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.
|