io9
Star Trek and Star Wars keep venturing down the dreary route of prequels, and in the process, they've made the universe a way less interesting place. But prequels aren't just boring and predictable — they're also morally wrong and a scourge on humanity, because they portray people as helpless pawns of a history that's already set in stone. Click through for five reasons why prequels are actually evil.
For some reason both of the big "Star" franchises are addicted to prequels. With Star Trek, it's the pre-Kirk show Enterprise, and now the young-Kirk movie directed by J.J. Abrams. Star Wars, meanwhile, had its dull prequel trilogy, and now it's plugging in the gaps between episodes two and three — and episodes three and four — with two new TV shows.
Here are our reasons why prequels are actually bad for the human race:
Prequels are anti-creativity. When you decide to go back and fill in minor gaps in your backstory, you're saying there's no point in going forward. There are no more interesting stories to tell about what happens after the last installment of your storyline. That's not just false, it's actually an insult to writers everywhere. I can think of 100 ways to continue Star Wars after Return of the Jedi. And John Ostrander's addictive Star Wars: Legacy comic proves that there's still plenty of scope to move forward until that "long ago" era catches up to our own.
Prequels are anti-futurist. The great joy of science fiction is that it encourages us to look to the future, to what happens next. Prequels tell us that the future isn't that great, there's really nothing to see beyond what we've already seen. Why not just take a nice detour back into the past, and revisit some of the stuff we've already seen?
Prequels are anti-heroic. There's no point rooting for the good guys in a trilogy, because their future is already set in stone. This can be a bleak future, like the fact that we know Anakin will become Darth Vader. Or a happy one, like our certainty that the Federation will come to pass after Star Trek: Enterprise. When you make a prequel, you're coming down firmly on the side of predestination. There's no point in anyone sticking their neck out heroically, because future history is already set in stone. (The new Star Trek movie may avoid this problem by allowing history to be changed. J.J. Abrams has hinted strongly that the Trek universe may wind up being quite different after the time travel in his movie rewrites history.)
Prequels are all about trivia. We've already warned of the dangers in trying to answer fans' minor niggling questions, and prequels are more likely to do this than any other kind of story. You may already know that Captain Kirk outwitted the Kobayashi Maru test, but did you know what kind of boxer shorts he was wearing when he did it? No? Well, allow us to show you. No, thanks. I want to know what happened after the war with the Dominion and after Janeway crippled the Borg and after the Romulan government was destroyed. Which brings me to the final problem:
Prequels are small and personal. I love small, intimate portrayals of people's lives. But that's not what I look for from movies with "Star" in the title. (Well, maybe A Star Is Born.) By their nature, though, prequels have to be about a few people, not a larger topic. We already know the Federation will be formed and the Starfleet uniforms will get more pajama-like, so the only question in our mind when we watch Enterprise is, "Will Trip Tucker sacrifice his life in a totally contrived moment during a pirate raid on the ship?" By taking all of the bigger issues off the table, prequels force us to focus entirely on the characters. Who usually, sad to say, don't hold up to it that well.
Comments
first, lolz, prequels are one of the worst ideas ever
Ok.
Is the Godfather II exempted because it's drama rather than scifi, or because it includes events both before AND after the first film?
And yeah, just because the Star Wars film series starts with Episode IV, that doesn't make KOTOR or KOTOR 2 any less cool.
I think of a plot timeline as being just that. In a story, these things are happening, happened and will happen. To elaborate on the origins of characters in one point on the timeline by going back to their origins can alter the tone of the story and add richness and depth to all of its components.
Was meeting Zefram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact a bad idea because the time it took place in was set before TOS?
Also morally wrong: sequels, because they imply that there are no happy endings; two-parters, because they ignore the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as it is reflected in all things; Ax deodorant commercials, because they reflect an overly deterministic view of intersexual relations and ignore personal free will. These things must therefore have no artistic value. QED.
@s0crates82: I would categorize Star Trek: First Contact as a time travel movie rather than as a prequel. But yes, it was a bad idea, mostly because the character was annoying.
@taxbaby: It's a demonstrable fact that there are no happy endings. Mostly because there are no endings.
I don't know, I always find it interesting to go back and see what made characters what they are in the present. Getting back to the Star Wars prequels, horrible acting and dialog aside, that was one thing that I, as a long time Star Wars nerd, wanted to see. You knew after Return of the Jedi that Anakin was a good guy that turned to the Dark Side, reasons unknown. You knew that Obi-Wan and Darth Anakin fought, resulting in Vader being in the suit and a slave to the Emperor. We knew, even back then, that the story was that the fight was on a lava planet and it left Anakin badly burned and crippled, needing the suit to survive. I, for one, really wanted to see those stories so you could see more about Anakin, his reasons for embracing the Dark Side, the epic battle between him and Obi-Wan.
