• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What if a prequel move or show was designed to tear down a beloved icon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Speevy

Banned
Okay, hear me out. There have been dozens of movies that tell the story how a character or event came to pass. There are super hero origin stories, prequel trilogies, modern reimaginings. They've even made movies and shows that star a popular character playing their younger self, which is always strange to me because as an audience you know the actor is older, not younger.

Pretty much every one of these I can think of exists to enhance what you already know. They fill in the blanks and tell you how the thing arrived at the place where you best know it. The journey normally moves from a place of relative normalcy to a conflict that forces the story to move where you know it's going. The fun comes in how they bridge the gap between the past and present. If it's a good prequel, audiences are more likely to fall in love with the franchise all over again and pay for subsequent iterations until the whole enterprise gets stale again.


What if that wasn't the goal though? You may argue that a bad prequel tarnishes its characters' reputations, but what if this happened by design? Imagine if the movie existed to show that the character or the whole pack of good guys arrived at their known status through deceit and evil deeds? Imagine if the villain was actually the good guy in the movie, and the hero you thought was noble was actually a giant asshole.

So the thread that ties back to the past is tied together with events that change your entire perspective on the story. The entire universe is more interesting because everything you thought was true is wrong.

Would such a movie/show work?
 
I'm a big fan of the concept of the anti-hero, so I'm all for it it's done right...

CO3.jpg
 

Speevy

Banned
Yeah I knew that was coming, but no, the Star Wars prequels still lead you to the conclusion that Leia and Luke have just been born, and Anakin became Darth Vader.

Nothing in the original trilogy makes this otherwise.

George Lucas did a lot to hurt the Star Wars franchise, but he probably meant it just like he said it, as "poetry, so that it rhymes" or some other nonsense.
 

munchie64

Member
Ok, I might have read the OP wrong (though I DID read all of it).

I was mainly thinking of Darth Vader and how much was changed with him for the PT :p
 

Speevy

Banned
Ok, I might have read the OP wrong (though I DID read all of it).

I was mainly thinking of Darth Vader and how much was changed with him for the PT :p

Yeah, there were a lot of really dumb things that happened in the PT that hurt the franchise.

Okay, let me try an example, sticking to Star Wars.

What if Yoda and the Jedi council were really corrupt and did horrible things that no one found about because everyone who could have known died?

It would certainly make Luke meeting him in the original trilogy a bit different.

It would also be an intentional change.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
Ok, I might have read the OP wrong (though I DID read all of it).

I was mainly thinking of Darth Vader and how much was changed with him for the PT :p

Nothing changed for him. The original trilogy established that Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi who fell to the dark side, but was eventually redeemed by his son. How did the prequels change that in any way?
 

Toxi

Banned
Wicked does this to the Wizard of Oz and Glinda the Good Witch. The Wizard's selfishness and intimidation has a much more obviously bad impact on Oz, while Glinda's idea of goodness is representative of a very naive and superficial personality.

Though I'm not sure those two would be "icons" in the same way Dorothy is, and Dorothy is still portrayed the same.

EDIT: Oh damn, mojimbo got there first.
 

munchie64

Member
Nothing changed for him. The original trilogy established that Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi who fell to the dark side, but was eventually redeemed by his son. How did the prequels change that in any way?
I'm talking about character rather than actions. Rather than a hero turned evil badass, he's a whiny brat. He's a good pilot though I guess.
As stated there's no reason to be afraid of him any more.

The actual question in the titles relates well to this, actually. I personally can't separate the PT from the OT these days. So in theory, any prequel that drastically changes the original might have a negative effect on my viewing experiences.
 

jackdoe

Member
Yeah, there were a lot of really dumb things that happened in the PT that hurt the franchise.

Okay, let me try an example, sticking to Star Wars.

What if Yoda and the Jedi council were really corrupt and did horrible things that no one found about because everyone who could have known died?

It would certainly make Luke meeting him in the original trilogy a bit different.

It would also be an intentional change.
The prequel trilogy already changed everyone's perception of Jedi. Rather than the fabled heroes that the original trilogy portrayed them to be, the Jedi were in actuality a decaying and decrepit organization based on archaic and damaging values with an utterly failing leadership. That same failing leadership thought that it was a good idea to stage a coup d'etat, take an active role in a war started for nebulous reasons, and push away one of their most talented students.
 

AxeMan

Member
Yeah, I don't think Star Wars was a good example of what the OP is talking about.
We knew that Darth Vader was a good guy turned bad before the prequels.

I can't think of one example that the OP is talking about and I haven't seen Wicked
 

Zabka

Member
I'm surprised to see Maleficent wasn't mentioned. The king was straight evil and the three fairies were jerks.
 

Speevy

Banned
Yeah, it's difficult to think about because it sounds like a bad idea in marketing terms.

I have weird little thoughts like this from time to time.
 

Gravidee

Member
I'm talking about character rather than actions. Rather than a hero turned evil badass, he's a whiny brat. He's a good pilot though I guess.
As stated there's no reason to be afraid of him any more.

The actual question in the titles relates well to this, actually. I personally can't separate the PT from the OT these days. So in theory, any prequel that drastically changes the original might have a negative effect on my viewing experiences.

