1. What's The Point?
Some of the best movies that got prequeled on this list started out as something that had a very different priority in mind than its prequels ever could. I mean let's look at a quick rundown of the originals' genesis of intention.... -Show a nightmarish rendering of "Who Goes There?/The Thing", using suspense and special effects unavailable to its predecessor. -Tell a grand Sci-fi epic, inspired by all the genres/films (Kurosawa/"Flash Gordon" serials/Warplane dogfight films to name only 3) the filmmaker grew up loving. -Create a believable world based on Marvel's ensemble and overly fantastic "X-men" premise. -Tell a story of Thomas Harris'; Make it work on several emotional levels including making a rather unsavoury killer a figure of sympathy for the audience. And now, the motivations of the prequels: -Show what happened right before the events of "The Thing". -Show what happened earlier to Darth Vader/The Star Wars Universe -Show what happened at the inception of the X-men. -Show what happened earlier to Hannibal Lecter, making him a serial killer. If you notice, my summary of the originals is pretty varied, and still overly simplifies the motivations - There are so many more influences that could be legitimately listed for "Star Wars" that Quentin Tarantino might start to feel subtle in his homages. But what you can't deny is that the prequels' summary is pretty much spot on. There's a pretty tight script to work with even in terms of summary : You can't suddenly decide to make "The Thing" prequel a surrealist film, and "Prometheus" shows that when you take a franchise prequel in unusual or more complicated directions.... the results simply won't be what everyone wants or can appreciate. And in Lucas' defense, you can't make a "Star Wars" prequel that suddenly seems informed by more canny, knowing dialogue akin to a Joss Whedon production (Listening, Mr Abrams?). While it could arguably be good/better, it's certainly not going to feel like the more pulp storytelling of the originals - Which can be just as devisive and still push the fanbase away grumbling "It's STILL not Star Wars...." The last point dealt more with the tangible "things" you can list that need to be in a prequel. These are the more intangible, the "stuff" that just happens and can leave you feeling good about a movie and its world. Its kind of what you lose almost immediately with a prequel, or end up partially succeeding with or chasing in vain. Breaking away from film for an example, a friend of mine once said the reason there aren't bands that sound like Led Zeppelin and make such varied, original rock music is that bands that try are LISTENING TO LED ZEPPELIN. The band themselves had a diet of blues, psychedelia, Eastern music and grooves, wispy British folk and its more rootsy North American counterpart. A band trying to rewrite "Whole Lotta Love" is going to do just that. And it'll probably sound like it. But it likely won't be as good, new, or groundbreaking. Whereas four people taking influences from an unrestrained list of sources? Well, they could create ANYTHING. And they did, and that's why it's still so influential and renowned. The canvas isn't just narrowed for a prequel - it's more akin to one of those "colour by number" paintings. At best, you'll get something that, with skill, looks very much like a real picture created under more inspired circumstances. Maybe even some original flourishes. It may even feel right to a degree. But more than likely, you're just going to get someone colouring by numbers.
Agree with this article? Let us know in the comments section below.