Riding the wave of often misused ideas, today I bring out another delicate subject that is often discussed: sequels and prequels.
• The sequel is the opposite of the prequel and wants to continue
the narration of the events and lives of characters already known. There is therefore a correspondence between the chronological order of production of the film and that of the setting of the
• The essential aspect of the prequel is that it focuses on events that occur before the original narrative. It is, therefore, the opposite of the sequel, and upsets the chronological correspondence between the production of a film or a story and its setting, going back to the order of events presented by the previous story (or stories) .
As tempting as a "new adventure" may seem, it is not always striking. We have
entire movie sagas popping up every now and then to tell us more (often unsolicited) stories of the heroes and villains they already knew everything about from the first play.
Why continue to worry the hero, when his story has already ended well? Why bother him further? As a spectator, very often I don't see the need to continue something that has been well and comprehensively finished. In fact, I always define myself as a person opposed to sequels, I always tell everyone.
But I myself must admit there are those exceptions that turn out to be masterpieces.
In fact, the sequels, unlike the remakes we have already talked about, are often more beautifully received and appreciated, always depending on how they are made.
They are the most abused in the film industry.
Star Wars, Fast and Furios, James Bond, Mission Impossible ... are just some of the titles that are part of the "great sagas".
Sagas that up to the second / third chapter could also have made
us crazy ... and then, with continuing; they have become monotonous. The flaws that make sequels a disappointment can be many: lack of originality in the plots, hideous costume design, script
written bad ... in short, defects by the hundreds.
Maybe that's not always the case, sometimes the sequel can turn out to be better than the first chapter or it simply turns out to live up to viewers' expectations (when it does). A very difficult task for the recorder to fulfill, especially if it is holding a work based on a book like "The Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter".
The prequels are in the same position.
But they have the advantage of being exploited to showcase new stories and therefore follow only some of the rules.
Unless it's always part of the story you want to tell, it's been
in fashion for some time; create films about the origin of a character. Disney, for example; has created and continues to create works on the origin of famous villains such as Maleficent from
"Sleeping Beauty", and this year the film on the origin of Cruella De Vil is also due to be released. Examples of prequels are the episodes I, II and III of the Star Wars saga, shot at the turn
of the nineties and two thousand, which are placed before the episodes IV, V and VI, made over twenty years earlier. Another example of a prequel is Monsters University, a prequel from Monsters
& Co. [wikipedia]
The Prequels work, but they must be careful not to create conflicts with the rules of the main plots.
A faithful viewer will immediately realize if there are any inconsistencies between the two historical periods of the film.
The 2009 Star Trek film features characters from the 1960s Star Trek TV series, but early in their careers. However, the film is set in an alternate timeline caused by a Romulan captain from the original series universe going back in time and interfering with the story. Therefore, the film was simultaneously described as a prequel, sequel and reboot.
Sequel and Prequel are also very present
among video games and books.
Why shouldn't they after all?
Among novels, management is easier because
the author can afford to manage his own written world as he sees fit. He can more or less take into account the possible mistakes made, follow a story already written or create entirely new
In short, he has more freedom. However, he must be careful not to make the reading boring or to commit unfairness towards the readers. The beauty of this genre is that you can reuse the same characters for different adventures even if they are not connected to each other, as in the case of Robert Landon, the undisputed protagonist of the works of the famous Dan Brown, or the investigator Poirot of the famous writer Agatha Christie .
Both characters find themselves in multiple stories of their authors, but in situations that are always different (or almost).
Sure, a literary sequel gets more exposure when we find an important name on the cover. But even the great authors can make some slips.
What about video games?
It is curious because at the beginning video games were not
designed to have sequel as we understand them today, but as updated versions of the original, especially when the concept of "adventure game" did not yet exist.
For example, Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter, for when we have a minimum of plot, were ultimately successful more for the uptade of the game mode and the characters to be brutally beaten.
Today, however, they cannot be done without.
Indeed, today a game is even made the same as a movie.
With such realistic graphics, it is difficult to resist the temptation to buy them ... unfortunately not even video games are saved from criticism and here the consequences are even more serious.
As incredible as it sounds, a sequel can even shut down the production house.
A film can be saved with criticism, but the players do not forgive.
So… success and failure of this kind is on a solid draw.
There can be good and bad things.
Disappointments and triumphs.
To us spectators, readers and players, the arduous sentence of decreeing its quality.