The Prequel Hurdle

[phantom000]

The issue with a prequel, or any kind, is that the audience already knows the ending. They how this ends, they know it cannot end any other way, so the obvious question is 'why would they even care?'

I do not mean to say that all prequels are bad, one of my favorite books of all time The Hobbit is a prequel, but it is an issue any prequel has to deal with, it is a 'hurdle' they have to clear and their success or failure depends on how well they do it.

The catch is that the hurdle varies from story to story. The Hobbit, for instance, the hurdle is not a big deal since all we know is that Bilbo and Gandalf survive, everything else is entirely open. In theory, all 13 dwarves could die and Erebor could be destroyed and it would not matter as The Lord of The Rings has little to nothing to do with them. Also since we only see Bilbo in his old age you could quite a lot with his younger self it could fit.

For Captain America: The First Avenger the hurdle is almost non-existent since all the audience knows is what most would expect from a super hero film anyway, the Red Skull is defeated, HYDRA is crushed and Rogers survives. We can guess that Howard Stark survives but he is a supporting character anyway.

With Star Wars the hurdle is much bigger because we already know a lot about how this story ends, how it has to end. Not just with Anakin but with Palpatine, the Republic and of course the Jedi Order. We already know the destination so they have to focus on the journey, but so much of it is mapped out already that there is little room for a story.

I think this is also why people have mixed feelings about Abram's Trek films. While he had a small hurdle to deal with, he decided to just knock it down instead of jumping it. Although, if he hadn't the hurdle would have just kept getting bigger with each new film.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think it's a great topic. I like how you called it an issue specifically, because that's what it is to conventional storytelling kinda. It's not necessarily a bad thing but is a bit delicate of a matter because you are essentially walking backwards.

[Mecha82]

I don't think The Hobbit really counts as Tolkien wrote it before he wrote LotR. We need to remember that both The Hobbit and LotR started off as something that he was writing for his children. Sure movie version is more like LotR but that's just because studio top brass wanted new LotR instead of accurate adaption.

[Zargon]

A Prequel has a couple Hurdles....

1.The "bad" stuff: the vast majority of movies that are popular enough to have a prequel have the age problem where when it was made the world was not so Politically Correct Insane. So you have the problem of the younger characters not acting like their older selves

2.It's someone else story: one thing most writers hate is that they are Forced to write things someone else made up. They don't want to do that...they want to make a new character, something that is just there's....but they don't mind stealing the name for name recognition.

3.The story is locked: They can't change what will happen...so it is very easy to just stuck in a corner where "nothing" can happen.

[Beastro]

I do not mean to say that all prequels are bad, one of my favorite books of all time The Hobbit is a prequel, but it is an issue any prequel has to deal with, it is a 'hurdle' they have to clear and their success or failure depends on how well they do it.

Wut? I don't get this logic.

At all.

The Hobbit was written years before Tolkien began writing LoTR, and originally was completely disconnected as he begin developing both stories year beforehand and was edited in later editions to properly fit it in with events in LoTR (The original ring was simply a magical ring and nothing more than a symbol of Bilbo's growth and heroic maturation).

Even then, as you note, LoTR isn't a sequel of the Hobbit. I feel this is crucial to the point you're trying to make: They are simply different stories in a setting that has some interaction from being within the shared world. They are in short, "historical", to use Tolkien's terminology.

Tolkien's style was antithetical to the idea of sequels, much less prequels, as he tried to emulate the flow of history as much as possible. That is something sequels, and certainly prequels, do not try to do.

In the case of prequels, I may sound like splitting hairs, but they exist to tie into events that come after them and do not exist independent of those, at least from a story and thematic perspective. The Hobbit is its own work serving its own ends that got picked up an integrated into the wider story of Tolkien's Legendarium. The Silmarillion isn't a prequel as it is telling its own story, arguable Tolkien's "original" story even if events and items from it tie into LoTRs story.

I go into this because I think it highlights the problem with sequels, and above all prequels, and why they seem to do so poorly when they try to ape the original rather than try to stand on their own and add to a sense of history in a world rather than coming across as intellectually incestuous like they so often do.

The tl;dr of this: You go in creating fiction with the express intention of creating a prequel, you're already in trouble. Just go in making a new story that happens to sit in a time before the original events. That may sound like I'm saying the same thing, but after all the prequel crap we've dealt with over twenty years I think it's clear there is a very clear difference between the two approaches.

[TGLS]

To be fair, Tolkien ended up rewriting the Gollum section when he realized it contradicted LoTR.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

Yeah, I'd agree with others that The Hobbit isn't a prequel. It's actually a great example of an author seamlessly (well, nearly seamlessly) retconning his own work to give it meaning that wasn't originally intended. Of course it helps to have Tolkien's unparalleled talent at worldbuilding.

As for prequels in general, it really depends. I don't think every story has a natural "prequel" there, and often it ends up feeling forced. Some people like Solo, but I still maintain that there is nothing there that demands a dramatic telling. The scene where Solo gets his name showcases the aggravating and unnecessary part of trying to explain the origin of everything. Sometimes it's good to allow viewers/readers to fill in the gaps, and taking that away can rob characters of their mystique. Explaining everything can hurt backstory, subtext, etc.


