# Prequels



## J-Sun (Jan 17, 2012)

I've already forgotten what it was but I saw yet another thing that was getting a prequel. This is a thread to talk about prequels. 

For me, personally, they seem to mark the creative bankruptcy of whatever's being prequeled (if, indeed, they don't come after that point's already been reached). In television, I couldn't stand ST's _Voyager_ but I really had no interest in _Enterprise_. In the ST movies, it likely emphasizes the same point though that's a reboot rather than a prequel (and reboots sometimes work but absolutely signal the exhaustion of the original). Likely the Alien series, though that point had long ago been reached. Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid movie example I've actually seen. In books, IIRC, the prequel came in the vicinity of the more optional Stainless Steel Rat books. As much as I love Isaac's universe, the Foundation prequels were apparently done under publisher duress after he'd driven the Foundation off a cliff in an effort to avoid writing more. I'm sure there are many more examples and hopefully a counterexample or two.

Prequels are different when things don't have a rigid chronology - I don't think talking about "prequels" in Heinlein's Future History, Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, or Anderson's Polesotechnic/Terran Empire stories really applies and I don't think it indicates a likelihood of creative exhaustion, though this sort of thing might still be on-topic in a more general sense and certainly some corner cases might make it difficult to draw a rigid line.

For instance, I haven't read the third book yet, but the first two of Vinge's Zones/Deep/Whatever books are great even though backwards. But, at this point, all you can say is that the one book had the one prequel which basically means they're just written out of order like the above examples. Had he written a whole forward-moving trilogy and then a prequel, it likely would be a bad sign.


----------



## Metryq (Jan 18, 2012)

J-Sun said:


> In the ST movies, it likely emphasizes the same point though that's a reboot rather than a prequel



I think I'm in a minority because I hated the _Star Trek_ (2009) "reboot." However, it showed more than an exhaustion of the original; it showed an exhaustion of the audience, too. _All_ of the Trek spin-offs—TNG onward—struck me as too formulaic. The original was a rare mix of series premise, generally good stories, that one-in-a-million right combination of cast, novel production values for the time, and allegorical approach to hot-button topics. The problem with the spin-offs is that Trek cannot be reduced to a "winning formula"—do this, and it will succeed. The spin-offs were a financial success, no doubt about that, but the "zeitgeist" surrounding the original could not be repeated. Aesthetically, the spin-offs were not as successful. (Again, that is opinion.)

The one thing the franchise hadn't done was follow the formula right down to the original characters—and that's where the reboot came in. It wasn't just a change in the cast playing the old characters. The problem is that they were not the old characters—they were totally changed and "alternate universe" is a license to do _anything_ at all, yet purely for the sake of marketing to get away with calling it "Star Trek." _That_ is creative bankruptcy—when the investors and artists have no confidence whatsoever that they can make something that will sell without rubberstamping it with something tried and true... and exhausted.


----------



## TheTomG (Jan 18, 2012)

I think 'Prometheus' might be an exception to simple creative bankruptcy on a couple of counts. The first is the fact that the first Alien had lots of questions left unanswered about what was that ship, what was the space jockey, what was that chair he was sat in, and so   forth.

So there was scope to explore some of that, along with some of the concepts that Giger had.

Next up is I don't think Ridley Scott needs to make an Alien prequel for anything other that artistic reasons. I doubt he needs the money, or is short on scripts or ideas. I think the ideas he has for it must be so good that he feels he just HAS to make the movie. You know how it is with one of those ideas in your head and you just have to get it out!

But in general prequels are indeed a bad bad sign. Despite my optimism that 'Prometheus' arises from artistic drive, it has to be said that in terms of sequels the Alien series has more than run its course (I'd have been happy if they'd stopped at Aliens, if not at Alien itself.) So indeed I don't see any way that series could have had a sequel that would have been any good.

Other prequels, well, got to worry about those. The Thing prequel, got to worry about that though I'm intrigued to see it. And just look at Star Wars for a prime example of prequels being unnecessary or in fact outright damaging to a series.


----------



## Rodders (Jan 18, 2012)

I think that there's an inate desire for us "Fans" to learn the backstory to our favourite franchises, be it by film or print, so prequels are inevitable to a certain degree. I also think that the quality of mass release movies is in decline (story wise) generally and it's not just the prequels that are a letting us down. 