It's sad that the Clone Wars series actually made him out to be a pretty cool hero guy you could root for, but his live action representation is quite asinine. Just from the movies alone, most kids would probably rather pretend to be Luke than Anakin. But if they watched just the series and the OT, both characters would be pretty palatable.
 

Toxi

Banned
Also, Oz the Great and Powerful basically ruined the Wicked Witch of the West.

"Hey, let's take one of the most iconic delightfully evil characters in cinematic history and make it so she just turned evil because she was sad her boyfriend cheated on her. Oh, and we'll have Mila Kunis give the worst acting performance of her life to portray said character."

Compared to that, prequel trilogy Anakin Skywalker looks downright respectful.
 

MrChom

Member
Not a prequel but the Star Trek TNG episode "Relics" did this. It turned Scotty from a lovable miracle worker into an arrogant, drunken, lying man who was unwilling to learn or change. I hate that episode with a burning passion because it took a character I loved and spent 45 minutes saying "What you like is terrible, look how much better we are now"

You have to be very careful with that kind of character development....it can lead to a lot of table flipping.
 

sleepykyo

Member
This sounds like it already happened with Star Wars.

Stars wars would be opposite. It is taken a known villain and showing how he was a hero that hell from grace.

Normally we don't as much about a heroes' past as a full on prequel. It tends to be a short scene/tale that sets up the present conflict.
 
Yeah I knew that was coming, but no, the Star Wars prequels still lead you to the conclusion that Leia and Luke have just been born, and Anakin became Darth Vader.

Nothing in the original trilogy makes this otherwise.
I think the issue is that the prequels don't go very far to portray Anakin as the good, noble man that Obi-wan told Luke he was except when he was the perfect angel child in Episode 1. He came as a loose cannon, a problem child rebellious to those around him, and performed some horrific acts even before his descent into the dark side, with very little to show why he is supposed to be good.

Don't get me wrong, the intent and canon was that he was a good man turned evil, but they were clearly interested in only showing us the worst of the character.
 

Anth0ny

Member
Stars wars would be opposite. It is taken a known villain and showing how he was a hero that hell from grace.

Normally we don't as much about a heroes' past as a full on prequel. It tends to be a short scene/tale that sets up the present conflict.

nothing about anakin was heroic in those prequels



god damn those movies were bad. god damn.
 
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking for. A character that is regarded as good because of evil actions would still be an evil character.
 

Speevy

Banned
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking for. A character that is regarded as good because of evil actions would still be an evil character.

I'm asking what it might be like if there were a movie or TV show that changed the context of what you already know.

So they teach you more about characters and/or events, and instead of reaffirming what you already know, your opinion changes.

Also, a character that is regarded as good because of evil actions would still be an evil character. However, what if those actions weren't known to the viewer until they saw the prequel?
 
I'm asking what it might be like if there were a movie or TV show that changed the context of what you already know.

So they teach you more about characters and/or events, and instead of reaffirming what you already know, your opinion changes.

Also, a character that is regarded as good because of evil actions would still be an evil character. However, what if those actions weren't known to the viewer until they saw the prequel?
I'm not sure how you'd write that though. With a prequel you're always restrained by what will happen. If a good character did deceitful things in the past it should be reflected by the present day version. He can't be that in the past without showing he's changed or learned something as a result of it, which would give it away to the audience.
 
This is essentially what happens in Monsters University.

Mike and Sully are rivals, Sully cheats to win the scare games, Mike and Sully are expelled from school, and they have to work their way up from mail room clerks to become the top scarers they are in Monster's Inc

Blew my damn mind.
 
There's a series of fantasy books I read in which a Yoda-like mentor figure helps the main character. In one of the later books it's revealed the mentor used to be a cruel tyrant who caused most of the problems the hero is trying to solve. I think he was king of Atlantis or something?
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
JK Rowling kind of played with this idea in the last Harry Potter book concerning Dumbledore's past, but it doesn't quite fit the criteria
 
This is essentially what happens in Monsters University.

Mike and Sully are rivals, Sully cheats to win the scare games, Mike and Sully are expelled from school, and they have to work their way up from mail room clerks to become the top scarers they are in Monster's Inc

Blew my damn mind.
Idk if they were lovers or something it would have been more mind-blowing. I sighed at the "LOL Mike and Sulley are ENEMIES! Whatever will happen now?!" premise.
 
Stars wars would be opposite. It is taken a known villain and showing how he was a hero that hell from grace.

Normally we don't as much about a heroes' past as a full on prequel. It tends to be a short scene/tale that sets up the present conflict.

No. Darth Vader was a beloved character, both for being the ultimate bad guy and vision of bad assery. The prequels showed you that he in fact was not a bad ass, but a petulant whiny teenager who said a bunch of really stupid shit all the time. He was never a hero in the prequels, so his fall to the Dark Side had no weight to it, and it retroactively made his return to the Light Side seem kind of hollow as well. I'm not even a big Star Wars fan and the prequels completely ruined Darth Vader to me.
 
Idk if they were lovers or something it would have been more mind-blowing. I sighed at the "LOL Mike and Sulley are ENEMIES! Whatever will happen now?!" premise.
Well yeah that part was obviously gonna get resolved because we know they're friends in MI, but everything else was really shocking, ESPECIALLY in a Disney-Pixar movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom