Den of Geek

Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?

Simon Brew


It feels like we're following surly teenagers around for a couple of hours, only leaving you at the bit in their early 20s when they bother to lighten up

Hollywood's love of prequels and origin stories needs to stop, reckons Simon...

Published on Jul 7, 2009

For most of us, the plague that keeps threatening to devour modern day blockbuster cinema is that of remakes. We're at the stage where even films from the early 90s are being discussed for possible remake or revisiting potential - Total Recall, anyone? - and with no sign of the remake express stopping, it seems that we're going to have suffer them en masse for some time to come.

Then there's the reboot, which, for my money anyway, has delivered some half-decent films over the past few years (Casino Royale, for starters), yet is now being used as a lazy way to concrete over piss poor earlier films, with the hope that we simply don't notice. That's a tactic that isn't going to work for a great deal longer.

Yet sneaking under the radar of these two is the increased obsession with origin and prequel stories. These are the films where, bereft of new adventures to take a series of characters on, we're whisked back into their early days to see what makes them tick. Never mind the fact that you know for certain that they'll make it to the end of the film, given you know much of the story that's happened since. Prequels and origin stories are an increasing modern day obsession, whether they're interesting or not.

And, to be fair, when they work, they can work really well. Batman Begins rebooted that franchise by digging back into the genesis of the character, and fleshing it out exceptionally well. This summer we've seen Star Trek that's gone the same way, with the argument being that in that particular franchise, so many stories had been told post the development of the main characters, that the only way to find fresh angles to play with was to go back much further.

But both of those films had strong thinking at the heart of them, and the writers concerned bothered to flesh out a rounded story that wasn't just a group of characters being introduced into worlds we already knew oh-so-well.

For, increasingly, these prequels and origins tales are being used to extend franchises lazily. And we're not talking about mooted projects that never happened, such as the once-suggested prequels to Gladiator and Titanic, for instance. We're talking about those that did, where studios look for fresh ways to try and get blood out of the proverbial stone.

Origins

This summer, we've seen a good example in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the first in a series of such spin-offs from Fox. Here, we got to see how James Howlett became Wolverine in the first place, although it quickly became clear that there was simply no great, interesting story there that Fox wanted to put on the screen.

Instead, we got - and this is endemic to many such origins stories - a dark, miserable film, where people walk around in a bad mood, and where two hours later they seem to have finally made that fun guy who was in those other X-Men stories. Not that we're ever really allowed to see him. It was odd: there was nothing they seemingly wanted to do with the character, other than get him back on the big screen for two hours, and subsequently count the cash. Magneto is next in line, as well as more Wolverine In A Bad Mood. We can't wait.

That same downbeat mood also permeated George Lucas' Star Wars prequel trilogy, which for some reason decided that what the franchise had been doing all along was not take itself seriously enough. Thus, with the exception of perhaps two or three sequences, glum and moody people spent the best part of seven hours getting us to a stage in the story we knew, without actually fleshing out much in the way of an interesting angle on the way there. Batman Begins too, even though it was a far better film than Wolverine or the Star Wars prequels, decided it needed to be the best part of two hours spent in a right old grump.

Why is this? There are, clearly, some great stories to be told about the origins of characters, but few people seem to be looking to tell them. Instead, it feels like we're following surly teenagers around for a couple of hours, only leaving you at the bit in their early 20s when they bother to lighten up. You can have the fun later, seems to be the deal, but only if you're good and buy another ticket in a couple of years.

Extensions

The blunt truth, of course, is that prequels and origins stories extend franchises that would otherwise have nowhere else to go. So we get Hannibal Rising, where we find out why the title character chooses to eat off menu so often. We find out how the Lycans rise in Underworld 3. Heck, twice now we've gone into the back story of The Exorcist.

And these, along with the bulk of other prequel projects, all have the same thing in common: they lack a damn good idea at the heart of them. Instead, they roll off a corporate cookie cutter production line, devoid of much in the way of genuinely creative thinking, and add another disc to the size of the box set.

This is not a new thing, of course. Butch & Sundance: The Early Days arrived in 1979, as a way of circumnavigating the fact that the title characters might not, er, be around for a second chapter any other way. But as cinema has become more franchise-dependent, the simple fact is that studios back themselves into a corner, and thus have little choice but to explore origin stories.

It's a depressing trend, given how few of these films are actually that interesting, but Wolverine's box office tally this summer all but guarantees it's one that'll continue for some time next. Just this morning, it's been revealed that Blade is getting a prequel story trilogy of sorts. I sit here, having enjoyed the Blade movies, simply wondering if it actually needs one, or are we just dancing around the fact that Wesley Snipes is in chokey?

All that said, it'd be remiss not to point out that there's an exception to the rules, though. On television, prequels do seem to work better than on the big screen. But then there's space to explore the story in a more rounded way, and there's time to flesh out the changing emotions of the characters concerned.

