Can Prequels Ever Be Well Recieved by the Fans?

[Greg Cox]

Well, I think we can all agree that prequels are bad if they're poorly done and creatively challenged, but doesn't that also apply to sequels, remakes, spin-offs, or totally original stories? I mean, "bad westerns are bad" doesn't mean that all westerns are bad. Are we arguing that prequels are more likely to be poorly done than any other kind of movie? 'Cause I've seen some pretty dreadful original movies and TV shows.

And, as I suggested before, BATES MOTEL is arguably better than either PSYCHO III or Gus Van Sant's misconceived remake of the original PSYCHO.

 

[Reverend]

Well, I think we can all agree that prequels are bad if they're poorly done and creatively challenged, but doesn't that also apply to sequels, remakes, spin-offs, or totally original stories? I mean, "bad westerns are bad" doesn't mean that all westerns are bad. Are we arguing that prequels are more likely to be poorly done than any other kind of movie? 'Cause I've seen some pretty dreadful original movies and TV shows.

And, as I suggested before, BATES MOTEL is arguably better than either PSYCHO III or Gus Van Sant's misconceived remake of the original PSYCHO.

I think the key difference here is one of expectations. Doing anything with a known property, be it an adaptation, a remake, sequel or prequel means it comes front loaded with baggage that original stories simply don't have to deal with. Such can cripple any creative effort before it's even begun, while an original succeeds or fails on it's on merits.

At the very least it's next to impossible to please the majority of any fanbase, but then if pleasing the fanbase is the main priority instead of a good story, it's no wonder such endeavours often fail. Most are made with the express purpose of cashing in on something that's already making money and unless you're very smart and hire some very talented and trustworthy people who passionately want to make something awesome, starting out from the position of profits first is almost always going to doom the whole thing to mediocrity at best.

 

[Tracy Trek]

The Star Wars prequels were kind of more aesthetically more advanced looking and shiny, although a lot of the Tatooine stuff still sort of had the worn look of the films, and things get noticeably less colorful as the films go on

I think it may have been in one of the documentaries included with the DVD's for the movies (or maybe a documentary on the History Channel), it was mentioned how everything under the empire was black and white and grey. Perhaps to highlight the grim reality of life under the empire.

I may be in a minority, but I like the SW prequels. Like I stated before, there is some continuity issues, but you find that in many fandoms.

I read some things on-line a while back about a possible prequel to the Hunger Games.

 

[suarezguy]

I do like the Star Wars prequels but more in terms of being their own films, in a lot of ways in terms of connecting to the OT they disappoint.

In general when you make a prequel people will have high expectations, maybe even higher than with a sequel, as well as specific expectations and the filmmakers will have to (or will be expected to) pack in a lot of story and that can make the story seem way too rushed.
For notable examples in RotS Anakin turns his back on the Jedi and even Padme pretty quickly and Obi-Wan never seems to believe he can change back, though the OT suggested he had, and in X-Men: First Class Charles and Erik had some fine chemistry but the story of them working together was so brief it feels disappointing compared to what was suggested.

 

[Lance]

The other danger of prequels -- and I've come to think that this was a critical mistake that the STAR WARS prequels made -- is that sometimes a backstory is far more artful when its exactly that: a backdrop to the current story. Lucas himself acknowledges on his own commentary on the A New Hope DVD that he never wished at the time to explore the backstory on screen, it was only meant to be colour for the story being told. He wanted to give the audience the feeling that this was was a universe with some 'history', but that was all it was meant to be. It was only later that he decided it might be fun to depict those events on screen.

In some ways I do think it works better as an off-screen backstory, but I know a lot of people have a different viewpoint.

 

[Noname Given]

I've seen people say that they don't like prequels because they know how the material must end which they feel compromises the ability to be invested in the drama.

You know, I can understand that kind of logic on one level but were it 100% true in all cases, how do you explain mega-boxoffice hits like James Cameron's 'Titanic' (or do you believe there were some who really didn't know the ship would hit an iceberg an sink going in?)

As with any film I think it's the overall story and the execution of said story that makes or breaks a film. Because (with regard to this prequel) all we know is "many Bothans died..." getting the rebuilt Deathstar info to the Rebellion. For all we can speculate, MAYBE the main character dies <--- and that's an element of the story we won't know until the conclusion of the film.

It's like a WWII, Korean, or Viet Nam based war film. We KNOW in the end how those events ultimately turned out, but there's so many smaller stories about individuals (real and imaginary) that we don't know the particulars of, that can allow a good story to be told, even when the audience is aware of the ultimate outcome.

 

[Set Harth]

For notable examples in RotS Anakin turns his back on the Jedi and even Padme pretty quickly and Obi-Wan never seems to believe he can change back, though the OT suggested he had

Or that Vader thought so, at any rate. It is arguable that some of Obi-Wan's dialogue in ROTS is premised on the notion that Anakin might back down, but putting that aside, Vader need not have obtained this impression directly from Obi-Wan. It is conveyed by Padme's dialogue to Anakin earlier. "He wants to help you."

