Prequels: An Unnecessary Story For a Feature

***Spoilers Ahead***

From my current viewing experience, it would seem that X-Men: First Class is the strongest film prequel to date (Prometheus is a close runner up). Both these films, however, are not great in terms of their emotional engagement and there’s also a heavy lack of satisfaction which I experienced upon their initial viewings.

I have not watched many film prequels to date, so I’m not exactly 100% equipped to write this blog; however I feel that it is a subject which I’d like to discuss, so I am at least going to give it my best shot.

For years I would watch prequels with a sense of disappointment throughout the feature’s entire run. It felt almost as though there was no sensation of experiencing something new. The material which was playing out on screen did not feel fresh and unpredictable, but instead felt more like an expected and un-engaging story.

I could never quite put my finger on the problem which made prequels feel so bland and unsatisfactory. But then, several years ago, the BBC Radio 5 Live film critic, Mark Kermode, raised the subject and shed some light on this entire situation.

Whilst reviewing X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Kermode brought up the fact that there was no concern for the wellbeing or fate of the film’s protagonist. Seeing as an initial trilogy set in this same X-Men universe already existed, viewers already knew that Wolverine was immortal and that he survives this prequel story to exist in the Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner directed series.  

As a result of this, we knew for a fact that Wolverine would not end up in mortal danger and would not lose to the antagonist’s twisted aims before the film’s end. There was no threat, no concern for the hero which we have learnt to care about and no possibility that we could lose our beloved protagonist.

Bingo! That was the problem with prequels! We already knew what direction the story was heading in. This means that we have no questions or uncertainties about how the timeline of that universe will pan out. Without that sense of doubt or fear for the protagonists, there’s no tension or sense of dread.

This was also the problem with the revolting Star Wars prequels. One of the most infamous moments in the original Star Wars trilogy was the scene where Darth Vader tells Luke Skywalker that he is his father. This was a shocking sequence that twisted the film’s narrative into a completely new direction. It was a chunk of the narrative’s information which was held back from its audience for almost two entire films and was then pulled out at the last minute to shock its viewers.

However, when the prequels came out for Star Wars in the late 20^th and early 21^st century, this level of surprise was nowhere to be found. We knew that Anakin Skywalker was one day destined to become Darth Vader and that his wife – Queen Amidala – was destined to die in childbirth whilst giving birth to Luke & Leia. We knew the fate of the Jedi’s, the rise of the Empire and the outcome of the core characters. There was no surprise, we had already seen the outcome in the previous trilogy; therefore there were no twists and turns that forced its viewers to remain in the realm of the unpredictable.

But the lack of surprise and uncertainty is not the only problem that prequels have in terms of their narrative, but also the unnecessary use of backstory also diminishes the quality of the storytelling (also suggest by Kermode). For example, if a detailed portrayal of the backstory revolving the fall of the Jedi’s and the descent of Anakin Skywalker was so important, then why didn’t George Lucas tell this story in the first place? Why didn’t he write and direct Episode I back in 1977?

Sure, you could say that he wanted to wait until the technology was available to execute this visual-heavy instalment; however we all know that this is not the case. We know that Lucas didn’t film it because if he did, then it would destroy the memorable twist that was set to shock audiences at the end of Episode V.

Backstory is not there to be made into a full feature film, but to work instead as an engagement technique to keep audiences engrossed. Backstory lies in the background of a narrative and is only brought forward when it can be used to have a particular effect on those who have invested their emotions into that story. The transition of Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader was not written up to be made into a three part special effects epic, but was there to keep the audience still in their seats by the time that The Empire Strikes Back was drawing closer to its conclusion.

The same can be said for X-Men. The origin story of Wolverine works better to help give the character an interesting and enigmatic angle in the initial trilogy. We know that Wolverine had a past and when certain ghosts from that past crop up, it helped to either make the story more appealing or to reveal some new truths about his character.

So that is pretty much my issue with prequels. There is no engagement in the story. We know how everything is going to pan out and there’s really no need to tell a story that we’ve already heard about and seen in the initial series.

(Note: Some people might think that I’m also making reference to the J.J Abrams Star Trek Reboot, however that I beleive it is let off because of how the events of that film alter and rewrite the initial Star Trek timeline. The fact that history has been tweaked means that future events are no longer predictable; allowing the film and its future sequels to be taken in an entirely new and unpredictable direction).