Why I dislike prequels...

"We'll let you stand up when you tell us why you skipped us for Hangover 2!"

SO...

     It looks like the new X-MEN prequel FIRST CLASS is being considered a disappointment at $54mil for the weekend.  What's surprising is that currently it's sitting at 87% at RottenTomatoes (a critics ratings site) and got a B+ score from audiences (from Cinemascore).

     Sure, it loses some of its previous audience to those tired of X-MEN and superhero movies but in general I blame it on being a "what happened before" story or prequel.

     Prequels and reboots (restarting a series) have become the norm these days to rescue series that have gone past their expiry date or a new way of re-casting (ie. save money) while keeping the brand name.

     Yes, there's the THE GODFATHER: PART II but how many other prequels/reboots have worked?  I think the Bond reboot (CASINO ROYALE) and 2009's STAR TREK succeeded but then there's THE PHANTOM MENACE....

To think I bought tickets two weeks in advance to THIS! 

     The original STAR WARS trilogy was perfect.  Three chapters:  a start, cliffhanger and resolution.  For 16 years it stood as the definitive trilogy.  Then, George Lucas decided he had to explain EVERYTHING that was mentioned in the first three films.

     The result watered down what the original STAR WARS accomplished.  Using the STAR WARS prequel trilogy and other examples I'll try to explain why I don't like prequels...




1.  EXPLAIN TOO MUCH = LESSENING THE IMAGINATION

     When Obi-Wan Kenobi explained how Anakin Skywalker fell into the lava and came out as Darth Vader it asked us to utilize our imagination.  Then George Lucas felt the need to show us his interpretation.  Gee thanks...

"The floor is lava!!"

     When a movie adaptation of a book comes out so many people say the book is always better.  Why?  Because we're using our imagination, our greatest gift of our mind.  To see it spelled out either in a movie or play seems to diminish the book's power to us.

    The same rule applies to prequels.  I didn't want to see what "peaceful Alderaan" looked like before Darth Vader blew it up in real good in STAR WARS.  I had that picture in my mind before George Lucas showed me in REVENGE OF THE SITH...

I imagined a heavenly place before the big bang...

 
        ...and after Lucas showed me



2.  PREQUELS  FEEL UNNECESSARY

     When you walked out of the theatre after seeing RETURN OF THE JEDI or X-MEN: LAST STAND did you turn to your friend and say, "Boy!  I hope they explain everything that happened before with prequels!"    Of course not.  Most prequels don't add anything new and feel like they're grabbing at straws to explain their existence.  Would we have been left hanging without the STAR WARS prequel trilogy?  Of course not!


3.  WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL CAST, IT FEELS LIKE A SECOND RATE DRESS-UP PARTY

     The original X-MEN trilogy utilized all its original actors and good actors at that.  Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry to name a few.

"I did #3 for the paycheck!  Honest!"

     The new movie?  Kevin Bacon (yes a bigger name) then Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Bill Milner, January Jones.

Soon to be waiting on you in a trendy L.A. restaurant...

     Umm, OK.

     Yes, some people may know who they are but compared to the (costlier) cast of the original trilogy it just doesn't have that ooomph.  CASINO ROYALE got away with this because it's been accepted by James Bond fans that it's OK to recast the main role.

"Bald, James Bald"

     Quick!  Name the original cast of STAR TREK.  Good job.  Quick again!  Name the new cast of the 2009 reboot.  Yeah, not so easy, huh?


4.   TRYING TO CRAM TOO MUCH EXPLANATION INTO TOO LITTLE TIME

     I'm trying to stay spoiler free with the new X-MEN movie but let's just say within the last 20 minutes of the movie so many things happen to wrap it up to fit in before the original X-MEN trilogy that it's preposterous.  If Rome wasn't built in a day, the X-MEN universe wasn't built in two hours.  It just was too much.


5.  SHOWING WHAT HAPPENS NEXT WITH A SEQUEL OPENS UP MORE POSSIBILITIES

     I've always believed that if George Lucas made a NEW trilogy that was a continuation of the original trilogy (let's call them 7,8 and 9) they would be the biggest movies ever.  Imagine all the new storylines.  Sure, they'd have to make up new characters or creatively cast the classic roles but so what?  It's NEW STAR WARS!

     Sequels are said to be watered down from the originals.  Yes, for 99.99% of them out there that is very true.  But take the right writers, cast, director and people who honestly CARE about the source material and you'll make a good story.  THE GODFATHER: PART II was an inventive prequel/sequel mix that many consider better than the original.  STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, ALIENS and TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY are others that are considered superior to their originals.

BHHK:  Before Hired Help's Kid 

"I forsee your death.  No, in real life Cazzale.  Sorry!"

What are your thoughts?

-bri