Payn's Ponderings; The problems with Prequels

[Guest 7034872]

I think you make a very good point here, payn, especially with point #1: a good backstory can do a lot to give a story depth and a delightful blend of explanation and mystery. That is all to the good. But most backstory only really works if it stays backstory. Turning it into the foreground narrative rarely works well, IME.

Prequels, meh. Amiright?

I think so. I mean, it's not impossible, but I've not seen many work well.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think prequels are inherently bad, but I do think they are harder to write. Its a bit anathema to the normal narrative experience, I tell you about a person....and then I tell you some more. Its not as often to go "okay now let me tell you about his past now that I finished the current story".

I do think consistency of tone is the number 1 place a lot of prequels go wrong. A prequel has to accept the box its in, both in terms of what happens later, but also the tone and theme of the works that have come before. I agree King's Man is a great example of this going horribly wrong, the prequel did not feel like a "Kingsman" movie to me, it felt like a completely different beast.

The other tricky part about Prequels is.... what question do I want to answer? With sequels there is an obvious, "what happens to the main character now?" But in a prequel we already know a lot of that. So what purpose is the prequel trying to serve. Maybe its filling in the gaps of a backstory. Perhaps its adding in the "why" element as to why the main character ultimately does the thing we know they are going to do. There are a number of ways to go about it, but I think its very important that a Prequel nails this question, because otherwise they can tend to meander as compared to sequels.

 

[MoonSong]

Even in the cases of decent prequels (Rogue One), they are unnecessary. They are stories that don't need to be told. We know the outcome. They are boring - pointless, Hollywood, cash-grabs. At their worst, they can detract from our enjoyment of the original films (looking at the Star Wars prequels, Clone Wars, et al), because they fail to understand what we loved about the first films.
So, no, I never want to see a prequel of any sort.

From another perspective, these movies actually drew me into SW. By the time I was born there wasn't so much to make them special anymore. The groundbreaking effects were already commonplace, everything and their dog had already imitated the themes and motifs, the first movie was too slow to open, and even the main twist from Empire had been spoilered and parodied to death. There was nothing special about Star Wars anymore that I couldn't get elsewhere. The prequels allowed my generation to have our own Star Wars and ease into the main movies, and allowed it to grow even bigger than before. They gave Star Wars something unique again, and it is seen as a coherent whole by fans younger than I.

 

[payn]

Update:

So, saw Furiosa recently. It was....ok. My issue is it felt mostly like a rerun, which honestly Mad Max as a franchise is simply endless road warrioring (which aint bad as far as rinse and repeat experiences go). Furiosa manages to side step a lot of the prequel problems in that there isnt a whole lot of mystery to Mad Max. The changing of power and resources is pretty much built right into the failed society and chaos narrative. The old players from Fury Road make an appearance but not much has changed. I believe Miller made a great choice in introducing a new villain "Dementus" to be a stepping stone, instead of stepping on, the established story. The tone of the brand is maintained consistently so thats not an issue here either.

So, why am I still not convinced prequels are a good idea?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Update:

So, saw Furiosa recently. It was....ok. My issue is it felt mostly like a rerun, which honestly Mad Max as a franchise is simply endless road warrioring (which aint bad as far as rinse and repeat experiences go). Furiosa manages to side step a lot of the prequel problems in that there isnt a whole lot of mystery to Mad Max. The changing of power and resources is pretty much built right into the failed society and chaos narrative. The old players from Fury Road make an appearance but not much has changed. I believe Miller made a great choice in introducing a new villain "Dementus" to be a stepping stone, instead of stepping on, the established story. The tone of the brand is maintained consistently so thats not an issue here either.

So, why am I still not convinced prequels are a good idea?

I think that it helps to really drill down on what a prequel is.

I agree that as a general matter, prequels aren't great. You delineated the issues in the OP (I gave you a like on that three years ago!) but to reiterate-

1. You know, generally, where it will end up.

2. A prequel is always constrained by the original.

For that reason, most prequels tend to just be fan service for people that love something, so they can say, "Yes, I recognize that and what it means! Gold star for me!"

However, knowing where a plot will end up isn't necessarily a killer of a movie. I know this from personal experience- when I saw the trailer for Titanic, I said that the movie would bomb because we all know how it ends. That prediction didn't age well.

So it's not impossible to make a good prequel. In addition, there are different kinds of prequels.

1. The "shared universe" prequel. I don't count these as prequel, really. Think of ST: Brave New Worlds, or Rings of Power. They are shows in a shared universe that happen to be set at points in time before what we've seen before. They suffer from some of the prequel issues, but I wouldn't call them prequels per se.

2. The "flashback" issue. The best example is Godfather II. It is both a floor wax and a dessert topping ... um, a sequel and a prequel.

