Can Prequels Ever Be Well Recieved by the Fans?

[VulcanMindBlown]

It seems that a lot of science fiction prequels aren't that well recieved by the fans. Why is that?

Take Star Wars, Star Trek (obviously,) and the video games that I play like Halo, and Gears of War. It seems like the writing dries up or the gameplay concepts fail, are overdone, or are gimicky.

Now, I still like some stuff in those shows, movies, games, and novels more then most people I reckon... I like how it set up the stage for the main event. This may sound funny (and it isn't quite science fiction,) but I thought that the book Mattimeo prequel novel in the Redwall series.

Usually when a story written during a prequel era is well done, it is by a writer of a novel of a backstory or extension to that prequel like the Enterprise relaunch novels by Andy Mangels and Michael A. Martin, Christopher Bennet with the Rise of the Federation series, the Star Wars: Darth Plagueis novel, and the Mass Effect backstory by novels and comics (though there was no prequel in the line of what was mentioned before.) It seems by the time they get to make a prequel, the franchise ran out of gas.

I thought that Manny Coto did the last season of Star Trek: Enterprise because he was a big TOS fan himself.

We should get people who are VERY interested and immersed in the original source material to write prequels. Are they hated simply because they went backwards, or was it not well done?

 

[The Old Mixer]

Since this is about multiple franchises, moving to SF&F.

 

[Shawnster]

From my personal point of view...

I was disappointed in the prequels (either franchise) because they ignored or contradicted previously established facts about what the past was like prior to the beginning of the franchise. Or they tried to shoehorn in the established facts in an awkward half-assed attempt.

I was disappointed because the prequels did not fit my preconceptions or misconceptions about what the passed was like based upon established facts or assumed established facts from the beginning of the franchise. This one is completely on me or all the fans that fell into this trap.

I was disappointed because either the original creator (Lucas) or those who inherited the reigns had a different artistic vision and went off in a different direction than the original franchise. This might also apply to AbramsTrek even though that was not a prequel.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

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.

 

[JD]

I think what Shawnster said is probably pretty true of most people feelings when it comes to prequels.
It will be very interesting to see what happens with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I think that one has the advantage of being a totally new story that is mostly unconnected to the original stories, although a new posters hints at a possible more direct connection that previously expected, so people probably won't be going in with the same kinds of explanations.

 

[Greg Cox]

Prequels don't bother me (good thing since I've written one or two myself). I can see where it might bother folks who are overly invested in their own pet theories about certain bits of backstory ("But that's not how I always imagined the Clone Wars!"), but at the end of the day anything that hasn't been explicitly established . . . hasn't been explicitly established.

And how boring would it be if a prequel just confirmed everything we already imagined? You want to throw in some twists and overturn some expectations, just to keep it interesting.

It should be noted, btw, that prequels are nothing new. The 1915 German horror movie The Golem was followed five years later by a prequel, The Golem: How He Came into the World, which is now considered a classic and possibly superior to the original film (which is, alas, believed to be lost).

 

[CorporalClegg]

Godfather II says "hi."

 

[Greg Cox]

And as for the idea that it spoils the suspense . . . let's be honest here. How often does that really matter in series fiction? Does anybody really go to a James Bond movie thinking that maybe this time Bond will lose in the end, or that Sherlock Holmes won't solve the mystery, or that Perry Mason won't win the case? (Okay, I may be dating myself a bit with that last one.) It's the particulars of the trip that matter, not the outcome.

And if we're talking some sweeping imaginary history that isn't focused on a single individual, like Middle-Earth or Star Trek or Dune . . . well, ultimately the story is going to be about the specific events affecting specific individuals at a specific time and place. The imaginary history isn't the story; it's just the setting.

Which is why we can enjoy stories set in real historical eras without worrying about that fact that we already know who won the Civil War, how the Gunfight at the OK Corral turned out, how Lawrence of Arabia died, or that the Titanic sank. (Says the guy who was watching an old post-war movie with Marlene Dietrich last night.)