Prequels can work very well. Case in point, Better Call Saul recently finished its fifth season. It's gotten better and better, and honestly I think this last season was on par with Breaking Bad at its best. I think what makes Better Call Saul work is instructive for prequels in general-

1. Jimmy McGill turning into Saul Goodman is good drama, and how he gets there is a mystery on its own. It works because there's a real arc the character can go through. The same can be said for Anakin in the prequels, and again, I think that was a real problem with Solo. There just wasn't far for the character to go. Stories with staying power rely on more than just mystery.

2. Prequels can and should do new things. With Better Call Saul, there are post-Breaking Bad scenes and the show may move there entirely before its done. A prequel can tell its own story as well as shed light on what you've already seen.

3. The fate of every character doesn't have to be known, and clever writers can use the fact of someone's presence or absence to good effect. The most asked/speculated about questions of Better Call Saul are easily what happens to certain characters, and one in particular, who aren't seen in Breaking Bad. The fact that it's a prequel actually adds to the tension in this case. Fans know a character will be disappearing, but they can only speculate as to why.

[MithrandirOlorin]

The issue with a prequel, or any kind, is that the audience already knows the ending. They how this ends, they know it cannot end any other way, so the obvious question is 'why would they even care?'

I do not mean to say that all prequels are bad, one of my favorite books of all time The Hobbit is a prequel, but it is an issue any prequel has to deal with, it is a 'hurdle' they have to clear and their success or failure depends on how well they do it.

The catch is that the hurdle varies from story to story. The Hobbit, for instance, the hurdle is not a big deal since all we know is that Bilbo and Gandalf survive, everything else is entirely open. In theory, all 13 dwarves could die and Erebor could be destroyed and it would not matter as The Lord of The Rings has little to nothing to do with them. Also since we only see Bilbo in his old age you could quite a lot with his younger self it could fit.

For Captain America: The First Avenger the hurdle is almost non-existent since all the audience knows is what most would expect from a super hero film anyway, the Red Skull is defeated, HYDRA is crushed and Rogers survives. We can guess that Howard Stark survives but he is a supporting character anyway.

With Star Wars the hurdle is much bigger because we already know a lot about how this story ends, how it has to end. Not just with Anakin but with Palpatine, the Republic and of course the Jedi Order. We already know the destination so they have to focus on the journey, but so much of it is mapped out already that there is little room for a story.

I think this is also why people have mixed feelings about Abram's Trek films. While he had a small hurdle to deal with, he decided to just knock it down instead of jumping it. Although, if he hadn't the hurdle would have just kept getting bigger with each new film.

That's not a Hurdle, it's a strength. I'm tired of so much value being place don Surprise. No one goes into a Passion Play not knowing the ending.

[Captain Crimson]

The issue with a prequel, or any kind, is that the audience already knows the ending. They how this ends, they know it cannot end any other way, so the obvious question is 'why would they even care?'

I do not mean to say that all prequels are bad, one of my favorite books of all time The Hobbit is a prequel, but it is an issue any prequel has to deal with, it is a 'hurdle' they have to clear and their success or failure depends on how well they do it.

The catch is that the hurdle varies from story to story. The Hobbit, for instance, the hurdle is not a big deal since all we know is that Bilbo and Gandalf survive, everything else is entirely open. In theory, all 13 dwarves could die and Erebor could be destroyed and it would not matter as The Lord of The Rings has little to nothing to do with them. Also since we only see Bilbo in his old age you could quite a lot with his younger self it could fit.

For Captain America: The First Avenger the hurdle is almost non-existent since all the audience knows is what most would expect from a super hero film anyway, the Red Skull is defeated, HYDRA is crushed and Rogers survives. We can guess that Howard Stark survives but he is a supporting character anyway.

With Star Wars the hurdle is much bigger because we already know a lot about how this story ends, how it has to end. Not just with Anakin but with Palpatine, the Republic and of course the Jedi Order. We already know the destination so they have to focus on the journey, but so much of it is mapped out already that there is little room for a story.

I think this is also why people have mixed feelings about Abram's Trek films. While he had a small hurdle to deal with, he decided to just knock it down instead of jumping it. Although, if he hadn't the hurdle would have just kept getting bigger with each new film.

That's not a Hurdle, it's a strength. I'm tired of so much value being place don Surprise. No one goes into a Passion Play not knowing the ending.

The issue is that the continuity has locked them into the path they are going to head in, and granted, there are benefits to knowing how a story will end. Often times an intelligent enough viewer can spot when the cliches are coming, because they work, for example. But to deviate too far from it is in the end insulting your viewers' intelligence. It has an uphill climb, and it can be done cleverly. But very few have ever done so.

[FaxModem1]

A big issue is what you're slave to, and what you're not, and what you're willing to do to get there.

For instance, anyone remember Smallville? Anyone remember how Lex Luthor's fall to the dark side went? It was a convoluted mess, more than half of which was beyond his control, because Jonathan Kent was a huge asshole who couldn't look past the last name, or Clark and company kept secrets from him for no reason at all, or because of time travel, or other silliness. All of this was largely because this was a prequel show that had contracted actors, had some places they couldn't change, and some things they wouldn't change, but plenty of things they would, for odd reasons.

The show wasn't allowed to have characters move organically, or allow characters to become something rapidly different from what they're supposed to become.

It's a balancing act. As if you approach the source material from too great a distance, they'll snap way too fast into what box they're supposed to become, making them seem less like real characters and more like plot driven devices wearing clothes. See the evolution of a lot of characters in Gotham, as Gordon seemed like he was crooked as sin some days, while a choir boy on others.