features

-- cinema
----- features
----- forums
----- submissions
----- archives

-- music
----- features
----- forums
----- submissions
----- indie reviews


-- random
----
- features
----- forums
----- submissions

-- books
----
- reviews
----- submissions

mailing list

name:

email:

sub.
unsub.

editors & emails

--------- Jason
--------- Jay
--------- Mike
--------- Keith

 

on prequels and THE PREQUEL

by Chris Deever
May 28, 2001

In its further attempts to wring blood from a stone, Paramount has unveiled its newest Star Trek series to replace the recently ended Star Trek: Voyager. This new series has been creatively dubbed Enterprise and stars Scott Bakula, but more relevant to this article is that it is a prequel series, taking place before even the events of Star Trek: the Original Series. The concept of a prequel is nothing new in literature or cinema, but the term has recently slipped into common usage with its popularization by the advent of Star Wars: Episode I, THE PREQUEL. Not only that, but it has also, as a result, become somewhat of a movie trend with prequels planned for, among others, the next Blair Witch movie, the next Exorcist movie, The Mummy’s The Scorpion King, and even perhaps the next Batman.

On the one hand, it seems that prequels are a great way to exploit, and I use that word with all its negative connotations, a series. When one has developed an idea or character to its fullest extent, and one still wants to make money off a so-far lucrative idea or franchise, why not go backwards with it? Or what if a particular actor grows too old to convincingly play his part, what does one do then? Certainly not gracefully put the character to bed when there’s money still to be made. Haven’t exploited the Rocky fans for a while? Why not a Rocky prequel starring Ben Affleck as a pre-Rocky Rocky? Indiana Jones? Harrison Ford’s getting up in years, so why not an Indy prequel starring Ben Affleck? Lethal Weapon? I’m sure Ben could make himself free for that one, too, but if not there’s always Freddie Prinze, Jr.

Okay, so apparently there’s a lot of good reasons to make a prequel. However, there must be some negatives else we wouldn’t be bringing the topic up. First off, the ideas and characters presented in a prequel movie or series are always limited by what the audience knows has already happened. For instance, with the above mentioned Star Trek series, there is already four series and nine movies worth of material. With any of these other Star Trek series, every new discovery, every new tragedy, every new triumph, every new race encountered changed the landscape of the Star Trek universe in unpredictable ways, creating all sorts of dramatic possibilities to deal with as a result. This cannot happen in a prequel series, for we have already seen the consequences of any new discovery made in that series, already intimately met the races still to be encountered with a Star Trek prequel. In fact, this is also a big part of what hurt Star Wars: Episode I, especially with the character of Senator Palpatine and the emerging relationships of Anakin with Obi-wan and Amidala.

Of course, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that good stories can still be created within a prequel setting; however, even if a good story can be put into a prequel setting, it still runs the enormous risk of doing something worse and more irreparable than merely limiting its story possibilities, and that is destroying its mystery, that aspect of drama which is an integral part of all the greatest characters, both villain and hero, from Norman Bates to Mad Max, and indivisible from all the most intriguing situations, from the "game" of Highlander to the universe of Babylon 5.

Staying within our Episode I vein, Darth Vader is an exquisite example of such a destruction of mystery. When we first saw him in Star Wars: A New Hope, he was dark and imposing, a physically evil presence, and one of the greatest on-screen villains in all cinema. As the trilogy progressed his character expanded in ways that at first repulsed us by the depths of his vileness, and eventually enlightened us by the amazing conflicts of his still sputtering humanity, all without destroying that completely effective aura of impressive mystery which pervaded and adorned his presence throughout all three movies of the original trilogy. While at one time one could never see the porcine mask of Darth Vader without shuddering, now with the advent of the first prequel, one can never see it without humorously thinking of a certain mop-topped child with a propensity for winning pod races and comically blowing up space stations.

Some might argue that this "expansion" of Vader’s character made him more human. But at what cost? By destroying that which made him such an intriguing character in the first place? Every revelation concerning a character or a situation should add to its mystique, in the same way as all the revelations of Vader’s character in the original trilogy, not detract from it so much that it becomes the mere mundane. Besides, an entire movie biography of Vader could never better illustrate his utter humanity more than the final moments of Jedi did.

Sequels have long had a bad name, and rightly so. They’re usually just ways to cash in on an audience. However, philosophically there’s nothing wrong with a sequel, as one can always build upon what’s gone on before and develop new and interesting ideas based on the original premises. However, prequels don’t seem to have even that kind of validation, and are steps backward both in the literal and pejorative sense. They seem to exist solely as a marketing ploy that should be demoted to a hall of shame alongside sequels and re-makes.

Email the author at TruthInCinema@hotmail.com.

Tell him to get off Ben Affleck's back. . .and give you a turn in the FORUM.

Click Here!


search TiS

forums

one of us
editor's stuff


- SUBMISSIONS
(Do you want to write for TiC? Of course you do, so read this)

TiC philosophy
- Prologue
- The Power of Sci-Fi
- The Power of Fantasy
- The Power of Horror
recent articles

Jason W. Ocker:
The Omen: A Look at Evil and Innocence

Jason W. Ocker:
William Gazecki: The Interview, Part I

Jason W. Ocker:
Yippie-Ki-Yay, You Whoreson Dog!

Oscar De Los Santos:
JFK and Conspiracy Theory in a Postmodern World

from the archives