs of a sequel too. Just my two 'insignificant pieces of currency'.

 

[dualedge]

AND, the Hobbit is not a prequel, it's just that they chose to film the sequel (LOTR) first
Actuall, if you think about it Lotr also has most of the typical 'Hollywood' signs of a sequel too. Just my two 'insignificant pieces of currency'.

Good point... I was forgetting that fact!

It still has some of the same problems facing it though since they did decide to film it later. I mean, how are they going to make Ian McKellan look believably younger or are we going to get a Tron style de-aging? Maybe if they don't "de-age" him TOO much it might work... And not to mention, if we see Gollum, he's inevitably going to put the LotR's f/x version to shame since digital f/x are advancing so quickly.

Angelus, very good point about knowing how the story ends. That had occurred to me to and I completely forgot about it while making my own post. Enterprise comes to mind... yeesh. The show wasn't completely unwatchable for me but it didn't fit with the rest of Trek continuity IMHO and consistency and continuity are just something I don't like to overlook myself... maybe that's also why prequels bug me so much.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Does Temple of Doom count as a prequel?

 

[ihs]

...I mean, how are they going to make Ian McKellan look believably younger...

Technically we need him to look the same. Gandalf was a Maia, a spirit who took the form of an old man while on Earth. As such, he did not age.

 

[dualedge]

Does Temple of Doom count as a prequel?

Definitely. I read one thing that suggested that Spielberg was at least in part responsible for making the term "prequel" popular by describing Temple of Doom as one.

One thing I will say in favor of Temple of Doom, while I don't care for the movie, they at least didn't wait 10 years to film it so Harrison Ford still looked the part, y'know?

 

[blip]

......

 

[Sigma-LS]

In Battletech the last 5 years have been the "Current" Jihad Era Timeline. Unfortunately it was playing out after a different property got its hands on the license and decided to jump 100 years ahead for their new game system.

So the biggest war detailed in 27 years of the game and we already knew how it ended before it began. What a bummer. But I gotta admit the Catalyst folks sure made lemonade out of it.

And in less than another year the timelines will finally merge and we'll be in totally new territory again.

But I gotta say I like the Jihad far better than the Early Dark age stuff so YMMV.

 

[blip]

......

 

[Lutso]

Back to the Future II...was that a prequel? My brain hurts.

Yes. And likewise BTTF Part III was a sequel to Part I, and Part I was a Sequel to Part II.

Oh, and BTTF Part I was a prequel to itself.

Feel better?

 

[CB2001]

Actually, the earliest prequel I can think of is William Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom!, which if I recall correctly is a prequel to The Sound and The Fury.

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (this is questionable, as some may not count the series as canon to the films)

Hannibal Rising, which as crazy as it sounds, I happen to like this, as I feel the film actually did a great job at detailing the events that lead a little boy to become the iconic film villain.

Blip- The answer is no. It's part sequel and part "durquel" (its a term I came up with when it came to some of my original stories and how they overlapped in a timeline. It basically means "one or more stories that play out along the same timeline, often from different points of view." BTTF 2 counts as part "durquel" due to the story going back to 1955, showing a different story during the events we've seen the first time around. In this case, there's two that goes on: Story A: Marty trying to get his parents hooked up and getting back to the future (as seen in BTTF 1) and Story B: Marty and Doc trying to get the Sports Almanac from young Biff while not trying to interfere with the events of Story A). Honestly, I actually have to commend Robert Zemeckis on BTTF2. Originally, Doc and Marty were going to the 1960s (which was originally written in the script) where they were going to try to get the Almanac from Biff, and Marty was going to run into the 1960s versions of his parents. But he changed his mind and decided to go with returning back to 1955 (his reasoning behind it was not just the fact that no one ever did anything like that before in a film, but the fact that we were getting a different point of view in the same series of events).

 

[blip]

......

 

[CB2001]

That's why I hate time travel, you have no excuse to be late for dinner.
(Rod Taylor still managed it though).

But don't you think that BTTF II was every bit as good as BTTF I, if not better?

I think all films in the BTTF trilogy were equally good. There is no one better than the other in my point of view.

 

[dualedge]

I dunno... I consider BTTF 2 & 3 to be sequels... I think. From a temporal point of view, Marty experienced BTTF 1 first, then bounced ahead in 2 and back in part 3 but his progression through future and past was linear for himself despite seeing himself at an earlier stage or his own anscestors... I think... I don't know. Now I'm starting to get a headache :lol

 

[dbalschi]

Personally I'm just getting sick of prequels and sequels and hollywood in general

 

[CB2001]

Personally I'm just getting sick of prequels and sequels and hollywood in general

Even ones that were designed by the filmmakers since the start of Part 1? And I don't mean tacked on stuff, like the "Star Wars" prequels, I mean ACTUALLY designed since the start of the films (where be it one or two sequels).

 

[dbalschi]

Even ones that were designed by the filmmakers since the start of Part 1? And I don't mean tacked on stuff, like the "Star Wars" prequels, I mean ACTUALLY designed since the start of the films (where be it one or two sequels).

Actually designed? No not sick of those
It probably didn't help that I read this thread right after I read about the crap they're pulling with Blade Runner

 

[dualedge]

Even ones that were designed by the filmmakers since the start of Part 1? And I don't mean tacked on stuff, like the "Star Wars" prequels, I mean ACTUALLY designed since the start of the films (where be it one or two sequels).

In theory I don't mind sequels that are planned out in advance so they have some kind of cohesive story arc or, at least, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt a bit more. I don't give prequels the benefit of the doubt ever anymore.

I really do NOT like fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants sequel making though... not at all. It seems to me that more often than not, those types of sequels typically suck pretty bad. Business decisions be d**ned, if you're planning a franchise, sink some money into it in advance to plan out a trilogy or something instead of flying blind.

I don't think Nolan knew where he was going to go with Batman and that worked out okay for the Dark Knight but that type of thing is usually the exception rather than the rule.

I guess I'm also not as tired of comic book movie sequels as some folks simply because I grew up reading comic books so with superhero movies, I'm always looking for the next issue.

But classic movies like Blade Runner... the idea of a sequel truly does not sit well with me. And the suggestion of a Blade Runner prequel makes me want to send out a lynch mob to find out who even suggested such a horrible idea.

 

[thedarkone]

i can agree to most of what you've said but i am a fan of prequels if done right. Lets take RED DRAGON, it was a much more well thought out prequel in the hannibal series than the god awful hannibal rising. I am a fan of Star wars episode 3 but i very much do agree with you on the dated special effects. I mean to accuratly make the prequels blend in with the original trilogy they would have to remake a seperate 4, 5, and 6 to make it look all connected and leave the originals as there own thing.