Now, as the prequels came out, there were a lot of reasons why they weren't done well. Poor directing, great actors delivering some of the worst written dialog in history (come on, other than Hayden, the other actors are all well respected and do very well - Ewan, Natalie, Sam Jackson, Ian McdDirmid, Jimmy Smit...oh, nevermind...). My point is, while they could have been made so much better, I think that going back in time to see why characters made the choices that they did just adds another layer to the overall mythology. I don't think that it's saying there's no point in going forward, or anti-futurist, you can always continue again. One example is the Indiana Jones series. The second was actually a prequel to the first, though it didn't really build on the story of the first. Then they jumped back to later for the third one.
And, yes, prequels generally are more personal, because you are dealing with individual stories of why someone made a certain choice later in their life. Not necessarily a bad thing, just needs to be written well. The Star Wars prequels could have really been epic if they had a decent writing team (without Lucas) and a solid director (like Kirshner). But, they were poorly written and directed, and we get that slop.
Full of worthless trivia? Oh, yeah. The Star Wars prequels were filled with that. I agree 100% with that, much of it was in there simply for the sake of having trivia and Easter Eggs and not for real advancement of the story.
Damn, I'm long winded . . . sorry :)
@taxbaby: Step off my Axe body spray commercials, buddy.
@Charlie Jane Anders: Tell that to the masseuse who just left my apartment. (She loved my Axe body spray, by the way.)
Well, calling KOTOR a Star Wars prequel is like calling Julis Caesar a prequel to Pearl Harbour ;-)
I guess the lesson from that one is to give your prequel room to breathe, we know that Anakin is doomed to become Darth Vader, but you get the freedom to choose if Darth Revan will be redeemed or go back to the dark side.
You know what else is Evil? Poorly written and thought out movies.
How is far, far more important than what. Sure, a prequel might not allow for twists in the overarching plot, but explaining how and why something came to be about, if done right, more than makes up for an inevitable outcome.
@Charlie Jane Anders: Thank you, oh Philosopher Queen. Pray tell us what other movie types/genres are sent to tempt us by the yin of the universe. Must we abstain also from mockumentaries?
@moff: I hope you didn't call that masseuse on a phone with your name attached to it; the FBI might be listening.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Saying that prequels are a bad idea just because they're prequels is like condemning World War II movies because we know that Hitler lost. Or arguing that there is no compelling drama in ancient Rome because we all know that Rome eventually fell.
How stupid is that?
No, the problem with prequels-- or, in this case, the only prequels that anyone ever talks about (Star Wars and Star Trek)-- is that they simply aren't creative or imaginative enough. They *do* succumb to excessive trivia and fan-service, and that's a shame. There is, what, 300 years between the present day and the Star Trek universe, right? You're telling me that there were NO compelling tales to be told in the birth of the Federation? No "future history" that can not only be exciting and entertaining, but also illuminating for what came later?
Again, stupid. Blame the writers, not the premise.
@Daveinva: Oh, sir, you're missing the point, which is to make unsupportable blanket generalizations. E.g.: All movie trilogies reflect the influence of the Japanese art of ikebana.
Come on, try it. It's fun.
@Daveinva: (applause)
@Charlie Jane Anders: ST:FC wasn't fan service, at least for this fan; I kept grumbling "but Zephram Cochrane was born on Alpha Centauri, not Earth, we'd already gotten that far without warp! also, he didn't look or act anything like that!"
@taxbaby: So you're claiming that Axe body spray commercials have artistic merit? No matter how good your health care plan is, you have now lost my vote.
@taxbaby: I did, however, agree with your astute analysis of two-parters. God bless America.
@MsPointy:
1.) Where did I say that they had artistic merit?
2.) On the other hand, if Triumph of the Will can have artistic merit, couldn't a (hypothetical) Axe body spray commercial (hypothetically) (conceivably) have artistic merit?
@MsPointy: I accept your apology!
@taxbaby: Artistic merit, moral righteousness, fascism, pleasant musky-fresh smells, compliments and apologies: are you saying that under your presidency these would all be one and the same? Are you trying to win back my vote?
Your plan might be crazy enough to work.
@taxbaby: It is possible.
And knowing the ending actually makes writing a compelling story more difficult, not easier. It's the prime example of writing yourself into a hole with no way out. Cause that's what air ducts are for.
That said, most of those you've mentioned are crap movies.
Also, I disagree with the idea that you can 'change' history in time travel. Cause, like, if you go back, you've already been there and done what you do.
Oh, and Rome was a wonderful story even though we knew what happened to the big characters in the end.
@MsPointy: At least the trains will run on time.