Whatever your thoughts on Enterprise, Caprica, Young Indiana Jones and Smallville, they've each offered something extra to the respective Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Indiana Jones and Superman franchises, for instance.

It'd also be wrong to overlook prequel and origin stories that have been skilfully woven, in a way you believe was planned very early on, into major film series. The Godfather Part II, for instance, is exceptional and powerful cinema, and even something like Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom - set before Raiders Of The Lost Ark - is a fine and underappreciated movie. Some argue that The Good, The Bad & The Ugly is a prequel, too, although it's an exceptional film no matter what side of that argument you land on.

Younger Harry Potter?

Yet primarily on the big screen, prequels and origin stories are lazy, tired, and increasingly unwelcome. Sadly, it can surely just be a matter of time before Warner Bros looks to extend the Harry Potter franchise with some trick once the eight planned films are complete (Hogwarts Origins: Hagrid, perhaps?). Could we get the young John McClane tales once Bruce Willis decides he doesn't want to make Die Hard films anymore? And you just know that one day, the early adventures of Jason Bourne are coming.

It's a scary collection of thoughts. And, with one or two exceptions, the prequel and origins gold rush is surely one of the most depressing trends in modern day cinema.

When they start then inevitably remaking the prequels? I'm outta here...

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By cordas 1 July 7, 2009 09:02:20 AM

Sorry but there is nothing wrong with prequels in principle.... Having been an avid reader since I was small i am well used to authors writing prequels and the like. The problem that I think you are clumsily getting at isn't the prequel, its that a lot of them are nothing more than lazy cash ins on existing work.... Holywood needs to get its collective heads out from where the sun don't shine and start demanding that their screenwriters and directors stop being lazy cretins relying on brand names and special effects and start producing movies that people are going to want to see again and again in the cinema and then buy the DVD, special edition DVD, Directors Cut special edition e.t.c. because the movie is just that damn good!!

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By cellulord 1 July 7, 2009 11:41:54 AM

I find few things in cinema more tedious than watching a film where I already know the ending. At least, with 'Star Trek', Abrams et al have bounced their characters into an alternate reality where we can forget everything we know because now the gloves are off. Of course, that idea won't work again, it's been done now. Which means that the inevitable 'Young Jean Luc' which some genius will eventually come up with, will likely be a good deal more pedestrian. Pointless remakes are so depressing ... because for each hack who pays his/her mortgage by making a remake/prequel/sequel ... for each budget that is squandered on shamelessly repeating the work of others ... talented, original film-makers with engaging, exciting *new* stories to tell won't get their chance. There is also a very real danger that, if people don't get to make original work they actually care about ... the studios will run out of franchises to exploit because there simply won't be anything new to re-make. Then we're getting into remakes of remakes. I don't think it's fair to blame the writers and directors ... I'm sure most of them would rather spend their time creating something unique ... but they have to pay their bills, like the rest of us, and if the producers who have the money will only pay them to make bland, pre-sold, repetitive bilge, then the choice is to go get a proper job or become a bland, pre-sold, repetitive bilge merchant. I know which I'd choose. Of course, there's nothing new about this ... the rightly-feted 194 'The Maltese Falcon' was the third version of that story to be told in a decade and I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't by far the best. But then, in the 30s and 40s, the studios were churning out a film a week ... they were using up material at a prodigious rate because they had their own cinemas to fill. Nowadays we have returned to that time when the studios have so little faith in their product that they expect it to have a shelf-life of just two weeks. The cinema release is really just the ad campaign for the disc release where the *real* money can be made. I'm not saying the studio system was a good thing, by any means, but it did give film-makers a chance to play with their medium, safe in the knowledge that they would have a regular income. Nowadays, when everyone is self-employed, no-one is going to take risks. Accountants who have no idea about how great film can be as a medium, who have no creativity in them, are holding the purse-strings, and all the jobbing creative types under them can only swallow their pride and hold out their hand in the hope that they will, just maybe, make enough people notice them that they might be able to take control of their career and make something *good*. On the positive side, of course, thanks to cheap technology and internet distribution ... it has *never* been easier for people with a good idea and a lot of determination to actually get a film made and seen ... And that gives the industry and those who love it hope for the future. Hollywood *never* innovates, it’s too big and unwieldy a machine and the people who run it are too rich, too old and too comfortable to care. But there are potentially more great film makers working out of the spot-light, waiting for there moment, relying on social networking and viral advertising to spread the word. For them, Hollywood’s billions are *not* a disincentive. For them, money makes life simpler, but it doesn’t necessarily make films better. Look at the Oscar short-lists … how many of *those* films cost 150 million plus? Not many. There is a place for Bland Pre-Sold Repetitive Bilge 2: Rise of the Accountants and I am all-too happy pay my money and go see it from time to time … but there is also a place for more energetic, unusual, vibrant work. Work that is so exciting, so inspirational … it creates a whole new wave … of sequels, prequels and re-makes. Sigh.

