J-Sun
⚡
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,323
I've already forgotten what it was but I saw yet another thing that was getting a prequel. This is a thread to talk about prequels.
For me, personally, they seem to mark the creative bankruptcy of whatever's being prequeled (if, indeed, they don't come after that point's already been reached). In television, I couldn't stand ST's Voyager but I really had no interest in Enterprise. In the ST movies, it likely emphasizes the same point though that's a reboot rather than a prequel (and reboots sometimes work but absolutely signal the exhaustion of the original). Likely the Alien series, though that point had long ago been reached. Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid movie example I've actually seen. In books, IIRC, the prequel came in the vicinity of the more optional Stainless Steel Rat books. As much as I love Isaac's universe, the Foundation prequels were apparently done under publisher duress after he'd driven the Foundation off a cliff in an effort to avoid writing more. I'm sure there are many more examples and hopefully a counterexample or two.
Prequels are different when things don't have a rigid chronology - I don't think talking about "prequels" in Heinlein's Future History, Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, or Anderson's Polesotechnic/Terran Empire stories really applies and I don't think it indicates a likelihood of creative exhaustion, though this sort of thing might still be on-topic in a more general sense and certainly some corner cases might make it difficult to draw a rigid line.
For instance, I haven't read the third book yet, but the first two of Vinge's Zones/Deep/Whatever books are great even though backwards. But, at this point, all you can say is that the one book had the one prequel which basically means they're just written out of order like the above examples. Had he written a whole forward-moving trilogy and then a prequel, it likely would be a bad sign.
For me, personally, they seem to mark the creative bankruptcy of whatever's being prequeled (if, indeed, they don't come after that point's already been reached). In television, I couldn't stand ST's Voyager but I really had no interest in Enterprise. In the ST movies, it likely emphasizes the same point though that's a reboot rather than a prequel (and reboots sometimes work but absolutely signal the exhaustion of the original). Likely the Alien series, though that point had long ago been reached. Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid movie example I've actually seen. In books, IIRC, the prequel came in the vicinity of the more optional Stainless Steel Rat books. As much as I love Isaac's universe, the Foundation prequels were apparently done under publisher duress after he'd driven the Foundation off a cliff in an effort to avoid writing more. I'm sure there are many more examples and hopefully a counterexample or two.
Prequels are different when things don't have a rigid chronology - I don't think talking about "prequels" in Heinlein's Future History, Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, or Anderson's Polesotechnic/Terran Empire stories really applies and I don't think it indicates a likelihood of creative exhaustion, though this sort of thing might still be on-topic in a more general sense and certainly some corner cases might make it difficult to draw a rigid line.
For instance, I haven't read the third book yet, but the first two of Vinge's Zones/Deep/Whatever books are great even though backwards. But, at this point, all you can say is that the one book had the one prequel which basically means they're just written out of order like the above examples. Had he written a whole forward-moving trilogy and then a prequel, it likely would be a bad sign.