Anyway, I generally think that prequels are much more difficult to do well. Not impossible, but more often than not they are empty attempts at mining more money from an IP.

 

[TheSword]

Not all prequels have to be so predictable even if you know the eventual end point.

They do have to be interesting stories in their own right thought and not just rely on their descendent to bail them out. There has to be space for them to move around in, while still being recognizable enough.

Take House of the Dragon. Very well done, lots of mystery and drama. We know that the Targaerian line survives but we don’t know how or who. Doesn’t undermine the future story, doesn’t break with the tone of the original work.

For all the hate it gets from fanatics I’d say Rings of Power is similarly successful. I rewatched it again in preparation for the next series and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[Vael]

Knowing how a story ends isn't a killer ... they tell you how Romeo and Juliet ends at the beginning. Babylon 5 and other Scifi often do time travel stories as "closed loops", where you do know the ending before it happens (A character tells you his fate in the first episode ... and he's right). But this does, to my mind, make successful prequels have an element of tragedy to them. There's been discussion in this thread of Solo vs Rogue One, but I would also consider Andor, a prequel to a prequel and one of my favourite stories Star Wars has ever done.

Andor has all the pitfalls of a prequel. We know Cassian Andor can't die, his fate is set in Rogue One, he can't "defeat the baddies", the Empire will be around for awhile. There's no mystery here, not really. And yet this show is a master class in tension and setting stakes. It has deft things to say about revolution and politics and some damn good monologues.

Ultimately, I think Prequels are just like any other story, they work if there's a point of view and a reason to tell the story. Solo was more interested in filling in the Wookiepedia entry: How did Solo get the Falcon (despite being told how in ESB), his blaster, those stupid dice. It's not really interested in telling us anything about Han Solo. Andor is telling a story about what makes a revolutionary? What are the costs of Fascism and Revolution, both collective and personal?

Prequels that want to just fill in the blanks aren't nearly as interesting.

 

[Theory of Games]

Greetings,

Welcome to Payn’s Ponderings; The problems with Prequels.

The prequel is something that despite numerous pitfalls, seems to never lose steam. I can totally understand wanting to know the story behind the myths. I mean, we hear about things like the mad king from the House of Dragons, how Anakin Skywalker fought in the clone wars, or the rise of Oz the great and powerful and find them compelling. However, does telling these stories often live up to their expectations? I do not think so. In fact, I have come to dislike nearly all prequels I have read or seen.

Problem #1: Prequels ruin the mystery.

I remember exactly when prequels as a concept died for me. I was in high school and started reading an Agatha Christie novel titled, Ten Little Indians (if the name sounds offensive don’t look up the original!) This is a story about 10 people with dark pasts all collected at a single point in time. Spoiler alert; They all start getting bumped off one by one! This sets the stage for the popular murder mystery genre and things like the board game and film Clue.

As I was reading I kept wondering, “who knows these folks secrets? Who is killing them?” The novel takes on a super natural feel like a blueprint that Hitchcock would follow in the years to come. When I finished those questions remained unanswered, yet the story was still satisfactory. What is this though? An epilogue? I eagerly read to see what was left of this story to discover. Soon, I realized that the epilogue was just a way to tie up loose ends in the most expedient manner. It made sense of the story in a way that robbed it of everything that made it special. I was so upset and let down by this. I wanted to travel around town to every bookstore and library and tear the epilogue from every copy…

The mystery genre is a genre of fiction that follows a crime (like a murder or a disappearance) from the moment it is committed to the moment it is solved. You may be ready to say, “but, Payn, not every story is a mystery!” I would agree, however, while not every story is a mystery, every story has mystery. Well, except the prequel, in a way. Stories are often told in the present tense. As the story unravels the past is hinted at, while the future is slowly revealed. Prequels don’t operate this way. The audience already has the solution, and the why, just not the how. As it turns out, the how isn’t as compelling as the why and solve. Which will bring us to the next prequel problem.

Problem #2: The myth is always better than the truth.

There is this episode of the sci-fi series Firefly about a man named Jayne. Spoiler alert; Jayne steals money from a small town mayor, but has to jettison the money to escape capture. The blue collar town folk find the money and believe Jayne intended for them to have it. Jayne becomes like Robin Hood to these folks. Turns out he is nothing like Robin Hood, and folks worship him all the same. Jayne had become a myth and beyond just a man. Jayne asks his captain to explain. Captain says something along the lines of every man a statue is made for is really a dink. You should never meet your heroes, they will always disappoint you. You’ve built them up in your mind, and they will never reach those heights. Prequels are like meeting your hero.