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By sailorgaia 1 July 7, 2009 03:08:22 PM

They'll only keep doing them as long as you keep paying for them. If you're sick of the format, quit seeing these movies and Hollywood will get the picture pronto!

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By cordas 1 July 7, 2009 05:15:57 PM

I stopped going to see hollywood blockbusters that I thought where shit years ago.... hollywood has yet to pay any atention at all to my protest!

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By tc79 1 July 7, 2009 07:04:05 PM

The great problem with Wolverine as a story was that there was no way to generate tension at all. When Wolverine vows to kill Sabretooth/Victor and Stryker, you know for sure that he will fail yet survive, given that all three are alive in the X-Men trilogy. It's the equivalent of watching a football game where you know the score beforehand. The other problem, which also covers the Star Wars prequels, is that they invariable make intriguing characters less interesting. The moment in X-Men 2 where Stryker taunts Wolverine about the things they 'did together' suggested a genuinely dark and violent history, and that Wolverine may not have been the good guy he appeared. The prequel did away with all that, confirming that he was basically the same guy all along. Likewise, Anakin Skywalker tunred out not to be a brilliant, twisted firebrand but a misguided, easily-led fool, destroying Darth Vader's mystique. Finally, the simple fact is that writing back the way as prequels are wont to do always leads to logistical problems when viewing the original movies. Why, for example, does Wolvering recognise Stryker by voice alone in X-Men 2, yet doesn't recognise Sabretooth/Victor (his brother, remember) at all, despite several close encounters? Why does R2-D2 neglect to use some of the special features introduced in the prequel trilogy in later situations when they would have been of use?

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By MarvMarble 1 July 7, 2009 07:07:17 PM

Temple of Doom is set before Raiders? All this time and I didn't know that...

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By MarvMarble 1 July 7, 2009 07:14:33 PM

"Sorry but there is nothing wrong with prequels in principle.... " To be fair, the writer did provide examples where prequels worked. "The problem that I think you are clumsily getting at isn't the prequel, its that a lot of them are nothing more than lazy cash ins on existing work...." Good point, although the 'you are clumsily' prefix was uncalled. (psst, there are two 'l's in Hollywood.)

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By MarvMarble 1 July 7, 2009 07:24:04 PM

"Why, for example, does Wolvering recognise Stryker by voice alone in X-Men 2, yet doesn't recognise Sabretooth/Victor (his brother, remember) at all, despite several close encounters?" We don't actually know for sure that he didn't recognise Sabretooth in the later film. He just didn't mention it. (I'm assuming you're referring to their encounter in the first film. If you're referring to something that happened in the prequel, ingnor this.) On the other hand, Wolverine was suffering amnesia too during that film, so he honestly might not have remembered Sabretooth.

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By THGL 1 July 7, 2009 07:36:56 PM

I can't wait for someone at Disney to pitch "Song of the South Origins: Uncle Remus". Kinda like "Roots" but with cheerful animated ship rats! I know, I know... I'm going to hell.

Re: Time to lose the obsession with prequels and origins stories?
Posted By miladyblue 1 July 8, 2009 07:43:27 PM

Perhaps the real problem with sequels, prequels, origins, and reboots is that Hollywood is willing to spend $100 million on the special effects or star salaries, and maybe less than $1.98 on a decent story? Hollywood has bought into the hype that you can make a lot of money by putting forth little effort, much like the get rich quick schemes that flood our e mail boxes. The cynical disrespect for the audience will (hopefully!) eventually bite them in the ass, too. "Why WORK on a decent story, when the lemming-like masses will happily plunk down whatever we want to charge for admission to this crap, just because we can get them to do it? All we need is the special effects hook, the name, or the star, and it's like printing our own money."

Hello world
Posted By tramdolqqq 1 November 13, 2009 06:15:50 AM

Hi boys and girls) tramdol its best

Viagra tramadol cialis
Posted By viagratramadolcialis 1 November 15, 2009 05:22:40 AM

viagra tramadol cialis Cialis or viagra better cialis and hair transplants phentermine cialis tramadol effexor celebrex lexapro what does generic cialis look like ; tramadol without prescription she;s cialis and viagra together chinese imports hit would never want to have seen order generic eli lilly cialis (tadalafil) online us certified pharmacy store total anonymity guaranted, fast overnight shipping., phentermine, cialis
Post a Comment
 

For pity's sake, man. Just cheer up...

 

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Broadband

Mobile Broadband

Compare over 100 mobile broadband & broadband deals online!

Mobile Phones

LG ArenaHTC Magic

Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!

Click Here