Popular stories with strongly developed characters tempt author and distributors almost unfairly. Yes, I totally understand why an author wants to tell the story of how/why a beloved character came to be, but with the result already completely known it seems doomed to failure. However, comic books do it all the time with "origin" stories. History is already lived, yet nobody complains when people write about and document it. There is a wealth of information to be had when the past is combed through and understood better.
So why is it that prequel movies tend to do so badly? Maybe it's a sort of perception? The audience is expecting something different than it already knows? Speaking for myself, what I'm hoping for is much more depth of character (maybe even to the extent of a full on character study) and better understanding of the motivations. Essentially it's history, since we as the audience already know the outcome. The tension doesn't come from "what happens next?" but from "how did it happen?" Maybe it's just semantics and word-play, but there is a difference: it's answers rather than mystery.
Casting a prequel like a completely new story is a bit misleading. What's really taking place is a detailed history and revealing secrets and all kinds of tidbits that may have been hinted at in the source material but wasn't shown. It's an opportunity for exploration.
So, do I think prequels are bad? Not at all. They're another type of story that's just as valid as any other. But, they're tricky and seductive. Treat them with care.
- M
No comments:
Post a Comment