“The truth, is just a poor excuse for lack of imagination.” - Elim Garack There is another clever quote from Twain, or somebody, about truth’s shoe laces being undone still, while a good story has travelled the globe. The truth is always sobering compared the tall tales spun through time, it just doesn’t have the seasoning, the embellishment, the ability to inspire. A prequel has to live up mythic proportions which puts a terrible onus on the writers to attempt to live up to. I mean, it turns out the Kessel run is just a fuel station in dangerous space. Fuel in Star Wars? When did that become impor.. Oh right, thats a thing now in SW. Which brings up the next problem with prequels.

Problem #3: The cognitive dissonance of tone and content.

Any folks old enough to remember those NES adaptions of movies in the 80s/90s? (What the hell is going on in this Total Recall game???) When a brand has been established, folks expect a certain experience. Art that changes the expectation will receive an extra layer of derision from fans and critics when it’s off the mark. This egregious example is crossing media types, but serves the purpose of demonstrating how confusing improperly branded media items can be for folks. New Cowboy Bebop I’m looking at you. Is…is that how y’all see Vicious? Really? ...Really, really???...

Really, really a prequel is an especially terrible place to throw a changeup. I get that Lucas SW prequels probably look the way he imagined they should have back in ’77, he just didn’t have the tech at the time. Though, for me, all I see is bright shiny ships, plus aliens and droids all speaking English. Gone is this dark mechanical future with alien feeling to really bring the SW setting alive. This is even before considering any of the writing choices! The change, which could be neutral, or even positive, faces instant resistance from the cognitive dissonance. Playing with the formula in a prequel is playing with fire.

There are a few exceptions, of course, to this problem. Rogue One is a well-received prequel film. Despite its departure from the space opera heroic theme of previous SW films, R1 emulates the brand of classic SW. Battlestar Galactica, which to be fair was a reboot, used the reverse process to take a bi-bi-bi-bi-bi unsophisticated product and give it a smart and sexy makeover. Which is a clue to creative types to take liberties with things that suck, but have a good concept, and take chances there. At least folks expect it to suck, and thus have the reverse resistance to changes to tone and content.

Conclusion: To prequel, or not to prequel, that is the question.

I have laid out a series of examples and experiences as I see them. Prequels begin with an undue amount of hurdles to the creative process. You have to work around the typical mystery element, which is usually the most compelling element of storytelling. You have to live up to expectations that are larger than life. The truth is often sober and disappointing, how do you make that interesting in the face of myth? Finally, you need to navigate the brand that has been established to at least meet expectations. The more renowned the material, the less room for changing tone of the content.

So, what say ye, EN worlders? The prequel, yea or nay?

-Cheers

Fun Fact: Movies are made to make money. PERIOD. And I'm not mad at 'em because being broke sucks. Sometimes it's fun to put yourself in another's shoes and ponder their decisions:

If YOU were an up & coming producer and your people came to you and said, "Hey, George Lucas wants to write & direct Star Wars prequels - and he wants YOU to produce it!"

Would you be the greatest naughty word in film history and say, "You know what? I'll pass."

Phantom Menace ALONE made over $1 BILLION. Who the naughty word cares about Midichlorians? And yeah I might think a prequel sucks but I can still respect the effort it took to get it made and the money it makes. Last thing I'm going to do is pretend I'm a better storyteller than a Lucas, a guy who's made billions from writing and directing stories. And yeah Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning was hot, steaming trash, but it made over $50 million.

So yeah while prequels can suck, they win at the box office which means people are paying to see these bowel movements. Final verdict:

 

[payn]

Fun Fact: Movies are made to make money. PERIOD. And I'm not mad at 'em because being broke sucks. Sometimes it's fun to put yourself in another's shoes and ponder their decisions:

If YOU were an up & coming producer and your people came to you and said, "Hey, George Lucas wants to write & direct Star Wars prequels - and he wants YOU to produce it!"

Would you be the greatest naughty word in film history and say, "You know what? I'll pass."

Phantom Menace ALONE made over $1 BILLION. Who the naughty word cares about Midichlorians? And yeah I might think a prequel sucks but I can still respect the effort it took to get it made and the money it makes. Last thing I'm going to do is pretend I'm a better storyteller than a Lucas, a guy who's made billions from writing and directing stories. And yeah Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning was hot, steaming trash, but it made over $50 million.

So yeah while prequels can suck, they win at the box office which means people are paying to see these bowel movements. Final verdict:

I suppose that could be a problem#4 or 5, that the story is only being made for the Benjamins. Though, none of this really addresses the OP which isn't entirely about films, but story writing itself.

 

[Theory of Games]

I suppose that could be a problem#4 or 5, that the story is only being made for the Benjamins. Though, none of this really addresses the OP which isn't entirely about films, but story writing itself.

.... screenwriting, which is what people do to make money. It's a profession many GMs should pursue.