The concept of a prequel is nothing new. Ancient legends, books, and the like all used stories set before another work to further present a story without trying to make it go forward. Of course, in recent memory, prequels have usually been associated with film, such as the infamous Star Wars prequels. Oftentimes the heroes that we get the backstory to are put through life or death situations in these stories, but the tension is gone due to knowing what is going to happen (though of course, sometimes knowing the end result makes things even better). Other times, the prequel works to establish a world and give a new take on a story without remaking the original – the X-Men films are an example. So what makes a prequel good, and what are the advantages of the genre?
The
Star Wars prequels are
often criticized for having too many Original Trilogy characters,
using too much computer effects, and thus making the settings look
too clean, and relying on pure coincidence. I have written my defense
of these films in the past, but this is more about how they work in
setting up A New Hope
than what makes them not terrible. The Prequel Trilogy, consisting of
The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones,
and Revenge of the Sith,
tells the story of the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker – but this
was a much different take than many expected, and the trilogy got
mixed reactions. From Jar Jar Binks to lines like “I don't like
sand,” critics and fans tore these films apart, with almost every
aspect being a “fault.” But did they do their job as prequels? I
think so. We got to see Anakin becoming a Jedi, and his eventual turn
to the dark side of the Force. The mythical Clone Wars were explored,
and even given their own full-fledged television series. The
corruption and secret orchestrations made by Chancellor Palpatine
helped add to the Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker/Emperor scene in Return
of the Jedi, as the Prequel
Trilogy showed him as a charismatic leader, being able to even turn a
powerful Jedi. Of course the films have their problems, and I'd be
lying if I said I thought they were just as good as the Originals.
But they did what they were supposed to do, which was give the
audience the backstory to the greatest villain in cinema.
Rogue
One, the first of the Star
Wars Story films, despite being
a direct prequel in this franchise, was very well received by fans
and critics alike. This one focused on the group that stole the Death
Star plans, which in turn makes them the characters responsible for
the story of A New Hope.
Unlike the Prequel Trilogy, Rogue One
is a single film, and looks more like the Original Trilogy than the
previous three films. The Rebel base is exactly the same as the one
from the first film. Characters like Darth Vader, Bail Organa (a
major player in the Prequels), Mon Mothma, and Grand Moff Tarkin were
used sparingly, allowing for the new characters to be the focus of
the film. It does include cameos and callbacks that are polarizing
among the fanbase, but these are ignored in most reviews, as they do
not really get in the way of enjoying it, and they do allow for major
connections to the Original Trilogy – including a digital/motion
capture Princess Leia, made to look almost exactly like the late
Carrie Fisher did in 1977.
On
the other hand, we have the X-Men prequel
films that cause more problems than they solve. The first X-Men
film was released in 2000, and
showed a conflict already in place between Charles Xavier and
Magneto, as well as the mysterious Wolverine. As the first trilogy
wrapped up in 2006, the studio began work on a prequel series
entitled X-Men Origins, with
Wolverine and Magneto films in the works. The first to be released
was X-Men Origins: Wolverine,
which is often considered the worst X-Men film.
It is notable for completely changing Deadpool for the film's ending,
and the major plot contradictions, such as Scott Summers being a
teenager in 1979, despite appearing to be the same age as Jean Grey
in the main trilogy and Emma Frost being a completely different
character. Fans and critics found it to be the wrong idea for a
Wolverine-based film, focusing on the post-Weapon X story more than
then his time fighting in several major wars. It was largely ignored
by the creative team and was followed by a loose sequel set in modern
day, The Wolverine,
which got mixed reactions, and finally Logan
in 2017, closing out the Wolverine story.
Not
all X-Men prequels are
bad – in fact, the First Class series
is oftentimes better than the first trilogy. X-Men: First
Class showed us how the Xavier
School was founded, and portrayed the first meeting and early
friendship of Charles Xavier and Magneto (the film used ideas from
the now cancelled Origins: Magneto).
It did create some major continuity issues though – Xavier is
paralyzed in 1962 and Magneto goes rouge, contradicting Origins:
Wolverine and the opening scene
of The Last Stand.
However, the sequel/prequel, Days of Future Past,
used time travel to fix most of these errors – and unlike Origins,
is considered one of the best in the series. Here, they explained
Xavier's walking in the late 70s/80s as him using a drug that healed
him temporarily, and changes in the timeline were adjusted in a
similar way to DC Comic's Flashpoint
story, where the time travel caused events to move around and change.
There are still some minor story issues in terms of characters' ages
and personal timelines, but nothing that effects the overall film.
This prequel series is still continuing, with the upcoming X-Men:
Dark Phoenix.
So
why is the Prequel Trilogy and X-Men Origins: Wolverine
often hated, but Rogue
One and the First
Class series are usually
praised? My theory is that the latter two are more original stories
and pay homage to their respective franchises, which the previous two
did not. X-Men: Days of Future Past
involved Wolverine traveling back to the 1970s from the future
timeline of the original series, leading to Patrick Stewart, Ian
McKellan, and Ellen Page reprising their roles. Rogue One,
being set within a matter of days before A New Hope,
used the same styles of costumes and designs were right out of the
Original Trilogy. We got to see Darth Vader at his full power, unlike
the Prequels. We saw how Xavier and Magneto met and developed their
ideals. Origins took
Wolverine and was more concerned with setting up future movies with
no regard for the comic, while the Prequel Trilogy was more about
politics than it was the fall of Anakin. A new story that helps to
enhance one's viewing of the main series works better as a prequel
than something being made to explain everything about the originals.
We didn't need to see how Wolverine got his leather jacket, much less
did we need to see Jar Jar Binks. With stories like Rogue
One and First Class,
the production is able to take us to a familiar world while at the
same time filing in the gaps in the story, as in both cases, one
could argue we start the X-Men
and Star Wars series
in the middle of the overall storyline.
The
prequel is the kind of film that could go either way – we could end
up with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,
or we get something like The Hobbit
trilogy (not that bad but nowhere near as good as The Lord
of the Rings). Instead of trying
to move a series forward, a step back to explain things may work in
their favor. But at the same time, it cannot try too hard to connect
and tell everything, or else it comes off as simply playing on recent
nostalgia. With the X-Men
prequels continuing and the Star Wars Story
series so far being set up as another set of prequels to the Original
Trilogy, the format is not going away. Rather, Hollywood is learning
from their mistakes and trying to make the best possible film, even
if it means minimal callbacks to the source. And with the constant
rising flow of sequels and remakes and prequels, it's best that the
product is good and not just a simple cash in.