According to Wikipedia, the term ‘prequel’ has existed
since the 1950s, when it was occasionally used by science-fiction writers.
These days, most people recognize the term from cinema, and most closely
associate it with the second trilogy of Star
Wars movies.
Recently, I was having a drink in the Eagle and Child
with a friend, and we got to discussing prequels. We’d been talking about The Hobbit and how Peter Jackson is
reworking it to serve as a prequel for The
Lord of the Rings. As our conversation spiralled around, it became clear
that both of us saw the whole concept of a ‘prequel’ to be inherently flawed.
Our argument goes something like this...
At the most basic level, most people listen to/read/watch
stories for one reason - to see what happens. Yes, characterization, beauty of
language, and a great soundtrack are all important, but they are all secondary
to the plot. As much as I love the grand shots of the Fellowship of the Ring
walking across the beautiful New Zealand landscape, it is the quest to destroy
the ring that keeps pushing me forward. Sure, I know the good guys are going to
win (because I’ve read the book), but I want to see it happen. I want the
climax, the payoff. I want the reward for my emotional investment.
Prequels, by their very nature, lack the payoff. The
climax has already happened. In the prequels, Darth Vader is not redeemed. The
Emperor is not defeated. The Death Star is not destroyed. Perhaps these movies
could have succeeded as tragedy, but tragedy is not a popular genre these days.
Okay, the biggest problem with the Star Wars prequels isn’t that they are prequels (they’re just bad,
especially numbers II and III), but even if they were well-made movies, I don’t
believe they could have succeeded in a way that approached their predecessors.
Okay, Obi-wan managed to hide Anakin’s kids, but that’s really just a
conciliation prize.
It seemed to us, sitting in that pub, that the word
‘prequel’ is almost an admission. It says, ‘I’ve already told you the best part
of the story, but let me go back and fill-in a few other bits you might find
interesting...’. I’m tempted to go a step further. Is a prequel just laziness?
Is it just easier to go back and write back story than it is to be fully
creative and move a story forward?
To bring this discussion full circle, it should perhaps
be mentioned that The Hobbit is a bit
of a special case. If Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema wanted to do more
movies set in Middle-Earth, then this was the only story they could tell. (The
Tolkien estate isn’t allowing anything else). The Hobbit (book) isn’t a prequel. It was written first. If The Hobbit (movie) had stuck closer to
the book it wouldn’t be a prequel. It would be a separate, but related story,
with its own plot and its own big, dead dragon, Battle of the Five Armies
pay-off. Unfortunately, by tying it closer to The Lord of the Rings, P. Jackson and crew have made it into a
prequel. We will learn all about the rise of Sauron and his ring, but we will
not see it destroyed.
Oh, I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. I have little doubt
I will enjoy the next two, at least on some level, but I already feel certain
that I will not get the same return on my emotional investment that I did with The Lord of the Rings.