10 Reasons Prequels Ruin Movie Franchises

2. So What's The Story?

I'm departing the format I've previously had with "Guilty Parties" and "Exceptions" on these last two points, because they again apply to all prequels to a degree. I previously mentioned that a big problem with prequels, right off the bat, is that you know where you're going - This story HAS to end in certain ways. Well, I'm no genius, and I'm sure film and production crews put that together too. The problem becomes how they deal with it. I pointed out "X-Men: First Class" and "Prometheus" as films that avoid some of the pratfalls of this and still end up as good films (In Prometheus' case, maybe not so much to some - But I'd argue those are different problems for a different article - In fact, this site has several...).Even they pretty much had to plug up prequel expectations with other agendas though. "X-Men" did this pretty successfully, to the point that evidently an entire romantic subplot was almost completely excised. "Prometheus" went in a completely different direction and with some editing and removal of Giger's distinctive designs almost could've been an entirely new movie. (Tellingly, one friend of mine simply thought it was a sci-fi film addressing where we came from and why - Nothing "Alien" related. Somewhere, I'm sure Ridley Scott was smiling.) Most prequels though, are stuck with a story that limits character only so far (or requires you to reinvent them earlier in life unfavourably, as with Darth Vader). This constrains the events of the film, as sometimes you can't radicalize their history without leaving people wondering what happened inbetween. Worse, any new characters you add can never develop past a certain stage, as I also mentioned earlier. The bottom line is that the story is there all right. It's a rigid laundry list of things you have to or can't show, can't contradict, and have only so much wiggle room with. And that's not even touching on your actors - Who can return and look younger? Who needs to have hours in the makeup chair? and of course - Who's totally unavailable? And that's how the prequel challenge is dealt with more often than not - Make sure it's familiar, and works within its terms set by the original. No innovation, just fit the pieces in and hope for the best. Great movies can often involve radical changes or rewrites in mid-production. You don't get that option with a prequel. (And even if, inexplicably, you do, it seems that failure is still an option - Observe both tries at an Exorcist prequel.) Emergent charcters or recasts can usually steer films away from their course to something new and exciting. But that prequel simply is set. Even literary adaptations have more liberty at hand; Often you can justify the adaptation to screen as an interpretation (Kubrick's liberties with Stephen King's "The Shining" being a great example) or can bear out the filmmaker's vision more assuredly with a better visualized message. (Staying with Kubrick, even his more reverent takes on "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange" omit key points of the ending - but the message of the work is sharp and resolved nonetheless) Telling someone that the world is their oyster and their film is boundless in its possiblity? Well, that's a freedom any filmmaker would dream of and aspire to. Telling them that they have to create something with a checklist is more akin to a homework assignment. And while I've admitted throughout that there are exceptions to every rule, most homework isn't exactly completed as a labour of love.....
 
Posted On: 
Contributor

In a parallel universe where game shows' final jackpots and consequent fortunes depend on knowledge of obscure music trivia and Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker Doctor Who episodes, I've probably gone rich, insane, and am now a powermad despot. But happily we're not there, so I'm actually rather pleasant. Really.