Personally, i don't have a problem with it. I'm looking forward to seeing the Thing and i'm looking forward to seeing Promemtheus.


----------



## J-Sun (Jan 18, 2012)

Metryq said:


> I think I'm in a minority because I hated the _Star Trek_ (2009) "reboot." However, it showed more than an exhaustion of the original; it showed an exhaustion of the audience, too. _All_ of the Trek spin-offs—TNG onward—struck me as too formulaic. The original was a rare mix of series premise, generally good stories, that one-in-a-million right combination of cast, novel production values for the time, and allegorical approach to hot-button topics. The problem with the spin-offs is that Trek cannot be reduced to a "winning formula"—do this, and it will succeed. The spin-offs were a financial success, no doubt about that, but the "zeitgeist" surrounding the original could not be repeated. Aesthetically, the spin-offs were not as successful. (Again, that is opinion.)



Yeah, I can respect that but I actually thought _TNG_ (after a very bad, bumpy start) was pretty good. I think it had a reason for being in that you can see something of what Roddenberry's original ST concept (hinted at in the pilot with Captain Pike and Number One) coming out in _TNG_. And I liked _DS9_ probably because it was actually un-_ST_-like but still good - it didn't accord with Roddenberry's utopianism at all. I just hated the last couple of _Voyager_ and _Enterprise_.

Where I'm in the minority, maybe, is in not really loving _any_ of the movies. I mean, I like _TMP_ fine, and 2-4 and the Borg TNG movie in a way but the best _ST_ movies are only okay. But, to me, you just don't do a movie with a Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that isn't Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley so I may never see that.



Metryq said:


> ...they were totally changed and "alternate universe" is a license to do _anything_ at all, yet purely for the sake of marketing to get away with calling it "Star Trek." _That_ is creative bankruptcy—when the investors and artists have no confidence whatsoever that they can make something that will sell without rubberstamping it with something tried and true... and exhausted.



Yep - and that's what's so dumb - the investors would probably make a lot more money with a lot more spinoffs and whatnot if something _new_ would get created. You can only reboot _Star Trek_ so many times. If they'd created _New Thing That Isn't Star Trek_, they'd have made the same millions and then some, as you might get another ten movies out of something new, but you won't get a 20th Star Trek movie.



TheTomG said:


> I think 'Prometheus' might be an exception to simple creative bankruptcy on a couple of counts. The first is the fact that the first Alien had lots of questions left unanswered about what was that ship, what was the space jockey, what was that chair he was sat in, and so   forth...Next up is I don't think Ridley Scott needs to make an Alien prequel for anything other that artistic reasons.





Rodders said:


> I think that there's an inate desire for us "Fans" to learn the backstory to our favourite franchises, be it by film or print, so prequels are inevitable to a certain degree.



Those are good points regarding _Prometheus_. I personally don't usually care for stories devoted entirely to backstory, preferring to go forward - you can always work in memory triggers in current events that cause past events to rise up - like the flashbacks throughout _Terminator_. But I can see how people do like it. I get the idea that most prequels don't come from fan demand, though - I'm usually surprised when they happen and it wouldn't, er, surprise me if others were usually surprised, too. And, really, I doubt whatever story they might come up with for the "space jockey" would be as cool as just the mysterious visual was in the original. (I'm usually for explaining mysteries, but the answers have to be as good as the questions.)



TheTomG said:


> But in general prequels are indeed a bad bad sign. Despite my optimism that 'Prometheus' arises from artistic drive, it has to be said that in terms of sequels the Alien series has more than run its course (I'd have been happy if they'd stopped at Aliens, if not at Alien itself.)



Well, I couldn't do without _Aliens_, and I could see some good things in what they were attempting with _III_, but I strongly disliked it anyway. And _Resurrection_ was awful and I haven't seen and won't see anything else - depending on some kind of convincing evidence that _Prometheus_ lives up to your hopes. I'm not categorically opposed to prequels or anything.



TheTomG said:


> And just look at Star Wars for a prime example of prequels being unnecessary or in fact outright damaging to a series.