Ummm... okay I know that it won't be SF but seeing as the godfather was mentioned, I have a question.
Does this mean that 'the hobbit' is already doomed?
It is, after all, a prequel.
@aspiringexpatriate: Little blessings, dude.
The big problem is the predictability of the plot in these style of prequels. The rest of the plot is just fan cruft. To quote Family Guy:
Kirk: Alright men, this is a dangerous mission. And it's likely one of us will be killed. The landing party will consist of myself, Mr Spock, Doctor McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Ahh crap
Wow. I never knew how insidious prequels are. They are one the greatest threats to Movies.
... I'm actually serious. Of course, they are only in the top ten. I think around... six-ish. Number three would be (bad) fan-fiction. Number one, definitely remakes. Definitely. Second would be rushed video-game tie-ins.
@MsPointy: All you need to know is that under my administration, every American will receive a dozen donuts, a puppy, and tickets to the Hannah Montana tour. Miss Montana is our greatest national resource, and as such all Americans should be able to witness her wonderful live concerts.
@Ghede: Number Four: RPS.
@taxbaby: I feel as though you're not really refuting my argument, you're just being sarcastic. Which is fine. But I'm curious as to whether you really felt the Star Wars prequels and Enterprise were great works of art.
@Charlie Jane Anders: I think she was fighting for the principle and the possibility of someone making a good prequel.
@Charlie Jane Anders: I don't, but I feel like you're trying to make a comprehensive argument against all prequels based on a very few shitty ones. Those movies aren't an argument against prequels, they're an argument against overextension of specific movie franchises that- to be fair- had gotten pretty bad anyway. Daveinva is right- if there are still stories to be told in a franchise, a sequel can be done right.
@taxbaby: Well, now you're agreeing with me. I'm the one who thinks "a sequel can be done right." It's true that I'm making a sweeping argument, based on specific examples. I can't actually think of a scifi franchise that dipped into prequels -- based on events we already knew about in a fair amount of detail -- and created a compelling story. Can you? A prequel about events we knew nothing about in advance would, of course, be different.
@aspiringexpatriate: I would say there's a possibility that someone could make a good prequel... but I don't think it's going to be Star Trek or Star Wars. Or any giant lumbering scifi franchise with a huge fan base.
I wouldn't mind a Pitch Black prequel... God knows the sequel was horrible.
@Charlie Jane Anders: I haven't read one yet; hell, I don't even read a whole lot of sci-fi any more. But then, your primary argument was that sequels are evil/morally wrong, which is pretty reductionist; hell, some people think okra is evil. It's a meaningless statement. I can think of a half-dozen genuinely morally worrisome things in sci-fi before breakfast, and 'prequels' doesn't make the list.
@taxbaby: Well, not okra.
But I've heard some pretty fucked-up shit about kale.
@taxbaby: Or you take the franchise to new heights and dizzying lows. i.e.: Alien.
You know, a prequel to Alien might be good. I mean, a prequel that isn't Alien vs Predator.
@Charlie Jane Anders: Um, BSG: Razor.
Jar Jar, the face that sucked the life out of Star Wars.
Jar Jar's "Where My Heart Will Take Me"
It's been a sad road, getting from there to here, Ani.
It's been a long time, but my massah time is finally near.
And I can feel the stupid in the wind right now. Nothing in my way.
And da fans wanna smack me round some more, da fans wanna smack me round.
Cause I'm da blight on the Force.
I'm going where my stereotype will take me.
I'm ugly to see. I can annoy anything.
I'm the byproduct of bad writing. And everyone wants to fry or stomp me.
I can kill Star Wars. I'm the blight, blight on the Force.
It's been a long time. Trying to find an escape.
Been through the silliness. Now they want me to go away.
And they want that my ass be killed at last. I have tainted the Force.
And da fans wanna smack me round some more, da fans wanna smack me round.
Cause I'm da blight on the Force.
I'm going where my stereotype will take me.
I'm ugly to see. I can annoy anything.
I'm the byproduct of bad writing. And everyone wants to fry or stomp me.
I can kill Star Wars. I'm the blight, blight on the Force.
@moff: I always thought Oprah was evil...
Do we stick with sci-fi here or can we delve into fantasy, too? The fact that "The Hobbit" is being made now makes it a "prequel" to the LOTR movies (even though the source material for it was written first, the movie will still be viewed as a prequel).
Again, I think with good writing and direction, the Star Wars prequels could have been spectacular. Just because you know the outcome of the story, does that mean there is nothing good about filling in the details, motivations, etc? The journey is what's important.
This coming from the guy who wouldn't see Titanic because I knew the boat was going to sink...
@Final: There was a prequel, it's a video game called Escape from Butcher Bay, and it is the greatest video game tie in to any movie. Or where you being sarcastic?
