Did we need a Prequel Trilogy?

As a general role, anyone should think twice before making a true prequel.* If the original story was well fleshed out then it is unnecessary to show the backstory. What usually ends up happening is you get a few important story points that you already knew combined with a bunch of unneeded filler, such as in the SW PT, Monsters University, or the Hobbit movies (separating it from the book obviously). We already knew Vader was Luke's father and had no use for info on the taxation of trade routes, so of course we did not need the prequels. Often the filler brings in contradictory or confusing ideas that impact how we see the original work. You know, ideas like midicholrians or Anakin building C3PO.

This is not to say a prequel cannot be enjoyable. I know the PT has its defenders, and I quite enjoyed Monsters University. But enjoyable does not mean necessary from a story point of view.

*I say "true prequels" to differentiate between backstory movies like the PT and stand-alone stories that merely happen to take place before the previous film like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

 

Yes we DO need the PT \m/

 

What's interesting is that nobody actually needed the prequel trilogy. Lucas may have had need of money, but the story was not something people were needing, was it? The original trilogy gave us just enough to fire our imaginations ("Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine..", "You fought in the Clone Wars?") and just enough that we didn't really needed the backstory. Wanted it, yeah - who would say no if Lucas asked "Should I do the first three episodes?" Of course we'd say yes, happy for anything Star Wars at all. In hindsight, of course...I'd argue that somebody should have said NO. Unfortunately Lucas was surrounded by people who only knew how to say YES to him.
The sequel trilogy, on the other hand - the continuing adventures of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia - now that's something I've been needing since 1983, and although The Force Awakens most certainly won't satisfy that need, as the actors are old and a new, younger cast is needed to give the franchise forward momentum - it will at least tell a story on the "right" side of the original trilogy.

(What worries me is that The Force Awakens increasingly seems like a replay of Star Wars, with a dash of Return of the Jedi, with the serial numbers filed off and replaced by almost similar numbers. No Empire or Rebels, but First Order and Resistance; Stormtroopers but not like the old Stormtroopers; superweapons, new X-Wings and TIEs that closely resemble the originals..etc. It looks like TFA is basically going to be Star Wars "for the next generation", which could mean a sanitized, emotionless romp full of mindless action and crap, but I still have confidence it will be all right. I guess. blast. 149 days to go)

 

More often than not, fleshing out the purposely "implied" story elements in the original film doesn't add much but in fact diminishes its worth. In my mind a good plot leaves room for your imagination to fill the gaps. If you analyze Ep. IV from the narrative standpoint, it pretty much ENDS the story arc. At the end of the film the destruction of the DS is a victory against the Empire. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that "the rebels will press on and with heroes like Han & Luke the victory is at hand".

It just turned out so that Ep. V & VI had interesting extension of beloved characters in the universe we all wanted to see more of. Technically we didn't need the prequels or the sequels for that matter. How about an entirely new story set in the same universe?

At least I'm excited we're getting a different perspective in Rogue One!

 

Since it started with episode 4, yeah, I needed a prequel trilogy. While the first two movies weren't great, it still established a fun world.

Another example: After the matrix sequels came out, people were all like "did anything think the matrix needed a sequel"? Yes. Yes it did. The first movie ends with neo gaining superman powers and threatening the machines with a real world uprising, after freeing a bunch of people.

 

We didn't need it. But we all wanted it. Be careful what you wish for.

 

I think you're talking about a different thing. I understand that people wanted to re-visit the "cool" universe the Matrix established. It's the main reason we get most of our sequels. However, the ending of the original Matrix brings a narrative conclusion. Neo breaks the limits of his digital prison, he is the savior. What else, as an audience, do you need to understand it?

The other two films were essentially an exploitation of that power with philosophical mumbo-jumbo that tried to be sophisticated. Were they necessary, absolutely not. Still, I don't mind any sequels or prequels as long as they're well done. If not, you always have a choice of disregarding a sequel w/out attacking people for enjoying it.

 

I'm not sure I follow you. Matrix ends with this speech.

""I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there, is a choice I leave to you."

To me, this is clear sequel bait. I agree that the matrix has a complete arc, and the audience doesn't need more to understand it. But couldn't the same be said of back to the future 1? It was a complete and satisfying movie on its own. But the ending has a scene, that made it need a sequel.

To me the neo speech begs for a sequel in the same way that doc brown saying "we need to go back to the future" at the end of back to the future 1 begs for a sequel.

I want to see how Neo shows the people a world without robots just as much as i want to see why Marty and Doc have to travel to the future.

I'll grant that this is different than Fellowship of the rings needing a sequel. That movie isn't complete on its own at all.

 

Yeah, it's exactly what you said it is - "sequel bait." I'm not arguing that it's not. But it doesn't negate my point - the Matrix plot ends with the first movie. With an ounce of imagination the viewer can get what happens next. Not everything should be on screen, in fact what is not shown but expertly alluded to makes the narrative only stronger. And I repeat why, because it allows you and me to "fill the gaps" with our own unique fantasies, makes the viewing process more intimate.

 

I wished they could have told the story of the past a bit better.

 

I agree.
Technically any movie is not necessary. They exist because we want more.
it is impossible to satisfy everyone. Something that someone will worship others will hate, and vice versa.

So if you hate some movies, just ignore them.
But do not ruin enjoyment to others who like them.

 

Yes I would say we needed a PT. It's just that we needed a better one than the one we ended up with.
If it was better we wouldn't need this discussion.

 

LOL. I'm old, and it will always be just Star Wars to me.

This would've have worked just fine, and it is almost exactly what I accomplish by never watching TPM. True, Anakin is a little older than 14-16 but still very caught up in teen angst (and hormones, as he casts caution to the wind with Padme). No little Ani, no trade blockade, less Jar Jar Binks. It works for me.