Same thing with knowing that the Jedi got wiped out, or that Starfleet survives unto a Next Generation. Knowing the outcome of Dominion War shouldn't affect my enjoy of some new STAR TREK story set a hundred years earlier or whenever . . . .

 

[Tosk]

Prequels I've enjoyed enough to mention...

X-Men First Class
Temple of Doom
The Hobbitses
Monsters University
The Good The Bad and The Ugly
Star Wars Clone Wars and Rebels
Ginger Snaps Back

And not really prequels properly, but Star Trek and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, too.

My instinct is to say that sequels are more likely to be good than prequels, but then again there are way more sequels than prequels, so it stands to reason.

 

[Anwar]

Godfather II says "hi."

Godfather II had the advantage of being a sequel and a prequel. It half told us Vito's rise to power, half was continuing the current storyline.

Prequels work when they come out pretty soon after the original ended and the same writers are involved. Then it doesn't feel like a cheap cash-grab by creatively bankrupt people.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I like X-Men First Class better than the 3 movies that came before them.

 

[Lance]

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.

This has pretty much always been my beef with prequels. It always feels like it limits the kinds of stories that can be told when we already know where all roads are leading. The associated side effect is that when prequels fail to go to the predicted places, we feel underchanged by the continuty errors. The only drama left is to see how certain events we already know about unfolded in the first place, in other words the "journey is more important than the destination" school of story writing.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

[...] The only drama left is to see how certain events we already know about unfolded in the first place, in other words the "journey is more important than the destination" school of story writing.

Sorry to say, but this is completely wrong, there is still a limitless number of events in the history of that stories world, that just never were mentioned. How many stories set in Afghanistan during the war on terror mention or even painstakingly detail the war in Kosovo?

Basically, the only thing off the table in a prequel is a universe-shattering event with possible apocalyptic consequences-anything below that level does not have an predetermined endpoint. So, in Star Trek Discovery a "Will the Federation survive this ?" storyline should not be done but the stakes can easy be high enough to matter They could be dealing with a crisis that only threatens to affect a hundred colonies in a remote area of the Federation, That is still billions of people (including most of our heroes and many of their friends and families) under threat. but no matter what the outcome, the Federation will survive.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, again, honestly, most shows or movies that do "heroes must stop the entire world from being destroyed" plots require a certain suspension of disbelief since, deep down inside, we know going in that Buffy or Captain America or Captain Kirk or whoever are succeed in the end because . . . d'uh. But we can still get caught up in the excitement and suspense regardless--by tricking our brains into thinking that we don't know that this is just a movie that's bound to have a happy ending.

 

[Tracy Trek]

I think sometimes it's because prequels may seem to contradict things that they believe have been established in the original work.

Take Star Wars. I have 2 examples. Leia tells Luke she remembers her real mother (images, feelings mostly) when he asks if she remembers her real mother. Now the prequels establish that she died right after they were both born. Why can Leia recall and Luke cannot? Actually I have my own theory on that.

On another site discussing this. Different people have offered explanations. Some say "Oh she's actually talking about her adoptive mother". No she's not. Luke asks about her real mother. That tells me he knew that she knew she was adopted.

Another explanation was it was because of the force. This sounds better to me. And my own theory is that Luke does remember, he just remembers his mother's actual last words and the feeling behind them (Padme said, "There is still good in him"). And then Leia is the one who recalls images and feelings.

The other example is many people thought that since Vader was such an iconic villain, they couldn't reconcile that to an innocent child or a petulant teenager. I think this is probably one of the biggest reasons the prequels were not well received.