 

[dahj]

And as for the idea that it spoils the suspense . . . let's be honest here. How often does that really matter in series fiction?

I don't think it's so much a case of "knowing how it ends" spoiling it, but I'd posit that it might have an effect on the overall perception of the thing, essentially making prequels undergo more intense scrutiny.

Because if there is something in a sequel one doesn't like, one can give it the benefit of the doubt and think "oh, they can just fix it in the next installment", but in the case of the prequel you already know what the next installment is and that it doesn't fix the thing you didn't like.

In a sense, having a preexisting sequel closes a lot of gates to explain away potential problems and issues some fans might have as it takes away the readers/viewers freedom to imagine what comes next, because what comes next is already cemented.

 

[Tracy Trek]

In general when you make a prequel people will have high expectations, maybe even higher than with a sequel, as well as specific expectations

I think perhaps the expectations for the SW prequels was so high that some fans were bound to be disappointed.

 

[Lance]

Wasn't there a guy online who suggested that the real problem with prequels is that we've all gotten accustomed to look at a movie or TV franchise in chronological order, and that (actually) the best way to watch (for example) the Star Wars prequels is as being "sequels that take place before the original"? Ie, watch them after the OT, not before it.

I think his point was that the original three movies have a dramatic arc that unfolds very satisfactorily... but which is completely undermined by those revelations coming 'earlier' in the prequels if we watch those first. But if you watch the prequels after the originals, they act as a kind of flashback to events, hence the revelations in the original trilogy will still hold weight.

Maybe more of us should watch movies in the order they came out, rather than retroactively starting our rewatches with whatever the earliest is 'chronologically'?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Wasn't there a guy online who suggested that the real problem with prequels is that we've all gotten accustomed to look at a movie or TV franchise in chronological order, and that (actually) the best way to watch (for example) the Star Wars prequels is as being "sequels that take place before the original"? Ie, watch them after the OT, not before it.

I think his point was that the original three movies have a dramatic arc that unfolds very satisfactorily... but which is completely undermined by those revelations coming 'earlier' in the prequels if we watch those first. But if you watch the prequels after the originals, they act as a kind of flashback to events, hence the revelations in the original trilogy will still hold weight.

Maybe more of us should watch movies in the order they came out, rather than retroactively starting our rewatches with whatever the earliest is 'chronologically'?

Whilte I think that's a perfectly true statement, I don't really believe it has anything to do with why people don't like the prequel trilogy. And I doubt anyone would even seriously suggest watching them in chronological order the first time you see them, anyway.

 

[Set Harth]

People have seriously suggested that for years, unfortunately.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Such can cripple any creative effort before it's even begun, while an original succeeds or fails on it's on merits.

Yes, this. It's like the difference between being the first plane on a runway vs being the plane being behind that one. You just don't have as much room to be creative when everything has already come before it.

The other danger of prequels -- and I've come to think that this was a critical mistake that the STAR WARS prequels made -- is that sometimes a backstory is far more artful when its exactly that: a backdrop to the current story.

Yeah, my feeling is that explaining something can often dispel the magic. For instance, The Force is essentially magic, but in fantasy worlds, you'll never really have to ask or want to ask what magic is made of. It kind of just is what it is. So, going in-depth about how the Force works just felt like it was stumbling over itself. But by going ahead and explaining it, it takes away some of the magic that happens for people. It should just be enough that it's The Force and that people have an affinity for it. No explanation needed. And that's what I mean by over-explaining things in my original comment, and it's something that the SW prequels have fallen to in a big way. It was trying to justify itself, but in doing so they went way overboard on some of the details.

 

[Tracy Trek]

@Lance ,Most people are advised to watch the original series first before they watch the prequels. Some people who really dislike the prequels will tell others they should just skip them altogether.

So, going in-depth about how the Force works just felt like it was stumbling over itself. But by going ahead and explaining it, it takes away some of the magic that happens for people. It should just be enough that it's The Force and that people have an affinity for it. No explanation needed.

I see what you mean. Many people who don't like the prequels will point to the plot line of the midi-clorians as one of the things they don't like.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I see what you mean. Many people who don't like the prequels will point to the plot line of the midi-clorians as one of the things they don't like.

I actually enjoy the Prequels for what they are, as there are some good things about it. But explaining what makes up the Force just was definitely one of its mistakes. I'd even argue that it interrupts the flow of the movie to give info on why it works. It'd be like a Wizard stopping in the middle of a journey to explain why he can cast magic, and you don't really hear that, unless you're playing D&D, but then that's very stat-based and games tend to be very meta. I'll go with, if they have to explain something like that, they're missing the point.