Wow. How'd I forget the definitive "prequel that shouldn't have been"? (Repression of traumatic events?  )


----------



## Metryq (Jan 18, 2012)

J-Sun said:


> Wow. How'd I forget the definitive "prequel that shouldn't have been"? (Repression of traumatic events?  )



That's exactly it—you _Forced_ it out of your mind.

And if the prequels weren't punishment enough, the movies will keep getting revisionist face lifts until their ears meet in back.


----------



## J-Sun (Jan 18, 2012)

Metryq said:


> That's exactly it—you _Forced_ it out of your mind.
> 
> And if the prequels weren't punishment enough, the movies will keep getting revisionist face lifts until their ears meet in back.





The prequels are much less offensive to me than the revisionism. The prequels are at least something separate and can just be ignored (or repressed). The revisionism messes up consensus reality about the originals.

And, of course, they've ruined _ST:TOS_ that way, too. 

-- Oh yeah - among writers, Fred Pohl is bad for releasing revised versions of stuff, too. I haven't read the revisions though, so I can't speak to their quality or the damage they might do.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 19, 2012)

I have no problem with prequels per se; what I want to know is whether or not the writer is doing something worthwhile with it. For instance, almost half (or better) of the Elric material we have now could well be called "prequels", because they all take place before the original short story, "The Dreaming City" (or, if you want to look at book releases, the original story collection *The Stealer of Souls*), yet Moorcock had grown as a writer in the interim and, despite some flaws, there's some darn fine stuff there. 

The same is true with sequels. What I hate there is that the vast bulk of those tend to be either rehashes of the original material; attempts to capitalize on a "formula"; or simply badly-conceived and badly-executed wastes of time. On the other hand, some sequels are as good as, and sometimes better than, the originals; *The Bride of Frankenstein*, for example, or *Aliens* -- though the latter (and, in fact, each of the four) was quite a different sort of critter than the original... sort of the way each new Doctor has been a radical shift from his predecessors, without completely breaking all ties of continuity.

Sadly, I think the complaints above tend, in general, to be merited; but there are enough exceptions to the rule to prevent me from ruling out either of these completely... I just tend to be a lot more cautious about expending time and/or effort on them than I might be with something entirely new....


----------



## J-Sun (Jan 19, 2012)

TheTomG said:


> I think 'Prometheus' might be an exception to simple creative bankruptcy on a couple of counts. The first is the fact that the first Alien had lots of questions left unanswered about what was that ship, what was the space jockey, what was that chair he was sat in, and so   forth.



I got linked to another article yesterday that linked to another that happened to be about _Prometheus_ and I did some general web wandering and it seems that Scott was pulling a kind of spineless bankruptcy of his own. It doesn't seem like _Prometheus_ is actually even an _Alien_ prequel anymore. Maybe it honestly shifted focus or maybe Scott thought people would pay more attention to his new unrelated science fiction movie if it was hype-connected to the successful _Alien_ franchise?

And, boy do these people _not_ look like the gritty working stiffs in _Alien_. They sort of look like the Wonder Triplets are ready to play a game of Triad or something. 

IMDB
Wikipedia


----------



## TheTomG (Jan 19, 2012)

The hair on the right is kind of scary in its own right! Could be a new kind of horror here. In space, no-one can hear you coiffeur.

Now, I'm not necessarily expecting aliens to appear in this one (in the sense of the alien from alien) as it's about the other aliens whose spaceship they found. Whether or not the alien itself will be in this movie, I don't know - I'm actually kind of thinking not, or very little of it, maybe something at the end.

So in that sense, it is unrelated - it's very directly set in the same universe, being in the same location (as far as I can tell) but not necessarily dealing with the same concepts or issues.

I sure hope the don't lose the gritty realism that Ridley is known for, his futures have never been squeaky antiseptically clean unlike those of Star Wars and Star Trek, and one thing I loved about Alien was how deep space travel was dirty and mechanical and rather like modern day sea travel. With this being in the past of the Alien universe, I would expect it to be even MORE gritty and unclean.

So here's hoping the barbie doll characters there are not an indication of the whole look and feel of the piece. I for one am going to blot out those hair styles and simply go "WOOOoah look at that background!"

Heh.


----------