Since there was so much time between the originals and the prequels. Perhaps many people had had their own head canon versions of how things happened. I know of some people that have thought maybe Padme was in hiding with Leia in the Alderaanian royal court with Padme pretending to be her governess until Leia was about 3 or so.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Prequels and origin stories can be fun, and the allure to start from the beginning must be strong. Maybe the producers even feel that going back to the beginning can be freeing. But I'd argue that it can be more restrictive, because at a certain point, things have to start to align with what people know according to backstory. And if they don't, I think that's where most of the disappointment comes from. In certain cases, retconning happens, and we all know how well-liked the SW prequels were in regards to that. Prequels often fall into the trap of needlessly overexplaining things that don't need explaining to begin with. Sometimes things just need to be!

If it were up to me, I'd rather move forward in a franchise without looking back and see the horizon of potential.

 

[Solid Snack]

Since the OP brought video games into the discussion as well, Metal Gear Solid III: Snake Eater is considered by many to be the best of the series, and it's a prequel featuring the villain of the original Metal Gear (sans Solid) games.

I don't think Temple of Doom really set up anything in Raiders, I think it was intended to be a stand-alone simply because they wanted any sequel to have Marion in it (Although this didn't happen with Last Crusade).


It's also sort of a trilogy itself featuring Peace Walker and Solid V pretty much continuing it's story (Although leaving out several details brought up in the games set later). Although the latter two weren't quite as well-received, and some argued drew the story out (especially V).

I'm not sure stuff like the Daniel Craig James Bond films counts as much, the films have always had a fairly loose continuity, and they're more in 'reboot' turf although they still have the occasional references to the earlier films (Such as Bond's car in Skyfall having it's "Goldfinger" armanent).


There's also the technology problem sometimes, although perhaps this often gets exaggerated. Enterprise's NX-01 gets a lot of flak for that, although stuff like the transporters/replicators/holodecks etc. aren't as advanced or as widespread in later Trek. Prometheus kind of had the shiny, fancy ship but that's kind of explained by being a richly funded expedition instead of the space truckers or military of the other films....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 (Sort of symbolized by that Star Destroyer at the end of ROTS that had red stripes and insignia in the beginning, but is now just plain gray now that the Empire is established). Metal Gear's a bit of a problem with this, you've got the massive Selanthropus in Phantom Pain, which is huge, has arms, and a variety of weapons (although not a perfect control system) being downgraded nine years later into the comparatively wimpy TX-55 from the original game which seems more like an EV-9D9 from Robocop.

 

[Cyke101]

I might be in the minority here, but I liked The Thing from 2011 as a prequel. Sure, it's not as good (or as gross) as John Carpenter's classic, but I thought it did a remarkably tight job of explaining things in the 1982 movie.

 

[Greg Cox]

On the subject of prequels that work, I've been enjoying Bates Motel, which is heading into its fifth and presumably final season, despite the fact that we all know where this story ends. (Stay out of the shower, Marion!)

Indeed, that sense of inevitable doom is what powers the show to a large degree. It's like watching a Greek tragedy play out in slow-motion . ....

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Prequels don't bother me (good thing since I've written one or two myself). I can see where it might bother folks who are overly invested in their own pet theories about certain bits of backstory ("But that's not how I always imagined the Clone Wars!"), but at the end of the day anything that hasn't been explicitly established . . . hasn't been explicitly established.

And how boring would it be if a prequel just confirmed everything we already imagined? You want to throw in some twists and overturn some expectations, just to keep it interesting.

Greg, I think the point is that prequels do more harm than good when they are poor, creatively challenged productions that only seem to exist to make as many fan-serviced references to the original work, without a true purpose in fleshing out the earlier part of the story. The Star Wars prequels are the ultimate example of that, with its numerous contradictions with the established original trilogy series, introducing previously limited supporting characters all to play to fans / sell merchandise (anyone named Fett), and other bad decisions. That had little to nothing to do with fans' preconceived ideas of a world that did not exist, but simply looking at the failure to create a cohesive universe.

...and yeah, if you already know the second half and/or ending to a story, rarely is the first half as interesting.

Someone mentioned The Godfather, Part II, but that's not a true prequel, and served its purpose as comparison to the rise of the father and the fall of the son.