@AZTriGuy: I don't think the Hobbit is a "prequel" just because it's being made later.
@taxbaby: aw, crap. Make that 'prequel'. I can't type.
@moff: Hey, kale isn't evil. Kale is just trying to make the best of a cruel and uncaring world.
Purposefully contrarian post.
The Star Wars prequels happened to suck because of the acting and the dialog, not because we already knew what happened to Darth Vader. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. It wreaks of the odious NO SPOILERS culture. As if simply knowing the framework of plot points and connecting the dots is the reason we watch films. It's supposed to be about seeing how the decisions that characters make over time bring about change, and watching things develop.
To use a cliche, it's not the destination, it's the journey.
> For some reason both of the big "Star" franchises are addicted to prequels.
For some reason? How about pure economics?
The fees requires to pay Shatner, Nimoy, et al are enormous. By shooting a prequel, they can hire (relative) unknowns and reduce the production budget all the the while taking advantage of rampant fanboy-ism.
Similarly with the Star Wars prequel: a sequel would have been economically untenable, and with stars aging difficult.
Frankly, it's astonishing that they're making a *fourth* Indian Jones w/ Harrison Ford. If it's not a block buster of legendary proportions, it will be deemed an economic failure. (Even the dizzying prospect of Cate Blanchett in leather is dragged down by the misery that is Shia Lebouf.)
One story I'd like to see a sequel to would be Serenity, which is a universe that needs to STOP with the prequel-ing already for different reasons: get over it folks, Wash is gone from the world. It was a great development and the world should move on rather than keep living in the past...
@lukeoneil47: SPOT ON.
I must be the only one in the world who enjoyed Enterprise.... I liked the stories of the characters, a more personal side to the history of the federation
But then again, that might just have been an affinity for a certain engineer..... :)
Well put!
But beyond this, let's call for a complete reboot of the Star Trek universe. I walked away from Star Trek: Enterprise in season one for being pointless as prequals are; recently I caught some episodes from season four and am completely confused - how can all of this time travel war stuff have happened in the same universe? It makes no sense.
But beyond the bad prequal series, Deep Space Nine completely wrecked the universe. The war against the Dominion??? What a stupid exercise in pointless destruction of the Star Trek Universe.
Rick Berman has single-handedly wrecked this once great universe. The Next Generation was a great leap forward in the universe timeline. But, beyond it, we have seen a complete lack of creativity with Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and ESPECIALLY Enterprise.
So I call for all fans to rise up and call for one of two things (both include the complete banishment of Berman from the process): OPTION 1 - We need another leap forward beyond the Next Generation series that does NOT include DS9 or Voyager or the time travel shenanigans of Enterprise; a leap forward as grand as TNG was to the original series; OR OPTION 2 - Abrams' new movie needs to be a reboot of the whole universe just like Batman Returns was a reboot to the Batman franchise.
Without one of these options, I will consider the topid dead to me.
And as for Star Wars... The Prequals were so bad and parts of Return of the Jedi so stupid (kill all Ewoks!) that we would be better off without anymore installsments from this universe.
If Lucas were to pass to torch, then maybe there should be more, but Lucas has proven himself a hack and a one-trick pony (okay two - there was American Graffiti) and I for one could not bear one more nano-second of his lack of creativity. But, since his Ego would never allow him to turn the control to someone else again (The Empire Strikes Back being far more superior than anything he did personally, he couldn't handle it again), this is another topic dead to me.
"Prequels are anti-creativity. When you decide to go back and fill in minor gaps in your backstory, you're saying there's no point in going forward. There are no more interesting stories to tell about what happens after the last installment of your storyline. That's not just false, it's actually an insult to writers everywhere."
I agree with this whole heartedly, regarding the Star Trek universe anyway. Enterprise was a terrible idea, IMO, when they could've done more interesting stories. Hell, set the next Star Trek series in the Mirror Universe for all I care, but just don't go backwards.
@Charlie Jane Anders: I would say there's a possibility that someone could make a good prequel... but I don't think it's going to be Star Trek or Star Wars. Or any giant lumbering scifi franchise with a huge fan base.
So then, why mask an argument against Big Sci-Fi Franchises, rather than against a form that we all agree can be used for good or ill?
(Actually, there's a question there as to when "huge" is triggered, and whether the issue is more about the medium than the fan base).
I mean, really, how many iterations did Star Trek have before it tried a prequel, partially hoping, I think, to clean out the drek of the painted in corner? And Star Wars begged for the prequels, partially because it starts off in media res and partially because the ending of Jedi is tight, and leads to arguably worse material than the prequels for volume and tone.
Yes, you know where the prequel is going. But that can make for a better roller coaster