 

[Anwar]

It didn't help that a lot of the SW Prequels feel like filler, or at least they all had a ton of padding in them.

The OT (at least the first two films) felt more tightly focused.

 

[Silvercrest]

Whilte I think that's a perfectly true statement, I don't really believe it has anything to do with why people don't like the prequel trilogy. And I doubt anyone would even seriously suggest watching them in chronological order the first time you see them, anyway.

People have seriously suggested that for years, unfortunately.

Lucas suggested it. YMMV on how much weight THAT carries.

So, going in-depth about how the Force works just felt like it was stumbling over itself. But by going ahead and explaining it, it takes away some of the magic that happens for people. It should just be enough that it's The Force and that people have an affinity for it. No explanation needed.

The funny thing is that TPM decided to explain how it works without saying what it IS; i.e. leaving out any exposition describing "what gives a Jedi his power; an energy field which binds the galaxy together", etc. Similarly, the word "lightsaber" is never used in that movie. Anakin calls it a "laser sword" one time and that's it. I mean, it's obvious what the weapon is, but it would be appropriate to give it the right name for the viewer's sake.

I guess the movie assumes the viewer already knows these things. Presumably from watching the later movies. So much for chronological order.

Yes, this. It's like the difference between being the first plane on a runway vs being the plane being behind that one. You just don't have as much room to be creative when everything has already come before it.

I would rather not be on a plane where the pilot thinks he has to get creative, thank you very much.

 

[fireproof78]

Wasn't there a guy online who suggested that the real problem with prequels is that we've all gotten accustomed to look at a movie or TV franchise in chronological order, and that (actually) the best way to watch (for example) the Star Wars prequels is as being "sequels that take place before the original"? Ie, watch them after the OT, not before it.

I think his point was that the original three movies have a dramatic arc that unfolds very satisfactorily... but which is completely undermined by those revelations coming 'earlier' in the prequels if we watch those first. But if you watch the prequels after the originals, they act as a kind of flashback to events, hence the revelations in the original trilogy will still hold weight.

Maybe more of us should watch movies in the order they came out, rather than retroactively starting our rewatches with whatever the earliest is 'chronologically'?

I have heard the suggestion that watching ANH, then ESB, ROTS and then ROTJ makes for an enjoyable experience.

Personally, I think prequels suffer from audience expectations as well as balancing the right amount of information that an audience will enjoy. There is a certain level of detail that the audience wants in order to trust the storyteller, and then they will fill in the rest within their own imagination. That's why simple stories can be very effective because humans will tend to fill in the gaps of their own knowledge.

Prequels can be tough because they take those preconceptions and toss them aside for the author's own story. That's the author's right and they have no reason to bend the story to audience expectation. But, it can still be jarring when you go "Oh, that's how that happened?" Instead of "Wow, that's how that happened? I had no idea." One creates a sense of distrust and frustration and the other a sense of wonder and investment.

That's why I think prequels are hard to do. The details can be the focus on things that the author thinks are important, but are not really what drew others to the story.

tl:dr No.

 

[Solid Snack]

It's actually not stated that the Midichlorians are the force at all, it's that they're the biological receivers of it. It's a possible explanation for why the Skywalkers have the force ("The force is strong in your family"), and people like Han, don't. Still, it was pretty unnecessary. Granted, like a lot of the prequel concepts, it goes back to Lucas's earlier scripts for the original films.

It's strange also that even in the script I think Lucas calls the sabers "laser sword". Although it's back to normal in II and III.

There also seemed to be quite a few plotlines in the PT that were suggested, but not really followed through. The whole clone/Sido-Dyas/Dooku connection was never really followed up on (Unless you count the Clone Wars cartoon). One thing I never understood in ROTS is that no one seemed to care about Anakin disobeying orders in AOTC-Obi-Wan at least knew that he went to Tatooine, and Yoda sensed something was really wrong (and telling Mace). But I guessed the Clone Wars were more important...

Although there was a scene, deleted from ROTS, that suggests Obi-Wan pretty much knows that Anakin and Padme are together, but is actually keeping it from the council (This scene is actually referred to in the final movie; it's referred in the "I'm not the Jedi I should be" scene: "Obi-Wan was here, wasn't he?" "He came by this morning").

The whole Anakin going to the darkside plot was actually revised during filming and sort of edited sloppily together, originally, it was just Anakin feeling the Jedi had betrayed Palpatine; but the whole "Gotta save Padme from death using the dark side" thing was added.

 

[Anwar]

IIRC, they never explained the whole "The Clone Army was ordered by a Jedi Master named Sido-Dyas" because the writers realized it was too blatant.

Unfortunately, this meant that other writers did some convoluted EU story where Sido-Dyas turned out to actually be some separate guy from Palpatine.